Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

In '64 a friend (OS Brannon) ordered a strippo Belvedere II 2 dr. HT with a 330 HP 383 and a 3 speed column shift (so his parents didn't think it was a Hi-Perf car)
It ran B./S and was quick. 13.8's with very little done A tall pinion snubber, clamp the front half of the leaf springs, headers & slicks. Drove it to work every day and his parents never did know he raced it.
I remember the 365 HP 426's ran A/S and were not fast.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I'm still sticking to my guns on those '82-84 Corvettes and Camaros w/the cross-fire injection systems being amongst the worst of the under-performers....Heck, they would hardly even run smoothly, never mind run fast.....Maybe they're out there, and surely I'm not meaning to insult anyone who owns, or ever owned one of these cars, but I know of NONE that were thought of as anywhere near fast, or made into drag cars w/that cross-fire injection setup..... Just another opinion....WJ

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Bobby Z,
Lots of things not right with the 426-S Street-Wedge.
10.0-1 compression
Small-port heads with 1.60 exhaust valves (same heads as the 361/265HP 2-barrel)
Weak single-coil valve springs
Mild hydraulic camshaft (.431/.431 lift)
Poor flowing exhaust manifolds
Restrictive cast iron intake
575 cfm AFB (too small) with 1 7/16" primaries x 1 9/16" secondaries (same size as the
little 273/235HP Commando)
What could have been?
They just flat out got creamed in C/Stock in 68', and D/Stock in 69'
Paul

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I don't recall the Boss 429s doing well in NASCAR,,they had the Torino Cobras on the Ford side(remember Richard Petty was stolen away for one year from Plymouth and drove a Cobra) and on the Mercury side there were the Cyclones( David Pearson and Buddy Baker? I could be wrong) that were the dominant body styles from Dearborn on the NASCAR tracks. If there were any Boss 429s out there I've forgotten about them.
I think Sam Auxier ran one in a class called Ultra/Stock (a forerunner to Pro Stock),in another association. I'm sure someone more NASCAR savvy than me will come on here and set us straight. Danny Durham

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

The Boss 429 engines were in the Torino Talledega and Cyclone Spoiler II bodies in Nascar in 1969. Ford built the Talledega and Spoiler II long nosed bodies to make them legal and the Boss 429 Mustangs to make the engines legal in Nascar. The engines and bodies each had to have a minimum of 500 units.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Danny,
In 1969 Ford and Mercury won 30 out of 54 races held. Most of those were with the Boss429 although the first few were still with the tunnel port 427.
thanks, Roland

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

As a modern stocker, I'll bet the NHRA acceptable rods are something much better and much lighter than OEM. That alone has to wake that engine up. Same with modern piston and rings. And probably a better crank forging. I'm just assuming that's all in the tech bulletin as I didn't bother to look.
426 Hemis never used to run in the 9's in Stock either...

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

My old girl friend traded in her red 68 SS 396 Chevelle for a brand new black 73 SS 350 Chevelle. What a mistake that was, but we had better times inside the 73 than the 68 if you know what I mean. Loved those swivel bucket seats. lol

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

I had a chance to buy a Boss 429 Mustang for $4500 in 1976.I thought that was a lot of money for a Ford and had read a road test refering to it as a "smoking stone". Not super strong out of the box. If I had bought it I think I would be happy with its performance as an investment now.

I had a 1964 Plymouth Savoy with a 426/365 4sd. It did have a cable drive tach. sold it about 25 years ago. Would smoke the tires but didn't seem to be very fast. Best looking Mopar built in my opinion. Should have kept it.

My brothers 1970 440/6 Road Runner with a purple shaft, headers and 3.91 gears/ slicks ran 12.70s. Before he sold it he put in 3.54s and put a stock exhaust on. Slowed down to 13.80s.

409 Chevys had some problems with cams going flat. Of the 3 dual quad 409s I pulled apart one had a roller cam and the other two had several wiped out lobes.

375/396-425/427 Chevys would rev well into valve float. Many broke/dropped valves. My 375hp Nova has a warranty CE code engine but has L-88 valve springs now to prevent that from happening again.

The AMC Scrambler came with a dead stock station wagon engine. My stock one ran a 14.14 at 99 mph at 1500 feet. Polyglass tires no mods. Under $3000 list price. Basic cam swap, headers. intake and carb and one would run 12s. Mcink might have a photo?

A car not mentioned yet is the W-31 Olds Cutlass. With 3.42 gears, street tires, open headers my 1969 ran 13.60s. 4.66 gears and slicks 12.67, 106.98. Not bad for a 350 olds with a cast iron intake and a quadrajet.

The 340 Darts were a good performing car without any mods.


It was rare a muscle car would get into the 13s as shipped. A set of headers and a good tune would help the performace of these cars a bunch.

Re: Most Under-Performing Musclecar Ever Produced?
 

Just me but no one said anything about the 69/70 BOSS 302.....Motor Trend 14.90's my "BONE STOCK" 1998 Mustang GT ran 14.60's @ Trails of all places & got 24 MPG