Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online!
Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! 
-
Latest | 0 Rplys
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical
Engineering/Technical Ask technical questions about cars. Do you know how a car engine works?
Closed Thread Show Printable Version Show Printable Version | Email this Page Email this Page | Subscription Subscribe to this Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-07-2004, 08:43 PM   #61
PWMAN
AF Enthusiast
Thread starter
 
PWMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
__________________
88' Dodge Shadow- 2.2L, 5 speed...a couple mods
12.37@111.75 MPH
PWMAN is offline  
Old 03-07-2004, 09:09 PM   #62
Mercracer
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts: 118
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

Quote:
Originally Posted by PWMAN
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.
Mercracer is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 10:11 AM   #63
Mercracer
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts: 118
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Mercracer is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 04:26 PM   #64
PWMAN
AF Enthusiast
Thread starter
 
PWMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
__________________
88' Dodge Shadow- 2.2L, 5 speed...a couple mods
12.37@111.75 MPH
PWMAN is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 06:09 PM   #65
Mercracer
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts: 118
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
Mercracer is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 06:41 PM   #66
Mercracer
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts: 118
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

Quote:
Originally Posted by PWMAN
. 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.

Last edited by Mercracer; 03-08-2004 at 07:26 PM.
Mercracer is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 08:21 PM   #67
PWMAN
AF Enthusiast
Thread starter
 
PWMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It took a good bit of searching, but:
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...e/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 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.
__________________
88' Dodge Shadow- 2.2L, 5 speed...a couple mods
12.37@111.75 MPH
PWMAN is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 08:46 PM   #68
Mercracer
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts: 118
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

Quote:
Originally Posted by PWMAN
It took a good bit of searching, but:
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...e/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.
Mercracer is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 09:03 PM   #69
broddie50
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sacrmento, California
Posts: 286
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

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.
broddie50 is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 09:17 PM   #70
PWMAN
AF Enthusiast
Thread starter
 
PWMAN's Avatar
 
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:
Originally Posted by Mercracer
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!
__________________
88' Dodge Shadow- 2.2L, 5 speed...a couple mods
12.37@111.75 MPH
PWMAN is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 09:54 PM   #71
Mercracer
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
Posts: 118
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Re: Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

Quote:
Originally Posted by PWMAN
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.
Mercracer is offline  
Old 03-12-2004, 03:37 PM   #72
steveeyedoc
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Albany, Indiana
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thumbs up Re: Re: Re: Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

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.
steveeyedoc is offline  
Old 03-12-2004, 11:47 PM   #73
Dusterlover
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: vancouver, Washington
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Re: Styling

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
Dusterlover is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 02:17 AM   #74
Bloodhound
AF Enthusiast
 
Bloodhound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 451
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
__________________
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.
Bloodhound is offline  
Old 03-30-2004, 11:07 AM   #75
steveeyedoc
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Albany, Indiana
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
steveeyedoc is offline  
 
Closed Thread

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD


Bookmarks
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 AM.

Community Participation Guidelines | How to use your User Control Panel

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 
 
no new posts