My SB build...

[rumblefish360]

I was 'told' by my engine builder a while back that "a street car will never see the benefits of the 2.02 over the 1.88, but will definitely see the torque benefit of the 1.88 over the 2.02".
Of course, he could be full of it, too...
What do you head guys say?

I call B.S.! Been there done that. Of course, that depends on the level of performance the street engine is producing!

Also, as some fellas here have shown through dyno testing, the larger the valve the more power is produced.

 

[B3RE]

I was 'told' by my engine builder a while back that "a street car will never see the benefits of the 2.02 over the 1.88, but will definitely see the torque benefit of the 1.88 over the 2.02".
Of course, he could be full of it, too...
What do you head guys say?

A 2.02" valve has 3.17 sq/in of curtain area at .500" lift, and a 1.88" valve doesn't reach 3.17 sq/in until .537" lift. So, with the rest of the port being the same, the 2.02 valve will theoretically reach maximum port flow earlier in the lift cycle, and allow the cylinder to fill more efficiently, aka volumetric efficiency. A fuller cylinder makes more cylinder pressure, and that makes more torque.

 

[rumblefish360]

Thanks! The math was beyond my I-phone. Er, brain....
Well then! There is yet another vote for the bigger valve.
I can not ever remember going slower with a bigger valve. Mundane/low performance builds I've done I have never bothers with a bigger valve. It just didn't make $$$ & cents really. The 1.88 did just fine for what the purpose of the ride was for, the way it was built.

 

[Captainkirk]

A 2.02" valve has 3.17 sq/in of curtain area at .500" lift, and a 1.88" valve doesn't reach 3.17 sq/in until .537" lift. So, with the rest of the port being the same, the 2.02 valve will theoretically reach maximum port flow earlier in the lift cycle, and allow the cylinder to fill more efficiently, aka volumetric efficiency. A fuller cylinder makes more cylinder pressure, and that makes more torque.

Man, I wish YOU were building my engine.

 

[rumblefish360]

Yup! Got me a .030 set for the wife's 360.
Nice slug.

 

[MOPAROFFICIAL]

Planning on strictly hydraulic at this point. Rollers on a street car are overkill IMO

Those hypers will work great, just follow the ring gap instructions. Applying to flat tops w/open chamber heads ... 9.7 static isn't really ragged edge , no matter where you may live, if the cranking is kept "around" 165psi. Some have the ability to tune it higher than that, but I don't assume ability.

 

[MOPAROFFICIAL]

I was 'told' by my engine builder a while back that "a street car will never see the benefits of the 2.02 over the 1.88, but will definitely see the torque benefit of the 1.88 over the 2.02".
Of course, he could be full of it, too...
What do you head guys say?

Air flow is power, and with these head port volumes...there is no such thing as enough.
The problem with the 1.88 valves is that bulky underhead and 3/8 stem that is heavy , and in the way. A 2.02 valve, with the right throat cut and valve job, gives much more low lift air flow.
With a .030 over 340, 284 cam, 9.5 compression , dual plane w/750 carb and 2.02 x heads that were basically stock flow in the 220cfm @.450 range ...392 hp

 

[nm9stheham]

I was 'told' by my engine builder a while back that "a street car will never see the benefits of the 2.02 over the 1.88, but will definitely see the torque benefit of the 1.88 over the 2.02".
Of course, he could be full of it, too...
What do you head guys say?

I don't think I am a head guy... but that never stopped me LOL.

FWIW....If you are granny-driving to the grocery store.... no real help with 2.02". If you are romping and want to wind it out, yes. My thought (based on a few personal build experiences where port & valve size were increased in this range of valve sizes) is that the cam is going to control most of the action anyway. For the % of change you are talking about, there is only the upside of the better top end, and you will manage the low end of the torque range through CR and cam selection. My son's 340 sure as heck does not suffer from inadequate low end torque with Edelbrock Performers.... as above, the CR is up at 10:1, and the cam was chosen in part to maintain the low end torque for street use.

 

[B3RE]

Man, I wish YOU were building my engine.

Thanks!
I have an almost identical 340 build in the shop right now. I think there's room for another one.

It's all about the combination.

 

[Captainkirk]

Thanks!
I have an almost identical 340 build in the shop right now. I think there's room for another one.

It's all about the combination.

I would seriously consider it if not for the logistics (I'm near Chicago). I really appreciate your experience and advice.

 

[B3RE]

I would seriously consider it if not for the logistics (I'm near Chicago). I really appreciate your experience and advice.

It's only a 16 hour or so drive lol. Your welcome.