2011 V6 vs. 1970 Boss 302 WOW Surprised me !!
09-09-2010, 03:25 PM
#21
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: OK
Posts: 363
I'm not undercutting the new cars, but the BOSS isn't getting fair representation.
09-09-2010, 07:09 PM
#22
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Posts: 1,305
Like you and adidas, we have all grown up in the 80's and 90's driving those Mustangs and Camaro's. I really miss those days sometimes becuase the Mustang and Camaro were so much more popular back then and much more affordable to more people. I loved the old 5.0 and it was a blast to drive for a whole generation of Americans. I hear some of these young guys talking these days and I wish I could take them back to about circa 1989 / 1990 to see what it was like on the streets. At any rate, it means we have a good concept of what qualifies as a fast / quick / good performing car so like you j0nx, when I drove this 4.0 I sort of felt like I was back in one of those old 5.0's performance wise because it was so close. It just put a smile on my face and I knew I had to have it. I just get tired of hearing about what a slow car it is because I know better and I think some of these guys are just talking just to have something to say.
09-09-2010, 10:40 PM
#23
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 648
So 290 x .89 = 261 for the 1970 Boss
Our S197's V6's get better suspension and tires off the production line, so we get compairable numbers to the stock 1970 Boss 302. Just look at the stock tires and wheels on the attached photo. Yuck!
Anyway, from my sig you can see that I owned a 1970 302W. Man I wanted a Boss 302, but it wasn't to be. My 2007 has all the muscle I ever wanted to bring back those memories of my first car.
Last edited by Buckshot Barry; 09-09-2010 at 10:42 PM.
09-10-2010, 12:19 AM
#24
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orange, California
Posts: 1,454
09-10-2010, 03:46 AM
#25
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: dark side of the moon
Posts: 1,532
I am the same age as the first Mustang to roll off the line which is neither here nor there. Having said that i have owned 4 Mustangs, a 90GT, 99GT, 05GT and the 09. To me 6.5 0-60 is not even remotely fast and even my latest ride at approximately 4.5 0-60 is not greased lightning. I would say anything that does the 0-60 in under 4.0 is fast, everthing else not so much. Needless to say not everyone will agree with this and that is alright.
09-10-2010, 05:46 AM
#26
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: AL
Posts: 342
I am the same age as the first Mustang to roll off the line which is neither here nor there. Having said that i have owned 4 Mustangs, a 90GT, 99GT, 05GT and the 09. To me 6.5 0-60 is not even remotely fast and even my latest ride at approximately 4.5 0-60 is not greased lightning. I would say anything that does the 0-60 in under 4.0 is fast, everthing else not so much. Needless to say not everyone will agree with this and that is alright.
By the way a 90 GT was 6.4, and 14.9 so by your own admission you owned a slow car. lol
Last edited by Whitehorse10; 09-10-2010 at 05:49 AM.
09-10-2010, 06:23 AM
#27
S197 Section Modder-ator
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 13,373
In 1970 HP was reported as gross. Starting in 1972 manufacturers went with net figures. From what I have read we are talking about an 11% reduction in numbers.
So 290 x .89 = 261 for the 1970 Boss
Our S197's V6's get better suspension and tires off the production line, so we get compairable numbers to the stock 1970 Boss 302. Just look at the stock tires and wheels on the attached photo. Yuck!
So 290 x .89 = 261 for the 1970 Boss
Our S197's V6's get better suspension and tires off the production line, so we get compairable numbers to the stock 1970 Boss 302. Just look at the stock tires and wheels on the attached photo. Yuck!
But it ain't no way that the car would get in the 14s with 261 horses, lol.
The Boss was build for the road course with 3.50s gears but you could get it with 4.10s and a bigger carburetor.
That would improve ETs.
And our S197 have better everything, it's a given.
In 40 years, some has to improve...
09-10-2010, 06:28 AM
#28
S197 Section Modder-ator
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 13,373
Yeah, like most of the automotive world and anyone who knows anything about cars. But hey, it was yet another opportunity for Snake to talk trash about the V6 Mustangs and you didn't let us down. lol
By the way a 90 GT was 6.4, and 14.9 so by your own admission you owned a slow car. lol
By the way a 90 GT was 6.4, and 14.9 so by your own admission you owned a slow car. lol
I happen to agree with what he said.
Also, there are 4 bangers that can spank a GT with all the bolt ons...
There goes the stupid V6 vs V8 argument, lol.
09-10-2010, 06:32 AM
#29
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: AL
Posts: 342
Maybe he wasn't talking them down, I was just giving him a hard time. But if 4 seconds or less is the demarkation line for fast than about 90% of the sports cars in the world just got ruled out.
09-10-2010, 06:38 AM
#30
S197 Section Modder-ator
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 13,373