Lightning and 95 R Blocks

[Sendero]

I am going to assume that the First Gen Lightnings and 1995 Cobra R's used the same style block even though they used different intakes and accessories.

My main question is about the cams. Are they flat tappet or roller, specifically for the 95 R?

[QWKSNKE]

Good question, I had never thought about the R's but the lightning's are non-rollers.




Pretty sure they are not. Just read in my cobra guide that they started life as a 305 marine engine which was a 351w block with a shorter stroke. They up'd the stroke to a 351 and kept the 'marine' cam in them

[Sendero]

Pretty sure they are not. Just read in my cobra guide that they started life as a 305 marine engine which was a 351w block with a shorter stroke. They up'd the stroke to a 351 and kept the 'marine' cam in them

:hmm:

SVT says that the 93-95 Lightnings were 4in x 3.5in motors with 8.8:1 compression. Then the 95 R's were 4in x 3in motors with 9.0:1 compression. So that right there tells me they are not the same "configuration", but it seems that SVT would use a roller cam for reliability and power production.

EDIT:

I just found this at Mustang 5.0 Mag (http://www.mustang50magazine.com/roadtests/4288/)


The special high-performance 351 engines utilizing cast-iron Cobra heads and intake manifold, as well as a healthy roller camshaft, were built at the Windsor, Canada, engine facility. All 250 were built on February 19, 1995 in a period of only 6.2 hours.


So that means they used a roller block or a retrofit cam? If they used a roller block, what other vehicles was this block used in?

[Italian LX]

:hmm:

SVT says that the 93-95 Lightnings were 4in x 3.5in motors with 8.8:1 compression. Then the 95 R's were 4in x 3in motors with 9.0:1 compression.
A 4"x3" motor would be a 302... so your source must not be a reliable one. :shrug:

[Sendero]

A 4"x3" motor would be a 302... so your source must not be a reliable one. :shrug:

They better be because they built the damn thing. (http://www.svt.ford.com/svtArchiveCompareCobra.asp?vehicle_one=cobra_r95&vehicle_two=nothing&vehicle_three=nothing)

[Italian LX]

They better be because they built the damn thing. (http://www.svt.ford.com/svtArchiveCompareCobra.asp?vehicle_one=cobra_r95&vehicle_two=nothing&vehicle_three=nothing)
Just because they built it, doesn't mean that whomever put together that web page didn't know what the hell they were talking about. A 351W has a 4" bore and a 3.5" stoke. Period. There is no argument about it and not a different "configuration" as you put it.

If you don't belive me, do the math of a 4" bore and 3" stroke motor; it comes out to be 301.59".

[natedawgg94]

What about de-stroking the 351??????? :jester:

[QWKSNKE]

They better be because they built the damn thing. (http://www.svt.ford.com/svtArchiveCompareCobra.asp?vehicle_one=cobra_r95&vehicle_two=nothing&vehicle_three=nothing)


Never use that site as accurate info. They have a few screwed up details on 93 cobra. They have been contacted about it and refuse to fix it.

[EZ SPEED]

Remember late model year 93 Lightning engine blocks have the bosses for a roller, but no roller cam was ever used in the 93-95 Lightnings.
The bosses need to be drilled and tapped then the spider out of a 302 will bolt right in.
The reason you dont see more Lightnings converting over to roller is that a good roller will cause big problems with the speed density computer.

[Sendero]

Here we go:


Hydraulic Flat Tappet Cam. Ford part number M-6250-M50
Peak rpm: 3000 torque / 4000bhp
Duration (SAE): 274 intake / 290 exhaust - 208 intake@.050 lobe lift / 224 exhaust@.050 lobe lift
Valve Lift (inches)(1.6rr's): .453 intake / .453 exhaust
Lobe center: 117 intake / 114 exhaust
Intake events @ .050: 3ATC open / 31ABC close
Exhaust events @ .050: 44BBC open / 0BTC close


Thanks to Richard for the heads up on SVTPerformance.com. They had the specs readily available.

[Italian LX]

Here we go:



Thanks to Richard for the heads up on SVTPerformance.com. They had the specs readily available.
So, what did they say about the 3" stroke on that 351? :poke:

[Craig K.]

Probably the reason wy Ford did not put the roller cam into the R engine is that it would have been a waste of their money.

Most cars (if used for their original purpose) would have had a custom cam installed before it would have ever been on the track.

Also no real race engine would use a Ford style roller tappet anyhow, they would have used a more race driven style tappet with a cross bar.

[Sendero]

So, what did they say about the 3" stroke on that 351? :poke:

Didn't check, care to look it up for me? :jester:

[Sendero]

Also no real race engine would use a Ford style roller tappet anyhow, they would have used a more race driven style tappet with a cross bar.

I would expect someone to "upgrade" to a roller style cam because you can get away with more agressive cam profile than a flat tappet. What am I missing here?

[Italian LX]

I would expect someone to "upgrade" to a roller style cam because you can get away with more agressive cam profile than a flat tappet. What am I missing here?
I'm assuming he means removing the spider and using cross-bar roller lifters. :shrug:

[Wicked]

I'm assuming he means removing the spider and using cross-bar roller lifters. :shrug:

:werd:
There's no way Ford put a flat tappet cam in the '95 Cobra R after running roller cams for so long.

[Sendero]

:werd:
There's no way Ford put a flat tappet cam in the '95 Cobra R after running roller cams for so long.

They put one in the Lightnings, why not the R's? I believed it was a roller cam, but the guys at SVTPerformance.com who own the R's say they are flat tappet*.

It doesn't make sense to me either, I thought a roller cam* is something that you would want in a sustained RPM race motor. One magazine says they were roller cams, but the guys who have rebuilt their motors, and FRPP catalog say they are flat tappet. Although they have the provisions to run the roller stuff.


Flat Tappet = Has no roller components. The bottom of the lifter is "flat".

Roller Cam = The bottom of the lifter has a "roller" that rides on the lobe.

[Wicked]

Flat Tappet = Has no roller components. The bottom of the lifter is "flat".

Roller Cam = The bottom of the lifter has a "roller" that rides on the lobe.

Wow, thanks for explaining that. :rolleyes:

[Italian LX]

Wow, thanks for explaining that. :rolleyes:
:werd:

Captain obvious strikes again. :D

[Italian LX]

:werd:

Captain obvious strikes again. :D

Or as Drew would say. . .




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/fastredponycar/forums/obvious.jpg

[Sendero]

Wow, thanks for explaining that.

Captain obvious strikes again.

I put that there to make sure my definitions were correct, not to get heckled by you two. :nono:

If there is "no way" Ford put a flat tappet in the R's, bring some tech. I am trying to learn something here. :nice:

[Wicked]

I put that there to make sure my definitions were correct, not to get heckled by you two. :nono:
Sorry, its just the way you said it, as if none of us knew the difference.
Next time use a ???.

If there is "no way" Ford put a flat tappet in the R's, bring some tech. I am trying to learn something here. :nice:

I say there is "no way" as in "You've got to be kidding me!" I don't know for sure. Kinda sad if it was a flat tappet, but maybe that would explain why it only made 305 hp. If you didn't already know, roller cams allow larger lift without the huge duration due to the decreased firction of the roller. A roller cam motor therefore yields much better streetability at the same power level as a much bigger(duration) flat tappet cam. The cam lobe ramp angles can only be so steep before a flat tappet digs into the cam lobe and you start to sheer off the cam lobe completely.

Did you have the cam specs for the 95 R cam? I'm sure you could tell that the duration was large compared to an equivalently lifted roller cam.

[Wicked]

Here we go:



Thanks to Richard for the heads up on SVTPerformance.com. They had the specs readily available.

Are those cam numbers for the R or the Lightning?

[Sendero]

http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=1248

Its huge on the exhaust, moderate on the intake. (Compared to 4V cams which is all I know) Lift is a little low from what I understand. I guess SVT went with these cams to pass emissions.

I love the definition:


High torque below 4000 rpm. Good for low RPM applications such as towing, boats, etc. Used in 1995 351W Cobra “R.”

[Wicked]

http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=1248

Its huge on the exhaust, moderate on the intake. (Compared to 4V cams which is all I know) Lift is a little low from what I understand. I guess SVT went with these cams to pass emissions.

I love the definition:

Okay, for instance...
An E303 5.0 roller cam is 220/220 at .050 with .498 lift on both int and exh. The total duration is only 280/280 as well.
I believe stock 5.0 cam was about 204/204 at 0.050 and .444/.444. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Craig K.]

What I was meaning is that anyone who bought an R to race, would take the Ford cam and lifters out and throw them in the garbage, wether it was a flat tappit or roller.

The Ford roller lifter with the spider may be good for street driving and mild racing, but a real "race car" would use a cross bar roller lifter that is designed to rev and hold 8000 plus rpm for several hours at a time.

[QWKSNKE]

Craig hit the nail on the head. Anybody that is going to race it is going to a different style cam than what the factory would.

It no big deal about the flat tappet. Its just because none on the 351's produced by Ford were roller so why would they do it on a 250 unit production run. It wouldn't have benefited the cost of tooling to do it. Of course it seems that a lot of racers go to a solid lift cam anyways, so that may be another reason Ford didn't do it.

[QWKSNKE]

also, somebody mentioned streetability of a roller cam. Ford didn't really give a rip about streetability and larger roller cams because you had to have some type of racing license to buy the car. Somebody like me could not walk in, plop down 40k, and drive off the lot with it. You had to be a sanctioned race driver. I am pretty sure they did not do that with any other 'R' produced.

[Craig K.]

I am pretty sure they did not do that with any other 'R' produced.

I thought that was the case for all the Cobra R's (93, 95, 00)?

[QWKSNKE]

I don't think so. They may have with the 00 model but i don't remember hearing anything about it like I did when the 95's came out

[93Cobra#2771]

Well, SVT learned from their mistake with the 93R was offerered to "racers". All 107 were snapped up very quickly, with over half of them never seeing the road, let alone a track.

After that, they required an actual competition liscence to purchase one, although I'm sure some collectors still got in there for them. This was on both the 95R and the 00R...

[Scothew]

I had no idea the 00R required a license. Any idea what sanctioning class you had to have before you could get one? I am guessing now on the resale a "racer" could sell his car to anyone?

[93Cobra#2771]

I don't recall, right off hand. But yes, no restrictions on resale that I'm aware of...

[Scothew]

Not doubting you at all, but ive been checking since I read this and havent found any type of requirement to purchase a 00R other than having the money to get it. I am still looking though.

edit: this might call for a topic split.

[Sendero]

Not doubting you at all, but ive been checking since I read this and havent found any type of requirement to purchase a 00R other than having the money to get it. I am still looking though.

edit: this might call for a topic split.


:hmm: Joe Sartain bought one and he definately doesn't qualify as a racer. I only thought this applied to the 95R, but we will see.

[93Cobra#2771]

This was only required on the initial sale of the R's from the dealer, and on NEW R's only. Any R model still at a dealer obviously isn't going to be covered now.

And there were some that still were sold to non racers - these were people in the know, or who slipped said dealer a little cash incentive to sell to them..

Who's Joe Sartain?

[Sendero]

Who's Joe Sartain?

Local SVT dealer. He lived in my subdivision.

[93Cobra#2771]

So, he worked/owned the dealership? Guess that explains how he was able to buy one... :D

[Scothew]

Per Quinton at 1-800-Ford-SVT

93R - professional racing license required (same restrictions as 95R)
95R - professional racing license required (SCCA, NHRA, didnt matter.)
00R - no license required, just a big enough check book to cover it.

[Scothew]

Now doesnt this just contradict everything we thought :dumbfounded:

[93Cobra#2771]

I was reasonably sure on the 93R and 95R, just unsure on the 00R. Maybe they figured the big $$ price tag would be enough to keep most collectors from buying into it?? :confused:

BTW, you sometimes have to be careful with the SVT number - some of those guys can be as misinformed as their website is.

True test would be to post a the question in the R forum at svtperformance. They should know for sure.

[Scothew]

I was reasonably sure on the 93R and 95R, just unsure on the 00R. Maybe they figured the big $$ price tag would be enough to keep most collectors from buying into it?? :confused:

BTW, you sometimes have to be careful with the SVT number - some of those guys can be as misinformed as their website is.

True test would be to post a the question in the R forum at svtperformance. They should know for sure.


Well this guy thought about it and told me that he was 100% on teh 95, and about 85% on the 93 and 00, but he wanted to go double check and did.