2012 Boss 302 in NHRA Stock Eliminator

[BlueOval Ralph]

Evan this is incorrect as far as how Ford did it!!!

Old cars were rated differently (gross hp) from the factory with no engine accessories and free-flowing exhaust—new engines are rated with everything in place, including emission controls.

The way Ford did it was there were 3 Horsepower ratings.

A curve was no accessorys (fan, alt, water pump and open exhaust)
B curve was some accessorys (somewhere in between A curve and C curve)
C curve was with Fan, waterpump, alt and exhaust back pressure as installed in vehicle. This was the factory published rating.
all the above were corrected to SAE J 607 which was ans is 29.92 baro, 60 degrees carb air.

Mose Noland could give you more of the details if he remebers

Originally Posted by Evan Smith

You don't see regular production cars from Chevy, Dodge or Ford, because they would be terrible combinations. Old cars were rated differently (gross hp) from the factory with no engine accessories and free-flowing exhaust—new engines are rated with everything in place, including emission controls.

The real problem is that it is much harder to get 200-250 hp out of (non-supercharged) new cars once built for Stock. The new Boss 302 is rated at 444 hp and I have seen about 390-400 rwhp on a Dynojet chassis dyno. These cars will run 12.0s at 113 mph with sticky rear tires. We tested a 1970 454 LS-6 Chevelle (auto), factory rated at 450, and it was a good-running example, not a turd. It made 296 rwhp (I would guess it would have made 330-350 rwhp with a stick). I don't remember the torque numbers, but the BBC did make loads of torque.

Once modified for Stock Eliminator, you now have equal (or close to equal) drivetrain, suspension, the same advantages in regards to head mods (valve job), and camshaft, exhaust, etc. You can use all new parts for the 454, just like the 302 (or Chevy LS or Dodge equivalent). They are essentially rated the same, yet the Boss gives up 152 cubic inches!

I would guess that a properly built 454 LS-6 or ZL-1 427 Chevy (or 426 Hemi) makes upwards of 680-700 hp. Could a 302 equal that? Remember, this engine is already making 1.47 hp per cube! This is not a Ford thing, as I'm sure same holds true for the 426 hp Camaro and the 425 hp Dodge.

At 700 hp a 454 is making 1.54 hp per cube
At 700 hp a 302 is making 2.31 hp per cube

[goinbroke2]

Originally Posted by BlueOval Ralph

Evan this is incorrect as far as how Ford did it!!!

Old cars were rated differently (gross hp) from the factory with no engine accessories and free-flowing exhaust—new engines are rated with everything in place, including emission controls.

The way Ford did it was there were 3 Horsepower ratings.

A curve was no accessorys (fan, alt, water pump and open exhaust)
B curve was some accessorys (somewhere in between A curve and C curve)
C curve was with Fan, waterpump, alt and exhaust back pressure as installed in vehicle. This was the factory published rating.
all the above were corrected to SAE J 607 which was ans is 29.92 baro, 60 degrees carb air.

Mose Noland could give you more of the details if he remebers

That is true of pre 1972 cars Ralph, but after that they were "net" with everything installed as today. I used mostly mid 70's cars for that reason.

Regardless of how, or who done what, potential is what a class racers is after.
If eng A is rated at 99% of it's potential, who going to try it? Nobody.
If eng B is rated at 50% of it's potential, everybody will consider it....unless it's hidden, then only Billy Nees or Bob Shaw will find/try it! LOL!

So the only real question is then, what is the true potential of the new motors?
Then, can they be factored the way the old motors were?
In other words;
A is 400hp@ 80% = 500hp 100%
B is 400hp@40% = 1000hp 100%

If both engines start out at .58 factor, one will obviously cause a ruckus.(as we have seen with turbo or supercharged engines)
So, do you rate older or N/A engines at .58 to start and pressurised eng 1.1 to start?
What is a fair place to start pressure engines? Maybe starting them at 1.3hp/cu.in IS fair?

[BlueOval Ralph]

This was still going on in the early 1980 as I was involved with a program that they called Stock Engines, Ford would buy cars from GM, Chrysler and other manufactures run Performance, Fuel Econmy, NVH and Emission Tests then pull engines out of vehicles run them on Dynod then send to Engine Build-Up dissamble and measure them. Then puld a report on each vehicle.

That is true of pre 1972 cars Ralph, but after that they were "net" with everything installed as today. I used mostly mid 70's cars for that reason.

Regardless of how, or who done what, potential is what a class racers is after.
If eng A is rated at 99% of it's potential, who going to try it? Nobody.
If eng B is rated at 50% of it's potential, everybody will consider it....unless it's hidden, then only Billy Nees or Bob Shaw will find/try it! LOL!

So the only real question is then, what is the true potential of the new motors?
Then, can they be factored the way the old motors were?
In other words;
A is 400hp@ 80% = 500hp 100%
B is 400hp@40% = 1000hp 100%

If both engines start out at .58 factor, one will obviously cause a ruckus.(as we have seen with turbo or supercharged engines)
So, do you rate older or N/A engines at .58 to start and pressurised eng 1.1 to start?
What is a fair place to start pressure engines? Maybe starting them at 1.3hp/cu.in IS fair?[/QUOTE]

[Greg Hill]

The new Boss 302 is about the same as the Cobra Jet 302 except the Cobra Jet has more compression. The Boss is rated at 444 hp from the factory and the Cobra Jet is 325. I just watched a test on Motorweek of the Boss 302 and it went !2.4 seconds in the quarter at 124 with street tires and full exhaust. Evan you can forget the weak BS all these cars are bogus and way under rated.

[dwydendorf]

Originally Posted by Greg Hill

The new Boss 302 is about the same as the Cobra Jet 302 except the Cobra Jet has more compression. The Boss is rated at 444 hp from the factory and the Cobra Jet is 325. I just watched a test on Motorweek of the Boss 302 and it went !2.4 seconds in the quarter at 124 with street tires and full exhaust. Evan you can forget the weak BS all these cars are bogus and way under rated.

IF the Cobra Jet 302 is underrated like you say then why didn't it outrun your boys underrated D/SA camaro in the Class final at Columbus last weekend? Could it be that your boys D/sa combination is in fact softer yet?

[Greg Hill]

It's probably because the motor in the mustang has zero drag racing development done to it and ours has over 20 years worth. I guess the reason there is only one other car in the country with our combo is that it's so under rated. We'll be hard pressed to out run it once it's got the right converter and cam and all the other things you have to have to run fast.

[Andrew Hill]

Originally Posted by dwydendorf

IF the Cobra Jet 302 is underrated like you say then why didn't it outrun your boys underrated D/SA camaro in the Class final at Columbus last weekend? Could it be that your boys D/sa combination is in fact softer yet?

Probably because I was .08 faster in the first 60 feet, and also it has had virtually nothing done to the motor. Oh yeah, and he was going over 1.5 mph faster than me at the 1/8th even with very little work done to it. Go ahead and build a car like mine if you think it's so soft.

[442OLDS]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hill

Probably because I was .08 faster in the first 60 feet, and also it has had virtually nothing done to the motor. Oh yeah, and he was going over 1.5 mph faster than me at the 1/8th even with very little work done to it. Go ahead and build a car like mine if you think it's so soft.

Don't want to get into any discussions of who works harder,because your cars obviously run very well,but I am just curious Greg and Andrew.....did I read the weight sticker right on Andrew's car?

It is rated from the factory at 360 and NHRA rates it at 325?

How did you get NHRA to take 35 horsepower off of the factory rating or was it always like that?

[dwydendorf]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hill

Probably because I was .08 faster in the first 60 feet, and also it has had virtually nothing done to the motor. Oh yeah, and he was going over 1.5 mph faster than me at the 1/8th even with very little work done to it. Go ahead and build a car like mine if you think it's so soft.

Better yet if you think the Mustang is so soft why not build one of them? Did you know that most of the same people that put the D/SA mustang together also built Chartlie Downings #1 qualifer? If you really beleive nothing was done to the motor then build one and find out.