Is there anyone on here that actually knows what they are talking about?

[PNY PWR]

Oh, it's on the Corral, it must be true then.

E7's are truck heads, it's that simple. Those heads were never designed for making horsepower. There's no local yokal bench flow testing going to convince me otherwise. I've seen too many independant HP tests and flow data on all the heads to ever let me think E7's are some kind of wonder head for making HP.

The internet myth continues another day.

 

[tmoss]

E7s are not a big pooch either. They have made very decent HP and ETs stock with the RIGHT combination. MM&FF September 2003 issue put stock E7s on a fresh 306 with a XE264HR cam and made 306FWHP and 342FWTQ which is still ~260RWHP and 290RWTQ. More than enough to put Mustangs into the 12s.

 

[90Notch]

"The exhaust restrictions on these heads are one of the primary reasons that most popular aftermarket cams (other than the FRPP cams) use a split pattern with an exhaust bias, such as the cam in question."

Lets see stock heads have exh/int ratio of about 105/155 (depending on where you look) = @ 68%, TW have 170/251 = @ 68%. So it appears that TWs have a restrictive exhaust too? Are you sure the cams are designed with just exhaust restriction in mind? Increasing exhaust duration lets you narrow LSA and overlap, both of which help raise HP peaks.


"E7's are truck heads, it's that simple."

So are GT40Ps so they are no good too?

35-310-8 timing events are:

IVO -2.5 BTDC IVC 37.5 ABDC
EVO 48 BBDC EVC -8 ATDC

 

[04sleeper]

If you had a TB, headers, intake and heads I think that cam would be good. I think you'd be better off with a stock cam right now.

I ran a 13.7@99 on a stock motor with gears, drag radials, 10* timing, and 89 octane.

E7's are very restrictive, a new set of heads alone is 50-100 HP. Depending on numerous variables.

I ran 13.98 at 102.3 with stock intake, stock heads, stock headers, stock injectors....etc.

I put on a Performer intake and went 13.5 at 105 with a leisure 2.124 60 ft....
still with the stock headers, heads and injectors.

I feel that if I had a cooler night and iced the intake down and ripped the belt off I could possibly go 107... not too far fetched...

 

[cleanLX]

Oh, it's on the Corral, it must be true then. .

You're missing the point.
If you were to visit his web site, dedicated to getting max numbers from E7's you'd understand. Or, if you'd been following his progress over the years it's taken him, you'd understand.
I was simply letting you know where you could find him, in order to further research E7 potential, since, you yourself are doing a set up, and making one of the mistakes he cautions.
If you wish not to view that data, cool, I think it would be a shame to simply discard it just because the guy posts on the Corral... let us know how your car runs when you're finished.

E7's are truck heads, it's that simple. Those heads were never designed for making horsepower. There's no local yokal bench flow testing going to convince me otherwise. I've seen too many independant HP tests and flow data on all the heads to ever let me think E7's are some kind of wonder head for making HP.

The internet myth continues another day.

Again, you've missed the point.
If you're not interested in seeing unsponsored trial and error working of E7's with flow data to prove and disprove theories techniques, no one is gonna force you.
And since you've already made up your mind, I guess any new data would be useless to you regardless.
Exactly which independate tests have you seen?
I'd love to review them as well.

 

[cleanLX]

35-310-8 timing events are:

IVO -2.5 BTDC IVC 37.5 ABDC
EVO 48 BBDC EVC -8 ATDC

those events seem rather skew'd for what I've seen spec'd for stock heads.
Admittidly, the numbers are just numbers to me, but for comparisson sake, what are the events for, the 270hr part number 35-420-8?

I realize we're getting slightly off topic...

 

[25thmustang]

I posted what I think you should do in the other thread, and if you mean me as that moron (I tried to not send that thread into what it was, and even stopped it from going any further) Im sorry I appear that way to you.

I say if you plan to run better heads and intake the aftermarket cam will help. But I would think with a Tmoss/Thumper combo a stock cam wont hurt that much, and will help driveability as well as gas mileage. Stock cams make good power, but in your case you already have a cam. Id say stick with it, its not worth the effort to put the stocker in...

Also I agree with the track times comments, practice and bring them down, they shouldnt be that high!

 

[willys1]

I plan on going the Thumper route(real soon) I never heard anything bad about worked e-7's until now!!This is a great thread.CleanLX you dont think thier worth my time and money? Im gonna e-mail B.Rawls on this subject.Unfortuntitly he takes forever to answer his e-mails. Hey T-Moss,are you checking this out? I could use some input bro!! Mr. Yount if you see this feel free to chime in also!! Cleanlx would stock gt-40 heads be better? Theres alot of info here...

 

[maverick0716]

edit

 

[90Notch]

35-420-8 timing events are:

IVO 1.5 BTDC IVC 33.5 ABDC
EVO 41.5 BBDC EVC -6.5 ATDC

Id say stick with it, its not worth the effort to put the stocker in...

Couldn't agree more as long as springs are up to par.

 

[willys1]

35-420-8 timing events are:

IVO 1.5 BTDC IVC 33.5 ABDC
EVO 41.5 BBDC EVC -6.5 ATDC

HUH?

 

[fordman54935]

I posted what I think you should do in the other thread, and if you mean me as that moron (I tried to not send that thread into what it was, and even stopped it from going any further) Im sorry I appear that way to you.

I say if you plan to run better heads and intake the aftermarket cam will help. But I would think with a Tmoss/Thumper combo a stock cam wont hurt that much, and will help driveability as well as gas mileage. Stock cams make good power, but in your case you already have a cam. Id say stick with it, its not worth the effort to put the stocker in...

Also I agree with the track times comments, practice and bring them down, they shouldnt be that high!

Guys, just so you know, I didn't mean to degrade anyone or try to make myself seem like some all knowing genius, because believe me when I say that I'm not. I just knew that I would definately get people's attention my naming this thread what I named it. I'm here to learn like most of us....I'm just trying to keep my mouth shut and my ears open.

 

[4dStang]

I posted this same question on this Forum but the responses turned into two childish morons having a pissing match with each other....I'm almost fed up with the morons on this website.....So can some true engine guru's please give me a hand? I know there are people here that actually know what they are talking about.




Would I be better off with a stock cam?

I ran a best of 14.77@95 last summer with the mods on my 88 GT as listed below. When i bought my car, I knew it had a Comp cam in it. The specs are:215/220 degress duration @0.50" lift, 0.533"/0.533" max lift. My car has speed density but the computer was tuned for that cam. My car still has stock heads, and we all know that an hotter cam with stock heads doesn't do a whole lot. My question is, would i be better off to switch back to a stock cam (or other speed-density friendly cam) and revert back to the stock computer? Do you think I'm actually down on power because of this? I've seen so many other 5.0's hit high 13's without nearly as many bolt ons, which is my short-term goal for next year. Can i get there without dropping the cash for heads? Flame away guys....I'm all ears

Only a D I C K would post what you posted. Why don't you just go fix it your self or go to a tune shop. Quit being so pissy if no one responds. Were not all ASE certified but we have many years of Mustang experience. .02

 

[25thmustang]

I posted this same question on this Forum but the responses turned into two childish morons having a pissing match with each other....I'm almost fed up with the morons on this website.....So can some true engine guru's please give me a hand? I know there are people here that actually know what they are talking about.

This is the part that gets me.. I just want to know who the morons who dont know what they are talking about are. I posted my opinion on that post, before anyone started anything. I guess asking that question and then posting complaining about people who dont know what they are talking about is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. And even on that thread everyone fighting posted their opinions! All im saying is dont go calling someone a moron, who knows nothing, when you originally asked the question, because you didnt know!

I stick by what I have said in both topics...

 

[willys1]

Holy Sh@t Sorry Fordman,,looks like its happening again./// If the are no gains with E-7's,then why do so many people love Thumper heads!! They "do" have high volocity for bottom end torque!! Im talking to you Cleanlx,,Id like to hear some more!!!

 

[cleanLX]

35-420-8 timing events are:

IVO 1.5 BTDC IVC 33.5 ABDC
EVO 41.5 BBDC EVC -6.5 ATDC

not what I was expecting.
more proof to myself that I don't fully understand cams.
good luck.

 

[willys1]

not what I was expecting.
more proof to myself that I don't fully understand cams.
good luck.

Thats it? What about the heads?

 

[cleanLX]

Holy Sh@t Sorry Fordman,,looks like its happening again./// If the are no gains with E-7's,then why do so many people love Thumper heads!! They "do" have high volocity for bottom end torque!! Im talking to you Cleanlx,,Id like to hear some more!!!

First off...
You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger "cheerleader" for stock equipment, be it as cast, or modified, than myself.
All I will say about Thumper's product is that my opinion is his customers have not proven them to be performers, and the controversy surrounding the advertised flow capabilities are 2 factors that would be enough to keep me away. My opinion.
Ed H. has gone into the 11's with untouched shortblock, and carefully selected untouched heads intakes. He does run a very sporty cam... more than most would care to live with. Full weight.
Bob C. has gone 11's with ported stock heads/intakes, but with a more friendly/streetable cam. Full weight
A chap out east has ported stock heads, wild cam, and carb setup and is shooting for 10's N/A. 2600lb car. Currently running Low 11's.
So, the "stock" castings will support performance, but, there'll be trade offs in drivability and fuel ecconomy.
A restricted intake/head combo is more dependent on proper camming than aftermarket castings that'll make decent power with just about any cam, on account of the volume of air they'll move... errrr, sort of, but you get the idea.
A tiny 125-145cc port of a stock, or hog'd stock head is going to need as precise a cam grid as aviable to keep up/come close... aka as much help as it can find.
Can the little iron heads be made to run with the stock 6037's and 165's out there... yes... but at the expense of some drivability and most cases, your wallet.
Is a proper cam the secret to doing so? Absolutly.
Are there many folks responding to cam questions on the message boards who are informed and knowledgable? From what I've seen no. And I don't pretend to be an expert, but, know enough about "stock" combo's to know when I see bad advise. Only on account of having researched my own 'stocker' build, and having talked extensivly with proffessionals, with result orientated backgrounds.
I've seen a few custom cams designed for stock, and modified stock castings, and they have favored the exhaust.
The myth is, that E7's need an exhaust bias'd cam, which, I'm not intelligent enough to agru, however, having seen the spec's on cams that have been ground/selected to run "stock" heads hard, I've not seen the exhaust bias. At least not with regard to the typical advertised durations/lift
More fuel...
The B cam (oh boy, here we go) was cooked up to run with stock heads('er, at least I've been lead to believe that).
Narrow seperation, no exhaust bias, and, fuel economy isn't there.
And, I've got a friend running the B, with stock GT40's(flow typical a economic ported E7) running low 12's (12.3's actually) at over 110mph in a full weight LX. Not bad for a crappy outdated cam. Intrestingly, above mentioned worked stock heads advertise more flow, and often spec the B... but find me a car in the low 12's n/a with those heads.
Ha! Then again, not knowing valve events, and abviously not knowing how to interput them correctly, that doesn't carry much weight for B either does it? LOL!

Out of curiosity, what are the valve events of the B and F cams?

So...
These are not necessarily things I know, rather things I've paid attention to, and drawn my own conclusions.

For myself.
I've run into the 12's n/a with stock long block, stock suspension, and no weigh removal.
My current project is ported stocker E7's (not Thumpers, nor do they flow as well as Thumper advertises) TMoss lower and a custom cam via Buddy Rawls. I hope to go into the 11's with this combo.
Oh, and my custom cam, does not favour the exhaust... FWIW...

Again, things I've witness'd, been explain'd, not things I know.

-flame suit on-

 

[willys1]

First off...
You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger "cheerleader" for stock equipment, be it as cast, or modified, than myself.
All I will say about Thumper's product is that my opinion is his customers have not proven them to be performers, and the controversy surrounding the advertised flow capabilities are 2 factors that would be enough to keep me away. My opinion.
Ed H. has gone into the 11's with untouched shortblock, and carefully selected untouched heads intakes. He does run a very sporty cam... more than most would care to live with. Full weight.
Bob C. has gone 11's with ported stock heads/intakes, but with a more friendly/streetable cam. Full weight
A chap out east has ported stock heads, wild cam, and carb setup and is shooting for 10's N/A. 2600lb car. Currently running Low 11's.
So, the "stock" castings will support performance, but, there'll be trade offs in drivability and fuel ecconomy.
A restricted intake/head combo is more dependent on proper camming than aftermarket castings that'll make decent power with just about any cam, on account of the volume of air they'll move... errrr, sort of, but you get the idea.
A tiny 125-145cc port of a stock, or hog'd stock head is going to need as precise a cam grid as aviable to keep up/come close... aka as much help as it can find.
Can the little iron heads be made to run with the stock 6037's and 165's out there... yes... but at the expense of some drivability and most cases, your wallet.
Is a proper cam the secret to doing so? Absolutly.
Are there many folks responding to cam questions on the message boards who are informed and knowledgable? From what I've seen no. And I don't pretend to be an expert, but, know enough about "stock" combo's to know when I see bad advise. Only on account of having researched my own 'stocker' build, and having talked extensivly with proffessionals, with result orientated backgrounds.
I've seen a few custom cams designed for stock, and modified stock castings, and they have favored the exhaust.
The myth is, that E7's need an exhaust bias'd cam, which, I'm not intelligent enough to agru, however, having seen the spec's on cams that have been ground/selected to run "stock" heads hard, I've not seen the exhaust bias. At least not with regard to the typical advertised durations/lift
More fuel...
The B cam (oh boy, here we go) was cooked up to run with stock heads('er, at least I've been lead to believe that).
Narrow seperation, no exhaust bias, and, fuel economy isn't there.
And, I've got a friend running the B, with stock GT40's(flow typical a economic ported E7) running low 12's (12.3's actually) at over 110mph in a full weight LX. Not bad for a crappy outdated cam. Intrestingly, above mentioned worked stock heads advertise more flow, and often spec the B... but find me a car in the low 12's n/a with those heads.
Ha! Then again, not knowing valve events, and abviously not knowing how to interput them correctly, that doesn't carry much weight for B either does it? LOL!

Out of curiosity, what are the valve events of the B and F cams?

So...
These are not necessarily things I know, rather things I've paid attention to, and drawn my own conclusions.

For myself.
I've run into the 12's n/a with stock long block, stock suspension, and no weigh removal.
My current project is ported stocker E7's (not Thumpers, nor do they flow as well as Thumper advertises) TMoss lower and a custom cam via Buddy Rawls. I hope to go into the 11's with this combo.
Oh, and my custom cam, does not favour the exhaust... FWIW...

Again, things I've witness'd, been explain'd, not things I know.

-flame suit on-

Wow,,I dont believe you have a factory sleeper.You actually know what the f@ck your doing.So I take it your not a fan of the FT1 cam,lol,,You stated before you didnt think much of the e-7 heads,even B.Rawls agree's.But in this paragragh you seem to think different.,Im a little confused.To be honest Im thinking of just keeping the stock cam,and getting a set of Thumpers.Laracco's is gonna do the installation,they do alot of dyno work also.Im gonna get my motor dynoed before the heads,and after.Maybe this will give you some evidence of the gains in Thumper heads.Not to say Im gonna gain a 100HP,,but this will be a pretty good test on a stock motor,,but I do have a T-Moss lower

 

[90Notch]

willys1 quite few years back I ran a set of ported stock heads with larger vlvs and all the bolt ons. Car was a blast to drive but as money allowed I then upgraded just the heads to a set of out of box TWs. If you saw the look on my face after my first test drive with a good tune on the motor I guarantee you would be reconsidering your upcoming head purchase. An engine is more or less an air pump the more air you move the more power it makes, period! Unless cam is totally off the better flowing heads will almost always outperform the lesser flowing heads.