Lighting Headers
 

I am at the stage to buy headers for my 35 Fountain to use on the new power. We built 557ci Dart block AFR headed 9:7:1 Comp, valve overlap is 62 deg, lobe sep 114 deg, cam is 249/255 at 50. I'm worried about reversion. Any input is appreciated. I am considering buying lighting headers. What do you think??

I think lightning makes an excellent product and Id call them outright and just ask. Each header will vary how much overlap they will tolerate based on where the water is injected into the exhaust stream.

Ive personally run my own 454 with a set of lightnings Using an Engle HL-72 cam with 112 lope seps and been fine. Theyll help you figure out if that extra 2 will cause much of a problem.

Call em!

Uncle Dave

CMI"S:drink:

You have a pretty agressive cam. You might want to consider dry pipes. Lightnings web site recommended not going more than 240 duration at .050.

My cam is not any where as big as others that I know of that have used lighting headers, so I was just wondering if anyone had used them with a cam like mine??? And I like the CMI E Tops but they look cheap, and the sportys are too much cash.

Lightning has the option of longer primary tubes. They also make the header taller. You may want to ask if these options would help in your case. Your cam is pretty agressive for wet headers.

I ran them in a 93 Challenger with twin 468's and the 502 - 465 HP cam and never had a problem what so ever. (4 yrs) Crane #134561 hyd. flat tappet.
236/246 @ .050 553/571. Not a 100% sure what the lobe sep was then. year was 1993. They had a couple of different cams then and the lobe sep. may have changed. I thought ones I used was on a 110 or 112 however the 134571 shows 114.
hope this helps you out

I had reversion with my lightnings on my 540 with less cam and afr head's at idle so bad it would stall the motor although mine were the short ones. Lightning has told me in the past they won't tolerate much more cam than stock,Smitty