Look what this stupid ass did to a Boss 302...

Discussion in 'Classic Mustang Specific Tech' started by 88 Fox GT, Dec 1, 2003.

  1. No Boss, any year, any displacement, ever was available with an automatic. There are scores and scores of people who choose to call their cars a "Boss", or mistakently think their car is a "Boss", that have automatic transmissions, that may trick you into thinking that Bosses were available with an auto. But it never happened. They were all 4-speeds.
  2. Really ugly .. :notnice:

  3. :lol: Hey now Ed,,, even equating the minor reversible mods Im doing to what this choad did isnt fair. Im hurt. Deeply. :rlaugh:
    That has got to be the single most ugly Mustang Ive ever seen. It could be restored factory though, I suppose. It would take a lot of work, but its not "lost". Problem lies in if he trashed the 302 or not.
  4. Well it never dawned on me that all bosses were 4 speeds, but I have to differ in your statement that the Boss "9" had enough bottom end grunt to pull a train. While I've never driven one,everything I've read about them said they were relatively dogs in stock trim, and had hardly enough grunt to pull even a shrt train.
  5. Hey 302 coupe, thats what i though at first too, then it looks as its not a clutch pedal but the brake release lever???????? WHICH ONE IS IT LOL
  6. I own a '69 Boss 429, and it's a gorilla of low torque. You can leave a traffic light in 2nd gear in that car without even touching the gas pedal. There's alot of misunderstanding regarding the Boss 429's being "dogs" in stock trim. The word "relative" you used is the KEY word. When the Boss 429 was introduced, it was a highly exotic mill for the time. There were alot of VERY HIGH expectations for it, Ford fans were looking for a Mopar-hemi-killer, a ZL-1 type performer. Well, when the cars hit the showrooms Ford had for whatever reasons detuned it considerably (the power potential of a Boss 429 is huge, it's still the mill-of-choice for Ford-powered Super Comp dragsters). But even in its detuned stock state, it would nose out a stock 428CJ in the 1/4 mile. It's not a matter that the Boss 429 wasn't fast, it just wasn't nearly as fast as it COULD have been with a bigger carb, more aggressive cam, and better flowing manifolds. A Boss that has those mods is one mother of a screamer. But stock, it was a mid-to-high 13 second quarter miler on polyglass tires (which isn't a "dog" whatsoever), and I can tell you from 1st-hand seat time that the low-end torque is ungodly. I'm running a 780 Holley (still conservative, but it's good for the street), and I had headers on it. Scary fast, light years faster than any 428 I've ever driven. I put the manifolds back on her two months ago, and it's not as wicked on the top end of the tach, but the torque down low is even more monumental, and the car's alot more driveable (i.e. it no longer rattles my fillings, sets-off every car alarm in a 1-mile radius, and I can drive over speed bumps without crunching the headers now!).
  7. Drove a modified Boss 429 , 69 Red, 4 speed)

    The 67 Shelby Gt500 ( 428 2x4s ,had engine mods too ) was much faster , line and trap .

    Maybe because it was lighter? :shrug: Dunno. But it was a LOT faster.
  8. Your experience was simply one car vs another, the Boss 429 is a far superior engine design then any FE ever made. For that matter, the 429/460 is a much better design. My limited experience with FE's are that they are hampered by head design and oiling system woes. Both can be fixed, but why? There are much better big block Fords out there.
  9. Yeah....Like 67coupestang say's And how about that "MACK 1 Scoop in da HOOD...LOL
  10. Indeed it can. Without the Boss drivetrain, it's worth nowhere near what the seller is asking. Five grand sounds about right, though I might go as high as six or seven... the pleasure of ripping all those hideous bits and pieces off of the car has got to be worth *something*. :D

    I've seen a few Boss cars lost to terminal rust over the years, that is truly a sad sight to behold; far worse than even this abomination.

    So... if you were the "lucky winner", what would be the first modification that you'd undo? I'd have to begin with the roof, and just work my way down.
  11. Even without the original Boss drivetrain, this car may still be a real Boss. And this is just sick, twisted and wrong to do! :puke:
  12. Yeah , I agree Zoo. I guess it all kinda depends how much money someone dumps in something. Ive seen 351s that would do unbelievable runs, heck, turbo 6s too. Speed is a matter of money. :shrug:
  13. Let's see here, you have a 13 second car that will take off in 2nd gear and has all the potential to be much more? I would like to introduce your Boss to my 89 Ranger and its 400 horse 302 that will also take off in 2nd and probably weighs a little more than your Boss ( 3800lbs w/driver and also runs mid to high 13's. And it didn't cost me an arm and a left hand certain part of my anatomy to build. As for The Boss's being faster in the 1/4 than the 428CJ cars, I'll have to disagree on that. Hell I had a lowriser 427 in a 67 Stang that would run those #'s with a 2.50 rear gear ratio.And the motor was stock except for the H-M cam in it. It was even breathing through a set of 428CJ exhaust manifolds and lugging around 27 gallons of gas and 4 disc brakes adding their drag. And torque? with the torque it had you had to be damn careful when turning a corner and feather foot the gas pedal, to prevent the car from swapping ends on you from too much torque.
  14. You're going to ruin my new shoes with all the BS flowing through here. :D This guy owns a Boss 429, you've read about them. Now who do you think has more credibility in the discussion?
  15. Yeh I thought the only reason the 429s were publicly sold was to make them eligible for nascar. If ford already had the 428, why not just use that if it was superior?
  16. Flag on the play! :D

    I hate seeing big block people argue the relative merits of a 385 series engine vs the Fe series - I've run high 13's with a 390/carb/header car - but that doesn't mean the Boss 429 doesn't have the potential to run rings around it. The ports on that engine are big enough to put your FIST in, and the valves dwarf a 4v cleveland's. The heads are made to REV (imagine a 429 @ 7000 rpm!)

    That said... I'm just an Fe kinda guy - I like the engines characteristics and the easy time I have making it run...well.

    As for that poor Boss car.... I dont' think that was a recent conversion - at the time it was done it was probably like customizing a '99 cobra. Makes me think of a car wreck, happens all the time...but I really don't want to see it. :p
  17. Well this "boss" owner said it was superior in the 1/4 mile, last time I checked there were no 1/4 mile nascar tracks. As far as him owning a Boss 9, just because he can afford it don't make him an expert on them. And I still think that a Boss 9 only running 13's ain't nothing to brag about. With all the virtues he claims for it, I'd expect much more. The Boss 9 motor does have lots of potential but big ports and valves ain't all thats needed and were far too big for any street motor. Yes, the heads were made to rev, but even a stock 429 is capable of 7000 rpms with the right valve train. The Boss heads are better suited to 8 or 9,000 rpms.
  18. I have an identical 351 clone and I can't keep my ash tray shut when taking off from 1st or 2nd gear from a stop. that thing has mad power and is scary as hell to drive, but I love it. can't wait to get the built up clevleand in there.

  19. :shrug: And I've got a '79 Snapper lawnmower with a sidewinder missil strapped to it that does wheelies when you drop the clutch in 5th, AND, it does a jam-up job on my yard.... so the point in all of this is.....what?

    428CJ Mach's were high-13 to low-14 performers, stock vs. stock. That's not me guessing, that's fact. Whatever you had going on with your 427, and how you managed to get 27 gallons of fuel into a 16 gallon tank is just about as relevant as the price of tea in China at the time.

    Bottom line was I wasn't intending to start a peeing contest between my Boss and every car you've ever owned, I was just making the point that a Boss 429 has a ton of low-end grunt, and was never really a "dog", and that when properly uncorked (carb, cam and exhaust, like mine basically was before I slapped the manifolds back on her, and she still feels like she'd tickle the top end of twelves on the polyglasses, but who am I to bench race) they have incredible power potential as evidenced by the fact that David Pearson won the points championship in 1969 running a Boss 429 mill, and that most every Ford-powered dragster you'll find at an NHRA or IHRA event has the 385-series hemi as it's powerplant. I think I could buy a beat up Ranger around here for $300, gut it, drop in a crate motor, a built C4, a 9-inch, a mongo NO2 system, and some slicks, and run 10's for around 5 grand plus labor. I fail to see how that would diminish what my Boss is in any way, shape or form, or have anything to do with whether automatics weren't available in Bosses due to some lack-of-torque issue.
  20. 1969 Boss 429 .... 13.64/104.65 Super Stock Magazine, June 1969

    In the article they say the test car came from a dealership showroom. To make apples to apples comparisons, I'll list 428CJ test times from the same magazine, which would mean same test equipment, track, and likely the same drivers:

    1969 Mach 1 .... 13.94/103 Super Stock Magazine, Feb. 1969
    1969 GT500 .... 14.07/103.56 Super Stock Magazine, Sept. 1969
    1970 Mach 1 .... 14.11/101.12 Super Stock Magazine, Nov. 1969

    So, I repeat. The Boss 429 was quicker right out of the box, AND, there was alot more potential on-tap when you started turning wrenches. If mid-to-high 13's don't wind your watch, well, then the whole muscle car era must not excite you much, because off the showroom floor, that's about as fast as ANYTHING the big 3 made ran, with only a couple notable exceptions (LS6, ZL1, and I think Hemi Cudas that weren't all saddled down with options were turning lower 13's)