Which heads are better? - Vintage Mustang Forums
Vintage Mustang Forum
HomeForumGalleryClassifiedsAbout UsAdvertiseContact Us
» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Go Back   Vintage Mustang Forums > General Discussion > Vintage Mustang Forum
Vintage-Mustang.com is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-29-2013, 12:07 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Another Fastback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island,N.Y.
Posts: 525
Default Which heads are better?

On my coupe/ fastback conversion I have a complete 289 C-code with 75K on it and was running before it went under the bench,I am going to start tearing it down to send out and get the machine work done to the block/crank/pistons/heads and was wondering I have a set of '86 5 litre heads of of a LX my son in law gave me, are they better or worse than the originals? putting the car back together some what mild with the AOD and 4barrel, I have a local guy who will take a 9" housing w/ the ham in it and also take the 8" axles and shorten the 9" to the 8" width pretty reasonable,thanks,Pete
Another Fastback is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-29-2013, 12:26 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
madstang78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 350
Default

you will loose compression with the e7te heads. I am not sure if they flow enough cfm to make up for the compression drop.
__________________
67 coupe 289 2bl, c4, 34k. That's how I got it but a lot has changed.
madstang78 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-29-2013, 02:37 PM   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: California
Posts: 3,830
Default

If the 289 heads are the very early models, with proting, they will flow/perform very nicely! The (what I will call) later models with the smog bumps in them, they will flow good as well but do require more labor/machine work which is when you get into the question- is it just time to buy a set of aftermarket heads. The mid-80's stuff...all smog related that is not any better than what you have now.
beechkid is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-29-2013, 03:06 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Renegade600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Mosinee, WI
Posts: 1,236
Default

The e7 heads will have too much chamber (64cc) and will lose too much compression on a 289.... the e7 is really not a great head anyway.

If you are not buying aftermarket heads, I would seriously consider porting your 289 heads, or have them ported... good bang for the buck....
Tom
__________________
'69 Coupe, Built 306, 4-Speed, Matte Black..... Old School RestoMod...Coming Attractions: 408 Stroker...
'90 Mustang LX, Built 306, 5-speed, cage, Screaming Yellow....3/14/12 Currently Getting TWIN TURBOS (always a change to make).....
1938 Cough,cough, Chev. 1/2 ton Owner built "Street Gasser" truck..327, 461X, Hillborn...old school all the way...
A Custom HD RoadKing...and too many Vintage Sleds to count...
Renegade600 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-29-2013, 03:57 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
happystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,388
Default

GT40 heads off an explorer are very good heads and cheap, the e7's aren't the best. If you stick with the 289 heads definitely focus on the exhaust ports since they're somewhat tiny.
happystang is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-29-2013, 08:00 PM   #6 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
wheelsup351's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 624
Default

i would go with the original heads. if i recall correctly, the 86 heads are NOT e7 heads, they are e6 heads.

the e7 heads are better, but not "that much" better and may need some relief in the piston to work.
__________________
Jason
'67 Fastback traps 126 @ 3400# all motor & bad driver
October 2014 Mustang Monthly Feature Car
wheelsup351 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-29-2013, 08:02 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
wheelsup351's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 624
Default

again, if i recall correctly the e7 head was used from 87 to 95. the 86's had e6's and the 85's had the e5's. 86 was the first year that all mustangs (stick and auto) were fuel injected. all were mass air cars after 87 i believe. so there were subtle difference in things like that.
__________________
Jason
'67 Fastback traps 126 @ 3400# all motor & bad driver
October 2014 Mustang Monthly Feature Car
wheelsup351 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-29-2013, 10:22 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Paul1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: E. MA
Posts: 2,195
Default

1986 Mustang 5.0L used a one-year only 'E6AE' head which featured a masked intake valve/high swirl combustion chamber and is NOT recommended for high performance applications due to somewhat restricted flow. The 1985 'E5AE' or 1987-1995 'E7TE' heads (which are virtually identical) would be a better choice if you are limited to stock type 5.0L heads. If a choice between the 289 and the 86 5.0L heads I would go the the 289 heads.
Paul1958 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-29-2013, 10:28 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
frdnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ontario ,Canada
Posts: 3,159
Default

I would use the 289 heads.
__________________

68 J code sprint, 408W
11.59@ 120.95mph in street trim.
frdnut is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-30-2013, 12:11 AM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 11,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul1958 View Post
1986 Mustang 5.0L used a one-year only 'E6AE' head which featured a masked intake valve/high swirl combustion chamber and is NOT recommended for high performance applications due to somewhat restricted flow. The 1985 'E5AE' or 1987-1995 'E7TE' heads (which are virtually identical) would be a better choice if you are limited to stock type 5.0L heads. If a choice between the 289 and the 86 5.0L heads I would go the the 289 heads.
The E5 heads are different from the E7's. The E5 has 69 CC chambers and very restrictive exhaust ports. They are basically the same as the 77 to 84 heads but were altered slightly to allow installation and removal of the new roller tappets. installing early anything heads on a roller cam motor the tappets better be in first. They can not be installed or removed with the head in place.
__________________
Tom


Rehab is for quiters!

Huskinhano is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-30-2013, 12:31 AM   #11 (permalink)
Supporting Member
Senior Member
 
supershifter2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Frum Hear Two Their Eventually
Posts: 7,390
Default

well, i always thought my other head was better !
__________________
supershifter2 < !
supershifter2 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-30-2013, 06:42 PM   #12 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 49
Default

I'd look for a used set of AFR heads with smaller chambers 165 or 185's
csouther is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-04-2013, 09:50 AM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
madstang78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 350
Default

I had my 289 heads worked over. Larger valves. Ported screw in studs etc. no idea what they flow though.
__________________
67 coupe 289 2bl, c4, 34k. That's how I got it but a lot has changed.
madstang78 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-04-2013, 03:40 PM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
6t9mach1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Smithville, OH
Posts: 4,231
Default

If you are looking for a performance upgrade and your current heads need reworked its usually just as cost effective, and sometimes cheaper, to go with an aftermarket head. Performance, aftermarket heads will give you room to grow in the future if you wish. This is the path that I would suggest.
__________________
~Ryan~

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...DSCF0139-1.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...1/DSCF3667.jpg
1969 Mach 1- 357w: 11:1 compression, ported Canfield heads, FTI billet solid roller cam, Vic Jr., 850 Mighty Demon
Full manual AODE transmission w/ 9.5" Art Carr converter; 4.11 detroit locker

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2554478
6t9mach1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-04-2013, 04:23 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
bartl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: West Rutland, Vermont, USA
Posts: 18,055
Default

Depends on what you are doing with the 289 block. The actual CR of a 289-2V is about .7:1 less than advertised so you are really in the 8.4-8.5 range to begin with with heads having a 53.5-54.5cc chamber. Yes, the '86 heads are junk, so much so that they continued on the 5.0 non-HO applications in passenger cars until they went modular. The E5TE/E7TE-PA heads are around 61-62cc so you'll be dumping your CR by another half-point over stock 289 heads. If you're not going to do anything with the bottom end I'd stick with either the stock heads or an aluminum aftermarket with similar sized chambers. Another option would be a milled set of GT-40's (65cc) or GT-40 Cobra's (59cc) or if you don't mind the exhaust manifold choices, a set of GT-40P's (60-61cc). If you ARE going to replace pistons anyhow, then going to a flat top with the later iron heads is a decent idea. If you're into the DIY stuff you can always port & port match the original 289 heads and increase the valve sizes to 351W size (1.84/1.54), screw-in studs, etc., but many folks simply choose to buy a ready-to-run head off the shelf to make the process simpler.

Here's a nice article on making power on the cheap from a 289/302.. 400 hp 302 Small-Block - Mustang & Fords Magazine
__________________


6F09A 63A 8 26 09D 71 1 5
bartl is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.