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]

Originally Posted by QWKSNKE

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

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

Originally Posted by Article

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]

Originally Posted by Sendero

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.

[Sendero]

Originally Posted by Italian LX

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

They better be because they built the damn thing.

[Italian LX]

Originally Posted by Sendero

They better be because they built the damn thing.

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???????

[QWKSNKE]

Originally Posted by Sendero

They better be because they built the damn thing.

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.