Welcome to Club Hot Rod!  The premier site for everything to do with Hot Rod, Customs, Low Riders, Rat Rods, and more. 

  •  » Members from all over the US and the world!
  •  » Help from all over the world for your questions
  •  » Build logs for you and all members
  •  » Blogs
  •  » Image Gallery
  •  » Many thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of posts! 

YES! I want to register an account for free right now!  p.s.: For registered members this ad will NOT show

 

Thread: 289 c6ae heads Vs 1990 5.0 stock heads
          
   
   

Reply To Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1
    OneForTheSouth is offline Registered User Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Eagle Rock
    Car Year, Make, Model: 90 Mustang LX 5.0
    Posts
    2

    289 c6ae heads Vs 1990 5.0 stock heads

     



    I have a set of 289 heads casting number C6AE and I was wondering if there would be any benefit to using these heads instead of my stock 1990 Mustang 5.0 heads. If I had a choice between rebuilding and using either set which would yield the most power? Response? Torque? I'm just wondering because these heads were given to me and if they aren't worth using I want to get rid of them. Thanks in advance,
    -Erik

  2. #2
    thesals's Avatar
    thesals is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san diego
    Car Year, Make, Model: 66 mustangFB, 69 econline Drag Van
    Posts
    1,527

    actually those 5.0 heads will give you higher compression, so increased power decreased fuel efficiency... but thats life... i'd stick with the 5.0 heads unless you live in california, then go with the 289s cause gas mileage is desperate here... i'm considering putting a 5.0 intake on my shelby 289 just so i get the gas mileage from the fuel injection...

  3. #3
    dennis kelley is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    south point
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1986 mustang
    Posts
    43

    hey Eric,

    What do you plan to do with the motor? If its just street driving rebuild the best set. If you want to make some power go aftermarket. No stock cast windsor head is very good. You will spend as much on porting them as an aftermarket set will cost. Go to Air flow research site and go to the articles there is a great head article there and they include the E7's and everything else.There are a lot of great windsor heads out there.
    Good luck

  4. #4
    OneForTheSouth is offline Registered User Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Eagle Rock
    Car Year, Make, Model: 90 Mustang LX 5.0
    Posts
    2

    Thanks for the advice!!

     



    I guess that I'll just go for a set of aluminum heads. But considering the price of an intake (which I'd like to switch as well) along with the heads and maybe a stronger cam, I'd be almost as well off to save the money and buy a GT-40 long block from Summit and just get a good intake. Along that line, does anyone know what the "Ford Motorsport Adapter Kit" is that Summit claims is needed to use the GT-40 with any 79-93 mustang???


    Thanks again,
    Erik

  5. #5
    ricebasher302 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sheridan
    Car Year, Make, Model: 74 mercury comet
    Posts
    73

    Um, if I'm not mistaken, those '66 heads have smaller chambers, and will produce better compression than the later 5.0 heads. The later heads are often referred to as "smogger Heads" Low comp. emissions heads. Bad news for power.

  6. #6
    Was_II's Avatar
    Was_II is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1978 Mustang II
    Posts
    133

    I have to concur with ricebasher. I run '66 289 heads on a 306 (.30 over 302) and it's got serious balls.

    I don't know the exact specs on the heads and I'd be eager to know; I've been told that it's a free-breathing, high-compression head. What I DO know is that the response is killer and the torque shakes the whole car. I'm sure it won't stand up to a set of Trickflows, but I'm told it's as good as you'll get with cast-iron.

    My suggestion is to try them both; swapping heads on a 302 is only an afternoon's work, and just costs you a set of gaskets.

    And if you find that the 5.0 heads are more to your liking, PM me and I'll take those 289's off your hands. Seriously.
    Last edited by Was_II; 12-28-2004 at 09:08 PM.
    Dual Quad Tunnel Rammed "Are you INSANE?" 5.0L H.O. '78 Mustang II

    http://www.cardomain.com/ride/803178

  7. #7
    vara4's Avatar
    vara4 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pahrump
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1947 International Pick Up
    Posts
    3,187

    Don't let some of the guys pull your chain.
    I've been into fords for the last twenty years.
    C6AE head is Identical in comparison to the HP head of 66,
    chambers are the same valves are the same.
    The 289 in 1966 -271 hp with a 4V carb.
    the thing with alot of the newer heads is that they flow
    more air. Now you can get a horse power jump if you use the older head to get more compression. And this is a easy way to get cheap hp with out tearing the whole engine apart.
    But if you have money to burn the best way would be to install some pop up piston with some good after market heads/w guide plate and the whole shabam. This way you have the best of both worlds, higher compression and better flow.


    ~ Vegas ~

  8. #8
    Was_II's Avatar
    Was_II is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1978 Mustang II
    Posts
    133

    What are the chamber and valve sizes in the '66 HP 289 head?
    Dual Quad Tunnel Rammed "Are you INSANE?" 5.0L H.O. '78 Mustang II

    http://www.cardomain.com/ride/803178

  9. #9
    vara4's Avatar
    vara4 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pahrump
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1947 International Pick Up
    Posts
    3,187

    In 1966 the @98 head had a chamber size from 52.0 to 55.0 this works out to be about 10 to 10 1/2 to one.
    Valve sizes are exhast 1.45 and intake is 1.78
    port sizes are intake port 1.04 x 1.94
    exhast port size is .96 x 1.24
    And uses conventional rockers.
    Hope this helps,
    sorry it took so long to answer but I just got back from work.


    ~ Vegas ~

  10. #10
    Dano78's Avatar
    Dano78 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vancouver
    Car Year, Make, Model: Fords.. All pre-'78
    Posts
    131

    I'm not really too familiar with any of the post '80 302's but aren't the rocker assemblies 'bolt down' style rockers? Personally I really like the older stud mount rockers better. And i do believe the studs on that head are 3/8" studs unlike the post '73 302 heads which are 5/16" with a torque down style rocker nut.
    My heads CC's out to be 54.5 (I have '66 4V castings) and had them ported out and added 1.94/1.60 valves. All costed about $550, but this was in 1996 and very few aftermarket heads were really affordable then.

    The BEST route would be to just go with aftermarket heads if you want to get really serious. When on a tight budget the '66 castings, with a few mods, would be just fine. Though I'd still research aftermarket units as prices have been declining.

    Your typical cast piston nowadays will sit about .023 (give or take .005) below the deck (of a 289 or 302 up to '73) and depending on the valve reliefs (usually -8cc on a 4 relief piston) Will put you right around 8.5 to 9.3:1 on the compression scale with the 54cc heads and that includes a head gasket thickness of about .030 when compressed.
    Where Ford comes up with 10.5:1 must be a pop-up piston or a different wrist pit height to make the piston sit higher in the bore. (common on FE engines)
    Dan Ouellette
    '25 T C-Cab
    '47 Ford Coupe
    '53 Ford Crestline
    '53 Ford Mainline
    -And 8 more Fords and 2 Mopars

  11. #11
    firebird45331 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Greenville
    Car Year, Make, Model: 86 firebird
    Posts
    371

    I'd stick with the E7TE's grind out the egr humps and they flow pretty good. and you won't have to buy special headers.

  12. #12
    ricebasher302 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sheridan
    Car Year, Make, Model: 74 mercury comet
    Posts
    73

    No way. Small block ford heads have had no significant changes since their conception. Any header will fit on any sbf head. (besides GT-40s) 289s = better comp. ratio and less time spent grinding emission bumps.

  13. #13
    MIT QUK is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    I'm at the track where are you.
    Car Year, Make, Model: UR basic 10 second daily driven mustang
    Posts
    75

    Neither of those heads flows for crap.

    If you just want a decent head for little $$$. Go with a gt-40 you can get them off the v8 explores and mountaineers with a little home porting (remove the emissions bumps) these heads flow pretty well. The intake off the explores also flows real close to the gt40s


    These heads will be gt40 P heads which will require a different set of headers.

  14. #14
    thesals's Avatar
    thesals is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san diego
    Car Year, Make, Model: 66 mustangFB, 69 econline Drag Van
    Posts
    1,527

    those gt40 heads are still smogger heads... best way to do it is cruise ebay for a deal like i did and pickup a set of 302 H.O. heads with roller rockers and guide plates already installed for $300, then get them ported and polished and you got it.. or if you can fun some tunnel port heads... those really flow good... but they had problems with the pushrod enclosures breaking, and then oil going straight into your vavles
    just because your car is faster, doesn't mean i cant outdrive you... give me a curvy mountain road and i'll beat you any day

  15. #15
    MIT QUK is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    I'm at the track where are you.
    Car Year, Make, Model: UR basic 10 second daily driven mustang
    Posts
    75

    Originally posted by thesals
    those gt40 heads are still smogger heads... best way to do it is cruise ebay for a deal like i did and pickup a set of 302 H.O. heads with roller rockers and guide plates already installed for $300, then get them ported and polished and you got it.. or if you can fun some tunnel port heads... those really flow good... but they had problems with the pushrod enclosures breaking, and then oil going straight into your vavles

    Smogger heads???? What are smogger heads? GT40s are the heads that came on the 93 cobras and flow much better than the E7s

    302 HO heads??? If you are talking about the stock heads off the 87-93 GTs Those are E7s and flow like crap.

Reply To Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Links monetized by VigLink