Mustang boss 302 vs mopar!

-
7duce swinger

7duce swinger

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
479
Reaction score
21
Location
Stockton,Ca
Okay i am slighlty new to the forum,but have been addicted to mopars ever since i laid my eyes on a roadrunner at a very young age,at a pleasanton carshow.I've been having an argument/battle with my brother and two brother in laws,(chevy n mustang guys)about the "boss muskrat 302",being far more superior in every way,than the dodge demons,and darts... So whats your guys' take on the muskrat boss's ??one more question,they asked this "you would rather have a demon,or a dart,than this freakin boss wtf???i said hell yeaah in the joe dirt voice'lol. might sound dumb,but would you rather have a mustang boss 302,than a 340,(any option that u like! :) ) please reply to this post as i would like to see what other peoples opinions are about mopars(demon/dart,or a-bodies) being better than mustangs..
 
Id take a boss 302 mustang over a 340 a body because it's worth more. However will a 340 a body out run a boss 302, you bet your *** it will :twisted:
 
If you're writing about the 69 and 70 version of the Boss 302......
I think that they are great looking cars, but the general consensus was that the engines were terrible on the street. The intake and exhaust ports were designed for sustained high RPMs, and the majority of driving on the dtreet is done UNDER 3000 rpms. They simply gave up too much ground from a standing start. To get them to move, you need a 4.11 gear and a 4 speed. The 340 A body was a better package. Lighter car with better street manners.
If you were racing on a road course, the Boss would be a formidable opponent to a 340 'AAR Cuda or Challenger T/A.
 
I had a 70 Mach 1, very similar car to a Boss 302. From a performance point of view it all comes down to hp to weight ratio and suspension. With a little tweaking to the stock parts the 340 Demons and Dusters will win every time. From a style point of view I think that the Mustang from those years 68 to 70 is one of the better looking cars. It all comes down to personal preference and that's why I have a 72 Demon. I owned both in the past and prefer the Demon. I don't think you could go wrong with either car but Mopars are cooler and so are the people that own them.

Jack
 
When it comes to racing, horse power, vehicle weight, gearing, suspension, and 99 other things play a part.
When it comes to the eye candy, You may as well be comparing womens hair color, breast size, etc..
What ever turns you on
 
Anybody says Ford had any street credo back in the day is either uneducated or stupid.

Look at the Ford 302 rods. 5.155" in length. By sharp contrast, look at the small block Mopar rod at 6.123". There's no doubt which engine is stronger. I put the Ford rods first because this is the only time they'll ever be in front. To put the pics into perspective, the 302 has a 2.00" crankpin and the small block Mopar 2.124, so you get an idea of the size of the rods.

Ford sucks.
 

Attachments

  • 302 SISSY RODS.jpg
    113.5 KB · Views: 1,165
  • 360RODS.jpg
    74.9 KB · Views: 1,033
road test reviews from many sources has even said that the 351 rustang lost to the 340 duster and dart which also beat the nova ss 350. the dart ran a best of 14.70/96.84 while the duster did best with a 14.20. the nova came third in 14.90/94mph and the mustang was plagued with traction issues with 15.23/94.33 so......yeah. mopar baby.
Then you come into well if it had this and that. You say. Hey anyone can mod there car to be better than the other. depends on how good you are and how deep your pockets are. stock mopar. in 71 mopar :D
 
For bling, 70 Boss 302 with louvres, go-wing, and stripe package.. either grabber orange or blue. Strictly for looks of course.

Grant
 
there was a day ,once, when i liked the 70 boss mustang because of the options and appearance packages. then i saw a fully optioned 71 340 demon next to one......
 
The Boss 302 was a purpose build race car, just like the AAR Barracuda and T/A Challenger for Tans Am racing. Just like the New Boss 302, it was purpose built for the track. All are great cars and Mopar and Ford/Mercury fought it out throughout that era of racing.
 
dano said:
The Boss 302 was a purpose build race car, just like the AAR Barracuda and T/A Challenger for Tans Am racing. Just like the New Boss 302, it was purpose built for the track. All are great cars and Mopar and Ford/Mercury fought it out throughout that era of racing.
Click to expand...

the AAR cuda and the T/A challengers were brand new for 1970 and truly purpose built. the 70 mustang FB was nothing more than a carry over from previous years with the boss 302 , graphics and with new grill and taillight treatments. although the mustangs had been competing in trans am long before the E bodies, the mustangs were a style concept and not designed around the TA series
 
The "Boss" 302 suffered from the same thing many 5.0 Mustang guys tried in the begining. Too much cyl. head, and not enough bottom end.


Now, if we was to compare the New 6.1 liter Challenger to the "Boss 302" Mustang of today, i think the Mustang beats Mopar all the way around the horn.
 
well some time ago when they came out with the new boss 302 mustang I was driving the worlds rattiest 68 roadrunner with a 77 440, 352 heads or is it 452 heads...just a junk yard engine with a purple shaft cam and four speed 4:10 super trak pack and 6 pak setup...the mustang wanted to play roller race but I wasnt havin none of that and waited and got lucky on the outskirts leaving town caugt a red light..... rolled the road load out of the hole and started rowing gears with 5500 rpm shifts.....ya'll know the outcome...........:burnout:the six pack scoop shoulda gave him enough warning that poverty caps and uglee primer couldnt hide not to mention 3" exhaust all the way to the back, sure wish I could find pics of that ugleee thang front seat was all duct tape...passenger rear side some kid had inscibed the word's "blob moble" with a knife or something his spelling was humorous
 
..i'm probably going to take some heat for this..
i love my Duster but let's face it,there are thousands and thousands of 340/360 Darts and Dusters at rock bottom prices everywhere....

..Boss 302..no contest!
 
ir3333 said:
there are thousands and thousands of 340/360 Darts and Dusters at rock bottom prices everywhere....
Click to expand...



maybe , but i would take that 1 one of 1,126,000 A bodies every day, all day compared to the billions of mustangs still out there lol
 
I can take the heat but I too love my Dart, love driving it but I owned a 1970 Boss 302 back in the day. All original numbers matching 4 speed car and I would take that car over the dart today because of the looks and value. I do love 68-70 Mustang fastbacks, especially the 70 Boss but I don't care to much for the other years and with that said it would be the only Ford I would ever want.
 
Dukeboy said:
The "Boss" 302 suffered from the same thing many 5.0 Mustang guys tried in the begining. Too much cyl. head, and not enough bottom end.


Now, if we was to compare the New 6.1 liter Challenger to the "Boss 302" Mustang of today, i think the Mustang beats Mopar all the way around the horn.
Click to expand...

The Boss 302 69 and 70 versions had a Cleveland heads (very similar to Nascar/Roush) heads used today. With a 4 bolt main ca Windsor block and screw in freeze plugs for block stability that thing was made to rev. The cranks was steel and the cam solid lifter driven. The cool thing about the boss motor was the enormous valve train for free flowing hi rpm performance. This motor was made to deliver 7200 rpm shifts and still have torque. At 10.5:1 ratio you got the nice snappy rpm blaster that beat all but Mark Donahue (Penske) in '69. The Chrysler cars were no match for the Boss and Camaro's, even the AMC's were faster. The 340 was de-stroked to in the c.i. department to meet the T/A requirement of 5 Liters. On the 1/4 mile the 340 was way faster.

The later 5.0's cylinder heads were the Achilles heal of the 5.0. Small 1.84 intake valves and tiny exhaust ports were no help in the performance department, but they did well with torque. Of course EFI specifically the Ford EEC IV was a great early performance capable system.

The Boss 302 lost the Trans Am Series even at Full tilt HP ran close to 490 HP at 9000 RPM in it's first year. The valve train design and canted valve arrangement was the difference in flowing big numbers of CFM. Ford won in 1968 with the Gurney Spec'd Tunnel Port 302 Ford and Chevrolet in 1969 then back to Ford in 1970, AMC in 1971 and 1972.

Chrysler engineers bought the Boss to see why and how to build the Challengers and Cuda's to be competitive. I think recently it was sold as a low mileage "as is" car.

Thanks
 
340 vs 302 no contest! Back in the day, I made them pay. Remember, it's a Ford!
 
Well I think it was Bob Tuluse? (or some thing like that) did not do to bad in the early days of TA driving a Dart. I think that was with little or no support from Mopar. Just think what could have been if they would of got in to it sooner and backed him more.
 
Ford had to put exotic, canted valve Cleveland style heads on a 302 to get it to amount to anything. The Chrysler heads only had the pushrod holes moved and had special offset rockers. That's all they needed. Had the 340 T/A engine come in a Dart, Demon or Duster, who wouldda been whose *****? The Chrysler cars were damned competitive for what they weighed. The rustang's curb weight was 3415 pounds. The 70 340 Dart's curb weight was 3015 pounds. Had there ever been a T/A Dart, or AAR Duster, the rustang would never have stood a chance. Even as it was with the heavier cars, the rustang got beat a good bit. Ford sucks.
 
The offset push rods were there to allow the engine builders to port the snot out of them. Without being able to get rid of the pinch in the intake ports needed with push rods in the stock location the engine didn't have a chance of making enough power to be competitive. The AAR and TA heads didn't flow any better than regular 340 heads as delivered by the factory.

I am surprised that the SCCA allowed Chrysler to use the AAR and TA cars as homologation vehicles with the 340 since the race cars were limited to 305 CID max, everyone else that raced in the series had an engine that met the 305 limit in there street going model the race car was based off of.
 
Yea my dad had a big block 69 mach 1,but he also never left out the part,that he could not touch a mopar,and the charger down the street always smoked him,and thats a heavy car,but i honestly think dodge outdid everyone,someone said women,breast size,hair etc..thats like queen latifah vs kim kardashian,we all know who wins,yea whatever turns u on,but for me its mopar all day!!!!! Mustang's, i see 12 everyday,for every 2 mopars,hey look out your guys' window theres probably some guy in a muskrat,on 22's i guarantee it one just past buy my house in full "ghetto trim" :)
 
73AbodEE said:
the AAR cuda and the T/A challengers were brand new for 1970 and truly purpose built. the 70 mustang FB was nothing more than a carry over from previous years with the boss 302 , graphics and with new grill and taillight treatments. although the mustangs had been competing in trans am long before the E bodies, the mustangs were a style concept and not designed around the TA series
Click to expand...

You need to read up on Trans Am and the HOMOLOGATION RULES.

The Boss 302, like the Z/28 (also equipped with a 302) were both purpose built cars for racing.

By 1970 de-stroking was allowed to meet the 5 litre engine size limit.. The Boss 302 was still competitive and carried over.

The Z/28 got a 350, but was de-stroked for Trans AM racing.

The T/A and AAR got a 340, but was de-stroked for Trans AM racing.
 
69crusty dart,i just wanna see what other mopar owners opinions are,my brother is fully mustang,mustang this,mustang that mutstang did this better,that better, on and on...but he has a dodge ram sport truck,that hes putting more money into than his stang,which has like 9,000 grand in it,n it still looks like crud,it makes me laugh,i ask him "so which way you gonna go hmm?" hahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top