You're right about the valve-train setup. I read the article how SAM did a 414 buildup a few years ago using the same heads you mention. The combo worked out great.

But here's where I differ: Where SAM opened up the Intake Ports from 176 cc to 190cc, I look to have at least 200cc for my 422. The factory and the Eddy replacement street heads all share the same (cursed) pushrod-pinch that hinders CSA. I don't want that even if it can be sleeved with brass tubes. If I'm going to spend money on NEW aluminum castings, they're going to be better than what the factory offered.

I'm also looking at the Eddy Victor and Brodix B1BA Heads as a comparison.

Thanks for the nice pic too.

my stock eddy's were 176cc of intake port volume

my cnc heads from Modern were 202 cc's

The data looks very impressive. They use a Brodix head for their 220 Chevy version. Is it the same in a Chrysler application ?

AIRWOLF 220 Small Block Mopar
The new AIRWOLF 220 Small Block Mopar is one of the best performing out of the box non offset rocker cylinder head available today. The AIRWOLF 220 is a direct bolt on and takes all standard LA hardware.



AIRWOLF 220 small block mopar Technical Details


Material: A356 Aluminum
Valve Angle: STD LA mopar
Bore Spacing: Standard
Valve Spacing: STD
Intake Port Volume: 220cc
Combustion Chamber: 64-68cc
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.600 11/32 dia
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.08 11/32 dai
Spark Plugs: Angled .750 Reach, Gasketed
Valve Guides: Bronze Alloy
Spring Pocket: 1.625 OD Maximum
Valve Seats: Ductile Steel
Intake Gaskets: FELPRO 1213


AIRWOLF 220 SBM
2.08 intake 1.60 exhaust 45 ° seats
2.48 CSA @ pinch

Intake Flow numbers @ 28” test @ Reher Morrison
.100 72 cfm
.200 144 cfm
.300 219 cfm
.400 273 cfm
.500 301 cfm
.600 312 cfm
.700 316 cfm
.800 319 cfm
.900 321 cfm
1.00 326 cfm

For the 520-550HP range you DO NOT need anything exotic.

2.10 intake valve... waste of time! Throw that max hp theory out the window, you aren't playing on that field with your HP goal.

A 2.02-2.05-2.08 will feed it fine. Make sure the port is capable.

Don't get caught up in a "theory" build, it will likely be a mess and cost you more money than it should.

Talk to the guy that built the car craft 620hp stroker, IMM. He can sift through the static to get you something that will run well.

Thanks for your opinion and testimony. How's your stroker motor working for you ?

BTW, all this tech talk boils down to one thing in my book:

Other people may be happy with their engine combos but if a engine builder tells me that using a 2.100" Intake valve for my 422 will be better, I'll use his idea. What I never want to see is the tail-end of a Chevy or Ford after I cross 1,320 ft. 520-550 HP was just an estimate, not a goal.

And even if my Mopar loses, the other guy's motor better be on the verge of explosion. Yes, I agree with straight ports, radiusing corners and valve guides,a bowl blend and a good 3 angle valve job too.

a lot of the guys on this forum ARE engine builders, professional engine builders who do "max effort, budget is no concern" builds...so don't be so quick to dismiss them and take the word of your local guy as gospel.


who IS your local guy anyway? what are his credentials?



No offense, but you seem to contradict yourself... you say that this is an all out, money is no concern, max hp build...then state that you're only after a mild 500-550 hp.

Box stock edelbrock heads are nearly good enough to get you there for $1500. spend another $500 on porting, and you've got a set of heads that will EASILY make 600 hp., why spend all the time and money worrying about maximum size valves on exotic heads when your hp goals aren't all that high?


are you using an R3 type block? or a stock production block?

Whhooowww ......... Hold -on to your hat, Cowboy. You don't have to get emotional here. The election is over and Obamanation will unfortunately continue for now.

Politics and emotions aside, I did not say that this is an "all out" motor. If I did, I wouldn't even bother with a production block. K?

Since you ask who my "engine man" is, I have none. But if you ask who I listen to, they are:

1. Judd Massinghill
2. Steve Vance
3. Chris Bennett
4. Shawn Hooper
5. Chris Myers
6. John Witt

Their credentials? Winners of the 2012 Engine Masters Challenge

I started this thread because my build-up stage is still a ways away from the purchase of a set of heads and I'm using the internet to research, fact-find and consult with experienced owners on the best combination of parts and techniques to assemble my project. Nowhere have I berated or demeaned anyone's intelligence or have said that anyone is wrong. If you feel offended, I'm not to blame. I habitually thank people for their input and research claims as throughly as I can. What's wrong with the Eddy's you ask ? I don't know but they don't seem to advocate an Intake valve larger than 2.020". Not saying that it's a bad head, no. Just stating that the stroker motors can handle more according to some experts, namely: Reher Morrison for one.


Relax bud.

Look at DJV's build 2.055 valve and 620hp, Brian 2.08/620hp, Bryce 2.08/630hp.

Still think you need a 2.10 valve?

All have a little different twist to them, but get good power. Would a 2.10 valve be better, I personally doubt it for the level they were going after. Sometimes bigger is not always better as issues arise up stream from the valve that can't effectively be overcome.

Eddy's can take a 2.02-2.08 valve. Most of the aftermarket alum replacement style heads start with a 2.02. It's an OEM factory sizing.

Just food for thought.

It's ultimately up to you and how you spend your money. Like I say, NOBODY will spend your money faster than OTHER people!

My suggestion, pick an HP goal and build to the goal. Max theory sizing is not always necessary and not worth time, money, effort when an easier, less expensive solution is available and proven to work for your goal.

Pick your parts, pay your money.

Points well made and worth investigating. I did read the Carcraft 620 HP article. Those were Eddy heads but I was adressing another post who was advocating the use of "Airwolf 220" heads who promote that they perform very well.

My research affirms your basic claim to the effectiveness of Edelbrock Performers and there's no argument there. I just want to hear from a variety of owners who used different brands. A fair asessment is only logical and is always good for research and recording data.

Thank you

I am relaxed

I wasn't all emotional in my post. All I was saying was that it sounded like you were being quick to dismiss "a bunch of random forum guys" over your engine builder, and I was simply pointing out that the folks on Mopars are not exactly "a bunch of random forum guys who read an article in car craft"

I'm also pointing out that your logic isn't making sense. you talk about a maximum sized valve based on some equation in relation to bore size, going for maximum air flow, in what sounds like an all out max power build, but then you turn around and say you're only shooting for a mild 500-550 hp for a street engine.

As it's been said, it's your money. you can spend it however you want.

If I was building a 340 based stroker, and I wanted a goal of 550 hp...My wallet is also going to have a say in that. I would use a production block, just as you, because it can easily handle the goal of 550. a full on race block is a waste of money for those power goals...but if you got money to blow, why not go with one, right? My head choice, would be mildly ported edelbrock heads or fully ported iron heads like the 2.02 R/T Magnum heads, either option would set me back about $2,000 Or, I could go with some crazy exotic fully CNC'd custom head because again, that would easily deliver 550 hp.

see what I'm trying to say? your desire for a 2.100 valve is simply overkill and wasted money for the power level you want. there's a difference between "all out, money is no option, maximum performance" and "being smart with your money and spending only what you need to"


At the end of the day, it's your money. Not mine. you can do as you wish! it's a free country!

I read your postings and understood you. Maybe you didn't understand me when I mentioned that I was "researching". I get the impression that you are quick to defend your point of view judging by the defensive tone. This is a discussion, whether we are on-line or speaking person to person. Your intention to give me your opinion comes across like you are telling me what to do based on your words "if it were me", "you contradict yourself" etc. Your tone is more commanding than it is inquisitive, thoughtfull and even respectfull which doesn't encourage me to engage you in discusion.

I am a learner, and in the industry of motorsports competition, one only knows the limits through past triumphs and failures. The guy that wants to know more will eventually find his answer through honesty and a sense of bravery to journey into the unknown, and at the same time, remembering what has worked and what has failed.

I desire not to confine my thinking to what is "acceptable" in most peoples' minds because I know that what is already proven is documented by winners who have already failed thrrough trial and error and have learned from their mistakes and gone on to win. It's this way of thinking that advances ideas to create new limits and henceforth, pushes the "status quo" of the current generation to rethink what is beyond.

I don't know if my thoughts relate to your understanding, and that's fine if you disagree with my point of view. But don't accuse me of being misunderstandale or contradictive when I have initially laid out my interests to be known.

If you don't want to read my earlier posts and continue not understanding the nature of my question, then that's a stumbling block that you bring upon yourself. Don't expect me to engage in discussion with you in the future if you plan to approach me in the same condescending manner which you have already done, because I will not respond to you not out of spite but because of a lack of respect you bring to the discussion. And no legth of time of "knowledge" can change the fact that what keeps people together is mutual respect which you seem not to portray.

Please don't respond to me if you feel you have to have the "last word" to prove yourself. I have no interest to waste my thoughts and time in an argument when I can be learning something. If you do come back and engage in jeer, then your reputation will be solidified with me and the rest of the members here who value rational discussion. You will only be hurting yourself.

you've completely misunderstood me in one of my posts, and now seem to have a preconceived notion on my attitude or tone. I'm not being condescending, argumentative, or commanding.



Have a nice day!

I do much the same as you have research,research and then some more.
What I have noticed about your build is the TRUCK or VAN part.
You have focused entirely on HP numbers and theories,not TORQUE. You are looking for 100000 mile engine, so a high revving HP engine is somewhat out of the picture. Im not saying high rpm HP engines dont or cant last a 100000 miles but a 600hp 7000+ RPM engine is likely not going to last 100k with out computer controls of fuel, timing and torque managment for that matter. However if you built an engine for 500 ft# TQ down low 3500 rpm 500 plus HP 5800 to 6200 RPM you could get better odds at lasting 100k miles. I also belive you would be happier with this build rather than a HP build. Torque rules the steet especially when in a heavy,aero dissadvantaged van or truck.
Properly sized ports have velocity and great flow that are not restricted by a 2.02 2.05 valve yet they build power in the usable RPM range.
The ENGINE MASTERS competition is NOT won by the highest HP number it is won by the highest average of both HP and TQ numbers. FOCUS on HP and not TQ and you will see the ass of every modern 6000 to 7000 pound deisel rig that pulls next to you let alone semi hot Imports.
This is my opinion and my experience TORQUE RULES in a daily driver. A 100k miles motor indicates a daily driven vehichle.
Now if this is a shell of a truck or van 2500# super deep gears this is some what null and void.
Good luck on your build. THINK TORQUE

Stroker small blocks should be running ARP main studs and lined honed.

Ported Edelbrocks would easily get the job done. There are also IndyBrocks with the offset push rod holes so no push rod pinch. All you have to do is contact Brian at IMM (OU812) of Shady Dell Speed and they will hook you right up.

I followed the link to the Dr. J website. The SBC 220 uses the Brodix head as foundation. The SBM 220 doesn't indicate the same. Who casts the SBM 220 ?

I hear what you're saying and it's pretty relative. When I said I planned to use this 422 in a van/truck, it will either be a (SWB Tradesman or SWB D100, both being early 1970's models). The van weighs in at 3,500 lbs. and the truck maybe around 200 lbs. less. Weight aside, the comparison is about equal to an A or E Body.

When you speak of Torque, I understand what you're saying. Torque is our friend especially in street driven vehicles. Proportionately, as TQ goes up, so does HP. When I mentioned that I envisioned the engine lasting 120k-150k miles, it was just a prediction based on the hone-job and the driving style I have. The block is already bored to it's limit, so I know there will not be another rebuild when it expires. If the heads move air and the short block can handle the load, the choice of cam plays a major role in both HP and TQ depending on the type of grind.

Thanks to another poster here, I discovered that it is possible to use a roller cam in Pre-Magnum A engines. The roller will be miles ahead of the flat-tappet in performance. Ramp speed, duration, lift, and overlap will all improve making cam selection less prohibitive especially when deciding on a cam that covers a wide range of characteristics that are good both for low and top end,idle and even fuel consumption. But I ramble. I'm looking for images with 2.08/1.60
combo to see how close the valves are.


Thanks for your input.

Thank you

Thanks on the referral. I emailed Shady/Dell 2 weeks ago on a similar matter and still I wait for their response.

I can try again.