Ford Mustang Boss 350 V-10

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: Babbles
Unless I misread the article, the HP and torque numbers reported were at the wheels, not at the crank like most numbers are reported. Meaning that the HP and torque at the crank for comparison reasons would be much higher.

I could have misread the article, but that is my take on it.

Whatever the case may be, though, that is still a pretty own car.

that is correct.. typically we add 10-15% for manuals and 15-20% for Auto's.. 25% if it's a big auto (Allison 1000)

 

[Rent]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

EPA mpg Who cares?

hahahahah!

Yeah, I saw that and was on the floor Good old American Iron :heart:

 

[notfred]

I should build one.

 

[RagingBITCH]

It's probably just traction issues but those performance numbers are pretty weak.

 

[Pilsnerpete]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
That's only 15 more than the current blown Cobra. From a strictly cost basis...which is cheaper to produce...a blown V8, or a NA V10?

heheh...you said blown.

 

[Rent]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
It's probably just traction issues but those performance numbers are pretty weak.

They said they were spinning all the way through 3rd... I think traction might have been an issue

 

[Evadman]

That is a huge fricking bubble in the hood.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: Rent

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
It's probably just traction issues but those performance numbers are pretty weak.

They said they were spinning all the way through 3rd... I think traction might have been an issue

Bleh yea I read that. The other Boss (SN95) nor the alcohol one from 2 years back had these traction issues, however.

 

[bunker]

LOL from the stats at the end:

Mustang Boss 351 V-10 Experimental
Base price: Undisclosed to protect the guilty
Price as tested: Yo--see above

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: Rent

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
It's probably just traction issues but those performance numbers are pretty weak.

They said they were spinning all the way through 3rd... I think traction might have been an issue

Oh yea James - although it has twice the hp and torque (approx), this is how it's done:

http://www.f150online.com/forums/showthread.php?s=aad3c0d98f9566af9d7eaf7016b90a86&threadid=131568

1.9 for 0-60! :Q

 

1.9 for 0-60

Impossible, ther is no way in hell that a two wheel drive can have traction enough for those zero to sixty numbers on street tires.

 

[RagingBITCH]

I'm sure you're right, considering it takes an additional 3.6 seconds to get up 40mph to 100. Probably should be 3.9. I have the original Motor Trend article from 95 or 96, lemme go dig it out

EDIT: Jan 95 issue of MT

It has different numbers from what is listed on that pic - it's only making 670hp @ 5500/700lb of torque@4250. 0-60: 3.5, 0-100: 7.4, 1/4: 11.2 @ 127.3. Fuel economy also says: "Don't ask"

I know Coletti tweaked it for that Car and Driver shootout with Chevy's Project Camaro SS so that probably explains the difference in numbers. I'm sure it's supposed to be 2.9 for 0-60 then

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Rent

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
It's probably just traction issues but those performance numbers are pretty weak.

They said they were spinning all the way through 3rd... I think traction might have been an issue

Oh yea James - although it has twice the hp and torque (approx), this is how it's done:

http://www.f150online.com/forums/showthread.php?s=aad3c0d98f9566af9d7eaf7016b90a86&threadid=131568

1.9 for 0-60! :Q

Yum yum yum

You know, althought technology is awesome, and small engines with variable valve timing, cam phasing, dual stage intakes...you know, it's all good and gravy, but there's still a warm fuzzy feeling in knowing that modern muscle cars can get power from good ol displacement, 429 sounds mighty delicious

EDIT - One thing! Either it's not really a 429, or they can't convert to litres properly. 429 != 10 Litres

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: Roger
1.9 for 0-60

Impossible, ther is no way in hell that a two wheel drive can have traction enough for those zero to sixty numbers on street tires.

yeah, there should be a disclaimer in there somewhere, that those numbers weren't obtained on those Drag radials

 

[Zenmervolt]

*drools* Dang it! I don't need more rare and one-off cars to lust after!

ZV

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Roger
1.9 for 0-60

Impossible, ther is no way in hell that a two wheel drive can have traction enough for those zero to sixty numbers on street tires.

There was an article in a thread posted on ATOT a little while back about a 'Vette modded by LPE that went 0-60 in 1.9 on street tires. Of course, the authors of the article also expressed amazement that the tires were street legal, but apparently they were.

 

[RagingBITCH]

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=39&article_id=3235&page_number=1

Found the Car & Driver shootout article! For some reason it mentions the Boss has a V12, but then later on in the article when it blows a piston (or something) it mentions it's only an 8 cylinder. Guess it was an oversight on their part b/c afaik it's always been a V8. And it has updated numbers and better track times than the MT article.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Evadman
That is a huge fricking bubble in the hood.

we call that a "performance bump"

 

[dman]

The chances of this V-10 ever seeing the light of day resemble that of an Anna Nicole Smith presidential bid

Sounds like this is just a SVT Fun Project. So, even if you had the $$$ you won't be buying it anytime soon.

So, go build your own.

 

[cavemanmoron]

American V-8 Power: Ford Mustang Boss 350 V-10
After we realized that any spin at launch was just burning down the tires and leaving them unhooked until the top of third gear, we tried several frustrating low-rev launches. No good. So the rear tire pressures were dropped significantly to give the contact patches a wider bite. That, of course, added a bit of steering and braking drama at the top of our acceleration runs (about 120 mph) with the end of the guardrail zooming up like a quarter-mile-long can opener.

advertisement


Development mules live hard lives, but this one held up well. The electronic modules on the passenger side manage the twin ignition systems. "Boss 351" decals are exactly as they were on the '71 model, the last officially to wear the name.

Finally, we scrabbled out a still-traction-limited 4.4-second blast to 60 and a 12.88/114.44 quarter-mile run. That beats the solid 4.8 to 60 and 13.01 at 110.69 we recently achieved driving an '03 SVT Cobra with the supercharged 4.6. We're confident that, with a set of drag slicks, sub-four-second runs to 60, a quarter in the low 12s, and a warped driveshaft are all possible. Perhaps another time.

The chances of this V-10 ever seeing the light of day resemble that of an Anna Nicole Smith presidential bid. At one time, the engine reportedly had a shot at slipping into the back of the exotic Ford GT. But the cool heads at SVT wisely went with a well-proven 5.4-liter V-8 and a supercharger. The original Ford GT was always V-8-powered, anyway, so it all made sense. Still, the tiny stealth team working on the V-10 believes it never got a clear opportunity to understand the GT's development timing and fairly bid for the job.

On this impassioned underground team's behalf, we can say its backdoor Boss delivers solid muscle, packages neatly into the Mustang's engine bay, and sounds badass. Our short experience behind the wheel indicates the engine's all-aluminum mass doesn't upset the car's basic balance much, either. We hammered the gas pedal, as did a long string of Ford test pilots, shredding tires, frying clutches, shattering pinions, and trashing three of the toughest manual gearboxes available for a street car.

Why? Because--in the very best Woodward Avenue tradition--that's the way it's done in Detroit, baby.

Mustang Boss 351 V-10 Experimental
Base price Undisclosed to protect the guilty
Price as tested Yo--see above
Vehicle layout Front engine, rwd, 2-door, 5-pass
Engine 5.8L V-10, DOHC, 4 valves/cyl, cast aluminum block & heads
Displacement, ci/cc 350.9/5751
Hp @ rpm 430 @ 6500
Torque @ rpm 405 @ 5500
Transmission 6-speed manual
Curb weight, lb 3565 (est)

Acceleration, sec
0-30 mph 1.8
0-40 mph 2.5
0-50 mph 3.5
0-60 mph 4.4
0-70 mph 5.7
0-80 mph 6.9
0-90 mph 8.3
0-100 mph 10.3

1/4 mile, sec @ mph 12.88 @ 114.44
EPA mpg Who cares?
On sale in U.S. Probably never/X-program one-off

 

[prvteye2003]

that's an awesome stang