Help me identify these 2 motors. Supposedly one is an HO motor. Since I got them for free, I wont be too disappointed if their not.
Dennis- If these are not complete engines, wouldn't there be holes in the lifter valley for attaching the retainer for the roller lifters? It's that piece that works with the dog bones. It seems like there are 2-3 holes tapped in the center of the lifter valley. You likely had to add these holes when you converted the Sprint to a roller cam. I could be wrong? Seth
The E7TE should be the roller block, if you remove the intake, it should have XXX cast into it. The E6SE could be a 86 HO motor? http://www.cehighperformance.com/ford_block_car_codes.htm
From what I've read, the only difference between any roller 302 (E7TE) and the HO is, the pistons, the cam and the upper intake. Trucks had E7TE blocks, with roller cams, and E7TE heads, but with different firing orders. Those 86 HO engines had some one year only heads, that they say are not very good.. There really isn't must info thats nailed down on these it seems...
They're both roller blocks. No difference other than the casting numbers. They were used interchangeably up untill the appearance of the next roller block in the 90's. The casting numbers have no bearing on the vehicle application it was used in. You can just as easily find either, in Mustangs, Crown Vics. pickups, vans, T-birds or any Mercury.
Trucks and vans didn't get roller cams untill the 92 model year. The heads on the 86 HO were E6SE's, which were used from 86 to 91 in the Crown Vic, Lincoln Towncar, Merc Marquis, T-Bird/Cougar, and some trucks. There is info in this book on these engines: The Official Ford Mustang 5.0 by Al Kirschenbaum. This book was put out thru Ford Racing. It's got everything you'll want to know about the 5.0 from 79 to 2001.
Well, I guess I only know a little... I've been trying to figure out some info on a roller I have out of a 93 E150. Like what type of pistons they are, etc..
Do they both have the one piece rear main seal? Given the choice to do a motor for my 71 GT, would it be better to do one of these blocks or a 70 302? I would convert the 70 to roller cam.
Yes, both are 1 pc rear main seal blocks. It would be far more cost effective to go with either roller block than the 70.
The 93 F series engine would have had the same pistons as a 93 HO roller. Just had a much smaller cam, unless it's a late 93 and got the 94's F4TE roller cam. That cam is only a slight step in specs under the HO roller. (.422/.445 lift, 256/266 advertised duration, vs the HO's .445.445--276/276 duration) You can bump the lift specs with 1.7 rockers to above the HO's specs to .445/.473. The 92-93 cam was the smaller cam used in the Crown Vic motor from 86-91. It's specs were .379/.395 with a 244/256 duration. The F4TE roller had the 351W firing order and was later used in the Explorer/Mountaineer 5.0.
