MBHD - why did you decide to go with the 2.02 vs the 1.94"? That's a huge valve! Is it because you already planned on taking out so much from the combustion chamber that it wasn't a big deal to deshroud it? Also let me know the CC of your heads when you get around to measuring them
This head was done about 25 years ago, I knew we were going to open up the chambers quit a bit so figured it might be OK to try some 2.02" valves. Plus I figured I was going to use the Paxton supercharger to force the air fuel mixture into the combustion chambers.
This is the cyl head I installed my hand made upper lumps & the same head that propelled my Camaro to run low to mid 12 second 1/4 mile passes, the fastest my Camaro ever ran.
There really should not be any advantage running these 202's because you cannot really open up below the valve seats, did not want to risk hitting water, it does not have enough material below the seats, therefore no more airflow. My cyl head was made for the street, not ever a race car, had to be reliable & risk hitting a water jacket was not in the plans.
I will get this head flow tested & cc'd (just thinking to myself) it might get a little more airflow @ lower lifts than a 1.94" but I am not counting on that it will.
We shall see how good or bad it flows w/the 2.02's. Stay tuned, but it will take time, my friends are busy porting heads & flow testing heads, so I need to squeak in between there jobs.
I have not run any super high lift cams, but I believe if you have the cam open the valves past the actual height of the combustion chamber it can flow more air because the chamber is not shrouding the valves, but the bores are still small, so that does not help either.
