C60E heads on a 88 302 H.O.?

Bob The Bullitt

New Member

Jul 30, 2005

4

0

0

Aug 11, 2006

#1

• Aug 11, 2006

• #1

I have a set of C60E heads with Bigger valves, screw in studs, guideplates, hardened locks, ect.... So my question is will I have any trouble bolting them on to the 88 motor? Will the stock pushrod length fit? Also, I would like to use roller rockers but i'm not to sure what works with these heads.

Thanks guys,
Bob

 

pb_paulie_b

Founding Member

May 19, 2001

894

0

0

Chaptico, Maryland

Aug 11, 2006

#2

• Aug 11, 2006

• #2

If they are for a 302 than yes (any year). If they are for a 351 than you will need bushings for the head bolts since 351 headbolts are 1/2 inch and 302's are 7/16.
Don't know about the push-rods.
You can put roller rockers on them. If they have screw in studs then buy stud mount rockers, If not then get the pedestal mount ones.

 

Bob The Bullitt

New Member

Jul 30, 2005

4

0

0

Aug 15, 2006

#3

• Aug 15, 2006

• #3

The heads say 289 on them also.

 

pb_paulie_b

Founding Member

May 19, 2001

894

0

0

Chaptico, Maryland

Aug 15, 2006

#4

• Aug 15, 2006

• #4

Then they are for a 289. Yes they will bolt on. You might have bigger valves but what about the chambers? If they haven't been worked on they are small...PB

 

Bob The Bullitt

New Member

Jul 30, 2005

4

0

0

Aug 17, 2006

#5

• Aug 17, 2006

• #5

The chambers don't appear to have been worked on. Stock is 54cc I think. What about Roller rockers. Do I have to buy a certain kind for the older head or can I use any 3/8 1.6 RR?

 

pb_paulie_b

Founding Member

May 19, 2001

894

0

0

Chaptico, Maryland

Aug 17, 2006

#6

• Aug 17, 2006

• #6

Ok just for kicks I ran a search @ Summit racing for roller rockers to fit a 1966 289 and it appears all 3/8 stud roller rockers will work for you...PB

 

Bob The Bullitt

New Member

Jul 30, 2005

4

0

0

Aug 17, 2006

#7

• Aug 17, 2006

• #7

Thanks alot!

 

pb_paulie_b

Founding Member

May 19, 2001

894

0

0

Chaptico, Maryland

Aug 17, 2006

#8

• Aug 17, 2006

• #8

No problem. Welcome to :SNSign:

 

MrKwik

Founding Member

Jan 29, 2000

1,008

0

0

Kansas City, Kansas

Aug 17, 2006

#9

• Aug 17, 2006

• #9

I have nothing constructive to add but just wondering....are the 289 heads any better than the E7's?

 

pb_paulie_b

Founding Member

May 19, 2001

894

0

0

Chaptico, Maryland

Aug 17, 2006

#10

• Aug 17, 2006

• #10

Stock for stock no. With a lil' work probably not even.
Here's a good link:
http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/flowdata/castiron.htm

 

8

89lxcoupe

Founding Member

Oct 6, 2001

207

0

16

harlan,ky

Sep 26, 2006

#11

• Sep 26, 2006

• #11

yes 289 heads are better even stock they flow about the same as stock e7's but gain from the compression, on a stock bottem end you get about 10:5.1 compression i have run them for years and they are the best bang for the buck if you can get a set cheap pref 65-66 models they are 54cc some have factory guide plates built in, i had a set ported with stock 88 valves and trickflow spring up grade and trickflow stage 1 cam and it ran with any aluminum efi mustang in town and i beat a bunch with canfeild and trickflow heads ! i had proform 1.6 roller rockers with 3/8 stud frpp hardend pushrods.

just my .02

 

Modular2v

Founding Member

Jun 30, 2002

3,222

23

99

oklahoma

Sep 26, 2006

#12

• Sep 26, 2006

• #12

you would be better off trying to find some 69-70 351 heads with casting numbers c9oe or d0oe

 

8

89lxcoupe

Founding Member

Oct 6, 2001

207

0

16

harlan,ky

Sep 26, 2006

#13

• Sep 26, 2006

• #13

i've tried both and unless you are running a dome piston stay away from 351 heads ! i went 12.50's @ 109-110 with my 88 coupe 302 stock bottom end ,289 heads ported, stock valves, 650 double pumper,holley blue pump, tfs stage 1 cam, 410 gears, 1 5/8 longtubes 3 inch exhaust, with flows.

 

85_SS_302_Coupe

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end

15 Year Member

Nov 11, 2003

6,945

1,598

223

Northern KY

Sep 26, 2006

#14

• Sep 26, 2006

• #14

89lxcoupe said:

i've tried both and unless you are running a dome piston stay away from 351 heads ! i went 12.50's @ 109-110 with my 88 coupe 302 stock bottom end ,289 heads ported, stock valves, 650 double pumper,holley blue pump, tfs stage 1 cam, 410 gears, 1 5/8 longtubes 3 inch exhaust, with flows.

Click to expand...

Lets here some reasoning for that statement...'cause i've got some pretty badass C90E's about to go on my car with 1.94-1.60s and a nasty port job...aside from compression (which won't be an issue once they're milled down) what's the problem?

 

Modular2v

Founding Member

Jun 30, 2002

3,222

23

99

oklahoma

Sep 26, 2006

#15

• Sep 26, 2006

• #15

89lxcoupe said:

i've tried both and unless you are running a dome piston stay away from 351 heads ! i went 12.50's @ 109-110 with my 88 coupe 302 stock bottom end ,289 heads ported, stock valves, 650 double pumper,holley blue pump, tfs stage 1 cam, 410 gears, 1 5/8 longtubes 3 inch exhaust, with flows.

Click to expand...

I went 12.32s all motor with 351 heads ,331 stroker, long tubes, 750dp tfs3 cam with 3.73s and 2 3/4 exhaust. . . . there is no reason to stay away from the heads at all. . . the 60cc combustion chamber the heads start life at give flat top pistons close to a 10.5:1 compression ratio!

 

B

Boss 351

Here sthhhhhhhheeeve take a picthh of my man flowe

Jul 13, 2003

2,433

23

48

Canada

Sep 27, 2006

#16

• Sep 27, 2006

• #16

Yeah what's the problem with C9 (1969) 351 heads, I just bought a pair (ported, ss valves 1.94/1.6) that came off a 95GT AODE that runs in the mid 13's with the weight difference alone I'm looking at my first 12 second run