Ported E7 Flow Numbers

[Mr. Land Yacht]

Sorry I never posted these before...
Here's the specs on the Ported E7 Heads that were done by Turbo's buddy, Gerry at Burke's High Performance.

-INTAKE- -EXHAUST(w/out pipe)- -EXHAUST(w/pipe)-
Lift--CFM---Lift--CFM----------------Lift--CFM
.100-59----.100-50-----------------.100--51
.200-122---.200-104----------------.200--108
.300-179---.300-144----------------.300--156
.400-210---.400-163----------------.400--180
.500-218---.500-164----------------.500--194
.600-210---.600-163----------------.600--196

and heres a few pics of those heads again:

[Lincolnmania]

nice! heres the specs on my thumper ported e7's

Lift Ported E7TE(Thumper)
.400 196/150.5
.500 218.9/154
.600 219.9/160

[turbo2256b]

nice! heres the specs on my thumper ported e7's

Lift Ported E7TE(Thumper)
.400 196/150.5
.500 218.9/154
.600 219.9/160

What are the flow #s under .4 lift? They are very important. Some companys dont publish them because they end up loosing air flow at these points costing the user power .Most of the time more power than gained at the top. Not saying this is the case here just beware.

[gadget73]

I don't know where the flow sheet for mine is, last I saw, somewhere in the area of Scott's workshop computer. If memory serves, very similar to Colin's. Not surprising since they were done at the same place.

[trife86]

Thumper e7's are preety nice. My friend did 395rwhp on a set

[Mr. Land Yacht]

WOW! that's a lot of power!

[mrltd]

GT-40 Cast Iron

I

1.84

54

107

157

183

192

196

-

Stock
Super Ford - Sept. 1991
GT-40 Cast Iron

E

1.54

47

94

119

128

128

129

-

Stock


Not bad numbers for smaller valves. Ports must flow a bit better.

[N A]

Sweet!!!

[1987cp]

GT-40 Cast Iron

Wow, is that all our F3ZE's manage stock? I'll have to have mine ported at some point down the road.

Thumper e7's are preety nice. My friend did 395rwhp on a set

Very impressive. Do you know the rest of his combo?

[turbo2256b]

The only test we got back by a guy was he pulled 375 at the rear wheels with 19 lbs injectors at 90% duty cycle and the test went lean between 4500 and 5000 RPM. we ended the test there for fear of toasting the because of insufent fuel supply. My calculations based on system design pressure showed the need for 40 lbs injectors maybe 36s should pull 400 to 430 HP with our heads. I couldnt afford all the hardware so I went carbs with mine.

[1987cp]

Thread digging to satisfy curiosity. Colin, I forgot to ask what size valves your heads have. I was crunching numbers assuming 2.02/1.60" valves. I've attached the screen I was looking at tonight. I do kind of wish the program was a little more precise in some details .... Head flow numbers were taken from above, and E303/1.72 rocker numbers were adapted from the specs for Crane's 444231, which is very similar if not identical.

[gadget73]

nice total numbers but the power band is all wrong for a heavy car. Its going to dog off the line with that cam/intake combo. I'd personally be using something more along the lines of a B cam and a dual plane, that way it'll actually go when you step on it instead of having to wind like crazy. It will sacrifice top end power but the bottom and mid range torque is what makes you go. That high rpm horsepower is useful in flat out track racing, not so much around town or even doing time trials in the 1/4. Stock AOD will shift you at maybe 4500, the high speed governer will shift you at 4800-5000. You can have it modified to go beyond that but a stock used AOD is not going to handle those power levels. Effectively you'll be running a motor that makes 400 ft/lb torque and 375 hp because the trans is never going to let the engine get to where it peaks out. Its not even going to really make much power till over 4 grand. I'm feeling lazy, but I'll bet changing the intake type to a dual plane will widen that out somewhat and help on the bottom. Its not going to be making those 7,000 rpm peak numbers, but its unlikely you'd ever get to that rpm range anyway.

This is what I expect out of mine with the same heads. If you notice, the horsepower pretty much tops out right about where my trans shifts, and the torque curve is just beginning to drop off. I will need to have some minor tweaking done since its shifting at like 4600 right now, and it would do just nicely closer to 5,000. No need for anything beyond that. I'm a little scared of the idea of a stock rotating assembly chugging out 450 hp at 7,000 rpm. Mine will never get over 5 grand, and I'm pretty comfortable with stock parts at those speeds. Actual numbers for mine may be skewed a bit as I'm not totally certain what the correct flow value to plug in for the intake is, and my compression is going to be slightly higher, probably closer to 9.5:1, but without absolute specs, I can't calculate that with any degree of accuracy.

[1987cp]

All that with just a stock Explorer cam, huh? Shouldn't be surprising, considering the reputation of the E8/F1 Mustang GT cam introduced for the MAF cars.

I like to try my Crane 444211 with a dual-plane manifold in most everything I "build", just because it has such wonderful low-end characteristics and can be really driveable with a cheap torque converter. I'm with you on concern for the AOD's longevity also, which is part of why I'm just as happy with an engine that's less impressive on paper.

Speaking of how things look on paper, those heads look even better than a Performer or Performer RPM for what I've tried with them so far. I might have to think about getting me a pair!

Edit: Gadget, the combo I ran before seemed to really like the single plane and showed a noteworthy jump (about 50 peak hp, with only a very small drop down low where it wasn't doing much anyway) when I switched it from a dual to a single. The E303 cam seems to really, really like mid-high RPMs, though I noted hardly any change when going from 1.6:1 to 1.72:1 rockers.

[gadget73]

HO cam power numbers are extremely close to Explorer, same peak torque at the same rpm, and the HO does like 2 hp more at the same rpm (big deal), but the torque curve below the peak with the Explorer cam is very favorable, which is why I want to give it a try. Its a pretty mild cam, and I know it will behave itself with stock SD controls. The SuperLinc has this setup, makes impressive power, and does 20 mpg on the interstate at speeds over 75 mph. I'm not really looking for anything radical, I just want it to perform decently, not cost me a ton of money and time in tweaking and tuning, and not eat fuel at silly rates. I might do a mass air conversion just to optimize it at some point, but I don't expect a whole lot out of that, maybe a little fuel economy increase, and perhaps a small improvement in idle speed control stability but nothing really amazing.

And yes, the E cam does suck on the bottom end. It makes power up top, probably works good in a lighter car with a manual. I imagine a 5 speed Mustang with an E cam would be fun to drive. Figured the top end would suffer a fair bit, but I'd have expected a little something down low with the dual plane. I guess not. A B303 would probably plot out nicely, or something like a TF stage1.

[1987cp]

. A B303 would probably plot out nicely, or something like a TF stage1.

Good thought! I've been playing mostly with Crane grinds since their full specs are readily available on their website - intake opening/closing, exhaust opening/closing, etc. I'm even quite impressed with a couple of their hydraulic flat-tappet grinds, which is nice since I may want that for a 351 build.

I really ought to collect the complete specs for all the usual FRPP cams and give it a try. Don't suppose you know where to find them?