No Boss, any year, any displacement, ever was available with an automatic. There are scores and scores of people who choose to call their cars a "Boss", or mistakently think their car is a "Boss", that have automatic transmissions, that may trick you into thinking that Bosses were available with an auto. But it never happened. They were all 4-speeds.Edbert said:The '69s had the oversized ports and almost no low end torque. Ford "fixed" the ports on the '70s, maybe that year had an automatic available?
Edbert said:But it's not like he modified a "real" Shelby or anything right?
I'm just kidding Hop!
Well it never dawned on me that all bosses were 4 speeds, but I have to differ in your statement that the Boss "9" had enough bottom end grunt to pull a train. While I've never driven one,everything I've read about them said they were relatively dogs in stock trim, and had hardly enough grunt to pull even a shrt train.RICKS said:ALL Bosses were 4-speed-only, Boss 302's, Boss 429's and Boss 351's. I don't believe it had anything to do with low-end torque, the Boss 429 had enough low torque to tug a train. I think it had more to do Ford wanting the "Boss" packages to be seen as no-compromise pure performance packages. And the Boss 302 had a road racing heritage. It's exactly the same deal how SVT has never produced Cobras with laz-o-matics, they want the car to fit a certain image and profile, and to appeal to "enthusiast drivers".
D.Hearne said:Well it never dawned on me that all bosses were 4 speeds, but I have to differ in your statement that the Boss "9" had enough bottom end grunt to pull a train. While I've never driven one,everything I've read about them said they were relatively dogs in stock trim, and had hardly enough grunt to pull even a shrt train.
RICKS said:). . I'm running a 780 Holley (still conservative, but it's good for the street), and I had headers on it. Scary fast, light years faster than any 428 I've ever driven. I put the manifolds back on her two months ago, and it's not as wicked on the top end of the tach, but the torque down low is even more monumental, and the car's alot more driveable (i.e. it no longer rattles my fillings, sets-off every car alarm in a 1-mile radius, and I can drive over speed bumps without crunching the headers now!).
golf4283 said:(snip) I would give like 5 grand for that as it is. but dont get too mad yet becuase it can be saved...
Let's see here, you have a 13 second car that will take off in 2nd gear and has all the potential to be much more? I would like to introduce your Boss to my 89 Ranger and its 400 horse 302 that will also take off in 2nd and probably weighs a little more than your Boss ( 3800lbs w/driver and also runs mid to high 13's. And it didn't cost me an arm and a left hand certain part of my anatomy to build. As for The Boss's being faster in the 1/4 than the 428CJ cars, I'll have to disagree on that. Hell I had a lowriser 427 in a 67 Stang that would run those #'s with a 2.50 rear gear ratio.And the motor was stock except for the H-M cam in it. It was even breathing through a set of 428CJ exhaust manifolds and lugging around 27 gallons of gas and 4 disc brakes adding their drag. And torque? with the torque it had you had to be damn careful when turning a corner and feather foot the gas pedal, to prevent the car from swapping ends on you from too much torque.RICKS said:I own a '69 Boss 429, and it's a gorilla of low torque. You can leave a traffic light in 2nd gear in that car without even touching the gas pedal. There's alot of misunderstanding regarding the Boss 429's being "dogs" in stock trim. The word "relative" you used is the KEY word. When the Boss 429 was introduced, it was a highly exotic mill for the time. There were alot of VERY HIGH expectations for it, Ford fans were looking for a Mopar-hemi-killer, a ZL-1 type performer. Well, when the cars hit the showrooms Ford had for whatever reasons detuned it considerably (the power potential of a Boss 429 is huge, it's still the mill-of-choice for Ford-powered Super Comp dragsters). But even in its detuned stock state, it would nose out a stock 428CJ in the 1/4 mile. It's not a matter that the Boss 429 wasn't fast, it just wasn't nearly as fast as it COULD have been with a bigger carb, more aggressive cam, and better flowing manifolds. A Boss that has those mods is one mother of a screamer. But stock, it was a mid-to-high 13 second quarter miler on polyglass tires (which isn't a "dog" whatsoever), and I can tell you from 1st-hand seat time that the low-end torque is ungodly. I'm running a 780 Holley (still conservative, but it's good for the street), and I had headers on it. Scary fast, light years faster than any 428 I've ever driven. I put the manifolds back on her two months ago, and it's not as wicked on the top end of the tach, but the torque down low is even more monumental, and the car's alot more driveable (i.e. it no longer rattles my fillings, sets-off every car alarm in a 1-mile radius, and I can drive over speed bumps without crunching the headers now!).
Well this "boss" owner said it was superior in the 1/4 mile, last time I checked there were no 1/4 mile nascar tracks. As far as him owning a Boss 9, just because he can afford it don't make him an expert on them. And I still think that a Boss 9 only running 13's ain't nothing to brag about. With all the virtues he claims for it, I'd expect much more. The Boss 9 motor does have lots of potential but big ports and valves ain't all thats needed and were far too big for any street motor. Yes, the heads were made to rev, but even a stock 429 is capable of 7000 rpms with the right valve train. The Boss heads are better suited to 8 or 9,000 rpms.Route666 said:Yeh I thought the only reason the 429s were publicly sold was to make them eligible for nascar. If ford already had the 428, why not just use that if it was superior?
RICKS said:I own a '69 Boss 429, and it's a gorilla of low torque. You can leave a traffic light in 2nd gear in that car without even touching the gas pedal. There's alot of misunderstanding regarding the Boss 429's being "dogs" in stock trim. The word "relative" you used is the KEY word. When the Boss 429 was introduced, it was a highly exotic mill for the time. There were alot of VERY HIGH expectations for it, Ford fans were looking for a Mopar-hemi-killer, a ZL-1 type performer. Well, when the cars hit the showrooms Ford had for whatever reasons detuned it considerably (the power potential of a Boss 429 is huge, it's still the mill-of-choice for Ford-powered Super Comp dragsters). But even in its detuned stock state, it would nose out a stock 428CJ in the 1/4 mile. It's not a matter that the Boss 429 wasn't fast, it just wasn't nearly as fast as it COULD have been with a bigger carb, more aggressive cam, and better flowing manifolds. A Boss that has those mods is one mother of a screamer. But stock, it was a mid-to-high 13 second quarter miler on polyglass tires (which isn't a "dog" whatsoever), and I can tell you from 1st-hand seat time that the low-end torque is ungodly. I'm running a 780 Holley (still conservative, but it's good for the street), and I had headers on it. Scary fast, light years faster than any 428 I've ever driven. I put the manifolds back on her two months ago, and it's not as wicked on the top end of the tach, but the torque down low is even more monumental, and the car's alot more driveable (i.e. it no longer rattles my fillings, sets-off every car alarm in a 1-mile radius, and I can drive over speed bumps without crunching the headers now!).
I would like to introduce your Boss to my 89 Ranger and its 400 horse 302 that will also take off in 2nd and probably weighs a little more than your Boss ( 3800lbs w/driver and also runs mid to high 13's. And it didn't cost me an arm and a left hand certain part of my anatomy to build.
last time I checked there were no 1/4 mile nascar tracks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?