My 91 Ranger the stRanger

[Grunizzle]

umm....errr




would you punch me in the face if i said that looks like a 302 lower?


maybe its just the pic


looks like a 302 lower to me.....i seem to remember the oem boat and truck being iron and that looks aluminum and the 351 have the inboard deck hole as they are wider. the pcv is raised too


could be the pic.

It's definitely the 351 lower. It's the gt40 type from a 93-95 lightning. And it is iron

 

[bobbywalter]

iron should be 351 for sure.


the pic looks odd all around to me ...even the lil packing peanut things.


i have not had one in my hands in some time now....memory is fuzzed a little.


the pvc and deck holes were what made me wonder.

 

[Grunizzle]

iron should be 351 for sure.


the pic looks odd all around to me ...even the lil packing peanut things.


i have not had one in my hands in some time now....memory is fuzzed a little.


the pvc and deck holes were what made me wonder.

Ill take a pic for you when I get it mounted on the block. I am trying to drop the block off at the machine shop this Friday, but I don't know if ill have the time

 

[bobbywalter]

is that the actual intake?


the act boss isnt drilled and it just looks odd....narrow and the holes are off....its missing the deck holes most efi 351 have gt or normal...


might be a boat variation as well. i have seen a difference in 1st/2nd years...just dont remember.

 

[deathbypsi]

93-95 Lightnings were MAF and had the ACT in the airbox

 

[Grunizzle]

As far as I've read all first gen lightning except for California models, were speed density.

Yes that is the actual lower intake I have. Here is another picture I found on the net, definetly some differences on mine

 

[Grunizzle]

Here's another pic from the net of a 94 lightning lower.

I think it's the angle of my picture that makes the PVC port look weird. I am at work(graves) so ill take more pictures of mine when I get home

 

[bobbywalter]

As far as I've read all first gen lightning except for California models, were speed density.

Yes that is the actual lower intake I have. Here is another picture I found on the net, definetly some differences on mine

that IS a 302 intake.

 

[Grunizzle]

I may be wrong but are the gt40 lowers for 5.0 and 5.8 the same, but the 5.8 intake are wider, so they would look the same until you tried bolting one to the orher

 

[bobbywalter]

Here's another pic from the net of a 94 lightning lower.

I think it's the angle of my picture that makes the PVC port look weird. I am at work(graves) so ill take more pictures of mine when I get home

this is what i expect from a 351 ford setup...it has the deck hole brackets things...i was figuring they were ground off for some reason.





deathbypsi.......

maf lightening in a 93 gen 1?


none i worked on were that way stock....they were sd with double shot injector calibrations.


i converted quite a few to maf though....often using a b100 later obd2 setup.

 

[bobbywalter]

now that you shown me the reg 40 351 there is no way the pic you posted originally is a 351....i sure would be surprised at least.


its hard to describe the differences in distance of memory but that pic really cleared it up for me.


you have some sort of odd 351 lower or its a 302.

 

[deathbypsi]

Yep that pic of the painted lower is for a 302. Look where the fuel rails bolt on. 351 is farther away from center runners because of the wider fuel due to a wider lower intake. UPPERs are interchangable between the two but not the lowers.

 

[deathbypsi]

93-95 Lightnings were MAF and had the ACT in the airbox

My mistake. Was thinking of the 5.0's for 94-96

 

[bobbywalter]

well. maybe i will go put a helmet on in case he punches me in the mouth

 

[Grunizzle]

I just hope it is a 351 intake