Yeah, I got ya. I do remember there was no limiter. Stock with 3.08, 148 could be had in 4th and 5th. That was all drag limited. One of the reasons I ordered 3.27s was to overcome some of that drag. It made a little difference but once I got the GT40 heads and 1.7 roller rockers along with the exhaust work, that made a huge difference. Of course back then my main goal was to beat JB and his entourage.
2013 Taurus SHO
- Thread starter GMAN
- Start date
Yeah the GT40s and 1.7s were teh shiznet back in the day. First car was an 84.5 GT350 and I did those and an Edelbroch intake and carb. Car was a fargin blast after that. Got pulled over for doing 147 in a 55. Cop asked if I knew how fast I was going and I said "I dunno, the speeometer stops at 85." :lol:
Still cant believe I skated through that.
Still cant believe I skated through that.
I think about those days doing the illegal racing thing. The fun part was the trip home. Most of us lived in south San Diego and we raced in the Kearny Mesa and Mira Mesa area. So at 3-4 in the morning, you had anywhere from 20 to 45 cars hauling ass down the I-805 toward National City and Chula Vista. Usally it was me and a couple of other 'Stangs and one guy in a 1987 turbo Supra leading the way trying to get home before church. Lol
chris2523
93 Mark VIII
right... the boss 302 was rated at what, 290? more than the LS.
the boss 302 actually made like 350 hp. way more than the LS does.
the boss 302 actually made like 350 hp. way more than the LS does.
That 290 was SAE Gross. Convert that to SAE Net and the LS has more power in V8 and V6. I did the conversion for my 1988 5.0 and figured it out to be 285 HP SAE Gross. If you add to that the sophisticated electronic engine management systems that can adjust for various parasitic drag components, the newer engines probably don't suffer as much from the conversion from Gross to Net.
Last edited:
chris2523
93 Mark VIII
doesn't matter. the 290 was a lie.
GMAN
Dedicated LVC Member
Ecoboost..I like it.
The Coyote is nice as well.
The Coyote is nice as well.
KStromberg
Dedicated LVC Member
I would love to put the Coyote in a Mark8
I can't go for that. If it were the 351, I could see them underating that but looking at the track numbers for 3400lbs, I would have to say that number was accurate at 290hp gross. I've driven one and I can honestly say the 1988 Mustang would eat it alive with the same gearing. Even with the same tires. Stock, I am certain.
KStromberg
Dedicated LVC Member
My buddy has an LX. Yeah, he thought he'd walk me until I took it to Mexico with him in the car and buried the 140mph for a mile with 4.10 gears. And I bet I got there a whole lot quicker. Foxes are BEASTS when modded or with a stroker motor perhaps. Stock, they are slow and boring.
I'll tell you a funny story about Mexico. I was running my Stang down in Baja on one of the toll roads. I decided to run it up because this road I was on was brand new and very smooth. I had my turbo system setup for about 450hp so I was cooking about 165mph. The locals would run across this road which had a median with little bushes planted. I could see really good so, when they would run across, I had plenty of time to slow if I needed to. Well, I see this person crossing about a half mile. No problem. It was a little old lady with a big sombrerro pushing a cart. No problem. Dude! She dropped something from the cart and stopped right on the zipper to pick it up. I was in the right lane already but, she was on the zipper. Nothing I could do. I went past her at like 135. I didn't hit her but when I looked in the mirror, I didn't see her. I looked again and then I saw her, as she landed. Apples, oranges, and tortillas flying everywhere! She must have had a chin strap because she still had the sombrero on. I had one big problem. I was going south so I needed to turn around. It took me a long time to turn around. By the time I got back to the border, they were looking for me. I was able to fast track through the check point because I had a PORAC sticker my mother gave me. It was a long time before I went down there again. Come to think of it, I never took the mustang down there again.
Yes it really did have 350 but sae gross. Dont know how much that is by todays standards.
The 302 is still faster. 0-60 its slower than the LS @ 7.1 seconds but stock it ran low 14's...faster than a gen II V8 LS. Weighs about the same as an LS also.
Moes8
Dedicated LVC Member
Actual Horsepower Of '60s/'70s Muscle Cars
Most muscle car enthusiasts know that the horsepower ratings of the engines were deliberately set lower than what they actually made. Usually for insurance reasons and so the cars could run in a more favorable class in drag races.
Noted auto journalist Roger Huntington wrote an article about what these engines actually put out; here is the list: (All are gross hp & torque figures.)
Engine------------------Advertised----Rated----------True
------------------------HP @ RPM---- Torque@ RPM-- HP @ RPM
Buick 455 Stage 1-------360@5000----510@2800------420@5400
Camaro Z/28 302--------290@5800----290@4200------310@6200
Chevelle 396 L-78-------375@5600----415@3600------400@5600
Corvette 427 L-88-------430@5200----450@4400------480@6400
Mopar 340-4 bbl---------275@5000----340@3200------320@5600
Mopar 440-Magnum------375@4600----480@3200------410@5400
Mopar 440 Six-Pack------390@4700----490@3200------430@5600
Mopar 426 Street Hemi---425@5000----490@4000------470@6000
Mustang Boss 302--------290@5800----290@4300------310@6200
Ford 351-4 bbl Cleveland--300@5400----380@3400------340@5600
Mustang Boss 351--------330@5400----370@4000------360@6000
Mustang 428 Cobra-Jet---335@5200----440@3400------410@5600
Mustang Boss 429--------375@5200----450@3400------420@5600
Oldsmobile 455 W-30-----370@5300----500@3600------440@5600
Oldsmobile 350 W-31-----325@5400----360@3600------350@5800
Pontiac Ram Air 400------366@5100----445@3600------410@5600
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes:
-The most underrated was probably the 428 Cobra Jet engine... its official rating of 335 hp was a joke, especially considering that the 390-4 bbl engine was also rated at 335 hp.
-The second-most underrated was probaby either the Mopar 426-Hemi or the 340-4 bbl. The 340-Six Pack was not listed, but with an advertised hp of 290@5000 rpm and torque of 340@3200 rpm, I would guess about 335 hp @ 6000 rpm.
-The actual power output of that 455 Olds W-30 is very impressive... 440 hp!
__________________
'66 Plymouth Fury VIP (383-4 bbl), Cadillac '69 Fleetwood Brougham, '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car
Most muscle car enthusiasts know that the horsepower ratings of the engines were deliberately set lower than what they actually made. Usually for insurance reasons and so the cars could run in a more favorable class in drag races.
Noted auto journalist Roger Huntington wrote an article about what these engines actually put out; here is the list: (All are gross hp & torque figures.)
Engine------------------Advertised----Rated----------True
------------------------HP @ RPM---- Torque@ RPM-- HP @ RPM
Buick 455 Stage 1-------360@5000----510@2800------420@5400
Camaro Z/28 302--------290@5800----290@4200------310@6200
Chevelle 396 L-78-------375@5600----415@3600------400@5600
Corvette 427 L-88-------430@5200----450@4400------480@6400
Mopar 340-4 bbl---------275@5000----340@3200------320@5600
Mopar 440-Magnum------375@4600----480@3200------410@5400
Mopar 440 Six-Pack------390@4700----490@3200------430@5600
Mopar 426 Street Hemi---425@5000----490@4000------470@6000
Mustang Boss 302--------290@5800----290@4300------310@6200
Ford 351-4 bbl Cleveland--300@5400----380@3400------340@5600
Mustang Boss 351--------330@5400----370@4000------360@6000
Mustang 428 Cobra-Jet---335@5200----440@3400------410@5600
Mustang Boss 429--------375@5200----450@3400------420@5600
Oldsmobile 455 W-30-----370@5300----500@3600------440@5600
Oldsmobile 350 W-31-----325@5400----360@3600------350@5800
Pontiac Ram Air 400------366@5100----445@3600------410@5600
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes:
-The most underrated was probably the 428 Cobra Jet engine... its official rating of 335 hp was a joke, especially considering that the 390-4 bbl engine was also rated at 335 hp.
-The second-most underrated was probaby either the Mopar 426-Hemi or the 340-4 bbl. The 340-Six Pack was not listed, but with an advertised hp of 290@5000 rpm and torque of 340@3200 rpm, I would guess about 335 hp @ 6000 rpm.
-The actual power output of that 455 Olds W-30 is very impressive... 440 hp!
__________________
'66 Plymouth Fury VIP (383-4 bbl), Cadillac '69 Fleetwood Brougham, '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car
Ok so the Boss 302 really had 310hp SAE Gross which puts it at about 250 Net. 300 lbs lighter plus shorter gearing. Yeah, I still maintain the LS V8 is the stronger car. Now put on some modern day rubber and we have a good race...until the curves come.
With all this talk about underrated hp figures in the 60s and early 70s, I want to know about the same thing happening in the mid 80s. I know for a fact the Grand National was underrated. Does anyone really believe she had only 245 SAE Net? Does anyone honestly think 5.0 stangs had only 225hp Net? I really think those figures were published using least favorable conditions like low octane, high ambient temps and such. I can remember running high octane fuel and running my timing 20deg btdc. Yes I know, everyone thought the same back then too. They understood when I ran down the track. I didn't have that initial kick like everyone else and I most times lost. But if they made just one slip up, it was over because that timing setup made it to where she didn't start to give up at 5000 rpm.
Cars lost a lot of Hp in the 70's because of emissions crap.
Just look up stock dyno results of the cars in question.
http://www.dragtimes.com/
Just look up stock dyno results of the cars in question.
http://www.dragtimes.com/
Last edited:
I understand that but I'm referring to the mid 80s era and newer. I've seen 1987 Mustang GT tested at 6.3 0-60 and 14.1 quarter then the 1988 Mustang GT 7.1 0-60 and 15.2 quarter. It would be a shame to have to go to computer simulation to have consistency. I think we atleast need to have a conditions standard for testing. That's the way its done for aircraft and then we just make adjustments for deviation from standard conditions.
Can you count to potato? Lets look at the gibberish you just spewed. You say a car that was rated with less power (LS) and weighs more (LS) is the stronger car? Didnt even take TQ in to consideration which is also HIGHER than the LS. Yes on the same tires the BOSS would destroy any LS. It would need the old school tires to make the race even. The BOSS was bred for the track, the LS was bred to go to the mall.
Lets move on. Was the GN 245hp? Yes. Was the Fox E7 Mustangs 225hp? Not really. Closer to 215. Ford lied. Just like its not really a 5.0
As for different magazines getting different times, there is nothing you can do about that. Different drivers, different tracks, different conditions, different altitude etc etc. Not every magazine can get to the same track at the same time with the same driver. Besides that options also make a difference. Like a non optioned manual everything car vs a T-top GT with all the goodies.
Also we do have a standard for corrections with running conditions. Its called SAE Corrected.
Octane does not increase HP unless its a car that can tell the difference between octanes through electronics. 80s cars did not have the tech. Mustang never got the tech till after 1996 and even then it was primitive.
Lets move on. Was the GN 245hp? Yes. Was the Fox E7 Mustangs 225hp? Not really. Closer to 215. Ford lied. Just like its not really a 5.0
As for different magazines getting different times, there is nothing you can do about that. Different drivers, different tracks, different conditions, different altitude etc etc. Not every magazine can get to the same track at the same time with the same driver. Besides that options also make a difference. Like a non optioned manual everything car vs a T-top GT with all the goodies.
Also we do have a standard for corrections with running conditions. Its called SAE Corrected.
Octane does not increase HP unless its a car that can tell the difference between octanes through electronics. 80s cars did not have the tech. Mustang never got the tech till after 1996 and even then it was primitive.
But wait, did I say the LS had less power? It has more power. Was the Boss 302 bred for the track? Yes sir it was...in 1970! You have to remember, we live in an era where some street cars have to be detuned to race legally. What did I say that was gibberish as you say? Look at the figures again. Horsepower? Track times? I know someone has put up numbers like 0-60 in 7.2 and quarter in like 15.3 or something close. Just ignore that. Those were times for the 1st gens. 2nd gens have times better than the original Boss 302. Now there was an option for better gears but that was an option. Hey you know what? I'm not gonna disrespect you for what you are saying. All I have to go on is what I've experienced. I don't know it all.
Now about that horsepower thing with the 225 going down to 215 and such, that difference was because one of the new critereon was to have the A/C switched on. Every car that was subject to the new ratings standard had a change. Some even got a higher rating the GN wasn't subject to the new critereon.
Now about that horsepower thing with the 225 going down to 215 and such, that difference was because one of the new critereon was to have the A/C switched on. Every car that was subject to the new ratings standard had a change. Some even got a higher rating the GN wasn't subject to the new critereon.
thaywood
Dedicated LVC Member
I agree with Laser on this one. No stock LS will ever be able to keep up with a stock '69 or '70 Boss 302 Mustang, except maybe in the curves. But even then, the Boss will still probably outhandle the LS (on modern tires). Larry Shinoda had a hand in the Boss Mustang's suspension design and made sure it was set up for handling more than just a stratght line. The most power the LS ever had was 280hp. First gens had to make do with 252hp. The Boss 302 was rated at 290 but actually had 310 (according to the chart above). The Boss 302 is more powerful than either gen1 or gen2 LS V-8. The Boss 302 is lighter than the LS. More power plus less weight usually means a faster car. I have a "Motorcade" magazing from 1970 showing the Boss 302 Mustang's 0-60 time at somewhere around 5.3 seconds (I will try to find that mag when I get home from work today. It has a LOT of info about the "New For 1970 Cars"). A stock LS can't even begin to touch that. There's no way the '87-'93 Mustang's 302 had any more than 225hp. The cars were too slow to have any more than that. The later 215hp sounds more reasonable compared with the cars' performance numbers. And I've always gotten a giggle out of the "5.0" label for the old 302. With a 4" bore and 3" stroke, it's actually a 301.6 cube engine. That calculates out to about 4,946cc which would round to 4.9 liters. The Coyote, on the other hand, is actually a full 302 cubic inches, making it 4,953cc or 5.0 liters, rounded up. Anyway, how did this thread get so derailed?
Some 80's cars did. My '87 and '88 T-Bird Turbo Coupes had a switch on the console to change from regular to permium fuel. As did the '84-'86 Mustang SVO. Granted, that was a manual, driver controlled option. But it was part of the electronics nonetheless.
Some 80's cars did. My '87 and '88 T-Bird Turbo Coupes had a switch on the console to change from regular to permium fuel. As did the '84-'86 Mustang SVO. Granted, that was a manual, driver controlled option. But it was part of the electronics nonetheless.
GMAN
Dedicated LVC Member
Getting back to the SHO
Okay let me try this again.
310 gross is about 248 net for the Boss 302 circa 1970
280 net is about 280 net for the Lincoln LS circa 2006
What did I forget?
Ohhh! My bad.
280 net is about 336 gross for the LS V8.
Now 225 net is about 270 gross for 1988 Mustang GT. That is for the GT @ 3200 pounds.
The LX is 200 pounds lighter than the GT. The LX notchback is 300 pounds lighter.
The original Boss 302 was just about 3600 pounds.
My 2006 LS V8 Sport is 3960 pounds with my 210 pound black ass in it with a full tank of gas and a bucket of chicken in the passenger seat and a Texas Striped in the trunk! Now What's Up!!
310 gross is about 248 net for the Boss 302 circa 1970
280 net is about 280 net for the Lincoln LS circa 2006
What did I forget?
Ohhh! My bad.
280 net is about 336 gross for the LS V8.
Now 225 net is about 270 gross for 1988 Mustang GT. That is for the GT @ 3200 pounds.
The LX is 200 pounds lighter than the GT. The LX notchback is 300 pounds lighter.
The original Boss 302 was just about 3600 pounds.
My 2006 LS V8 Sport is 3960 pounds with my 210 pound black ass in it with a full tank of gas and a bucket of chicken in the passenger seat and a Texas Striped in the trunk! Now What's Up!!