Lightning and 95 R Blocks - Page 2

Italian LX · 05-16-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sendero

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?

Craig K. · 05-16-2005, 04:04 PM

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 · 05-16-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Italian LX

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

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

Sendero · 05-16-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig K.

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 · 05-16-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sendero

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.

Wicked · 05-16-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Italian LX

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

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

Sendero · 05-16-2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wicked

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 · 05-16-2005, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sendero

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.

Italian LX · 05-16-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wicked

Wow, thanks for explaining that.

Captain obvious strikes again.

Italian LX · 05-16-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Italian LX

Captain obvious strikes again.

Or as Drew would say. . .

05-16-2005, 04:04 PM	#12
Craig K. Nothing new here Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Senoia, GA Posts: 2,990	Re: Lightning and 95 R Blocks 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. __________________ 1974 Triumph TR6 1985 Monte Carlo SS 1986 Mustang GT 2011 KIA Optima GTS