Motorweek BOSS 302 test review - Page 2 - Ford Mustang Forum
Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools
Grimace427's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by FordMcStang View Post
Is it just me, or the Boss not any faster than the regular GT?
It is just you

Originally Posted by Yadkin View Post
You may be thinking of the 351W which has a 1/2" higher deck height. The same article alludes to 427 cubes, but I doubt that's possible. 390 is certainty within the realm though.
You may be right on the confusion between the 302 and 351. The max recommended displacement for either early or late production 302 is 347ci. Billet steel blocks have gone as high as 364ci with 4.125" bores.

The 351w can safely go to 427ci with most aftermarket blocks, utilizing a 4.125" bore and 4" stroke. Using a stock block bored to 4.030" and 4" stroke you would get 408ci.

Sponsored Links
J Orbit
J Orbit's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Wow, massive respect for Motorweek for even getting back to you much less re-examining their suspect test results. Kudos to them!

SHELBY GT 350 Member
Yadkin's Avatar
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Yadkin Valley
Posts: 6,195
Originally Posted by Ltngdrvr View Post
Don't know where your numbers or math or something got screwed up but the new 5.0 is the larger motor.

Old time 302 was 4947 cc's and the new one is 4951 cc's.
Indeed you are correct; it is a rounding error.

I used the SAE units given from these sites, for the old motor here, and the new one, here. Since the old motor was designed and built with SAE measurements these figures should be used. The new engine, however, is designed and built with metric measurements (I assume), so I should have used those numbers then converted units before rounding. Additionally, the Wiki source has a rounding mistake that I did not catch earlier.

2005 4.0 MT dual exhaust GT mufflers GT suspension and wheels
Yadkin is offline  
DUFUS's Avatar
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: Top Part
Posts: 124
We have checked on the numbers from our test session and what others got for the same car and we must conclude our test computer malfunctioned. The time looks right but speed is high. My guess it is closer to 114-116 mpg. No way of knowing exactly. Thanks for catching this and we'll make corrections but unfortunately we cannot pull the show back.
Very best regards,
John Davis

Damn.. what mileage!
DUFUS is offline  
PONY Member
blkandgud's Avatar
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Woodbridge
Posts: 813
I noticed that too lol. Mpg. I love motorweek. It feels like it's still from 1989 but it's still great somehow.

2012 Mustang GT Premium
BLACK on BLACK 401A. A6, HIDs, Security, Rear Camera+Reverse Sensing, Remote Start, Comfort.
-Roush Axle-backs
(Planning on CAI/Tune then I'll be good)
blkandgud is offline  
Sponsored Links
Closed Thread

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1