Going to 2.02" Intakes would not greatly improve power. If anything, between 1200 and 4000 RPM's, the 1.88" Intakes will perform slightly better than the 2.02" Intakes on the Street with the Comp-Cams XE-268.
What is this based on? A 1968 340 has as much or more low end than a 1972 340. There is absolutely ZERO data that supports a loss of low end power with a 2.02.
In fact (and testing supports this) the bigger valve will INCREASE low lift flow, which by all accounts will help with low end power.
Again, the issue becomes this; how big can you go before you lose????? The answer is...it depends. Can you get enough port area to support the bigger valve? If not, the head will lose power ALL across the power band.
Typically, Chrysler P-car heads have a horrible flow curve ( I could care less what numbers they flow) and every time you increase intake valve size WITHOUT compensating for the CORRECT runner volume increase, you only make the head worse.
Have you ever looked at the flow curve of P-car head with 2.08 intakes and just a bowl job? That combination will get it's doors blown off by heads with a 1.88 valve.
But the problem isn't with the big valve. It' with the incorrect port. There is more to it that big valves and bowl hogs.