1987 351 H.O. Versus 1993 351 Lightning
#1
1987 351 H.O. Versus 1993 351 Lightning
I hear that the 1985 - 1987 351 H.O. was a real beast with the 4-barrel carburetor and the marine cam. When the EFI 351 came along in 1988, it wasn't near as strong as the 351 H.O. Not until the 351 Lightning came out in 1993 did the 351 get any real power back. Does anyone know what the cam specs were on these two motors? And what transmission and gear ratios did these two trucks have? Which truck had the better heads?
Which of these motors was the most powerful, and which one would you rather have?
Which of these motors was the most powerful, and which one would you rather have?
#3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 30,966
Likes: 0
Received 985 Likes
on
777 Posts
The 351HO got a slightly bigger cam than the Lightning but it wore the same small valve low compression smog heads every other motor from the era got and the stock exhaust was a complete cork, while the Lightning wore GT40 heads and the F4TE block is roller ready so overall the Lightnng was better setup. Cam specs are similar with 260ish intake duration for both but the for some reason the Lightning cam only generated 0.416 total valve lift vs 0.445 for the HO cam so there is a lot of potential left on the table.
#4
I had an 86 F150 Supercab with the 351 H.O. It had a C6 with a NP208 (I think) and a 9 inch rearend with 3.50 or 3.55 gears.
Whether the 9 inch was stock or not, I do not know. The original owner was a concrete cutting company form Reno or Sparks, NV.
While it ran allright, (it had a fairly new crate motor when I got it); it was a beatup old work truck, not a hotrod.
Robert
Whether the 9 inch was stock or not, I do not know. The original owner was a concrete cutting company form Reno or Sparks, NV.
While it ran allright, (it had a fairly new crate motor when I got it); it was a beatup old work truck, not a hotrod.
Robert
#5
#7
Trending Topics
#8
I just feel as though it isn't worth the effort to tear half the motor apart for such a minimal gain. I'd rather spend the 180 dollars extra for a very nice and noticeable gain. There are plenty of sd compatible cams out there that are much better then the ho cam. Yes it's an upgrade but not enough for me to yank the motor apart that much for it.
#9
I just feel as though it isn't worth the effort to tear half the motor apart for such a minimal gain. I'd rather spend the 180 dollars extra for a very nice and noticeable gain. There are plenty of sd compatible cams out there that are much better then the ho cam. Yes it's an upgrade but not enough for me to yank the motor apart that much for it.
#10
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 30,966
Likes: 0
Received 985 Likes
on
777 Posts
The Mustang HO cam is very close to being a roller version of the old 351HO cam so in this swap you gain more valve lift but also a pretty significant reduction in rotary friction inside the motor which also puts more power to the ground, it's impressive actually just how much faster the throttle response is with a roller motor. But the HO cam still falls a bit short of utilizing all the airflow potential of these heads so I'd suggest adding 1.7 rockers while you're in there.
#11
The Mustang HO cam is very close to being a roller version of the old 351HO cam so in this swap you gain more valve lift but also a pretty significant reduction in rotary friction inside the motor which also puts more power to the ground, it's impressive actually just how much faster the throttle response is with a roller motor. But the HO cam still falls a bit short of utilizing all the airflow potential of these heads so I'd suggest adding 1.7 rockers while you're in there.
Yes,, that is on the list too. Also dumping the GT40 heads and putting some AFR 185s on
#13
Why on earth would you put a very nice head like that on and limit the whole works with an iffy cam choice.
I am aware that a similar head and the ho cam in a 302 (along with perf rpm intake and worked over carb) made 400 crank hp, but you're going to be needing a custom tune anyway.
I am sure you'll be happy with the results, but it's potential is so much more then what you're asking it for.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Trevor English
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
5
09-22-2016 06:12 AM
70torino429
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
3
06-25-2009 06:37 PM
kellar
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
10
10-24-2007 02:43 PM