Notices
Aftermarket 2005+ Mustangs Discuss the Offerings from Roush, Saleen, Steeda, Shinoda, and Others

S197 BOSS Mustang Coming!

Old 12/15/05, 07:58 PM
  #41  
Mach 1 Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2004
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Heres a modified version of a chop I did awhile back.
mobster is offline  
Old 12/15/05, 08:01 PM
  #42  
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
 
95SVTCobraVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 9, 2004
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
That looks good
95SVTCobraVA is offline  
Old 12/15/05, 09:11 PM
  #43  
Cobra Member
 
MustangFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by rhumb@December 15, 2005, 4:22 PM
I think the best answer would not to be to up-engine the Boss, but rather, to upgrade the GT500 by reducing weight ......

Instead, I would hope that Ford, should it even make a Boss (or GT350), would instead rely on engineering sophistication. Show some technical and engineering discipline and attack the power/weight ratio from the other end – mass -- and reap all the added benefits to handling, braking, feel, agility and even efficiency, never mind the distinctive driving character of such a car.
I would agree that superior engineering will triumph over a simplistic "no substitute for cubic inches" mentality in nearly all scenarios. Despite that fact, I don't believe Ford has the resources or the desire to create such a sophisticated machine. They will likely take the path of least resistance and simply increase the cubes to cover for a lack of engineering development.

I think we both agree, a max effort 4.6L 4V or in a perfect world a 5.0L Cammer would be the PERFECT engine for the Boss (or GT350). I can only hope Ford heeds our call and develops such a beast.
MustangFanatic is offline  
Old 12/15/05, 11:11 PM
  #44  
Dethroned Nascar Guru
 
AFBLUE's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,056
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I understand why all the discussion is about the new Boss needing to be a great handler and thus being a trim car (relatively speaking) with good suspension and brakes. As this was what the Boss 302 was (Trans-Am racer). Small light-weight powerful engine with good handling when compared to other mustangs. 3250lbs

However, there was also a Boss 429, with a big heavy, and powerful engine that was good at straightline drag racing and not so great a handler. It weighed 3530lbs (280lbs more than the Boss 302)

Seems like most people assume the new Boss should be like a Boss 302 rather than a Boss 429. I don't really have an opinion on this. Just wanted to point out that not all BOSSes were designed to be great handlers. Some Bosses were better at straight line acceration than the twisties. In fact, the Boss 429 was one of the best straightline mustang performers ever.

From http://www.mustangmonthly.com/thehistoryof...en/index11.html

'03 Cobra convertible - 13.12/109.58 - 6-spd - 3.55 - Motor Trend
'69 Boss 429 - 13.34/112 - 4-spd. - 3.91 - Cars, Sept. 1969
'71 Mach 1 CJ - 13.40/105 - auto - N/A - Sport Car, 1971
'05 GT - 13.5sec @103.6 - 5-spd. 3.55 - MotorTrend Jan 2005:
'68 ½ Fastback - 13.56/106.6 - 4-spd. - 3.89 - Hot Rod, March 1968
'01 Cobra - 13.66/104.97 - 5-spd - 3.27 - Motor Trend
'71 Boss 351* - 13.74/104.28 - 4-spd. - 3.91 - Car Craft, March 1971
'03 Mach 1 - 13.80/102.5 - 5-spd - 3.55 - Motor Trend
'69 Mach 1 SCJ- 13.86/102 - auto - 3.91 - Car Life, March 1969
'66 GT350S - 14.0/102 - auto - 3.89 - Motor Trend, Aug. 1966'
68 ½ GT500KR SCJ- 14.01/102/73 - 4-spd. - 3.50 - Hot Rod, Nov. 1968
'70 Mach 1 SCJ - 14.03/98.89 - 4-spd. - 3.91 - Popular Hot Rodding, March 1970
'69 GT500 SCJ - 14.07/103.56 - 4-spd. - 3.91 - Super Stock, Sept. 1969
'01 Bullitt - 14.07/97.9 - 5-spd - 3.27 - Motor Trend
'67 GT500 - 14.3/92 - auto - 3.25 - Sports Car Graphic, March 1967
'68 GT500 - 14.56/99.77 - auto - 3.50 - Super Stock, Aug. 1968
'69 Boss 302 - 14.57/97.57 - 4-spd. - 3.50 - Car & Driver, June 1969
'65 GT350 - 14.7/90 - 4-spd. - 3.89 - Car Life, June 1965


Maybe the focus on the 302 characteristics rather than the 429 is because 8642 Boss 302s were built in 69/70 while only 1358 Boss 429s were built in those years.

Interesting enough, in 1969 the "lightweight" Boss 302 was heavier than the 69 Mach 1 (3250lbs vs 3175lbs). Source for weights and comes from Mustang Field Guide by Brad Bowling.
AFBLUE is offline  
Old 12/16/05, 07:41 AM
  #45  
 
rhumb's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The Boss 429 was, in some sense, more of a shipping crate for the 429 motor so that Ford could sell enough of them (the 429 "hemi" motor) to make them eligible for NASAR. As such, the overall car, while way cool, probably wasn't as well developed to a specific end as was the 302, which was a much more coherent overall package.

As mentioned by others, the weight of that big motor didn't do great things for its handling. On the other hand, the 429, in factory (de)tune, really wasn't necessarily Ford's best stop light/drag strip motor either. The 428 often fared better off the line, with better low end and an "easier" powerband than the more high-end oriented 429, which was engineered more for sustained high-speed NASCAR running. It's real potential was easily uncorked with only relatively mild mods and tuning, and became quite a monster. Dodge/Plymouth/Chrysler has a similar engine line conundrum, what with their 440s often being better real-world street motors than the Hemis actually were.

The Boss 351 was sort of, somehow, in between. The Boss 351 motor itself was awesome, with the "semi-hemi" heads and thier cavernous ports and lounge-stool valves. In my estimation, it was probably the best Ford OHV motor ever. But that gaping induction side resulted in some of the same peakiness as the Boss 302, or Boss 429 for that matter. Yet, on the other hand, the restyled '71-'73 body had bloated so much that its handling was suffering quite a bit too. If anything, perhaps the Boss 351, despite its incredible motor, really does illustrate the limits of ever bigger motors in ever bigger cars.

All that said, I'd kill for either a 302, 351 or 429 Boss and they all rate as amongst the finest Mustangs in my estimation.
rhumb is offline  
Old 12/16/05, 04:41 PM
  #46  
V10
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2004
Posts: 2,147
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by rhumb@December 16, 2005, 8:44 AM
The Boss 429 was, in some sense, more of a shipping crate for the 429 motor so that Ford could sell enough of them (the 429 "hemi" motor) to make them eligible for NASAR. As such, the overall car, while way cool, probably wasn't as well developed to a specific end as was the 302, which was a much more coherent overall package.

You are absolutely correct. Add to that, factory stock the Boss 429 wasn't all that fast. You had to do a lot of mods to it to wake it up.
V10 is offline  
Old 12/16/05, 06:52 PM
  #47  
Closet American
 
Hollywood_North GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,829
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by MustangFanatic@December 15, 2005, 9:14 PM
I would agree that superior engineering will triumph over a simplistic "no substitute for cubic inches" mentality in nearly all scenarios. Despite that fact, I don't believe Ford has the resources or the desire to create such a sophisticated machine. They will likely take the path of least resistance and simply increase the cubes to cover for a lack of engineering development.
Therein lies a big part of their corporate dilemma...and why they're losing sales and hemorrhaging money. In the 21st century there's a limited market for yesterday's technology.
Hollywood_North GT is offline  
Old 12/16/05, 07:39 PM
  #48  
bob
GTR Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Location: Newport News, Va
Posts: 5,027
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
you guys say all you want about .0000000000000001 CID engines spinning at tachyon speed, but cubes still and always will rule. Besides Horsepower was just a clever marketing gimick used by Mr. Watt to sell his improved steam engine.
bob is offline  
Old 12/16/05, 07:41 PM
  #49  
Team Mustang Source
 
Thunder Road's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 7, 2005
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by rhumb@December 16, 2005, 9:44 AM
The Boss 429 was, in some sense, more of a shipping crate for the 429 motor so that Ford could sell enough of them (the 429 "hemi" motor) to make them eligible for NASAR. As such, the overall car, while way cool, probably wasn't as well developed to a specific end as was the 302, which was a much more coherent overall package.


As was the BOSS 302 a "shipping crate" for the Boss 302 motor so Ford could use it in Trans AM racing.

Neither the 302 or 429 Boss motors lent themselves particularly well to street use. THey were both designed to make power from 4000 rpm up as they were racing engines.
Thunder Road is offline  
Old 12/16/05, 07:44 PM
  #50  
Cobra Member
 
ScottyBoy302's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 20, 2005
Location: BC
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
you guys say all you want about .0000000000000001 CID engines spinning at tachyon speed, but cubes still and always will rule. Besides Horsepower was just a clever marketing gimick used by Mr. Watt to sell his improved steam engine.
ScottyBoy302 is offline  
Old 12/16/05, 09:24 PM
  #51  
Closet American
 
Hollywood_North GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,829
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by bob@December 16, 2005, 7:42 PM
you guys say all you want about .0000000000000001 CID engines spinning at tachyon speed, but cubes still and always will rule.
Not if someone invents a matter-antimatter quantum spacetime inversion drive that runs on cow gas.

Hollywood_North GT is offline  
Old 12/16/05, 09:29 PM
  #52  
Cobra Member
 
MustangFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by bob@December 16, 2005, 8:42 PM
you guys say all you want about .0000000000000001 CID engines spinning at tachyon speed, but cubes still and always will rule.
Nah, I just want 302 cid spinning at 7,000 rpm!!!
MustangFanatic is offline  
Old 12/17/05, 06:19 AM
  #53  
Cobra Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You guys must remember, this is going to be a car that is staged between the Mustang GT & Shelby - in both price and performance. This car will compete against the GTO, and later with the Challenger and maybe a Camero. Some of you guys have very high expectations for a car that is going to cost between $29k-$35k.
I think your expectations would be valid if this car was the replacement for the Shelby.
GTJOHN is offline  
Old 12/17/05, 07:41 AM
  #54  
bob
GTR Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Location: Newport News, Va
Posts: 5,027
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Right, I just want 400 hp - 400 ft/lbs. with a power curve that is WIDE & FLAT and that takes cubes. Ideally I'd want it with 10 aluminum cylinders and 3 vavles with VVT, howver I'd say 8 iron cylinders with aluminum heads and 3 valves with VVT is closer to reality Ultimately I just dont want to tuck my tail and dduck and run at the stoplight when brand X shows up.
bob is offline  
Old 12/17/05, 12:27 PM
  #55  
 
rhumb's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
As was the BOSS 302 a "shipping crate" for the Boss 302 motor so Ford could use it in Trans AM racing.
The Boss 302 was a much better integrated package, IMHO, whereas for the Boss 429, Ford was just looking more for some way to push 500+ motors out the showroom door so they could take them racing in NASCAR. They figured, if I recall, that they'd never be able to sell such a race motor in the Torino(?) sedans that were the basis of their NASCAR effort so, instead, they crammed them into the Mustang. They didn't even fit and had to have an outside contractor actually do the conversion, which included modifying the engine bay a touch to get those wide-headed motors to squeeze in there.

The 302 motor dropped in like a penny in a pocket and the whole package -- suspension and drivetrain -- was much more integrated and made for a more cohesive package.

Neither motor was the best street racer, in truth, both being a bit on the peaky side compared to, say, the 428 Cobra Jet or 4V Cleveland 351 stable mates. But the Boss 302 race cars were great against the 302 Z/28s on the Trans Am tracks and the Boss 429 motored Fords comported themselves well in the big ovals of NASCAR.

Right, I just want 400 hp - 400 ft/lbs. with a power curve that is WIDE & FLAT and that takes cubes. I
This sort of motor sounds a bit more appropriate for a Mach I, which tended to be more oriented towards stoplight/dragstrip racers and would benefit most from such a big-bore, well, long-stroke approach. Indeed, the broad-shouldered 428CJ-motored Mach Is generally did better on the strip than the peakier Boss 429s in all but the best of circumstances and the most capable of hands. I think a tuned 3 or 4 valve 5.4 would meet this 400/400 low and wide powerband criteria quite well.

But I still thing the best Boss motor would be a lighter, highly tuned 4V 4.6 backed by a tight ratio'd 6 spd MTX and a highly refined IRS-based suspension to put that all that power to the ground with pizza pan brakes to bring everything to a stop time after time.

Is that a lot to expect from a $30-35K Mustang?

Absolutley!

But I'd rather hold Ford to meeting or exceeding high expectations than getting a passing "C" grade on lower ones, which is about where I see the GT500 at this point (could be wrong though). And with GM and DC now seeming to be breathing down Ford's pony-car neck, Ford had better trot out some expectation-busting steads to stay at the top. And if you look at what other manufacturers are able to do with $10K in upgrading various performance models, I don't think such expectations are out of line at all.
rhumb is offline  
Old 12/17/05, 12:34 PM
  #56  
V6 Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2005
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I love my shipping crate :worship: pics at : www.1969boss429.com
69boss429 is offline  
Old 12/17/05, 12:51 PM
  #57  
 
TomServo92's Avatar
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: The Woodlands, TX
Posts: 3,691
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally posted by 69boss429@December 17, 2005, 1:37 PM
I love my shipping crate :worship: pics at : www.1969boss429.com
Very cool!

Here's a clickable link to your site.
TomServo92 is offline  
Old 12/17/05, 12:54 PM
  #58  
 
rhumb's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by 69boss429@December 17, 2005, 2:37 PM
I love my shipping crate :worship: pics at : www.1969boss429.com
Make no mistake, despite its rather odd genesis, I'd sell my left whatever for a Boss 429, maybe both for that sharp black one of yours!
rhumb is offline  
Old 12/17/05, 12:58 PM
  #59  
V6 Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2005
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
P.S. It only took headers,slicks,traction bars,and some tuning in 1969 to go 12.48 at 115 mph. I haven't had it to the track since its rebirth.But I think high to mid 10's should be simple.Stay tuned for updates!
69boss429 is offline  
Old 12/17/05, 01:51 PM
  #60  
Dethroned Nascar Guru
 
AFBLUE's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,056
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
That's got to be one of the nicest looking shipping crates I've ever seen.
AFBLUE is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: S197 BOSS Mustang Coming!


Featured Sponsors

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.