Ford Mustang (Mk1) Boss 302 1969

[RandomCarGuy17]

The 1969 Mustangs are my favorite when it comes to styling and it also is the first year where one of my favorite Mustangs appears; the Boss 302. The Boss 302 helps prove that the Mustang isn't all about the drag strip and that they can be capable around a circuit aswell. The Boss 302 was designed by Larry Shinoda, a former GM employee. One interesting thing about the engine is that it was a mixture of the 302 Windsor V8 and 351 Cleveland.

Info about the engine:

In an effort to improve the Mustang's image Ford made a 428 Cobra Jet V8 and aFord Boss 302 engine optional for the 1968 mid-year and 1969 models, respectively. The Boss 302 C.I.D. (Hi-Po), engine was a created by combining a Ford Windsor, (Assembly Plant), 302 cubic inch engine block with "large valve" Ford Cleveland, (Assembly Plant), 351 cubic inch engine cylinder heads.[1] This optional engine, and indeed the entire vehicle package, including handling and aerodynamic aids, was made available for the express purpose of meeting the homologation guidelines to compete in the SCCA Trans-Am series, which limited engine displacement to 302 C.I.D., (5.0L), in order to compete.

I'm suggesting this now as it's my favorite Mustang and while the 1970 Boss 302 was suggested (and is a similar car), I prefer the 1969 Mustang's styling over the 1970. The 1970 Mustang looks fine, it's just that I don't like the front end's look so much. I also like the C-Stripes on the 1969 over the hockey stripes on the 1970.

Specs:
Engine - 5.0L (302 CI) Boss 302 V8
Transmission - 4-Speed MT
Power - 290 hp
Torque - 260 ft-lbs
Weight - 3,360 lbs

Link(s):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_302_Mustang
http://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-mustang-boss-302-429-351/

 

[JR98]

Didn't know there was any differences between the 69 and 70 model. Also, only 290HP? I thought this would easily have at least 350HP considering some muscle cars of the time had over 400HP

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Didn't know there was any differences between the 69 and 70 model. Also, only 290HP? I thought this would easily have at least 350HP considering some muscle cars of the time had over 400HP

The differences were mostly cosmetic, that's pretty much why I suggested the '69 model; I want the 1969 model to have a chance at being looked at by Polyphony as I think it's the better looking of the 2.

As for the hp, it's mainly for balancing reasons. Ford at the time didn't want too much power on the Mustang since they had Trans Am racing in mind for this model.

 

[JR98]

The differences were mostly cosmetic, that's pretty much why I suggested the '69 model; I want the 1969 model to have a chance at being looked at by Polyphony as I think it's the better looking of the 2.

As for the hp, it's mainly for balancing reasons. Ford at the time didn't want too much power on the Mustang since they had Trans Am racing in mind for this model.

The power figure could have been underrated. I think I read somewhere that American muscle cars generally had more power than what the manufacturer stated, for insurance or something.

From wikipedia: This "G Code" engine was rated at 290 hp (216 kW), however modern day tests show the engine may have been largely underrated, with dynos showing in excess of 380 horsepower in some cases.

Actually, I managed to find this which says the true horsepower of 70's muscle cars and says the Boss 302 actually produced 310HP compared to the rated 290.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

The power figure could have been underrated. I think I read somewhere that American muscle cars generally had more power than what the manufacturer stated, for insurance or something.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that for a bit. It is true though, a lot of Mustangs have been underrated in terms of power. As a matter of fact, I suggested another Mustang that has it's hp underrated.

Actually, I managed to find this which says the true horsepower of 70's muscle cars and says the Boss 302 actually produced 310HP compared to the rated 290.

Hmmm, that's not as much off in terms of power than one of the other Mustangs I suggested.

 

[Turbo]

This picture was formerly my avatar, back when I was @bruhracer399.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

This picture was formerly my avatar, back when I was @bruhracer399.

Oh, that's who you are. I assumed you were a new user until now for some reason.