heads worth putting on?

[289coupe66]

a buddy of mine has a 92 5.0 and he just put a set of gt-40 heads on it and wants to get rid of his stock ones. he said he'd give em to me for $20 so i was wondering if they would fit and be worth putting on instead of my stock 289 heads..i just got an edelbrock intake and new valve covers over the weekend so i'll be pulling some of the motor apart anyway soon..so worth it or not?

 

[57fairlane]

nope.

Not only would you have to mill the heads quite a bit to get the same compression but the 289 heads aren't that bad.

 

[289coupe66]

cool thanks saves me $20 and some extra work

 

[68keyblr]

You'd have to drill the steam holes too. You could always use them as a core for a really nice set of ported E7's from Thumper: http://www.hunterstyle.com/thumper/

He really knows his stuff! Very popular guy on the 5.0 forum. Best "heads" bang for the buck imho. Just let him know the application and he can taylor them to your needs.

 

[rbohm]

while $20 is a decent deal on a set of small block heads, i also would not replace the stock 289 heads with them just yet. the later 5.0 heads have a high swirl combustion chamber, and would make a good addition after some work to raise the compression, and when you drill the steam holes. i would go ahead and buy the heads, and modify them as you find time. you can also port the heads as well.one more thing, have 1.94in/1.50ex valves installed. this way when you are ready for head replacement, you will have a set ready to go. oh and change the stock rocker arm mount to one that allows the use of screw in studs and guide plates.

 

[D.Hearne]

The E7TE chambers aren't the high swirl designs. The E6SE heads are, but have a bigger chamber volume than the E7's, although at first glance they look smaller. They're actually deeper and have 4 ccs more volume.

 

[rbohm]

DH, while the E7 heads are not as high a swirl design as the E6 heads, they are still a higher swirl design than the early 289/302 heads are.

 

[57fairlane]

you can also port the heads as well

I work for a guy that builds cylinder heads and ports them for a living here in GA.

I ported a set of e7s, he ported a set of 289s . . . they were within 5% on the flowbench. His numbers were higher under .400", mine barely above after till .550". Still had stock valvetrain for both of us . . .

 

[D.Hearne]

DH, while the E7 heads are not as high a swirl design as the E6 heads, they are still a higher swirl design than the early 289/302 heads are.

That's news to me, where's the swirl design in the chambers then ? There's no difference in basic shape to impart a swirling effect present. The Aluminum GT40 Y & X heads have this feature, but none of the E7's I've seen did. Here's a quote from Ford's 5.0 Mustang tech manual on the E7 head's chambers: " This new for 1987 head design features the pre-1986 head's, lower turbulence, standard-burn combustion chamber design" The old 289 head's chambers (the 54 cc ones) to me, would impart more swirl than the E7's open chamber design.

 

[Fast63]

That's news to me, where's the swirl design in the chambers then ? There's no difference in basic shape to impart a swirling effect present. The Aluminum GT40 Y & X heads have this feature, but none of the E7's I've seen did. Here's a quote from Ford's 5.0 Mustang tech manual on the E7 head's chambers: " This new for 1987 head design features the pre-1986 head's, lower turbulence, standard-burn combustion chamber design" The old 289 head's chambers (the 54 cc ones) to me, would impart more swirl than the E7's open chamber design.

Yeah, E7's are like every other 302 head, they are all just a D shape combustion chamber.

I would don't do the swap, not that it's because the 289 heads are "not that bad", it's that E7's are "not that good". Save money for aftermarket heads I say.