We ve come a LONG way baby !!

1003 Views 14 Replies 8 Participants Last post by Grabber2012, Jul 30, 2011

FNGFOG

Discussion Starter · Jul 28, 2011

This 1970 boss 302 mustang stats weres on the msn today as 1 of the top 10 muscle cars of all time..check it against V6 mustang..It also got about 11 mpg...FNGFOG:bigthumbsup:bigthumbsup

The Boss 302 was a serious muscle car featuring the high-rev Boss 302 V8 engine, which was underrated at 290 horsepower to match its Camaro archrival. Made for Trans-Am racing excitement, the Boss 302 was good for a zero-to-60-mph sprint in well under seven seconds, and it regularly clocked a sub-15-second quarter-mile. As one poll reader described its high-rev eagerness, "Once the car hooks up and the revs climb above 3500, you better hang on for dear life."

See less See more

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

Grabber2012

· #2 · Jul 28, 2011

Believe I've trumpeted how our stock V6s are faster then the 1969-70 Boss 302s here before. Not fair to bring up braking or cornering, of course. The sensual nature of the solid lifter factory cars (Z28s, Boss 302s, and the '70, not '69 Boss 429) will never be duplicated again, though, nor the manual choke under the dashes of the Boss Mustangs.....

I frequently am struck by parallels between smaller, high-rev engines of '68-70, which had a really brief flowering with the 5 liter T/A homologation cars, and our remarkable 227 inch cars....much, including actual gearing with our steep 6-speeds, is comparable.

I would not put the Boss 302 up as one of the top all-make 10. The '71-only Boss 351 was heavier and ran circles around it as sold. Don't even get me started about sharp-running 428CJ anythings, or the unfairly crapped-on 390 S-Code cars.

See less See more

[email protected]

· #3 · Jul 28, 2011

Grabber2012 said:
Believe I've trumpeted how our stock V6s are faster then the 1969-70 Boss 302s here before. Not fair to bring up braking or cornering, of course.

Calm down, this was 40 years ago, you're comparing this to modern technology. Saying the modern V6 is better than the boss 302 is like saying things cost less back-in-the-day because you dont take inflation into account. The Boss 302 was the best muscle car of all time WHEN COMPARED TO PERFORMANCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF ITS TIME.

See less See more

Joenpb

· #4 · Jul 29, 2011

The Boss 302 was the best muscle car of all time WHEN COMPARED TO PERFORMANCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF ITS TIME.

No it wasn't, Chevy's 302 put out a lot more HP. The Boss 302 might have been the one of the most hyped......

The Z/28 option required power front disc brakes and a Muncie 4-speed manual transmission. It featured a 302 cu in (4.9 L) small-block V-8 engine, 3" crankshaft with 4" bore, an aluminum intake manifold, and a 4-barrel vacuum secondary Holley carburetor of 780 cfm. The engine was designed specifically to race in the Trans Am series (which required engines smaller than 305 cu in (5.0 L) and was available to the public. Advertised power of this engine was listed at 290 hp (216 kW). This is an under-rated figure. Chevrolet wanted to keep the horsepower rating at less than 1 hp per cubic inch, for various reasons (e.g. insurance and racing classes). The factory rating of 290 hp occurred at 5300 rpm, while actual peak for the high-revving 302 was closer to 360 hp (268 kW) (with the single four barrel carb) and 400 hp (298 kW) (with optional dual-four barrel carbs) at 6800-7000 rpm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Camaro_%28first_generation%29

See less See more

Grabber2012

· #5 · Jul 29, 2011

Read more slowly, Tim. I had my license then, and know how the pecking order went at the time.

Joenpb, alas, you know of what you speak. If I'd been shopping with $3700 in the pocket a '69 Z28 with no RS-type added weight and factory 4.10s would have been the ticket. If I'd had $5000, I'd have got a Boss 429 and swam upstream just to bust balls and be perverse. As it was, I was perverse enough - I ran a Mercury musclecar, which was analogous to hitting your thumb with a hammer to impress girls with how well you stood pain.

See less See more

FNGFOG

Discussion Starter · #6 · Jul 29, 2011

IMO to have grown up during the muscle car era only makes you truely marvel how far we ve come.. my 79 ws6 4 speed pontiac formula 400 usually got 12 mpg..my 70 VW beetle in suburban commute was usuallly 19 mpg...FNGFOG:bigthumbsup:bigthumbsup

Cant wait for my car..

regalt87

· #7 · Jul 29, 2011

Every time I see one I cry. I had 2 of them. One was a 430 geared locker car (very rare) and very fast. Another I am ashamed to admit that I also sold was a 70 Mach 1 428 SCJ. The Mach one was also a 430 Locker Drag pack car. I believe one of around 500 but I can't find the stats any where.

What I wouldn't give to have them back. Who knew what they would be worth back then.

See less See more

WhiteBird00

· #8 · Jul 29, 2011

Grabber2012 said:
I would not put the Boss 302 up as one of the top all-make 10. The '71-only Boss 351 was heavier and ran circles around it as sold. Don't even get me started about sharp-running 428CJ anythings, or the unfairly crapped-on 390 S-Code cars.

I owned a 71 Boss 351 (pewter with black) and believe me... it may have outrun the Boss 302 but it wasn't going to run circles around anything. It had trouble running circles around a circular track. And don't even think about stopping in wet conditions. But I loved it anyway despite sometimes getting only 4 mpg on premium leaded gas.

See less See more

PhillyLS1

· #9 · Jul 29, 2011

Technology with cars is advancing fast. I remember if you had an 11 second car you were fast. Now if you're not in the 8's you're nobody.

The 2011 v6 Mustang will run with LT1's that were made in the 90's.

regalt87

· #10 · Jul 29, 2011

WhiteBird00 said:
I owned a 71 Boss 351 (pewter with black) and believe me... it may have outrun the Boss 302 but it wasn't going to run circles around anything. It had trouble running circles around a circular track. And don't even think about stopping in wet conditions. But I loved it anyway despite sometimes getting only 4 mpg on premium leaded gas.

My friend had a 71 Mach 1 4 speed 4bbl ram air car and I think it had either 350 or 391's for gears. It was fast.

See less See more

Joenpb

· #11 · Jul 29, 2011

Grabber2012 said:
Joenpb, alas, you know of what you speak. If I'd been shopping with $3700 in the pocket a '69 Z28 with no RS-type added weight and factory 4.10s would have been the ticket. If I'd had $5000, I'd have got a Boss 429 and swam upstream just to bust balls and be perverse. As it was, I was perverse enough - I ran a Mercury musclecar, which was analogous to hitting your thumb with a hammer to impress girls with how well you stood pain.

Haha, I had a Chevy Nova with a 350 small block & four on the floor. It was a fun & dependable car, but certainly couldn't compete with the top cars at the time. I always wanted a 69' Z28, now I'm more likely to get a ZR1 since it would be cheaper, assuming the Z was in great to mint condition......

I do remember cruising on a back road & a 71' Mach 1 blew by me like I was standing still. A buddy of mine said that guy could get it up to 160 mph, I didn't doubt it.

I agree the 2011+ V6 is an amazing car when you consider how it matches up to the old muscle cars of the past.

See less See more

WhiteBird00

· #12 · Jul 29, 2011

regalt87 said:
My friend had a 71 Mach 1 4 speed 4bbl ram air car and I think it had either 350 or 391's for gears. It was fast.

Oh, fast was never the problem - it could pass anything except a gas station. I really loved that ram air hood with the vacuum operated doors.

[email protected]

· #13 · Jul 30, 2011

Grabber2012 said:
Read more slowly, Tim. I had my license then, and know how the pecking order went at the time.

Joenpb, alas, you know of what you speak. If I'd been shopping with $3700 in the pocket a '69 Z28 with no RS-type added weight and factory 4.10s would have been the ticket. If I'd had $5000, I'd have got a Boss 429 and swam upstream just to bust balls and be perverse. As it was, I was perverse enough - I ran a Mercury musclecar, which was analogous to hitting your thumb with a hammer to impress girls with how well you stood pain.

ok i did read it a little too fast, i feel like an ass.lol You do have a good point, sorry about that!

See less See more

2Manystangs

· #14 · Jul 30, 2011

well the new 3.7 V6 is a Mazda engine and the older 3.8 was basically "stolen" from the GM 3800 design...something to consider whenever the chest beating begins
Now a Boss 302 was mostly sold to homologate the Trans Am cars, same with the Boss 429

Grabber2012

· #15 · Jul 30, 2011

No, the Mustang's 3.7 is the relatively new Cyclone V6. It's a Ford engine that MAzda is allowed to use (and build).

It'd be more correct to call it a Lincoln engine, but that isn't really right either - it's Ford corporate.

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.