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?

Some 93 and all 94/95 Lightnings came with roller ready blocks.None actually came with a roller cam.

Welcome to Ford Truck Enthusiasts!
See you on the boards.
Enjoy FTE :-X22 …..

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.

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.

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

They probably did it because the "marine" cam was easier to get past emmisions and cheaper to produce.

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 :)

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

There is no application that is better suited by a flat tappet cam than a roller.

Besides all that, the 93-95 Lightnings aren't supercharged or turbo. Not stock anyhow.

I have a 94 lighting & just replaced my intake gaskets thay Are not roller from the factory !!!

Don

Nope. And only a .444" lift camshaft.

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

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.