Search | Car Forums | Gallery | Articles | Helper | AF 350Z | IgorSushko.com | Corporate |
| Latest | 0 Rplys |
|
Engineering/Technical Ask technical questions about cars. Do you know how a car engine works? |
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread |
|
Thread Tools |
11-19-2003, 02:34 AM | #16 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 305
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28
Definitely one of the reasons the high winding small block 302 sold less than the big block 396s (and 350s) was that on the street, they required a lot of careful shifting and high reving. That definitely was ahead of its time.
__________________
1971 Buick GS Convertible 350-4bbl w/ 3-speed Auto 1 of 599 made Modifications: None - Totally stock! Former owner of: 1969 Buick GS 400 Convertible Modifications: 430 4bbl. V8 (from a '68 Riviera), Stage 1 spec Carb, headers, 2 1/2" exhaust, transmission shift kit, and column tachometer - to name a few ... |
|
11-19-2003, 07:55 AM | #17 | ||
AF Enthusiast
Thread starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28
Quote:
And no camaro owner is ever going to say they lost to a mustang, vice versa too. |
||
11-19-2003, 09:42 AM | #18 | ||
AF Fanatic
|
Re: Re: Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28
Quote:
I would.
__________________
when in doubt, throttle. |
||
12-13-2003, 11:25 PM | #19 | |||
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Salt Lake, Utah
Posts: 158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
12-13-2003, 11:40 PM | #20 | |||
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Salt Lake, Utah
Posts: 158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: Re: Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
12-14-2003, 06:47 AM | #21 | |
AF Enthusiast
Thread starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
I'm thinking the Mustang must weigh more then, anybody have curb weight specs?
|
|
01-27-2004, 03:09 PM | #22 | |
AF Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 74
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Well, I'm an old guy who was around in the late '60's and early '70's. I spent some great days at a 1/4 mi. track in Nashville (long gone now). My best friend had a '69 Z28 that he ran. I never saw a Boss 302 beat him. Guys, it's about the combination. The Boss 302's didn't run worth a crap off the showroom floor! The valves were far too big.
And actually the Z28's didn't run that good stock either. At the very least they required headers, dist. recurved, and carb. rejetted. Oh, and 4.56 gears, or at least 4.11's ( which meant you had to change rearends for any road trips). My buddies Z28 won a lot of races -- and he still talks about how fast it was. But if you want to know the truth -- IT ONLY GOT INTO THE HIGH 13's A COUPLE OF TIMES!! Mostly it ran low 14's. That was with 4.11 gears, open headers, dist. recurved, and carb. rejetted. On street tires -- with slicks it ran slower because it bogged bad off the line. The claims of big HP numbers are DREAMS! Only the baddest of the big blocks from that era can run with some of the new cars like SS Camaros or C5 Corvettes. Oh yeah, they could be made to run with mods, but with some of the right mods the new cars are faster still. I know we always look back and think, "Oh the good old days when...". But those days weren't so good. Guys, THESE ARE THE GOOD OLD DAYS!! Modern muscle is way ahead of classic muscle in every way! |
|
01-27-2004, 10:02 PM | #23 | |
AF Enthusiast
|
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28
i dont care, personally i would take a 1970 cuda...
__________________
.......Team Insane Dreams....... Its only the beginning |
|
01-27-2004, 10:19 PM | #24 | |
AF Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 74
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Yeah, I always liked them too!
|
|
02-26-2004, 04:48 AM | #25 | ||
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 451
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
Working on: 41 Willy's- COMPLETE Next on the drawing board: MkII GT40, 69 cougar eliminator (CJ), 66 GT350 Hertz, 69 Baldwin Motion Camaro, 86 Monte carlo SS, 67 Chev corvette coupe. |
||
02-29-2004, 09:24 AM | #26 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canberra
Posts: 2,361
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28
That is an extremely hard question. But given the Z28s racing records I would have to go with it. Although I do not know much of the Boss 302, I do know they are very nice cars. I would love to own one, definately!
|
|
03-02-2004, 06:37 PM | #27 | ||
AF Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts: 118
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: Re: z28
Quote:
The 428 Mustangs on the other hand did, starting with the 428CJ in 1968. Even the Ford specific magazines rated both the Boss 302 and 429's in the 14.0's. Regarding the statements that were made suggesting that the Boss 302 made over 350HP in stock trim, that is just not true. The most optomistic estimates in the day were that the Boss 302 made 325HP in factory trim. The Boss 351 on the other hand, did in fact make over 350HP. Going by the Magazine test times, the Z-28 had a best of 14.34 in Hot Rod Magazine. There was a test in Cars Magazine of a 69 Z/28 with a dual 4V Holley Cross Ram intake and 4.10 gears running a 13.75, but that can hardly be used as a fair stock comparison. There were also magazine tests of "tweeked" Boss 429's in the low 13's and even into the 12's. |
||
03-03-2004, 04:31 AM | #28 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 451
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
true, ford did ship tweaked mustangs to car testers to record their speeds. The Boss 351 was actually underrated, capable of making around 380hp with some modest tweaks. evidence is in the falcon GTHO which ran a similarly setup engine and is rumoured to make up to 400hp.
__________________
Working on: 41 Willy's- COMPLETE Next on the drawing board: MkII GT40, 69 cougar eliminator (CJ), 66 GT350 Hertz, 69 Baldwin Motion Camaro, 86 Monte carlo SS, 67 Chev corvette coupe. |
|
03-04-2004, 09:32 AM | #29 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gulfport, Mississippi
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Dude go with the BOSS but get the 351. The old Z28s looked sweet but they don't match the BOSS which was built for racing.
|
|
03-04-2004, 11:26 AM | #30 | ||
AF Enthusiast
Thread starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: Re: Re: z28
Quote:
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...s-50fast.shtml Both of these links show the BOSS 429 doing 13.6. It is physically impossible that the boss 302 only made 325 HP. I would believe 325 ft/lbs of torque, but come on with cleveland heads and huge valves not to mention radical cams the 302's made 400 HP just like the 302 chevy's. I would believe the chevy made more torque , simply because of the flow characteristics (port velocity) of the Cleveland heads. They had 2.23/1.71 CANTED valves, larger ports than chevy's wedge heads which only had 2.02/1.60 valves. That much difference in valves alone is enough to be atleast 25 HP more, plus they are canted which aids flow. Both of these engines had similar solid lifter cams, an aluminum dual plane intake, and a 780 CFM Holley carb. What would give the edge in power to the chevy?
__________________
88' Dodge Shadow- 2.2L, 5 speed...a couple mods 12.37@111.75 MPH |
||
|
POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD |
|
|