1970 Mustang Boss 302 Vs 2011 Mustang V6: And The Winner Is…

Paul Niedermeyer
by Paul Niedermeyer

The 1970 Mustang Boss 302 is a legend. Created specifically to compete against the Camaro z-28 in the Trans Am championship, the Boss 302 is a much rarer pony than its nemesis. Only 1628 were built in 1969 and 7013 in 1970. Its claim to fame was the unique pairing of the Windsor 302 block with the biggest Cleveland heads possible, the result rated (conservatively) at 290 hp. Somewhat surprisingly, CR bought and tested one in 1970. And since they just finished comparing the 2011 Mustang V6 against the Camaro, CR pitted the stats of the two against each other. Let’s just say that the forty years have brought some progress:

The little V6 makes more power, and scoots the 2011 down the road substantially faster. Now those test results from the Boss look a little slow compared to the commonly published figures of the times (0-60 in 6.9; 1/4 mile in 14.6 @98mph). But then the buff books didn’t buy their Bosses anonymously, like CR did. Anyway, the V6 still equals those numbers. And gets more than twice the mileage. The prices: similar too, adjusted for inflation, comparing a base 2011 to the Boss. And the 2011 gives you a the comforts that either weren’t available or extra in 1970: AC, power steering, music and a host of other creature comforts. Progress; although maybe not as much as some of us might have imagined in 1970. Predictions then would have had us all in electric cars long ago.

Paul Niedermeyer
Paul Niedermeyer

More by Paul Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 82 comments
  • PeriSoft PeriSoft on Sep 09, 2010

    It's kinda funny how people who savage modern near/mid luxury cars for not hitting 60 in 5.5 suddenly dismiss 0-60 times when they apply to cars they loved in their youth. My Saab 9-5 will rip the hell out of most '60s muscle cars - but no way in hell is it fast enough now.

    • John Horner John Horner on Sep 10, 2010

      Anything under 10 seconds 0-60 is plenty fast for street use.

  • Aguila1 Aguila1 on Feb 06, 2012

    That a V6 Mustang can even be compared to a Trans Am racing homologation special is testament to the march of technological progress. But since this is supposed to be "Truth About Cars" let me set the record straight on the Boss's performance or lack thereof. I owned two 1970 Boss 302s back when they were cheap used cars. They weighed in at 3,270 lbs. One was stock, the second the engine was modified to 400+ hp. Around town gas mileage was really bad, but not single digits, and on the highway they would do 20 mpg. Both cars had 3.50 gears. The stock car (minus rev limiter) would top out at 144 mph when it ran out of revs, as witnessed by the SC Highway Patrol. Quarter mile was easily in the fourteens, if you could get a good launch. 0-60 was no less than 7 seconds. Bottom end torque was not its strong point, because of the monster intake ports the powerband did not come in until 4,500 rpm, but then it screamed - definitely not slow and exciting and really fun to drive. The modified car revved to 7,000 rpm and would haze the tires at 70 mph, while the car was going sideways, scary fast. Again, in the stock car, I remember once beating a big block chevy Corvette in a street race and only losing by a car length to a Stage 1 Buick GS, from a roll-on. So, even stock it could hold its own. Great V6 Mustang - its performance is comparable to a vintage Boss 302, with better fuel economy, better handling (even if somewhat porky weight), without making your eyes burn from unburned hydrocarbons like the old one would. No need for revisionist history, though. I doubt in forty years people will pay big bucks for this latest technological gem, as they do today for the legendary Boss 302.

  • Theflyersfan The wheel and tire combo is tragic and the "M Stripe" has to go, but overall, this one is a keeper. Provided the mileage isn't 300,000 and the service records don't read like a horror novel, this could be one of the last (almost) unmodified E34s out there that isn't rotting in a barn. I can see this ad being taken down quickly due to someone taking the chance. Recently had some good finds here. Which means Monday, we'll see a 1999 Honda Civic with falling off body mods from Pep Boys, a rusted fart can, Honda Rot with bad paint, 400,000 miles, and a biohazard interior, all for the unrealistic price of $10,000.
  • Theflyersfan Expect a press report about an expansion of VW's Mexican plant any day now. I'm all for worker's rights to get the best (and fair) wages and benefits possible, but didn't VW, and for that matter many of the Asian and European carmaker plants in the south, already have as good of, if not better wages already? This can drive a wedge in those plants and this might be a case of be careful what you wish for.
  • Jkross22 When I think about products that I buy that are of the highest quality or are of great value, I have no idea if they are made as a whole or in parts by unionized employees. As a customer, that's really all I care about. When I think about services I receive from unionized and non-unionized employees, it varies from C- to F levels of service. Will unionizing make the cars better or worse?
  • Namesakeone I think it's the age old conundrum: Every company (or industry) wants every other one to pay its workers well; well-paid workers make great customers. But nobody wants to pay their own workers well; that would eat into profits. So instead of what Henry Ford (the first) did over a century ago, we will have a lot of companies copying Nike in the 1980s: third-world employees (with a few highly-paid celebrity athlete endorsers) selling overpriced products to upper-middle-class Americans (with a few urban street youths willing to literally kill for that product), until there are no more upper-middle-class Americans left.
  • ToolGuy I was challenged by Tim's incisive opinion, but thankfully Jeff's multiple vanilla truisms have set me straight. Or something. 😉
Next