Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Now you're not comparing apples to apples. You need to look at the tech guide and explore more thoroughly. What is the allowable compression? Shows 10.5:1 but it may be much higher as I don't see very specific dome specs. A stocker cam is a long way from stock and specs are .492/.522. With the great clutches offered now, you can gear the snot out of those heads and still hook. I can't see the carb being a big problem. I'm sure the 415 factored HP (1970 Boss 429) is a problem but I would say NHRA would review and reduce since there has never been any active campaigning of one. At least in a few decades or so.
As you have seen in this thread, plenty of pigs are now plenty fast in Stock!

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Geez...what's bad about a 14.98 with a 2bbl and probably a 2.87 rear gear?

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

NOT!

1965 Dodge Cornet (CL)
426ci/365hp, 4spd, 3.55, 0-60 - 7.9, 1/4 mile - 15.4 @ 89mph



1969 Mustang Boss 429 (HPC)
429ci/375hp, 4spd, 3.91, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 13.34 @ 107mph

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Easy there guys,
I'm just going by 1969 numbers.
Performance and cost.
I personally like the Boss 429.
Many different results on the Boss 429, by the magazine people.
Some of the first cars tested had 3.50 gears, and ran 14.40's, to much disappointment.
From the 69' model, early test results from Car-Life 7/69 were 14.09 @102.85 mph, with 3.91 gears.
Hi-Performance Car got the up-graded version of the Boss 429 in later 69' to run a 13.64, not a 13.34.
Still respectable.
Compression ratio closer to 11.20 - 1.
Remember, this car was set-up from the factory.
H.D. Suspension, staggered rear shocks, handling package (front-end lowered 1"), F-60 x 15" tires, 15" x 7" wheels, header-type exhaust manifolds w/free-flowing exhaust system, aluminum dual-plane high-rise intake, Holley carb (735cfm), high-lft solid-lifter camshaft (.492/.522), aluminum heads (did you ever see the size of the ports? a small family can live in their), monster-size valves, ram-air hood, 3.91 gears w/traction-lock rear, close ratio 4-speed, HD clutch package, engine oil-cooler, and trunk-mounted 85-Amp battery, and
hi-rated 65-Amp Alternator
* I don't think the 65' Coronet 426-S/365HP (Street-wedge) had any of those components.
But they did come with a mechanical-driven tachometer.
PC


PC

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Paul Ceasrine
But they did come with a tach-driven distributor...

Paul, Did you mean a distributor driven tach?

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

somebody was building a Boss '9 for the F.A.S.T. series. I heard it was around 850 HP with cast exhaust manifolds! Of course it is a bigger CID but externally all stock.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

interesting what 40 years can do to an engine design. The engineering today surely can wake up the boss-9. Jon kaase is the man to see as he has many updates for that design on his website. Not sure if it would make a good stocker but might be a ringer in s/s. Just a thought !

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

IF you think that was slow should have driven a stock "corporate" 6.6L in 79. 16 sec is an awful long time.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Bobby Z,
Yes, I guess I utilized reverse verbage.
I meant to say a mechanical-drive tachometer.
My friend bought a 64' Plymouth Belvedere with a 426-S
Street-Wedge,in 1974 for $350 and it came through with a mechanical drive tachometer.
An old Mopar tech. said they never came through with one, but I saw it
with my own eyes, and it worked.
By the way, for true 1964 performance, 'Doc' Burgess of 'Black Arrow' fame had a red 64' Belvedere 426-S in 1964. Ran A/SA, and ran dead-on 14.00's @101 with 3.91 gears, and virtually nothing else. Of course a true street-driven car.
Paul

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I think what's geting some of the Boss '9 fans so upset is that it actually did pretty well in NASCAR but not at the drags.
You guys gotta realize that these things were made for sustained running at high RPMs, not sprints like a drag race is. Also Ford, like other companies put more money into their NASCAR teams than drag racing so they could fool around with these motors more.
No one doubts a Boss's ability--Hell, I'd buy on of Kaase's tomorrow if I could, but dolloar-for-dollar it just wasn't the "silver bullet" (catch the sarcam?:D) that Ford hoped it would be.