Ok ok, I know that E7s outflow them, as noted by the difference between the 86 and 87 Mustang 5.0, and provide plenty of torque, as evidenced by the fact that Ford used E7 heads on trucks.
But then why did Ford continue to use E6 heads on the cars with the SO 5.0? There must've been SOME reason, right? Anything at all?
I'm just thinking that there must have been some reason to continue to use them on the big cars (and the 87-88 Fox T-birds and Cougars) until the 4.6 came along...
The reason was simple: Ford didn't want to give the Mustang any competition. The Mark VII was so heavy it pretty much needed the HO to compete in the market it was aiming for (BMW 6 series, Caddy Eldo). Town Cars and Crown Vics were not even remotely supposed to be fast, so they didn't need power (they were aimed at blue hairs). The T-Bird/Cougar would have been light years better with the HO, but they might have eaten into Mustang sales, and Ford loves the Mustang too much to let that happen (look at the SHO - the engines were underrated at 220 hp so as to not appear more powerful than the Mustang).
It still happens today. Ford would never come up with its own 300C/Charger competitor because a more practical 4-door, RWD, V8 car might take some shine off the Mustang. And because of this absurd way of thinking Ford is faltering bigtime.
I agree with Thunder Chicken.He's right.I would go get a cheap set of E-7's at the boneyard and bolt them on.Add a few horses to the old 5.0.No,they're not as good as GT40's or aluminum heads,BUT,they are way better than those boat anchor E-6 heads.
So, not even a "we get a one-mile-per-gallon increase, so this'll help us squeak by CAFE standards" or "slight imrpovement in emissions" . . . but not even mundane reasons like that?
. .
Still, if I were in Ford's shoes, and I didn't want the other Fox bodies competing with the Mustang, I'd've just at least stuck the E7 heads on with the tame S.O. camshaft . . yes, even in the big cars that catered to the senior crowd.
You'd think having to produce only a single head instead of two different ones would've saved them some money in production costs....
You have to remember that they had all the tooling, etc. already on hand from when the E6 was in everything, so moneywise, they aren't really saving anything either way.
unshroud the valves and have them milled to reduce the valve depth and chamber cc plus some light porting
Actually...yes. It was more for emissions than anything. Don't forget that the 1986 Mustang 5.0 also received these heads. They were known as the "high-swirl" heads because of the narrow exhaust ports and the emissions bump therein. The idea was to add fresh air to the heads via the Thermactor air pump so that a majority of unburned air/fuel mix that escapes into the exhaust will be swirled around, eventually sucked down into the combustion chamber and reburned. In theory this also provides a very small gain in fuel economy. The whole E6 head setup was a rather rudimentary way to solve a physical problem since electronic fuel injection was still in relative infancy at that point. In today's vehicles, this can all be controlled via an advanced engine management processor. But back then there was a highly odd mix of electronics, sensors and physical anomalies to solve a problem.
5.0 heads were revised nearly every model year in the 1980's. So the "had-to-use-it-because-of-the-tooling" thing doesn't really explain the whole situation. After all, the 5.0 Mustang got the better-flowing E7 heads the next year...
but along with an appropriate HO camshaft revision. Ford engineers apparently felt that the E6 heads were the perfect match for the non-HO roller cam. Keep in mind that, for all practical purposes, our stock cam had all the physical properties of a dedicated towing camshaft: lots of torque down low, relatively low lift, and maximum horsepower below 4000 rpms. In that respect...why use the "better" E7 heads with a towing cam? The exhaust output didn't really require the larger ports of the E7 heads (although, of course, we could have benefitted from them anyhow).
In all honesty it was probably the correct decision from an engineering point of view. But from a comsumer/car guy standpoint it will never have been correct. Hindsight...you know how it goes. ;)
Sure, they've got enough cast iron in them to get about $11/pr from the sper...
Which probably goes a long way toward explaining why these cars don't (and probably will never) have the "car guy" following that Mustangs, or even Monte Carlo SS's and Grand Nationals have. The GN of course had a wicked engine, but even the Monte SS had a 180-horse 305. Ford hobbled these cars from the get-go. Even in Turbo Coupe/XR7 form they were never real performance cars. A few of us see the potential, but that's not enough for a dedicated aftermarket like the brand X cars enjoy...
Just imagine how different it could have been. Picture an 87/88 Thunderbird GT with the 5.0 HO (even if it was the '86 Mustang E6 HO), T5, and some, but not all of the Turbo Coupe's goodies (perhaps the Sport suspension with the 8.8" rear and disc brakes - leave the technical stuff like PRC and ABS for the TC). The 87-88 XR-7 could have been the same, of course, since it had a V8 anyway.
Better yet, imagine what the Turbo Coupe could have been if the SC'd 3.8 had come out a few years earlier. I've got magazines taking about Ford's force-fed V6 as far back as 1982, so it could have happened in '87. Imagine the 3.8SC drivetrain in a 500-pound lighter Fox body with a 3.55 or 3.73-geared 8.8" rear end (I know, I know, people have done it, but I'm talking about if it had been factory installed). Of course this would have made the Turbo Coupe a Super Coupe, but that happened in '89 anyway. The PRC and ABS stuff could've stayed on, of course. If this had happened the car would probably have eaten the Mustang's lunch, but more importantly, the GN would have had a competitor. Of course this is all fantasy, as Ford wouldn't allow the Mustang to be eclipsed (although GM had no problem with allowing the GN to beat not only the F-body, but the Corvette as well). Instead we got an anemic 150 horsepower V8 and in the end, a car that car guys have forgotten. Price up a Monte Carlo SS or Grand National, then price up a Turbo Coupe (I use TC as an example because they seem to be the most valuable). A mint TC might, just MIGHT, take in $4k. GN's and Monte SS's sell for double, triple, and even quadruple that all day long. Then try to find replacement parts for all of the above and you'll see what I mean. We can't even repair, much less restore these God ed things properly anymore. Had Ford given us a decent drivetrain I'm sure this situation would not exist today.
Alas, hindsight, as Eric said, is 20/20. At least we hardcore fans of the breed benefit in one way from nobody else wanting them - it keeps prices low.
Ehh, I wouldn't take that 180 horse at face value, nor that of the Olds 442 (HO 307 producing 180-horses. The lowly 302 SO produced more torque than either of them, and while I don't know much about the Monte, I imagine it's no faster than the 442 was in that era.... which managed mid-16s despite the 3.73 axle.
I think I even came across a page with someone whose 87 442 engine was replaced with the standard Olds 307 (140 horse) . . he said it wasn't noticeably slower.
I've also got to throw in my non-performance pet-peeve over GM . . their whole obsession with keeping the Cutlass/Regal 231 V6 carbureted, despite the availability of a roller-cammed SEFI version. Basically the GN less the turbo. Or, if you want to go really pedestrian, the Century/Cutlass Ciera starting in 1984-1985, and those cars plus their downsized full-size FWD (Delta 88, LeSabre, etc), had a batch-fire 3.8V6 from 1984 to 1985, and SEFI version with DIS from 1986-1988. Why wasn't that used in the rear-drive cars, coupled with an overdrive trans? It's not like it would've shown-up any of their performance vehicles.... and no new R&D was needed.
But I digress, quite wildly, from my original post, of course.
Next up, King V asks how much can be squeezed out of the stock computer, stock cam, and stock E6 heads! Say, just with Mustang or Mark VII exhaust, 1.7 rockers, and better upper intake.
OTOH . . (how many "other hands" am I up to now, by the way?), I imagine if they actually had introduced the 3.8SC in the Cougar/T-bird during the Fox-body era, it likely would've been offered as an option on the Mustang as well.
okay, wtf does "SO" stand for?
SO=standard output, as opposed to HO=High Output...
I got another moniker for it, too SO=slow, obstinate
Not quite accurate. The high swirl designation of the E6 cylinder head refers to "swirl" of the intake air/fuel charge within the combustion chamber. To effort this Ford recast the head with shrouding between the intake and exhaust valves near the quench pad when looking at the combustion chamber. The goal here being improved low engine speed fuel economy and improved emissions output, both of which are major concerns for an automaker and as such gave rise to the E6 head. The function of the Thermactor system is to introduce relatively cool air at the exhaust port exits to promote more efficient catalytic convertor light off and help extend the life of the convertor(s), also an interest of an auto manufacturer. The shrouding of the intake valve is certainly not something anyone concerned with performance is going to want in there and it can be ground away with patience.
In any case, it wasn't any more of a power killer then the tiny exhaust ports, anemic intake manifold and throttle body, poor flowing exhaust manifolds and so on. All of that shiznit has to replaced or modified to realize any signifigant power increases regardless.
Having ported more E7 heads and HO intakes then I'd care to remember or admit, I will say this. The stock HO stuff, when properly modified can make impressive power and do it with stealth and cost savings if someone is so inclined.