mobster

Heres a modified version of a chop I did awhile back.

95SVTCobraVA

That looks good

MustangFanatic

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.

AFBLUE

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.

rhumb

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.

V10

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.

Hollywood_North GT

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.

bob

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.

Thunder Road

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.

ScottyBoy302

Hollywood_North GT

Not if someone invents a matter-antimatter quantum spacetime inversion drive that runs on cow gas.

MustangFanatic

Nah, I just want 302 cid spinning at 7,000 rpm!!!

GTJOHN

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.

bob

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.

rhumb

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.

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.

69boss429

I love my shipping crate :worship: pics at : www.1969boss429.com

TomServo92

Very cool!

Here's a clickable link to your site.

rhumb

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!

69boss429

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!

AFBLUE

That's got to be one of the nicest looking shipping crates I've ever seen.