5.8L ?

Steve_HKmtrsprts

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,252
Reaction
2
How much HP does a stock Ford 5.8L have for the 95 F-150? Just comparing to the Lightning stats to see if its worth getting a Lightning.

<font color=red>"BIG TYMERS is a state of mind... If you gonna do something, do it big time."</font color=red>
 

toddz

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,434
Reaction
174
200 HP @3800 rpm. I actually prefer the '94-newer 5.8L long blocks to the Lightning engine because they were roller cam engines whereas the Lightning engine had flat tappets. Take a late model 5.8, take off the batch fire EFI and put a 351W GT-40 lower and GT-40/Cobra upper and you've got yourself a great reliable engine.

Todd Z.
 

hoeker

Well-Known Member
Posts
2,004
Reaction
101
i though the lightings had the roller lifters???????
the lightning comes with gt-40 heads, lots better than any other truck head. the gt40P heads are a little better yet, but you have to have headers for the "P" head to be able to get the plugs out. if your curious i think the third best head in fords stock iron line were the E7TE heads. i think they were a truck head only.
gt40 heads are very rare, the P's are a dime a dozen. if toddz right on the cam, go that route and add the P heads, you'd probably save money over the lightning engine.

definatatly agree on the intake choice, adds lots of good dependable power.

"to be successful, you must first learn to disagree without being disagreeable."
 

singlehanded

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,584
Reaction
0
Its all about the afr's I think $1400 for head. My friend and his brother have them ones a 351w,fastest car Ive ever been in its scary.

midnight landscaper working overtime and I'm full throttle I'm full throttle tonight
 

Chris_Wilson

Well-Known Member
Posts
3,277
Reaction
1,301
... take off the batch fire EFI ...

Didn't 95 5.8l engines with Calif smog come with the Mass Air and SEFI?
And 49 state motors got this in 96? I'm fairly sure that's how the Broncos were.
But I could be wrong.
 

motoxscott

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,240
Reaction
299
Thats what I've heard, thats why I'm looking for a '95 only. I'm planning on adding a lot to the motor so I dont want the older speed density setup. I'm curious if its a roller cam motor or not stock? I was planning on running roller rockers, roller lifters and a new cam.

What do you guys think of the Edelbrock heads? I was thinking either those or the Trick Flow, I still need smog legal versions. I was also planning on adding Edelbrocks intake they make for it with the larger throttle body.

-Scott
 

Greg

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,116
Reaction
19
I have a 5.0 that has Edlebrock heads, 1.7 rockers,cobra intake, big mass air and TB, e-303 cam, 24lb injectors,equal length shortys. Its been super reliable (i drive it everyday) but doesn't start making power until about 3200 rpm. I know of simalar combos in 351's and they work good with , obviously, a little more bottom but sign off about 5k. if your gonna keep the lock-up coverter trans stay with the stock cam.

Greg
 

motoxscott

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,240
Reaction
299
Greg, I'm not sure exactly what I'm gonna do. I'm seriously thinking about swapping in a manual reverse valvebody C6 into it, but I'm not sure how the computer will react to it.

Has anyone bored and stroked the 5.8L and got it to run on the OE computer?

I'm teadering on the line of just building upon whats already there and completely changing things. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
 

hoeker

Well-Known Member
Posts
2,004
Reaction
101
if your computer is mass air it can handle a lot of mods. most of the afteramarket has figured out what injectors, fuel PSI, etc. you need with the factory computer. i know lots of 392's running on windsor computers, just do the proper research. my 76 bronco has a modified 86 302 running 94 mass air and a C-4. lot of other BS and it loves it all. the biggest kick in the crotch i've seen yet was that it got better fuel economy on the street than my 2000 ranger with a 4.0! and no where near the go power. dumped the ranger.

the mustang computer may be something worht looking into. or a manual truck 'puter. seems like they may handle the mods better, or maybe the trucks weren't mass air?????????

sounds like fun greg.

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.rosshoek.com>www.rosshoek.com</A>

"to be successful, you must first learn to disagree without being disagreeable."
 

frankh

Well-Known Member
Posts
2,537
Reaction
77
The lighting is a cool truck. there are lot of mods for more hp. My son has one and ran a 11.96 this weekend.
 

motoxscott

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,240
Reaction
299
Ross:

Where's a good place to start looking for more info on 5.8L buildup. I'm really curious about what it takes to got to a 392 or 406 and still have the computer happy.

Thanks for all the help, on this post and others.
 

hoeker

Well-Known Member
Posts
2,004
Reaction
101
the 392 is easy, 302 pistons and 351 rods, and a custom crank. everything is avail. from ford racing at a reasonable price. i think the 406 is just a bigger bore.

if i were doing it i'd look at mustang web sites, and maybe call ford racing's tech line. a friend of mine has a 347, blown 15 lbs boost, aluminum heads, big damn fuel pump, big injectors, custom cam. large throttle body, AND A STOCK MUSTANG COMPUTER!! serious bad-a$$ stuff, but the stock computer can handle it. he just did lots of research on the web, not sure where.

"to be successful, you must first learn to disagree without being disagreeable."
 

motoxscott

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,240
Reaction
299
In my quest for knowledge I found this and thought someone here might want to read up on it. They converted a bronco with a 302 speed density EFI to a 406 mass airflow EFI in a '87 bronco.

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.abysmal.com/bronco/engine/Engine.html>http://www.abysmal.com/bronco/engine/Engine.html</A>
 
Top