I'm surprised you didn't ask me about the 331 FE being as ''knowledgable'' as you are you probably don't want to admit you have no idea what it is.

I'm surprised you didn't ask me about the 331 FE being as ''knowledgable'' as you are you probably don't want to admit you have no idea what it is.

I LOVE to play Ford/Mercury trivia. I would guess that I have been building Fords more than a couple of more years than you have. Let me start by saying my E-Mail address is FEPOWERED. That should give you a clue. We have been talking about Clevelands so much, there was no reason to mention that I have built a couple of FE's.
By the way smartypants.......the 331 is an FT engine not a FE engine. I have one 391 engine in the barn right now, and 2 complete 428's.....one being a SCJ. Also 352's, 390's........
Want to talk 429's? I have 429's and 460's from 68 on up including CJ/SCJ stuff. No PI stuff though.....it has been hard to find.
Let's stop the stupid crap right now, and get back to talking about engine tech.

Since you like the Desktop Dyno, here are some flow numbers for you to enter for Cleveland 4V/70 Boss 302 heads.

.100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600
I 64.3 115.8 163.5 210 246 273.6

E 66.7 103.7 133.8 154.4 169 178.4

Ah so you do know the FE/FT thing. I said FE on purpose, to see if you would say something. So my plan backfired. Yes FT's were the 330, 331, 361, 389, and 391. BTW it was from a 72' F600 dump truck.

OK put your figures in the desktop dyno, took off 2 HP. Looks like the dyno was pretty close.

Don't forget that there was also a 361 FE motor available in the 68 Edsel.
When I put the flow numbers into the Dyno 2000 software, it shows a 30HP gap between the 302 and 351. What this does not take into account is mixture velocity. A smaller port with the same flow numbers will produce more power due to efficiency. The same goes for a larger port being less efficient. The 302 feels the effect of the inefficient 4V head design more than does the 351. The curious thing is that depending on cam, the software shows the 351 making near the same power or more than a 400.

. Yes FT's were the 330, 331, 361, 389, and 391. BTW it was from a 72' F600 dump truck.

You know.............I was thinking about the 330. I have never heard of a 331FT motor. I find no reference to it in the Ford Truck Master Parts Catalog. I find no reference to a 331 on any F600 info I can find. The 330 MD and HD is a common truck engine though. I believe that you are mistaken on that one. I have a copy of the Master Parts Catalog info from 1964 on for cars and both light and heavy trucks. If you find hard evidence that it was indeed a 331, just post it so I can learn something.

It took a good bit of searching, but:
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2000/04/projectfe/index2.shtml

It gives a list of FE's and FT's. I forgot about the 361 FE, your right. I only have the light duty catalog at my desk here.

About the desktop dyno thing:
Yeah I find that it does not take into account cubic inches VS port velocities etc. So, it very well may be that the 4V cleveland heads made the BOSS 302 a crappy engine especially for the street.
I still think the 69' boss 429's kicked but though, that is my favorite mustang. Besides the very rare produced 427 mustangs, the boss 429 was the fastest. Plus the looks, OMG.....drool :iceslolan I want to own one someday, only problem is by the time I could afford one they are going to be worth atleast twice what they are now-so I will probably never be able to afford one unless something big happens with my company.

It took a good bit of searching, but:
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2000/04/projectfe/index2.shtml

It gives a list of FE's and FT's.
I still think the 69' boss 429's kicked but though, that is my favorite mustang. Besides the very rare produced 427 mustangs, the boss 429 was the fastest.

You do realize that there is no such animal as a 427 Mustang don't you? A Shelby that may or may not have gotten one doesn't count. There is absolute zero documentation of one ever being put in a Mustang. Kevin Marti has exclusive rights to the Ford production database, and has found none. There were no 68-69 Torinos or Montego/Cyclones with one either. There were however Cougars in 1968 (GT-E) that got a 427. The sad thing is that this 427 relatively sucked. Any average 428CJ would kill it. It had standard small port/valve heads with a thin walled hydraulic lifter block and a low rise intake with funky flat exhaust manifolds.
The fordmuscle.com web site isn't exactly burning proof of a 331 existing. I believe that they have a typo. If there were a 331 engine there should be Ford literature out there to support it. I just haven't seen it. If you do find it, please let me know.
I'll have to dig up my old Hot Rods with the Boss 429 tests. The only tests that they got into the 13's were when they tweeked the cars. I am not saying that the Boss 429 doesn't have the greatest potential of any production Mustang........because I feel that it does. I think that they would be absolute terrors if more of them had been produced and the owners were willing to thrash them. A Boss 429 with a blower would be even more wicked.

I think it's cool that both of you are so knowledgable and passionate about old school American muscle... Not bashing the import guys, but its a breath of fresh air to hear about something other then "b16, b20" engine swaps... Keep up the good work...Peace.

You do realize that there is no such animal as a 427 Mustang don't you? A Shelby that may or may not have gotten one doesn't count. There is absolute zero documentation of one ever being put in a Mustang. Kevin Marti has exclusive rights to the Ford production database, and has found none. There were no 68-69 Torinos or Montego/Cyclones with one either. There were however Cougars in 1968 (GT-E) that got a 427. The sad thing is that this 427 relatively sucked. Any average 428CJ would kill it. It had standard small port/valve heads with a thin walled hydraulic lifter block and a low rise intake with funky flat exhaust manifolds.
The fordmuscle.com web site isn't exactly burning proof of a 331 existing. I believe that they have a typo. If there were a 331 engine there should be Ford literature out there to support it. I just haven't seen it. If you do find it, please let me know.
I'll have to dig up my old Hot Rods with the Boss 429 tests. The only tests that they got into the 13's were when they tweeked the cars. I am not saying that the Boss 429 doesn't have the greatest potential of any production Mustang........because I feel that it does. I think that they would be absolute terrors if more of them had been produced and the owners were willing to thrash them. A Boss 429 with a blower would be even more wicked.

Really?! Well I thought there was but I wasn't sure. Oh well. I wasn't talking about the regular 427 though, I thought it got the side-oiler which made over 600 HP I think(again not sure but I'm sure over 500 HP). The ones that came in shelby cobra's.

I know that wasn't real proof, and I thought you would say that. I'll try to get down the the shop tomorrow evening and take a peak in the HD catalog where I ordered the parts from.
I like the looks more than anything, of course the speed would be nice. But my second favorite stang is a 69' Mach 1, with either a 351C(NO WINDSORS!) a 390(did the mach come with a 390 option? Not sure), or 428. But I think I would find a BOSS 429 hood to slap on it anyway! I love them!

But my second favorite stang is a 69' Mach 1, with either a 351C(NO WINDSORS!) a 390(did the mach come with a 390 option? Not sure), or 428. But I think I would find a BOSS 429 hood to slap on it anyway! I love them!

Yeah....I like the 69 Mach better than the 70, also. It would be easy to swap out the stock 302 or 35W for a 351C since that is what the 70 351 4V was. There were supposedly some 70's that got the 351W 2V even though most got the 351C 2V. Yes, the 390 was an option. The rare one is the Y code 390 2V motor, as most were S code 4V motors. The cool thing about a 69-70 is that they could come with an engine from every engine family that was around at the time. Plus, there are engine swap headers to put anything in that you would want.
I have a 71 Mach 1, and I wish that someone made a pair of headers to put a 428 in it. At this time, it is not worth the effort for me to make a custom set, because 429 headers are so cheap and plentiful for it. Same goes for 429 parts in general. Maybe for one of my future projects though. For now, I am going to be putting a 428 in a 69 Montego MX, and one in a 64 Galaxie 500.

Getting back to the Z vrs. Boss debate, we need to keep in mind these 2 cars were developed for the Trans Am series and not for drag racing. I would venture the hp/torque figures were very similar in the race versions since the races were very competive. All comparisons I have seen of the street versions seem to be neck to neck also. The fun info to have would be to see how the street versions have done on road courses. Has anybody seen anything on that.?

In 1973, Car Craft took a 69 Z and a 70 Boss and took them drag racing. In street form, they were literally identical. They then gave each car the same drag race prep (headers, slicks, low gears, etc.). Each car dropped about a second and a half from the stock ET. Final best ET was 13.01 for the Z and 12.93 for the Boss. That, in my mind is pretty even.

I disagree I think that the Boss just looks alot slicker then the z28, and I also belive that the boss would kill the z28 as well

This arguement only makes sense if you completely ignore the vast amount of technical data already posted.

I won't disagree though with thr fact that the mustang looks fast. although the Z28 has a more muscular look the mustang looks more streamlined.

Face it, neither car is better than the other. they both took Trans Am titles respectively, with little to no modification between the cars on each year.

I like the looks of the Boss better too and they are a lot rarer (just go to a car show or look at production figures). I was lucky to find one last summer that had been nicely restored, and people (who go to a lot of shows) come up to me and comment that they have never seen a real one before. You don't hear that about Z-28's because there were so many of them.

Yep, they made some pretty silly cars back then and these are two of silliest. As I recall the Z28 did not get "on the cam" until 4 grand with shifts at over 7000 for maximum performance. Not really the best sort of thing to take to the grocery store. It is little surprise that they sold only a few thousand copies of either one.

For everyday use the milder small blocks were just better. Some made 300 H.P. but had hydraulic lifters that did not need constant adjustment. They also ran smoother and started easier.

Oh yes, the racing versions of both of them were just about exactly equal in performance since both were winning races on a regular basis. The biggest difference is in the perception of the viewers. Ford men love the Ford and Chevy men love the Chev. In my case I would love to have either one of them just to drive on Sundays.

You never stated drag race or road race. I am assuming you are stating drag race. First off these cars were not designed with drag racing in mind, (although a few have been campaigned successfully.) I think that in terms of sheer street drag racing I would have to give the nod to the z28. Keep in mind though that the Boss motor can and will make more horsepower, but the little 302 chevy z28, just was more successful as a drag racing package. Both cars pull extremely well, and contrary to what others have posted, can run on the street. It is just a matter of gear ratios. Don't believe what others have said. Common knowledge would tell you that a 4.56 gear is not livable on the street. But they are thinking about the average 350, 351. These motors will run all day at high rpms. My 340 has a 3.91 chuck and I drive it on the freeway all of the time. I wish it had a 4.56. I could imagine that the boss 302 or dz motor would appreciate this higher gear ratio. Both cars need to get the RPM's to get into the horsepower band, but that is what makes it so FUN!

according to a book called camaro exposed talking about the 67-69 developement...the z beat the boss 302 by 2 tenths and almost 3mph :l :iceslolan

WOW, you guys realize that you have just revived a 7 month old post.

Old 302 Chevy, that doesn't go away!

according to a book called camaro exposed talking about the 67-69 developement...the z beat the boss 302 by 2 tenths and almost 3mph :l :iceslolan

I could probably find some Ford book thats says the exact opposite.

Hey P W Man, My very first car was an 87 Shelby Charger. I now know that Dodge only made 1000 of them, I had some good times in that car. Especially taking the 5.0's off the line up to about 50!

Okay, Dodge and Rambler guys, why haven't you jumped in here? What about the 305 T/A Challengers and AAR Cudas? The 304 AMCs? Oh, and the 303 Pontiac?
I was so relieved to see SOMEONE jump in and try to explain the rationale behind these two cars (Z and Boss). Neither was ever intended as a daily driver, nor a drag racer. They were road racing cars, built in sufficient quantity for SCCA to "approve" them for the class. And the engine size? That was a RULE. They had a 5.0 litre limit for Trans Am class. I believe they still use that today.
Went to the Mustang 40th birthday party at Nashville last Spring. Saw some cool cars! There were three there, with factory documentation, as original 427 SOHC cars. They claimed there were about 25 left, but were built as a "Hemi fighter", against the Dart and 'cude Hemi cars for NHRA.
There were scores of Boss 302s, mostly '69s, but several '70s, as well. More than I'd ever seen in one place before... Most of these were claimed to be "documented" (I think they throw that word around too much). You see so many more '69 Z/28s because of all the cloning going on. The majority are not "real" Zs. TRIVIA QUESTION: Where did Z/28 get its name?
In truth, neither car was that quick in stock form, as other "old guys" have already stated. With slicks and gears, Z28 would hose down Boss 302 at will. A Boss 429 car with slicks and gears, will easily run 12s. I've seen a couple in the 11s, with only headers and tires. Apples-to-oranges...
The arguement about the Cleveland heads is also an interesting one. Mercracer obviously has a clue. Regardless of design "features", the small block Chevy head design will EAT UP the Ford, under nearly all race conditions. This isn't my opinion, but a known fact among virtually all professional race engine builders. One only has to look at the Cup cars to understand this. It has taken Yates Racing many years to develope a "Cleveland" (loosley based on the factory head) that can outperform the old style SBC heads. SB2 heads are even better yet.
I find it interesting, though, the most powerful N/A small block Chevys have been in the old Pro Stock Truck class, using the "splayed valve" head. This is a knock-off of the Cleveland on the intake side (though, they reduced the port cross section to a reasonable point) and the exhaust ports look suspiciously like BBC. This is NOT the same as the SB2 head.
I must disagree with the comment about FE versus Lima, though. FE, while a tough and good performing design, lacks the port efficiency and manifolding to come close in relatively stock form. While Lima is slightly heavier (not as much as you might think, as FEs are pretty stout), it has a MUCH better valve train design (that "canted valve" thing again...). Pretty hard to argue with a mildly pumped 468...(Ford, that is)
And on the FE/FT debate, according to Federal Mogul Bearing Catelog (a machine shop's "bible" for specs), there are 3 different "330"s (one FE, one FT, and one "Triton"), and a 332 (FE), but ZERO 331s in any Ford application. In the vernacular, a 331 is a .030" overbored 327 Chevy. There are also zero FE 361s. Only FT. Don't forget the 383, which was the engine found in most of the FE Edsels.
I always liked the '67-'68 and '71-'73 Mustangs the best. The flat backs are NASTY looking, when setup right. And I've read n some of the test mags, the flat back is the most aero of the earlier Mustangs.
That brings me to my last point. Magazine tests. BS. ALL of them. If you want to know how fast a given car is, or how much power a specific engine makes, you MUST do the legwork. That is, drive it, or dyno it. But don't point to 35 year old slanted tests to make a point.
BTW, Trans AM was the BEST TransAm racer... (argh! argh! humor..) Just kidding, but I had to plug the Poncho. Trans Am DID win a TransAm championship in '75, with the BF Goodrich Radial T/A "Tirebird", Jerry Titus driving. That was after Captain Nice died and all the factories pulled out the money. Early on, the Bud Moore Mustangs and Sonoco Camaros (Penske) dominated, but the AMC Javelins (Penske) were tough later on. More TRIVIA: How much money did Pontiac pay SCCA for the right to name their car "Trans Am"? Unfortunately, Dodge nor Pontiac really made a serious factory effort to succeed in TransAm. Does anyone know, did Dodge (or Plymouth, all the same) ever win a title through the '70s?

Jim

Hey P W Man, My very first car was an 87 Shelby Charger. I now know that Dodge only made 1000 of them, I had some good times in that car. Especially taking the 5.0's off the line up to about 50!

Yup, SC's are very fast from a factory because they were so light, on the average 2400 pounds.
Was yours a factory intercooled car or a T1 car?

T1, only the GLHS was intercooled. I wish I had one of those!

Yeah I know, I was just checking if yours was a GLHS. Even the T1 cars are pretty quick.

There were no such thing as 305 T/As or AARs.................They were a Pete Hutchinson-Keith Black 340 that was destroked to 303 ci. They were strong enough for TA racing but did not have the devlopment time to work out the bugs. :smokin:

As far as your zapper ramblings...the 67 302 RPO Z-28...regular production option. It got its name from the the actual option #.
It seems from your long winded posts and attempts to school everyone that you aleinate yourself. You know your stuff obviously but that is your field, the way you make a living. Thats cool but it gets a little old. Maybe i'm overreacting as i am not a mechanic but wish i knew more. Either either we are both old farts and i think a table full of beer between us and a discussion of chiefs and mopars would be fun. Happy New Years :cheers:

Yep, they made some pretty silly cars back then and these are two of silliest. As I recall the Z28 did not get "on the cam" until 4 grand with shifts at over 7000 for maximum performance. Not really the best sort of thing to take to the grocery store. It is little surprise that they sold only a few thousand copies of either one.

For everyday use the milder small blocks were just better. Some made 300 H.P. but had hydraulic lifters that did not need constant adjustment. They also ran smoother and started easier.

Oh yes, the racing versions of both of them were just about exactly equal in performance since both were winning races on a regular basis. The biggest difference is in the perception of the viewers. Ford men love the Ford and Chevy men love the Chev. In my case I would love to have either one of them just to drive on Sundays. What you call silly I call fun to drive, and it doesn't matter that new cars can outperform these cars. What matters is what puts a smile on your face.

As far as murry bs statement of being silly I agree with wedgee....not so...not even close. If he calls the Zapper and Boss 302 silly than he must mean all muscle cars back then were silly. There were a lot muscle back then that either of these cars would take out in the 1/4. Also these cars would accel on a road course.

I think most people would agree that new performance cars are far superior to old musclecars in terms of how they perform. This is where it ends. To fully understand this, you cannot deny that it has taken Detroit, and the world for that matter a long time to catch up to the engine performance of the 60's. It was a pinnacle time, in a different era. We are now in the midst of another performance generation albeit the cars are different, and they have to be. Musclecar's were the pinnacle of what detroit did before emission control. Obviously those cars are not going to put down the numbers today, and gasoline is different. To call these calls silly, I guess you are just not a fan, and that's ok. What can't be duplicated in today's performance cars is the rattle of the windows at high speeds, and the way your heart skips a beat when you down shift, (before the days when the computer tells you to downshift). The final thing that is the smell of CAM 2, the grabber blue paint, and the music of solid lifter canted valve SBF. That is why I don't think it's a silly thing.

I think your selling us old guys and our old muscle out there wedge...but i'm on my fourth ( i think) double wall banger :biggrin: Your car and mine will still horrify a 5.0 .....stock to stock......down the 1/4. And thats 35 years later....Happy New Year! If you have any pics of your Swinger pm me...would luv to see them. :cheers:

Odd you dont have a response to this post ya fuckin phony. :screwy:

Give him some time. Maybe he went someplace or something. You don't need to get mad.

You know it's funny as I sit out here, that some people have to hate bash because I don't have an online photo. I don't have access I am overseas.-military

The Chevy Z-28 is the better car. It's design was for making multiple shifts
during high RPM, because thats what the trans am for which this car made, demanded. It's rpm can go higher than the 'Stang. Ive spoken to some owners who told me that they had shifted it to 15 grand, but that's mostly the exception, but its' why most owners dont have the original motor, it got blown high shifting, and those heads were not designed to breathe for high revvs. When I began looking for a z of my own in the late 70's, I rarely found one with a factory engine. They revved so high the gearheads blew them off the frame. That's why an original's cost is so high.
My thoughts about this are, that if they were designed with better breathing capacity that may not have happened.

So the shifts that made your speed were to be nothing less than 5 or 6 k, and thats how you got yout Z to scat, because it won't perform unless you high :smile: revv it. Remember this is not a high torque car. People who have lost street races in it lost because they never revved it to its comfort zone which was not less than 5-6 grand, where other cars redline.
The Z was designed as a racing car made specifically for the Trans am circuit, that GM sold exactly as is on the street: plain and simple. They loosed it on the public for high sales, and a success it was. A high torque engine was not its goal.
I beleive it was Mark Donahue that won the Trans AM using the Z in 68 and 69. Chevy lost in 67 i think.

If I remember my story right, the Boss 302 Mustang was a re designed chevy 302 hence its success as a race car. The designer for the Chevy 302 (can't recall his name) went over to Ford and gave them a re designed, same motor for the Boss. I'll be happy to be wrong since I'm not sure of the exactness of my story, but i think it's close. If anyone has something to add to this, feel free to share.
But in the end, the z 302 was a better motor, a stronger engine and had better shift zone during certain rpm's where the necessity demanded during the Trans Am race, unlike the Mustang. In the end, the Z28 is a better car all day long.

Vic,

I haven't been following this thread. It seems ancient. And it's the two "little guys" battling it out for 2nd place... We ask that people don't open such old threads, but you would be most welcome to start up a new one!

In answer to one of your statements, there is no (NONE) relationship between the Ford 302 and the Chevy 302. The only similarity is the bore and stroke. The Chevy is 100% a "traditional" small block design. The Ford is a Cleveland with a shorter deck and shorter rods.

FWIW

Jim

I WAS THERE! Drags and Road Races. The most definitive anylisis of the '69 Z-28 was Hot Rod Magazine. They took the Z given to them to test drive directly to the dyno shop. It was absolutely 425 hp. Their take on the advertised ratings was strictly due to insurance costs.
On the Road Courses the Z was strong but the Mustangs were also tough contenders.
My home tracks are Road Atlanta and the drag circuits around Atlanta.
Now, this one pretty much ices it even against the BB Fords. The world's fastest stock (All GM Part Numbers) Z-28 Camero (1969) was turning in the sevens a few years ago.
I personally built the chevys with all stock parts that were turning over 165 mph on the road courses.
With those facts in mind, you can make your own decisions.

As the owner of a 69 B2 I would like to chime in. First off, the 69 B2 was an answer to the HORRIBLE 68 outing Ford had with the tunnelport 302 experiment. It was a disaster. They had terrible breathing problems. They mated up the new and still in develpoment 351 Cleveland heads with the new strengthened 302 block. The result was a high winding small block.

As for the original question, In '69, Z28 did win. Ford failed to finish races in the end. In 1970 though, it was all B2's. With PJ and George Fohlmer at the wheels they were VERY hard to beat.

There is so much BAD information being spread here, my favorite though was the fellow posting that guys were shifting the Z28's at 15,000 rpm. Ya, right, ok.

I can take mine to 7k plus and have heard other guys on our website (www.boss302.com (http://www.boss302.com)) that take thiers above 9k, but only very limited streatches.

In any event, I am proud to own a 69 B2 and would also love to own a 69 Z28. Again, do not put down or compare Drag times as these cars were simply made to road race. By the way, mine handles like no other 60's car that I own right now (and I do own quite a few) or that I have ever owned

Thank you

Bossguy,

Yup, one would think a Z/28 or Boss 302 was a "giant killer", based on all the folklore. While both cars were very good in their class, they were no match for the larger-cubed muscle cars.

To put the "15,000 RPM" thing is perspective, there's a shop here in Richmond, famous for their Comp Eliminator small blocks. Chester Houghtaling is the man. His 290 CID Chevy makes over 800 HP with carbs and gasoline. He says: "If it "leaves" under 9,000, shut it down, it can't recover." It has a very narrow power band, 9K-11.5K. But it DOES make over 800! STRICTLY a drag racing engine. It's more like a 289 than any other, "spec" wise. 4" bore, 2 7/8" stroke. 18 deg. MONSTER heads, etc. Wild animal, but hardly a factory "design", and not suited for road racing.

Jim

Regarding Trans Am titles; Mustang won in '66 & '67, Camaro in '68 & '69 (over Mustang by 1 point), and Mustang in 1970. Ford and Chevrolet pulled out of Trans Am racing at the end of the 1970 season. Factory backed AMC/Javelin won in 1971 with Penske/Donohue.

Regarding horsepower I suggest you look up the Hot Rod Magazine web page in the Technical section. Richard Holdener wrote an interesting article called Muscle Car Engine Shootout. Sorry, only Ford and Chevrolet need apply.
Duplicates of each engine were built. The exceptions from stock were that each used a Holley 750HP carb and 1 3/4" primary tube headers. The dynomometer at West Tech Performance in Mira Loma, CA was used.

Results were:

1965

L76 327 356hp@6,100 TQ369@4,100
Shelby 289 302hp@5,800 TQ310@4,600

1969

DZ302 356hp@6,700 TQ333@4,400
Boss302 372hp@6.800 TQ325@4,200 (Boss 302 made more TQ @3,000 than the DZ302)

1970

LT-1 353hp@5,600 TQ392@4,100
Cobra Jet 365hp@5,800 TQ379@3,80
351

1971

LT-1 359hp@5,900 TQ376@4,100 Compression ratio 9.0:1
Boss 351 383hp@6,100 TQ391@4,000 Compression ratio 11.0:1

The notations were also made in the article. So we can see that none of the 302s or the 350/351s made 400HP they were quite powerful and much more so than advertised. The L76 and Shelby 289 came up short but were still quite respectable. All engines made over 1hp/ci which was pretty hot for those days.

I will add my $4.63 worth ($0.02 adjusted for inflation). NO small block Ford/Chev/AMC/Dodge/Pontiac EVER made 15,000rpm. (bench racing excluded). While the 302s did not make big block torque, I think the level they did reach is very respectable for their displacement. I do believe the expectations from customers was very unrealistic. Geared appropriately and with proper off-the-line technique they were very fast, for their size.
Remember, when discussing N/A engines, there is no substitute for CUBIC INCHES.

Let the my-dog-is-bigger-than-your-dog bench racing resume.

I had all of the years/engines/HP/TQ all laid out in a nice graph form and it did not translate when I submitted it. I tried to tidy it up by editing; three times I tried but to no avail. SORRY!

SharonAnne,

We appreciate the effort behind your research. There is one "fatal flaw" in the magazine articles. No "small block" was EVER in a muscle car. Pony cars (ALL of the marques being discussed in this thread) are a different "class" than muscle cars, regardless of what some "automotive journalist" wants you to believe. No matter how much "muscle" a Mustang or Camaro has, it will ALWAYS be a "pony car".

Also, when they (Hot Rod) limit the "applications" to only Ford and Chevy, they leave out too many other good ones. The Fords and Chevys won most of it WHILE there was "factory backing". When the corporate money "dried up", AMC, Chrysler AND Pontiac had their successes.

But hey, welcome to "our" world!!! Always room for another...

Jim

Hi Jim!

I am confused by your comment about small blocks not being in 'muscle' cars. The engine results I posted were all used in the various commercial presentations of the Z and Boss cars with the exception of the 327 and 289.

The magazine restricting the 'marques' to Ford and Chev is not a problem. This thread IS Chev vs Ford, so, no problem.

Regarding how high an engine will rev we need to keep things in perspective. Drag race cars hit their rev limits for fractions of a second. Road race cars hit theirs over and over again for hours. The current NASCAR engines qualify as 'small blocks' since they are 358 cid. They rev to 8,000 and 9,000 rpm over and over again for long stretches on the tri-ovals.

The C6 Corvette 427s are no longer big blocks. At the 24 hours of LeMans they keep hitting the red line shift after shift for 24 hours. On what is left of the Mulsanne they hold red line for over 2 miles (iirc).

If you want to hit 15,000rpm you need to go the the tiny-blocks. The 500-650cc japanese motorcycles do rev that high, but don't ask them to do that for a 24hr race.

SharonAnne,

Mustangs and Camaros are "out of place" in muscle car discussions. Read the "definition" of muscle car at the top of this forum. And no muscle car was ever delivered with a small block, regardless of "brand". "Never send a boy to do a MAN'S job..." Please excuse the "sexist" reference, no offense intended. It's just an "old saying" that fits.

And limiting the discussion to Ford and Chevy leaves out some of the BEST muscle cars... (:-

Jim

Jim

I am just following the title of THIS thread, "69 Boss 302 VS Camaro Z28".

I agree that Mustangs and Camaros do not belong in the Muscle Car catagory but that is discussed in another thread. Yes, Muscle Cars have big blocks, however this one IS about Mustangs and Camaros, specifically the 302 small blocks.

I think my comments from one thread are being replied to in the incorrect thread.

Mustangs and Camaros are "out of place" in muscle car discussions. Read the "definition" of muscle car at the top of this forum. And no muscle car was ever delivered with a small block, regardless of "brand". "Never send a boy to do a MAN'S job..." Please excuse the "sexist" reference, no offense intended. It's just an "old saying" that fits.

As per the thread on the definition of a muscle car, this Muscle Car sub forum is a bit more inclusive than a strict definition would suggest. :)

This forum includes discussions on the pony cars as well as the small block muscle cars. This forum is all about vintage American performance cars, because all of them face common issues, which are of interest to all muscle car fans.

As I have posted earlier.... I have always suspected that the "Muscle Car" forum always intended to include ALL post-war classic American performance cars.... and the resulting pony vs. muscle rivalry simply stems from an imperfect use of the 'muscle car' name for the forum.

I agree! This forum is best served by using the term "Performance Car". No one would argue that a Mustang 429CJ or a 427 Camaro is not a 'performance car'. Perhaps the emphasis would best be placed on "MUSCLE'' and not 'platform'. The aforementioned 'Pony' cars certainly have the 'Muscle'.

I suggest that big block Pony cars ARE Muscle cars while midsize cars such as Chevelles CAN be Muscle cars but are not Pony cars. Such discussion serves only to incite argument about what is and is not a Muscle car and takes discussion away from the Performance of American cars of Muscle!

for your consideration,

the boss 351 for 71' was 4 inch stroke with a 3.50 stroke. the cam was .477 but your forgetting thats with 1.6 rockers actual lift was .515 due to the fact both the 302 and the 351 boss's ran 1.73 rockers. take .477 divide that by 1.6 =.298 multiply that by 1.73 to reveal the true lift of .515. this cam also was 230 @ .050 with an advertised duration of 290. rear end gearing of 3.91:9 with a compression of 11.1 for the 302 and 11.70:1 for the 351. both the 351 and 302 ran cams of same specs.

the boss's if i recall dominated racing, I'd go with the stangs over the camero's

Car Life magazine did tests on the cars--BOX STOCK.
0-60:
Z28 Camaro-7.4 sec.
Boss Mustang- 6.9 sec.

1/4 mile ET@ MPH:
Z28 Camaro-15.1 @95
Boss Mustang 14.8 @96

Estimated NET HP:
Z28 Camaro- 290 HP
Boss Mustang- 280 HP

Slalom time on whatever Car Life had for a track:
Z28 Camaro- 1:00.0
Boss Mustang- 1:02.5

Skidpad Gs:
Z28 Camaro-.72 G
Boss Mustang- .73 G

Never heard of a "Can-am" option for the Z28. Sounds like BS.
You might be thinking of the rare ZL1 Camaro with the all-aluminum 427 engine. These usually ended up in the Can-Am cars of the era.
Chambered exhaust, yes.
Dual 4V crossram, yes.
I don't think slant plugs heads weren't around in '69. Mid '70s maybe.
Slant plug heads have very poor flow numbers compared to what you can get now. Basically, they're completely obsolete now.

Back in the day, those were GOOD 1/4 mile numbers. Very few completely stock muscle cars got below 14.00 in the quarter. OEM tires were very slippery, and generally the engines weren't that powerful--compared to now. Magazines like Hot Rod got good 1/4 miles times by mounting slicks, removing belts, uncorking the exhaust, adding timing, etc.
Nice cars when they were new, but completely outclassed now.

Ancient threads (especially inflammatory car comparisons) should not be revived.