Boss 302 myths

-

pishta

I know I'm right....
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
23,815
Reaction score
13,670
Location
Tustin, CA
Why was the Boss 302 so mythical? Sure it was 290 HP rated but the 340 would do that too with more torque. Here is a pretty much stock 302 on the dyno. ~300/300 combo. Look at the HP under 3000 rpm..

302.jpg


here is a pretty basic 340:

73 block and main caps, 3418915 J heads, cast iron stock intake 2531915, factory forged crank, windage tray, 273 rods w/ floating pins, comp cam XE268H-10. On the Dyno it made 367hp at 5800 rpms and 375ft lbs of torque at 4100 rpms

Nicks garage did one with a "simple voodoo cam and a high rise intake" and a valve job, got 369 HP and over 400 ft/lbs torque.
 
Two different motors for two different purposes. The "BOSS 302" was originally designed for Trans Am racing. Those heads had huge intake and exhaust ports not made for low RPM HP. Even when those same design heads were put on the Cleveland, those ports were still too big for low RPM HP. Had Ford made an HP version of the 400 with those heads.......then you wouldda SEED somethin. lol

Even still, the 340 in T/A trim, which was Mopar's answer routinely kicked the BOSS 302's butt and I've always attributed that to the extra cubes.
 
Last edited:
Never mind....no point in getting into a discussion with a biased crowd....
 
You can put your fist in a Boss port !
Those engines were designed to be modified.
My brother had a Cougar XR7 with a Cleveland . He thought it was wicked fast and bragged the only car to beat him was a stupid looking old dodge with funny headlights and a scoop on the hood ... lol
Max Wedge ?
 
The trans am cars do exactly what they were designed to do..make power at hi rpm on the trans am circuit.
all were restricted to 305 or less cubes.
They were special in that way.
 
I was hanging out at smokeys 'Hawaiian smokey' speed and machine shop 20 years ago in o side. He ran at pomona,carlsbad, worked with dragmasters in carlsbad...anyways..he had a 302 sitting on the stand he built/restored for a guy. He said they're gutless under 4000 rpm...but would yank you to near 8k afterward if you had the stick n springs in it. He was right. Too bad it wasnt enough.
This is a mopar site, of course there is biased here. Are you naive, I think not.. so don't have any feelings about it and lets try and contribute.
 
Last edited:
Those heads in 2v form were on a Ford 400M, but it was like Mopars 400, a low compression dog. I had a Cleveland in a rather porky (3500 lbs by todays standards) 57 Fairlane 500 that kept up with a 6.6 Trans Am on a lonely freeway one morning, lock step. Great motors, they were a dime a dozen back then. Boss 302's were worshiped by the Mustang crowd. Not seeing anything spectacular in stock form. Now, the 71 R-Code Boss 351 was a hot mill.
 
Those heads in 2v form were on a Ford 400M, but it was like Mopars 400, a low compression dog. I had a Cleveland in a rather porky (3500 lbs by todays standards) 57 Fairlane 500 that kept up with a 6.6 Trans Am on a lonely freeway one morning, lock step. Great motors, they were a dime a dozen back then. Boss 302's were worshiped by the Mustang crowd. Not seeing anything spectacular in stock form. Now, the 71 R-Code Boss 351 was a hot mill.

....and couldda been MUCH hotter had Ford not ground their cams RETARDED. lol I have a 70 M code Cleveland in the spare bedroom I'm still tryin to figure out what I'm gonna do with.
 
In 1976 a guy from a neighbouring town had I believe a 69 Mustang Boss 302. My buddy had a 70 swinger 340. He always bragged how that Stang would eat the dart, chew it up and spit it out. Let me tell ya, that never happened. Quite the opposite. Kim
 
In 1976 a guy from a neighbouring town had I believe a 69 Mustang Boss 302. My buddy had a 70 swinger 340. He always bragged how that Stang would eat the dart, chew it up and spit it out. Let me tell ya, that never happened. Quite the opposite. Kim

That's no surprise. Like I said earlier.....had Ford ground their camshafts better, things mightta been different. I've done a lot of reading through the years and have yet to figure out why they ground their camshafts retarded. I could understand it for emissions reasons, but all through the muscle car era? Stupidness.
 
And even today there motors suck. I think it was about 2001 or so when Ford issued a statement saying that they would never put a Cummins in their trucks cause it is a dinosaur that couldn’t get out of its own way. Emissions will choke it right off. Even though they own Cummins. Kim
 
First car race I ever went to was the 1970 Trans Am at Laguna Seca. Parnelli Jones won that race. I can remember him consistently putting that car in a high speed, four wheel drift through Turn Two outrunning Donahue, Posey, Gurney, and the others. Pure art in motion. Sorry, this thread reminded me of that.
upload_2019-6-14_0-3-47.jpeg
 
Two different motors for two different purposes. The "BOSS 302" was originally designed for Trans Am racing. Those heads had huge intake and exhaust ports not made for low RPM HP. Even when those same design heads were put on the Cleveland, those ports were still too big for low RPM HP. Had Ford made an HP version of the 400 with those heads.......then you wouldda SEED somethin. lol

Even still, the 340 in T/A trim, which was Mopar's answer routinely kicked the BOSS 302's butt and I've always attributed that to the extra cubes.

The “340” in T/A trim was a 305. T/A motors had a destroked crank. So they basically had the same cubes.

The Mopar 1970 race T/A motors were not as realiable as the Boss motors looking at the whole season start to finish. Later in the season things got better, but Chrysler already was pulling money out of the program.

The Boss motors were a second year deal.

And Ford had been in trans am every year from 1966 with serious factory support. And had serious Ford race small block development since the early 60’s with Indy and LeMans GT40 high dollar programs.
 
The “340” in T/A trim was a 305. T/A motors had a destroked crank. So they basically had the same cubes.

The Mopar ‘70 T/A motors were not as realiable as the Boss motors.

The Boss motors were a second year deal.

And Ford had been in trans am every year from 1966 with serious factory support. And had serious Ford race small block development since the early 60’s with Indy and LeMans GT40 high dollar programs.

Yes, they did have some R&D time with the Ford, BUT, the LA had been around several years at that point. I wonder how soon the T/A idea came about? 68....maybe? Wouldn't it have been badass if Chrysler had made similar heads to the Cleveland and Boss big port? oh well. lol
 
Yes, they did have some R&D time with the Ford, BUT, the LA had been around several years at that point. I wonder how soon the T/A idea came about? 68....maybe? Wouldn't it have been badass if Chrysler had made similar heads to the Cleveland and Boss big port? oh well. lol

The decision for Chrysler to run the 1970 trans am season was very late. We are talking months.

Not even close the race development of LA compared to small block ford by 1970.

Not much factory race development with LA motor before 1970.

For the 1969 Indy season Chrysler send ONE engineer to Keith Black to develop a stock block program. They ended up with an adapted Westlake head on it. Failed to qualify at Indy. But did win a shorter track race a Dover near end of year. That helped the 1970 T/A motor program get started some.

That’s peanuts compared to the money Ford spent in Trans Am. In ‘68 Ford had a special tunnel port small block T/A race head that never made it public. Got beat by Chevy (Penske). And Trans Am made rules more stringent to require production head.

And the money Ford spent at Indy and the Ford vs Ferrari GT40 program when they first had small blocks could make Chrysler pass out thinking about it.
 
-
Back
Top