2006 Boss 302 Mustang?

[RICKS]

the Boss 302 was more like 350HP stock, insurance comp is why it was rated at 290.

The Boss 351 was really 440HP+, but once again insurance comps forced Ford to rate it low at 330HP. If one ever looks at the spec's on the 71 Boss 351, theres no way that motor only made 330HP.

Boss 429 another way underated motor,
67 427 WAY under rated
427 Cammer w/ 6' timing chain

and the list goes on.....
Scott

Huh......Wha.......Dude, what mythological musclecar era did you beam-up from??? First off, let's all remember that before 72-73, the big 3 measured horsepower TOTALLY differently than it is today, gross BHP vs. SAE net. Makes a HUGE difference, namely exhaust manifolds, full systems, accessories, airbox & filter, etc.etc..., identically as the engine sits in the car. There's no hard & fast rule or percentage of how the measurements will differ, but for example (I'll use a GM example, because in 1971 GM was publishing BOTH measurements for each motor offered), the 400 c.i. Pontiac 4-V was 300 h.p. gross, 250 net. This fact is so worn out, It's getting tiresome explaining it. So the Boss 302 in todays measurement would be somewhere (ballparking here) in the 240 h.p. range. Which is NOT underrated, because Boss 302's in TOP TUNE are not any faster than mid-to-high 14-second 1/4 milers, and I'm being generous (most of the mags back in the day couldn't crack the 15-second barrier, and don't come back with the "crappy tire" argument, a Boss 302 doesn't have enough flippin torque to spin a polyglass anyways). Anybody who's ever driven an original Boss 302 (which I have), knows that it's got good top end power, but no matter how you drive it, a new bone-stock '04 GT would spank it silly. 350 h.p.? Total B.S., not true. The Boss 351 WAS INDEED underrated at 330 h.p., but 440+ HP????? I don't care if you're talking gross or net, you're off your rocker. I owned a Boss 351. Stock and proper tune, it can bite into the 13's. One did a low 13 in an old mag back in '71, but that's still back in the days when ringers and magazines pulling aircleaners and bolting on slicks was commonplace. I'd say that a Boss 351 was an honest 360 h.p. gross, 300 h.p. net, which would place it mathmatically right where I said it would run in the 1/4. That's it. A new '04 Mach would run fender to fender with it, probably nipping it through the traps. Boss 429? That's my baby, sitting in the garage at home. 375 gross h.p. was just about spot-on back in '69, because they were undercarbureted, with a lame cam and restrictive exhaust. Swap the cam and the carb, bolt up headers, and you've got a 450+ h.p. monster, but stock, nope, just 375 gross, as-advertised. There's so much myth and legend about the "muscle car era" but the fact of the matter is that most of the legendary muscle cars didn't run any better than high 14's stock. But back then they were so easy to modify, that everybody did, hence the legend and myth as there were so many scary fast modded cars out on the street. Honestly, you could drive one of them new 6-banger Altimas that run high 14's to a Muscle Car show, and likely run 80% of cars there for pink-slips and come out on top

 

[MrMorden]

How about this for the Boss: The 2005 body with the 03 cobra motor. You'd get the solid axle and a super tunable motor with forged internals, and since all the parts (except stripes) are out of the bins, it wouldn't cost too much!

 

[Omegalock]

How about this for the Boss: The 2005 body with the 03 cobra motor. You'd get the solid axle and a super tunable motor with forged internals, and since all the parts (except stripes) are out of the bins, it wouldn't cost too much!

As appealing that is to me that is not a boss. The Boss was as much of a handler as it was a straight line excellerator.

 

[SVTdriver]

Was I misinformed or wasn't the original Boss 302/351/429 a straight axle?

 

[RICKS]

Was I misinformed or wasn't the original Boss 302/351/429 a straight axle?

Yeah, so what? The original Boss was also a pushrod motor, with a carb, and a 4-speed, combined with gearing that had you redlined at only 125 mph, and roll-up windows, and stereo with a single squak-box speaker in the dash. Are you suggesting we toss in all that dinosaur stuff as well? The original Boss was built for road courses, and Ford hadn't even DREAMED of doing IRS in a Mustang back then. What it was, was the trickest all-around handling and Trans-Am complient package they could cobble together at the time. What the new Boss should be is the absolute trickest handler Ford can build with TODAY'S hardware, not some Fred Flinstone throwback that gets roasted in the corners by Bimmers, but old fogey's get weepy and nostalgic looking at 'cause it's got stripes and 302 cubic inches. Today, it's a different story, we already know that IRS is coming on the new Cobra. It's on the shelf (so-to-speak, it "will" be on the shelf), so in the interest of building the new Boss car as a no-compromise handler that represents the trickest package Ford can cobble together TODAY, it should be IRS. If you've got it, use it. Too much nostalgia is like listening to "Mustang Sally" too many times. Gets to a point that it just sucks, and you want to go postal on somebody!!

 

[SVTdriver]

Where in that post did I say we should go with nostalgia? Merely people here complaining about the live axle not being a great handler. But then also stating how great the handling was in the boss cars. I'm sorry you get blown away in corners by bimmers. I haven't had that problem. Though it's also me that usually gets to the corner first. So they have to go at whatever speed I'm at. And Ford did think about IRS. I believe they even built a few test cars with IRS back in 64-65. I have even seen the design. People are recreating it for the classic stangs. So your statement on Ford not even dreaming of IRS is wrong. But thank you for playing.

http://www.suspension.com/Must-IRS.htm

I'm not against IRS at all. I even considered converting mine to IRS (Until I saw the 05). I am simply against people making assumptions about a car noone here has driven yet. Noone not a single person here can say how well the new car handles. You can make assumptions and quesses but that is it. Do we even have another car out there with a three link like the 05 to make a slightly accurate guess?

 

[Omegalock]

Where in that post did I say we should go with nostalgia? Merely people here complaining about the live axle not being a great handler. But then also stating how great the handling was in the boss cars. I'm sorry you get blown away in corners by bimmers. I haven't had that problem. Though it's also me that usually gets to the corner first. So they have to go at whatever speed I'm at. And Ford did think about IRS. I believe they even built a few test cars with IRS back in 64-65. I have even seen the design. People are recreating it for the classic stangs. So your statement on Ford not even dreaming of IRS is wrong. But thank you for playing.

http://www.suspension.com/Must-IRS.htm

I'm not against IRS at all. I even considered converting mine to IRS (Until I saw the 05). I am simply against people making assumptions about a car noone here has driven yet. Noone not a single person here can say how well the new car handles. You can make assumptions and quesses but that is it. Do we even have another car out there with a three link like the 05 to make a slightly accurate guess?

Answer two simple questions.
Was the Boss intended to be a handler more than anything else. Would a Boss handle better with or without an IRS?

 

[351CJ]

But even the Boss 351 has a V-10, its cool and all, but still--its not a true 351.
Casey

Say what?

A V-10 made from a 4.6L mod motor using all the same hardware, same bore, stroke, deck height, pistons, rods etc. has a displacement of 351.1 CID. How is that not a true 351?

 

[SVTdriver]

Answer two simple questions.
Was the Boss intended to be a handler more than anything else. Would a Boss handle better with or without an IRS?

Maybe you missed the part where I stated. No one here has driven it. No magazines have tested it either so far. So how do you know IRS will handle better. I'm not saying it won't. But you have no factual data right now.

 

[CSI_Stang]

Okay, okay, me at only 22 years old is the one arguing that cars have souls and what not. I'm sorry, I guess I'm not preaching to the choir on this one. I should take my thoughts and go back to my corner.

The basis for my arguement is that despite the attempts that have been made to keep American cars to their heritage (which I will be the first to argue that Ford has done the best out of the BIG 3, hmmm? Big 3?), too much is being slid under the door as heritage inspired and not been. Look at the Impala and the Monte Carlo--front wheel drive V6's with no V8 option--you can't have an SS in that trim. Dodge has their so called "Hemi," but true Mopar fans say "that isn't a Hemi." Why? Its got a hemishperical combustion chamber, therefore its a hemi, right? I'm just saying that certain heritage aspects are being thrown around the garage without paying homage to those that have come before. Bore size, combustion chamber shape, and cubic inches do not make a car a Hemi, a Boss or a Shelby.

The only times Ford has dropped the ball on the Mustang in my opinion was the year a V8 wasn't available, taking so long for a full redesign and the Mustang II (I know, I know). Oh, and lets not forget the whole Probe incident. But we as Mustang owners should pride ourselves in not settling for a heritage inspired ride that forgot some of its heritage. The modular engine is here to stay and I need to get used to it, but as being a Proud American I don't have to be happy or quiet about it. I read one comment from either a major magazine or website that said, not until this new Three valve engine has there been an engine that could honestly be called a 5.0L replacement.

To big blocks, the Ford GT40 (even Ford wouldn't pay the money to bring back the true moniker), and Mustangs that ran fast with their push rodded, iron blocked, low technology. (So, if tech is best, why does NASCAR still run a Carb?)

I now return to my corner.

 

[SVTdriver]

The reason I heard Ford didn't want to pay to get the name back. Is the guy who owns it wanted $40 million for it. They could never make that money back on thecar. They may not even make enough to total that number without any other costs being considered.

 

[351CJ]

(So, if tech is best, why does NASCAR still run a Carb?)

I now return to my corner.

Because NASCAR is all about show biz and has nothing to do with technology.

 

[SVTdriver]

besides would youreally want NASCAR headlights?

 

[CSI_Stang]

Because NASCAR is all about show biz and has nothing to do with technology.

Okay, so I take it there are few NASCAR fans in here.

 

[CobraGT87]

Huh......Wha.......Dude, what mythological musclecar era did you beam-up from???

LOL. I've owned several 70 B302's & 71 B351's, 351CJ's, Aussie 351's. I never said NET did I.

WOW, chill bud....your sayin the B351 was about 360 gross eh? and 300 NET, and that 300 NET is going to push a 3700+ lb car how fast in the 1/4?, try lower 14's They ran mid 13's which is closer to 350RW

The 69 B302 was also considered the worst design motor EVER, why?. in 69 they had a 2.23 INT. in 70 it was down sized to 2.19 That huge head on a SB was a dog indeed down low. hence the 351 in 70 to take advantage of those heads

the oiling system in the B351, all 351C's/400's SUCKS. Ever heard of the term (the Bleeder?) yup. that refers to those motors.
But I don't know a thing about em. dam. I guess owning a dozen or so 351's, CJ's, Boss's etc left me with no personal info on them. ROFL

Comparing old tech to new tech? why? apples & oranges?
Later......................

 

[Mach460]

Say what?

A V-10 made from a 4.6L mod motor using all the same hardware, same bore, stroke, deck height, pistons, rods etc. has a displacement of 351.1 CID. How is that not a true 351?

Juts like the 427 concept isn't really a 427, because it has a 7.0L V-10.

Geez Louis...fer chrissakes people, it's not 1970 anymore ok.

The Boss 302 was a great car...it's main purpose in life was to handle...to compete and win in the Trans-Am series. Which it did, that's where the Boss 302's aura really comes from.

First of all , the race Boss 302 made approximately 450 to 500 hp, and that was with twin Holley Dominators, straight pipes, totally blueprinted and built, and whatever else Holman Moody could think of (some of which we'll never know)....somehow I have a hard time believing that a street Boss with exhaust manifolds, a single Holley 750cfm, pollution controls, and a rev limiter made more than 250-260 net...from the factory.

In a time of CAFE standards, insane insurance rates (at least here in MA), ever more stringent EPA regs,and California, the fact that Ford is producing cars capable of producing 300 hp V-8's that meet EPA standards, get 20 to 25 mpg. I'm constantly amazed at the fact that my GT qualifies as a ULEV (Ultra Low Emmsions Vehicle). If these engines can provide performance that surpasses the "legends" in every way, seems like they have a soul onto themselves.

Now..as far as the "soul" of any future Boss 302.....for it to be a true connection..Ford needs a full fledged factory program....the Speed World Challenge or ALMS GT would be perfect. It will definiitely need IRS to be competitive in a racing environment. If not for racing, at the very least it needs it to be the road carving Mustang above the GT...and the GT's live axle won't cut it in a Boss 302.

 

[Omegalock]

Maybe you missed the part where I stated. No one here has driven it. No magazines have tested it either so far. So how do you know IRS will handle better. I'm not saying it won't. But you have no factual data right now.

Simple leap of logic. If you have both wheels spinning at the same time no matter HOW well set up the thing is it won't be as efficient in the handling department as an IRS setup. They simply do not work that way. Now...can the solid axle be setup so it is comparable to an IRS and give you a good sense of the handling? Yes. But it will NOT be better simple as that. So hence giving the legacy of the Boss as a handler it would be remiss for Ford to skimp out and not put the axle in the car that would provide the best handling. Simple as that no other arguement has the legs.

 

[SVTdriver]

Simple leap of logic. If you have both wheels spinning at the same time no matter HOW well set up the thing is it won't be as efficient in the handling department as an IRS setup. They simply do not work that way. Now...can the solid axle be setup so it is comparable to an IRS and give you a good sense of the handling? Yes. But it will NOT be better simple as that. So hence giving the legacy of the Boss as a handler it would be remiss for Ford to skimp out and not put the axle in the car that would provide the best handling. Simple as that no other arguement has the legs.

I'm still going to have to play devil's advocate and say. So IRS allows you to stop a single wheel? That doesn't sound right. Again if you are talking legacy they did it with a straight axle. It goes back to RICKS whole thing about bringing back nostalgia. Like a pushrod motor and carbs. You just stated it can be made comparable. So why add the extra weight. Lastly how is "simple leap of logic" a fact?

 

[63_Fairlane]

I think a modern Boss type Mustang would come with IRS. The original boss had a more track oriented suspension than any other 1960'5 era Mustang. If it is the same type of car as the original you should be able to strip it down, add basic safety equipment, and go race in one of the SCCA series or even the GT class of Le Mans.

Getting cars to race teams cheaply and fulfilling holomogation requirements are what a Boss is really all about. While having a 302 in the name would be nice, I don't think it would be necessary, if the car fullfilled it role as a streetable race car.

 

[awalbert88]

The argument that there are live axle cars that handle as well as IRS cars and thusly the live axle is just as good is, to me, like saying that there are 4-bangers that can outrun V8's, ergo the V8 is a silly wasteful expense.