Ford lighting engine

[HUNTER]

what kind of engine was in the Supercharged truck, Lightning?

 

[Skandocious]

5.4L Triton V8, Supercharged and slightly modified

 

[lil_dq]

I guess it depends on the year huh? wasn't the gen 9 lightning charged also?

 

[dragogt]

5.4L Triton V8, Supercharged and slightly modified

Or you could do like this guy. http://www.nloc.net/vbforum/turbo-q/129741-ford-gt-powered-turbo-lightning-build.html

 

[Skandocious]

I guess it depends on the year huh? wasn't the gen 9 lightning charged also?

No sir. The 1st gen lightning (9th gen F-series) was just a 5.8L, naturally aspirated. Though, from the factory, it had shorttube headers, lightning intake manifold, 4.10 gears, I *believe* it had gt40 heads (or something similar), racing suspension, lower stance.... Dunno if I'm forgetting anything.

Then ended up putting out 240 or 250hp while the stock 351 puts out 205-210 (depending on the model).

 

[Skandocious]

Or you could do like this guy. http://www.nloc.net/vbforum/turbo-q/129741-ford-gt-powered-turbo-lightning-build.html

Just flipped through all 24 pages. Unbelievable project!!!!

 

[1970Custom]

Or you could do like this guy. http://www.nloc.net/vbforum/turbo-q/129741-ford-gt-powered-turbo-lightning-build.html

That truck still isn't done BTW, buddy of mine bought his the same time this project was started and has since sold (traded it in actually) it...



Chris, don't forget the 1" sway bars and the HD LSD in the 8.8...

 

[Skandocious]

Chris, don't forget the 1" sway bars and the HD LSD in the 8.8...

Good call, you're right.

 

[SuperCab]

I guess it depends on the year huh? wasn't the gen 9 lightning charged also?

Chris is right, they weren't, but wouldn't it be awsome if you got one and put a blower on it? What was the compression ratio on those Lightning 5.8s?

 

[1970Custom]

...What was the compression ratio on those Lightning 5.8s?

From Hemmings Motor News:

Engine
SVT built the Lightning with a high-output V-8 based on the 5.8-liter, 351-cu.in. engine. To ensure you are buying a Lightning and not just an F-150 with Lightning accoutrements, look for the "R" code in the VIN. The engine had 8.8:1 compression, a 4-inch bore and 3.50-inch stroke. The stock hydraulic, flat-tappet camshaft specifications are: duration at 0.50; intake 200 degrees and exhaust 214 degrees; advertised duration is 260 degrees intake and 274 degrees exhaust.


SVT installed GT-40-type cast-iron cylinder heads, a tuned intake manifold, tubular stainless-steel headers, larger intake (1.84-inch) and exhaust valves (1.54-inch), high-flow ports, high-rate capacity fuel pump and injectors, revised combustion chambers, a redesigned air filter for improved airflow and a true dual exhaust system.


Other upgrades for the basic 5.8-liter V-8 included high-silicon aluminum hypereutectic pistons, a special camshaft for optimized valve tuning and a cartridge-type oil-to-water exchanger to control oil temperatures. Engineers also programmed the engine's computer control to deliver crisp throttle response and acceptable fuel economy. Lightning output resulted in a then very healthy 240hp at 4,200 rpm and 340-lbs.ft. of torque at 3,200 rpm. The Lightning distributor uses a special cap with aluminum contacts and is the recommended cap for Lightnings. This cap is made of Rynite, which has high dielectric properties.


This powerplant could produce 0-60 times of 7.2 seconds, 0-100 mph in 25.7 seconds and cover the quarter mile in 15.6 seconds at 87.4 mph. Not lightning fast, but the 351 had to propel almost 4,500 pounds. Top speed was electronically limited to 110 mph. EPA fuel economy leaves something to be desired at 12 mpg city and 16 mpg highway.

 

[1970Custom]

what kind of engine was in the Supercharged truck, Lightning?

First production of the Second Gen L has 360hp 440lb.ft Supercharged Mod 5.4 w/ 8.5:1 comp ratio, Second production was a 380hp 450lb.ft supercharged engine with the same comp ratio...

 

[SuperCab]

Oh. 8.8:1 is pretty low. It would be perfect for s/c or t/c though. the real performance was back in the 60s. ford 428s with 3x2 carbs and 12:1 compression. Those things haul arse big time, but they hardly make fuel good enough for that anymore.

 

[1970Custom]

If you're going to go that route, why not go for the 427 Cammer? 615-625 hp with the single four barrel intake and the dual four was was closer to 657 @ 7500... STOCK...

 

[SuperCab]

If you're going to go that route, why not go for the 427 Cammer? 615-625 hp with the single four barrel intake and the dual four was was closer to 657 @ 7500... STOCK...

Your right, but I was just making a point. I'm convinced that compression is pretty much where the performance is at. That and the breathing (ie valves, intake, and carb). the rest (size, weight, etc) can be what ever you like. Also, in my experience and research (not a whole lot) It seems like compression has a lot to do with your mpgs - the higher the better.

 

[Lost]

Your right, but I was just making a point. I'm convinced that compression is pretty much where the performance is at. That and the breathing (ie valves, intake, and carb). the rest (size, weight, etc) can be what ever you like. Also, in my experience and research (not a whole lot) It seems like compression has a lot to do with your mpgs - the higher the better.

Don't know about Higher compression + higher MPG ????

I have built many of all brands and Higher compression is just that . They do run well.

But All of the Stangs and Comaros Have low compression and they haul tial just fine.On pump gas.

 

[SuperCab]

Don't know about Higher compression + higher MPG ????

I have built many of all brands and Higher compression is just that . They do run well.

But All of the Stangs and Comaros Have low compression and they haul tial just fine.On pump gas.

1. I think the c/r does improve you mpgs to a point. We (dad and I) had a truck a few years ago with a 1967 model 390 in it. Figured the c/r was about 8.9:1 or 9:1. Got 14 mpg out of that thing every time. uphill with the 16' cargo trailer. Whatever. 14 mpg.

My sig truck has the 1973 390 in it. 8.6:1 c/r. same setup - rear gears, auto tranny, etc. not such hot mileage. haven't put a number on it, but thinkin 11-12 mpg. it seems to be a direct correlation. maybe it isn't, but right now it seems like it to me.


2. If you got those camaros and stangs up to the limit of 87 grade pump gas - 8.9 or 9 - I bet they'd be better.

 

[conanski]

Fuel milage for any particular engine depends heavily on the weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle it's in, so you can't really compare what a 302 truck gets versus a 302 car for example. If you look at the original non turbo 6.9 and 7.3 diesel motors they ran about 20:1 CR and could produce 30mpg, so in that light you could say increasing compression does yield better milage.. but of course we're dealing with a different fuel there too. Because gasoline is so volitile there's only so much you can increase the CR before it begins to auto combust from compression heat alone, so there's no way to obtain the results you can with diesel, but in general increased CR means increased TQ at any given rpm, so the motor could do the same work at a lower rpm and therefore return better milage.

 

[Lost]

5.4L Triton V8, Supercharged and slightly modified

http://classifieds.pennswoods.net/classifieds/image.cgi?image=/263632.jpg

Super charger and intake Looks like this bay the way . Dont ask where I found it.

 

[Lost]

5.4L Triton V8, Supercharged and slightly modified

Here what the intake and charger look like off one .

http://classifieds.pennswoods.net/classifieds/image.cgi?image=/263632.jpg