The Boss Hog

OK, not that I have been part of this forum for all of 40 hours, I feel knowledgable enough to express an opinion. I am just amazed when I hear 300hp/13.9 sec 1/4 is slow! I am old enough to have purchased a new '69 Road Runner 383 4-speed. My buds and I use to race at Fremont Dragstrip in CA and I can tell you that my pure stock, real world 14.7 @ 95 was the best amoung us! One guy had a '68 GTO 4-speed that ran 15.2's and another had a small block '68(?) 3-speed Mustang that did great to break into the 15's. Even after the usual bolt-on mods (Edelbroc, Holley, Hooker, Goodyear Bluestreaks, 4.56's, etc. the best it ever ran was 13.5's. Mileage stock was never more than 13 mpg and I don't rember what it was modified.

I ordered the '05 Mustang because I think it looks great and I wanted to have a little weekend fun at the local dragstrip without having to wrench on it all week. If this thing breaks 14 flat at 100+, I will be tickeled pink

The Boss Hog

charles

great story plus 300 hp is a great number for just drivin around

joeuser42

Your're right Charles. This was confirmed on the muscle car shootout on the speed channel a couple of weeks ago. There were Boss mustangs, Buick GS, Cudas, etc. Many big-blocks. The Boss was the best of the lot and it ran the 1/4 in the mid 13s if I remember.

SVTJayC

Thats wonderfull....this isn't 1969 anymore. In 2004 (where most of us are now), 300hp is what your avg. family sedan makes, and 13.9 is what Subaru's SUV runs. Is it enough, sure. Is it a marvel of power and speed, no.

1970Bird

Great story and so true, most folks that wax on the performance of muscle cars of the late 60s fail to mention that very, very few could manage to bust into the 13 second range in stock form. Classic Car garage hosted a show a month or two ago called "muscle car shootout" in which they tested 7 of the hottest pieces of Iron from the era: 1969 Boss 429 Mustang, 1970 Chevelle LS6 (454), 1969 Hemi Challenger, A GTO Judge, AMC AMX, Olds 442, and a Buick GS. To cut through the performance mythology surrounding each, they chose cars that were All completely stock--right down to the tire pressure. Only three of them (after three tries--same driver) dipped into 13 second quarter times. With the Boss 429 running the fastest @ 13.82 (I think), and the Buick and Chevelle in the 13.9 range. These were the stock Monsters of the "muscle car" era and the fastest of them were in the same quarter-mile performance area that the '05 GT is projected to be. If the GT's numbers prove to be correct, it's a steal at $25K--and according to results of the show, (potentially) faster than Hemi Challenger, GTO Judge, AMX, or 442--let alone the rest of the muscle cars produced back then. These are the good old days...

TomServo92

What average family sedans are you talking about? What I consider a family sedan is the Taurus/Acccord/Camry/Mazda6/Altima etc group. The best of that group is the Altima with 250HP. The sedans making 300HP are in the near-luxury/luxury category and are considerably more expensive than the average family sedan (and the Mustang for that matter).

1970Bird

It's not intended to be a marvel of speed and power. It's an entry level performance vehicle targeted at folks who can't afford a marvel of speed and power but want to have fun nonetheless. I consider it an attractive, sporty alternative to a world full of boring SUV and Sedans.

Flyinlow

I think he's referring to the Subaru WRX STi, which has 300hp and all wheel drive. Trouble is its also about $32000. OK, maybe he's talking Chrysler 300C Hemi, thats got 340hp, but weighs over 4000lbs. Mitsubishi EVO, 275hp, $30000.

AVERAGE sedans are what Tomserveo92 mentioned. The 300C Hemi, EVO and STi are not average sedans. To pick up a GT with 300hp for about $26000 is a good deal.

TomServo92

You're right, none of those are "average" family sedans, even the 300C. The 300C is well over $30K and what I'd call near-luxury. The EVO and STi are too specialized to be average family sedans.

The Boss Hog

As a side note, when I bought that '69 RR there was a 426 Hemi RR sitting right beside it (with the oil drip pan under it). $4500 out the door but . . . Insurance man said "not in this lifetime". :nono:

The Boss Hog

grabbergreen

AVERAGE family sedan? Try EXECUTIVE family sedan.

The AVERAGE family sedan, like the Honda Accord, makes 240 horses, with only 214 lb/ft of torque. If you have a decent chunk of cash in your savings, you can go for the Acura TL, which has 270 horses and 238 lb/ft., but only runs on premium fuel, and starts at thirty-three thousand dollars.

Here's what you should be comparing the Mustang to-- any other car that MSRP's at twenty-five thousand dollars. Try to find another car in the auto industry that does the following:

-- 300 horsepower

-- 320 lb/ft of torque

-- Runs smoothly on regular unleaded

-- MSRP's for under $26K

Make no mistake. These combined selling points put the Mustang in a class of its own.

You could argue that the Dodge Magnum comes close, but its 2-ton-plus curb weight saps up a good chunk of that 40 extra hp and 70 extra lb/ft.

charles

did you see the burnout the 429 made OMG? that thing could have been mistaken for a hurricane from a sattelite it was so big

1970Bird

did you see the burnout the 429 made OMG? that thing could have been mistaken for a hurricane from a sattelite it was so big [/b][/quote]
Oh yeah, that's a sweet car, the Boss 9er

max2000jp

Also, with those cars you get a lot less features. The STi and EVO are awesome performing cars, but they are bare bones cars, which they were desgined to be. Also, remember the 05 GT is reportedly making ~325 hp, if the dynos are true.

t69r00p69

Maybe it isn't your AVERAGE sedan that has 300hp, but I think his point was that a lot of these cars keep raising the bar. I think you all know what he meant by his statement. Is 300hp enough? We will soon find out pending track times, but 325hp or even 350hp would have been better

rhumb

Yeah, sometimes we don't realize how good we have it now performance-wise. VERY few cars in the '60's actually got into the 13's stock and not all that many even into to 14's, truth be told.

Sure, many of those muscle cars had big motors with pretty decent power, though they were rated a rather optimistic gross HP vs today's more stringent and realistic net HP. But the quality (spread and depth) of that power was often quite less and actually getting it to the ground efficiently was a whole other matter.

The days inefficient 3-spd ATXs or clunky 4-spd MTXs with bear-trap level clutch pressure passing power to jitterbug leaf spring live axles that tried to grip the tarmac through skinny bias ply tires ... well, precious little of that prodigious power ever went into forward motion.

Today's cars, with their hi-tech, electronically controlled motors make great power spread out nicely from idle to redline. That power gets transferred through light clutches to 5/6 speed gearboxes or through finely controlled 4/5/6 speed ATXs, down AL or CF driveshafts through advanced designed suspensions (yes, even archaic live axles work worlds better than the old leaf spring designs) and finally that power gets to the ground through sticky, wide radial tires.

And this is to say nothing of vastly better brakes, handling, ride, economy, NVH, build quality, durability, NVH, safety, features, comfort, ... all at prices not far off (adjusted for inflation) what people paid for those neolithic muscle cars.

A regular '05 Stang GT (guessing 13.5s at 105 on a good run) will crush all but the very fastest and rarest '60's Stangs in a straight line, evicerate them in terms of handling and braking, and yet ride and idle smoothly, potter about town with ease and get mileage few cars of any type got then, all with tailpipe emissions you could practically survive off of and safety undreamt of then.

We do live in the best of days.

Scothew

Play Nice Jay.