Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > Lightning, Harley-Davidson F-150, Roush F-150 & Saleen F-150
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Lightning, Harley-Davidson F-150, Roush F-150 & Saleen F-150 SVT Ford F150 Lightning, Roush, Saleen and other performance F150's

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-17-2005, 12:09 AM
GypsyR GypsyR is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SC
Posts: 477
GypsyR is starting off with a positive reputation.
Were 94-5 Lightnings roller cams?

I've been shopping for a slightly better roller cam for a 94 351W engine I came up with. But there isn't a whole lot to choose from. The W seemed to drop off the aftermarket map in 1994. So far I've only really looked at Summit and PAW though. I see some mention of the Lightning replacement cams but they apparently are listed as "flat tappet" cams. My W came from some old 1-ton work truck but a friend claims to be building a 94 Lightning engine that's a roller cam. From the parts catalogs it appears that it could be a Lightning engine or a roller cam, but not both. Is this true? And if so, why? I can't imagine all the work Ford put into a Lightning and not giving it a roller cam while the work trucks got them.
As far as cams, I'm thinking Ford's E303 5.0 cam is looking pretty good. I want to add some more fun to a plain old daily driver F150 that's already a bit faster than it needs to be. But I don't want to compromise the truck's ability to get a little serious work done now and then. Any better suggestions?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 01-17-2005, 06:23 AM
Matt95L Matt95L is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 116
Matt95L is starting off with a positive reputation.
Some 93 and all 94/95 Lightnings came with roller ready blocks.None actually came with a roller cam.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 01-17-2005, 07:51 AM
IB Tim's Avatar
IB Tim IB Tim is online now
Site Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 3rd Rock
Posts: 112,222
IB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputation
Welcome to Ford Truck Enthusiasts!
See you on the boards.
Enjoy FTE …..
__________________
Administrator
tim.lamkin@internetbrands dot com
Life is not only time……paradoxically, it is the denial of time!
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.

When you are down...look up...get up...and don't ever give up....
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 01-17-2005, 10:49 PM
GypsyR GypsyR is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SC
Posts: 477
GypsyR is starting off with a positive reputation.
Now why would that be do you suppose? I still can't believe the Ford/SVT guys putting roller cam capabilty into the Lightning and then not using it. If I were the lucky owner of such a truck, fitting a roller cam would certainly be #1 on my to-do list.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2005, 02:55 AM
Matt95L Matt95L is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 116
Matt95L is starting off with a positive reputation.
My guess is because they didn't want the Lightning to have more power than the Cobra.SVT just handled the marketing of the first gen Fords truck division designed and built them.Thanks for the welcome.
__________________
95 F-150 Lightning-13.957 at 94.89mph
AFR 185s,Comps XE264HR-14 cam,Pickrel Performance exhaust,Factory tech valvebody,Rancho traction bars

Last edited by Matt95L; 01-18-2005 at 03:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 01-18-2005, 07:04 PM
yomow yomow is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 548
yomow is starting off with a positive reputation.
That's right I have a 94 lighting . Just did a intake gasket & it has the hole's for the roller's i'm selling mine It has sat for 1 year i can't let it just sit Selling cheep $ 8,000. just to let it go .

Don
__________________
1965 F100 Custom Cab w/ 39,000 orginal miles . This ride replaced a 1994 Lighting W/ 79,000 miles.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 01-19-2005, 08:05 AM
Silver Streak Silver Streak is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 3,235
Silver Streak is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
They probably did it because the "marine" cam was easier to get past emmisions and cheaper to produce.
__________________
1990 F-150XLT Lariat Stillon the original engine with no squeaks or rattles at over 300k miles
4.9/M5OD/3.08
16.89@77.09
145 rwhp, 272 rwtq

2001 Lightning #127
13.18@104, no chip, no pulley, no nitrous

Confuscious say "Man who have no use for jackstand have promising career as jackstand".
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2005, 11:20 PM
GypsyR GypsyR is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SC
Posts: 477
GypsyR is starting off with a positive reputation.
I stumbled across an answer to my question.
Apparently supercharged (and turbo'd) engines respond a lot better in the lower rpm ranges to a cam that can provide very quick initial valve lift. "Flat" cams surprisingly do this better than roller cams. Using 1.7 rockers instead of the more common stock 1.6 ratio rockers also helps. All this adds up to a Lightning having more "streetability" and the capability of doing some actual truck-like work. I think the Ford engineers were right on the money with this as you lucky owners can probably testify. How many Lightnings were bought to be fun daily drivers capable of doing some light work if needed? That's what I would buy one for.
Roller cams aren't bad in a boosted application, they can easily outperform a regular cam in the upper rpm ranges. Exactly what you'd want if you only use your Lightning to blow away competition and never to pull a trailer.
Well, I learned something today. A good day
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2005, 08:25 AM
yomow yomow is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 548
yomow is starting off with a positive reputation.
I pull a trl. with my bronco & it now has a roller camshaft you are telling me that my bronco is better off with a flat tappet cam ?? I can tell you my engine crank's much faster w/roller, smother running w/ roller engines have less friction w/rollers , than flat tappetsI just can't figure out where flat tappets are better than my roller ??????? Pulling a trl. or not !!!!!

Don
__________________
1965 F100 Custom Cab w/ 39,000 orginal miles . This ride replaced a 1994 Lighting W/ 79,000 miles.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2005, 03:57 PM
Silver Streak Silver Streak is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 3,235
Silver Streak is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
There is no application that is better suited by a flat tappet cam than a roller.
__________________
1990 F-150XLT Lariat Stillon the original engine with no squeaks or rattles at over 300k miles
4.9/M5OD/3.08
16.89@77.09
145 rwhp, 272 rwtq

2001 Lightning #127
13.18@104, no chip, no pulley, no nitrous

Confuscious say "Man who have no use for jackstand have promising career as jackstand".
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2005, 05:18 PM
stevef100s stevef100s is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Destin/Ft. Walton Beach,
Posts: 1,099
stevef100s is new and has a neutral reputation at this point.
Besides all that, the 93-95 Lightnings aren't supercharged or turbo. Not stock anyhow.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2005, 05:53 PM
yomow yomow is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 548
yomow is starting off with a positive reputation.
I have a 94 lighting & just replaced my intake gaskets thay Are not roller from the factory !!!

Don
__________________
1965 F100 Custom Cab w/ 39,000 orginal miles . This ride replaced a 1994 Lighting W/ 79,000 miles.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2005, 06:00 PM
stevef100s stevef100s is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Destin/Ft. Walton Beach,
Posts: 1,099
stevef100s is new and has a neutral reputation at this point.
Nope. And only a .444" lift camshaft.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 01-29-2005, 09:27 PM
fordtrck302's Avatar
fordtrck302 fordtrck302 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 270
fordtrck302 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I know i dont have a lightning but on the topic of cams i have a 1995 f-150 302 w/o mass air now what kind of cam would i have a rollor or flat. Wich is better for a lifted truck with 35's. Well thanks alot
__________________
1984 Bronco XLT 4x4
302 with 4spd
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 02-20-2005, 03:23 PM
GypsyR GypsyR is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SC
Posts: 477
GypsyR is starting off with a positive reputation.
Gen 1 Lightnings AREN'T supercharged? Blows that theory. Perhaps I'd best stay out of the Lightning forum.
Oh, and Whitezmbie, your engine IS a roller cam. I wouldn't mess with it, enjoy.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2005, 03:23 PM
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > Lightning, Harley-Davidson F-150, Roush F-150 & Saleen F-150

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup