Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

2009 Boss Mustang


1970boss302

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 869
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Maybe it is just me but I have a hard time with them making a 1969 body style (Boss) car out of a 1967 retro body. The Boss did not come out until the redesigned fastback of 1969. To make a Boss out of the current Mustang is just wrong.

 

I felt the same way with the '03-'04 Mach1. The Mustangs looked nice with the shaker hood scoop, but it needs to resemble the 1969 or 1971 body style to be called a Mach1. To me this is a "correct retro design", otherwise it is forcing an attribute onto a body style that it was never available on and calling it "retro" to a car that never existed.

 

Would you want a "King Cobra" made out of the current body style? Would you want a "California Special" made out of a Fox body?

 

These are just my feelings on this topic. I don't like a historical package being offered on a retro body style that is not modelled after the correct generation body.

Steve

 

And to this I say, what's the difference? There was a Mach 1 option on the Mustang II, for crying out loud!

 

Mixing and matching isn't necessarily a bad thing anyway. Regardless of your previous comments to the contrary regarding the basis for the current "retro" look, I have to disagree. The current Mustang is NOT based solely on any single body style. It's a seamless blend of styling cues spanning every '60s model year. To say that it's based on the '67 and leave it at that is ignorant at best. First of all, the '67 was a true fastback, the current design is not. In fact, with the shorter greenhouse profile and flat decklid, I'd say that from the A-pillars back, the current 'Stang has much more in common with the 2+2 of '65-'66 than the "true" fastback design of '67-'68. The front fascia treatment strikes me as 1969 (for the GT) and '67-'68 for the V6, while at the rear, I see nothing but '69.

 

The interior, OTOH, couldn't possibly be a more perfect interpretation of 1967. :D

 

I'm not trying to argue, just trying to make the point that as long as they're mixing it up with the styling, what's the harm in doing the same with the special editions? Granted, I think the anticipated '09 re-skin would be the ideal time to roll out a new Boss… but you won't hear me complaining if it happens before that. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that the Shelby or GT-R nose would be dumb. The Boss should have a distinctive appearance to separate it from the base V6 or GT cars, maybe the GT500 upper grille area with a more agressive lower front spoiler treatment. The Boss stripes and Shaker hood should also be optional.

 

Or how about this...offer the Boss in std V6 or GT exterior trim with a optional R-model upgrade package with a more agressive front nose as described above.

 

Well tell me what this looks like to you.

finishedmustang0058nq.jpg

finishedmustang0040xf.jpg

 

The grill needs changed, but there is not one out there right now that matches the 69 grill while keeping the fog lights and removing the running pony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well tell me what this looks like to you.

finishedmustang0040xf.jpg

 

The grill needs changed, but there is not one out there right now that matches the 69 grill while keeping the fog lights and removing the running pony.

 

 

I do like what you have done, great looking car!! :)

 

It's very close to the Saleen PJ Mustang which is my favorite "Boss" Mustang design so far. (save for the chrome treatment on the grille and rear tail light panel). Personally, I'd like to see Ford ditch the upper fog lights and have a clean upper grille design for their version of the "Boss". Just my $.02.

 

Ford should be paying attention to designs such as yours and the Saleen to design their "Boss"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I disagree that the Shelby or GT-R nose would be dumb. The Boss should have a distinctive appearance to separate it from the base V6 or GT cars, maybe the GT500 upper grille area with a more agressive lower front spoiler treatment. The Boss stripes and Shaker hood should also be optional.

 

Or how about this...offer the Boss in std V6 or GT exterior trim with a optional R-model upgrade package with a more agressive front nose as described above.

 

 

i know its been a long time since i read the forum, just need o throw a little info in. The only differences between a 69 boss 302, and the 69 standard mustang fastback is the stripes, hood, and front chin spoiler. The rear spoiler, louvers, wheels were options. Oh and the boss had no quarter panel scoops, where the rest of fastbacks.. wait excuse me... Sport Roof's. had the quarter scoops. I personally think the new shelby is not that great looking, and the gt-r doesnt look much like a mustang to me.

 

so why should they be putting the shelby parts on the front of the boss, where as to stay in tradition, they should only be changing some paint, wheels and the spoiler, and adding a front chin spoiler. Back in the day all the shelby cars had different body panels from the firewall forward and in the rear.

 

Give me both a Boss 302 & a Boss 429. Boss 302 would be nice in Calypso Coral, Shaker Hood, 5.0 & twin turbos or blower, 70 Boss stripes. Give me a Boss 429 in all Black with Boss 9 Large scoop, Boss 429 Fender lettering & I will sign up now for one of each.

 

There are 5 dealers here in town and I went to them all over a year ago trying to buy a shelby even putting up to 10k down. At that time most said the owners (at each dealer) had friends or were taking them for themselves. One dealer said first they would sell me a car at MSRP & I was 3rd on list of 4 cars. I then showed them I was serious and bought my wife a new 500 AWD. I went back and tried to buy a Ford GT

but they wanted 70k over sticker. A month ago they called and said I could have a GT for MSRP. Told them that was a long time ago & want a Shelby. THey now tell me they are going to mark up the GT500 & they were only getting 3 cars and I was now 4 on list?? They led me to believe if I bought a new car at that time as was on list I could get one for MSRP. Told them I would pay over msrp just because I wanted one so bad but they say they are all spoken for by the dealer & friends of dealer! The short stick is they may be able to get more but will have to pay 20k over msrp.

 

Called another dealer yesterday and was told 30k over msrp take it or leave it. When the mngr asked if I was willing to give them 30k over and run down with a deposit non refundable for 10k I said interested but not at 30k he made nasty comment & hung up on me!!

 

I drove over to a couple dealers with this car below yesterday and knowone would even come out to look. said they were not interested in OLD CARS! HELLO?

 

IMG_1128.jpg

 

that is an extremely nice boss 302 cougar.

 

dealers dont know what cars are anymore.. they just see it as profit. which is why i am having such a haslle getting any info about the 07 i ordered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know its been a long time since i read the forum, just need o throw a little info in. The only differences between a 69 boss 302, and the 69 standard mustang fastback is the stripes, hood, and front chin spoiler. The rear spoiler, louvers, wheels were options. Oh and the boss had no quarter panel scoops, where the rest of fastbacks.. wait excuse me... Sport Roof's. had the quarter scoops. I personally think the new shelby is not that great looking, and the gt-r doesnt look much like a mustang to me.

 

so why should they be putting the shelby parts on the front of the boss, where as to stay in tradition, they should only be changing some paint, wheels and the spoiler, and adding a front chin spoiler. Back in the day all the shelby cars had different body panels from the firewall forward and in the rear.

 

 

I wasn't suggesting that history indicates that the Shelby parts must be used on the Boss. I was simply indicating that an effective means of creating a very attractive Boss Mustang would be to use the GT500 front-end with a lower chin spoiler. The best part of the GT500 exterior is the front end treatment IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 On the ducktail...400hp a MUST. Less weight a MUST.

Shelby nose is ok.. but perhaps they could put a shelby nose with the GT lights fitted on them

somewhere.. kinda like the Elenor kits but perhaps separate the lights a tad bit more..

Then make the back lights unique. Differ them a tad from the other stangs.

remember how the shelby had S H E L B Y originally on the GT500 badged on the back?

B O S S would be sweet on the back.. or maybe instead of the GT side chrome badge

make a BOSS chrome badge to put on the side. Allow striping with a delete option.

Put on a hood scoop, a delte option. (unless we need the scoops functional).

Put it around 35k -36k..Do a couple more lil unique things here and there.. and BAM

You've got a hot car that I'd line up and put a deposit on and buy up in an instant.

OH ... and somehow leave the horrible gouging out of it....

 

 

 

I forgot something that is VERY IMPORTANT.

Dont make as many of these as the GT perhaps.. BUT.. make more than the

GT500. So that those who want to compete with the camaro etc can have a way.

They spend more money... but can at least FIND ONE TO BUY.

Make the car more unique than the GT.. but not SO HARD TO FIND.

I CANNOT SAY HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS.

That will cut down on the gouging as well..

DO THIS FORD. DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF MAKING THIS CAR TOOOOO HARD

TO FIND. GIVE US MORE PRODUCTION THAN THE SHELBY.. even with 10k shelbys being made.

WE NEED MORE. The Boss is unique but it wasnt like the shelby in numbers

so dont make this one as hard to find.. PLEASE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

.

Dont make as many of these as the GT perhaps.. BUT.. make more than the

GT500.

 

 

 

 

The GT is limited to 51% of total Mustang production so I don't thing there's any chance of them making that many Boss 'stangs. I think that the number of any high-performance flavor-of-the-year (like a Boss) Ford makes will be about 10% of mustang production or less. Just my speculation, but realistically, to meet CAFE numbers I don't see them going much beyond that. This year, that would be about 15K (which is why I think Ford will make more than the 9K committed GT500s, but that's another thread).

.

.

 

What I would like to see:

Short-stroked AL 5.4;

 

 

I'm still stuck on this first item. I too would love a nice 5.4L oversquare hi-revving aluminum Boss. Unfortunately that is impossible on the DOHC modular series. The bore spacing will only realistically permit a bit of 3.5" bore. The old 302 was 4"bore x 3"stroke. The 4.6L modular is square at approx 3.55 x 3.55. The 5.4 is inherently, therefore, quite under-square (long stroke).

 

Unless Ford were to bring back the small block or the Hurricane/big block, we will not see any short-stroke oversquares. However if Ford does do the Hurricane (the rumor is they've already placed and order with the (Wixom?) plant , then the sky's the limit from 332 CID oversquares to 825 CID mountain strokers! :)

 

We can only hope...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is just me but I have a hard time with them making a 1969 body style (Boss) car out of a 1967 retro body. The Boss did not come out until the redesigned fastback of 1969. To make a Boss out of the current Mustang is just wrong.

 

I felt the same way with the '03-'04 Mach1. The Mustangs looked nice with the shaker hood scoop, but it needs to resemble the 1969 or 1971 body style to be called a Mach1. To me this is a "correct retro design", otherwise it is forcing an attribute onto a body style that it was never available on and calling it "retro" to a car that never existed.

 

Would you want a "King Cobra" made out of the current body style? Would you want a "California Special" made out of a Fox body?

 

These are just my feelings on this topic. I don't like a historical package being offered on a retro body style that is not modelled after the correct generation body.

Steve

 

Well, don't worry, Steve. The release should come out when the new 'wider hip' design is released (looks like the '69) so I believe we are in luck... :bandance:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, don't worry, Steve. The release should come out when the new 'wider hip' design is released (looks like the '69) so I believe we are in luck... :bandance:

 

 

Yeah, I think you're hunch is right... the Boss in '08 as an '09 ...just my guess -- or '09 as a '10 in the likelihood the revised mustang slips one year (highly likely by design, I think). Personally, I'm thinking the Saleen PJ was a market 'prototype' to gauge interest . Such a schedule would also seem to fit with the GT500 going into a third year which, for some reason, was resported by just about every mag that drove one of the GT500 pre-production units in May, which leads me to believe Ford told them that in the pre-track briefing (my speculatiuon) since it would be an astounding coincidence otherwise.

 

Whatever actually happens, it would seem to be logically targeted at the 400hp nat.asp. Camaro. Can't wait! :happy feet:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think you're hunch is right... the Boss in '08 as an '09 ...just my guess -- or '09 as a '10 in the likelihood the revised mustang slips one year (highly likely by design, I think). Personally, I'm thinking the Saleen PJ was a market 'prototype' to gauge interest . Such a schedule would also seem to fit with the GT500 going into a third year which, for some reason, was resported by just about every mag that drove one of the GT500 pre-production units in May, which leads me to believe Ford told them that in the pre-track briefing (my speculatiuon) since it would be an astounding coincidence otherwise.

 

I hope that this speculation isn't a case of careful what you wish for. Generally SE's are for the purpose of increasing sales of a flagging model. I wonder if the option to get a boss in might not come off this generation and then the restyle to pick up sales again. Thus leaving a further option for an SE in the post 2010 time frame. So out of curiosity, which is the one you can't wait for; a Boss or a Mach? Keep in mind that neither is likley to see a new platform for some time, so neat ideas like the hurricane etc. may just not be an option with the S-197 in terms of weight, balance and fuel economy not to mention just physical size.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that this speculation isn't a case of careful what you wish for. Generally SE's are for the purpose of increasing sales of a flagging model. I wonder if the option to get a boss in might not come off this generation and then the restyle to pick up sales again. Thus leaving a further option for an SE in the post 2010 time frame. So out of curiosity, which is the one you can't wait for; a Boss or a Mach? Keep in mind that neither is likley to see a new platform for some time, so neat ideas like the hurricane etc. may just not be an option with the S-197 in terms of weight, balance and fuel economy not to mention just physical size.

 

 

Good point, JETSOLVER. I sure hope Ford does the Boss sooner rather than later. I hope we're still on the overlapped flavor-of-the-year approach we've heard about since, for me, the Boss is more must-have (than the Mach) assuming it's the well-balanced, free-revving road-car we're hoping for. The old Mach's heritage is more of brute power and a cool shaker hood but without balance or finesse (not to upset anyone, just my historical take). The guys I knew who bought Machs back in the day immediately bought line-locks so they didn't go through a set of rear brakes each month doing stationary blue smoke burnout demos :) It's hard for me to understrand what a new Mach might be since the old ones were sort of GTs with a 428 and HD C6 and there's no way to do that safely these days without most of the other functional goodies on the Shelby GT500, if you get my drift. A modern Boss I can clearly envision; a modern Mach I have trouble with what it needs to be and who it needs to target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old Mach's heritage is more of brute power and a cool shaker hood but without balance or finesse (not to upset anyone, just my historical take). A modern Boss I can clearly envision; a modern Mach I have trouble with what it needs to be and who it needs to target.

 

That's what I'm afraid of. I seems to me that they would be closer to a MACH with the existing parts and pieces than a full on twisties attack car. The S-197 seems to have been engineered to coexist better with a big heavy torque monster, than a lightweight dancer. So perhaps we need to beg Ford to take an extra year and really do a Boss right. I find it interesting that most folks here are more interested in the styling cues than the expensive bits. That would be easy enough to do tomorrow. Maybe we need to introduce the idea of a completly new nameplate to carry forward the sort of balance say an M3 is expected to deliver? Call it for discussion purposes a Mustang GT/L for lightweight, or limited as in target market. Or heaven forbid a COBRA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I'm afraid of. I seems to me that they would be closer to a MACH with the existing parts and pieces than a full on twisties attack car. The S-197 seems to have been engineered to coexist better with a big heavy torque monster, than a lightweight dancer. So perhaps we need to beg Ford to take an extra year and really do a Boss right. I find it interesting that most folks here are more interested in the styling cues than the expensive bits. That would be easy enough to do tomorrow. Maybe we need to introduce the idea of a completly new nameplate to carry forward the sort of balance say an M3 is expected to deliver? Call it for discussion purposes a Mustang GT/L for lightweight, or limited as in target market. Or heaven forbid a COBRA.

 

 

Jetsolver, I agree, I would rather see Ford take an extra year to get the Boss right: light weight, stellar handling, phenomenal braking, stunning high revving naturally aspirated HP - in short, an all around well-balanced road racer. I think most of the styling pieces already exist or are easily developed - the "hard" engineering pieces are where Ford needs to focus their energy. I don't think Ford needs a completely new nameplate - just a well designed and executed Boss!!! :happy feet: :happy feet:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I'm afraid of. I seems to me that they would be closer to a MACH with the existing parts and pieces than a full on twisties attack car. The S-197 seems to have been engineered to coexist better with a big heavy torque monster, than a lightweight dancer. So perhaps we need to beg Ford to take an extra year and really do a Boss right. I find it interesting that most folks here are more interested in the styling cues than the expensive bits. That would be easy enough to do tomorrow. Maybe we need to introduce the idea of a completly new nameplate to carry forward the sort of balance say an M3 is expected to deliver? Call it for discussion purposes a Mustang GT/L for lightweight, or limited as in target market. Or heaven forbid a COBRA.

 

 

JETSOLVER, sometimes we're so much on the same wavelength it's scary. See this poll I started earlier today to try to separate/gauge much of the distinctions you're raising Poll: Performance Mustang Trade-offs, etc

 

If you have a chance to take a look at that poll I'd very much appreciate your comments/insights, my friend.

 

-Dan

 

Jetsolver, I agree, I would rather see Ford take an extra year to get the Boss right: light weight, stellar handling, phenomenal braking, stunning high revving naturally aspirated HP - in short, an all around well-balanced road racer. I think most of the styling pieces already exist or are easily developed - the "hard" engineering pieces are where Ford needs to focus their energy. I don't think Ford needs a completely new nameplate - just a well designed and executed Boss!!! :happy feet: :happy feet:

 

 

Yeah, +2...

 

And from a marketing point of view, the FRPP parts bin will be have been able to benefit from the man-racer/GrandAm program by then an make doiong it right easier and cheaper. I think the GrandAm following is ramping up nicely and it will also generate more FRPP aftermarket demand which will coincide nicely with the sequence of events you've highlighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things certainly are quiet on the Boss front, I suppose Ford is keeping any Boss news under wraps to prevent any distractions to the official market launch of the GT500. Can't wait for the 2007 Auto Show season, maybe we will get a preview!! B)

 

 

Yeah, I suspect you are right... can't wait for the Boss to bring the ADMs down on the 500 :)

 

Found this link on the Cobra IRS. I was going to post it over in 4.6 Cobra land but it's vacant! So I figured, in the context of a Boss, it might be better posted here. It's an upgrade kit that supposedly cures many IRS ills and is superior to other aftermarket IRS bushing kits.

 

SVT Perf: Cobra IRS goodies

 

<edit:> ...and in keeping with the spirit of this thread, a Parnelli Jones quote: "If you're in control, you're not going fast enough"

 

.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I suspect you are right... can't wait for the Boss to bring the ADMs down on the 500 :)

 

Found this link on the Cobra IRS. I was going to post it over in 4.6 Cobra land but it's vacant! So I figured, in the context of a Boss, it might be better posted here. It's an upgrade kit that supposedly cures many IRS ills and is superior to other aftermarket IRS bushing kits.

 

SVT Perf: Cobra IRS goodies

 

<edit:> ...and in keeping with the spirit of this thread, a Parnelli Jones quote: "If you're in control, you're not going fast enough"

 

.

.

 

 

Nice find on the IRS fix. I certainly think Ford can design an IRS without any wheel hop issues.

 

Great quote, how true!! :yahoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice find on the IRS fix. I certainly think Ford can design an IRS without any wheel hop issues.

 

Great quote, how true!! :yahoo:

 

 

Yeah, I'd like to see that Jag-XKR Torsen IRS transaxle in the back of a Boss. Moving 200+ pounds (those TR6060's are HD) from the front to betw the rear wheels is good for about 4 point off WD, and an all alum motor another 2 points and we're just about at 50/50 -- that would get my attention and total weight, with a 'semi-R' interior, could be in the 3550-3600 lb range (200 from the motor, 100-150 from the IRS transaxle vs Tremec & 3-link live axle)hat would be sweet!

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd like to see that Jag-XKR Torsen IRS transaxle in the back of a Boss. Moving 200+ pounds (those TR6060's are HD) from the front to betw the rear wheels is good for about 4 point off WD, and an all alum motor another 2 points and we're just about at 50/50 -- that would get my attention and total weight, with a 'semi-R' interior, could be in the 3550-3600 lb range (200 from the motor, 100-150 from the IRS transaxle vs Tremec & 3-link live axle)hat would be sweet!

 

.

 

 

Certainly moving some weight to the rear would help with the weight distribution as would the aluminum engine. I'd still like to see the Boss check in with a 3,400 lb or lighter curb weight (with a full load of fuel). As we have discussed here and in other threads, Ford needs to concentrate their R&D time and $ on development of the "hard" parts for the Boss, engine, IRS, reduced curb weight. Most of the styling pieces already exist or can be easily created, the heart of the Boss is determined by how it performs!! :shift:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly moving some weight to the rear would help with the weight distribution as would the aluminum engine. I'd still like to see the Boss check in with a 3,400 lb or lighter curb weight (with a full load of fuel). As we have discussed here and in other threads, Ford needs to concentrate their R&D time and $ on development of the "hard" parts for the Boss, engine, IRS, reduced curb weight. Most of the styling pieces already exist or can be easily created, the heart of the Boss is determined by how it performs!! :shift:

 

 

Ah, yes, I agree... must have snoozing :doh: I was still mentally subtracting off the GT500 weight.

 

Off the GT weight of 3500 or so, let's say 3600 (w/ bigger brakes and coolers), saving 150 or so on the IRS Transaxle swap would get to 3450 or so. Some aluminum body pieces (or fiber - the Z06 vette's fenders are 3 lbs!!!) and interior lightening and 3300-3350 should be doable. At near 50/50 WD, I'd be fine with that weight.

 

Thanks for waking me up, Fanatic :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received the new Motortrend today and shows a pic of a Boss 302 that is said to have a 5.0 Mod motor, pushing 390 HP, NA. They say it will be out just before the restyle of 08. I will try and scan it and post it here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an IRS weighs less than a straight axel?

 

 

Well, the IRS-Transaxle unit would displace the Tremec + live-axle/diff, and move significant weight from front to rear. It would also enable superior handling (IRS + better WD + lighter overall). So it's kind of a 3 for 1 benefit. It should hold the HP of a Boss ok since the XKR is 420HP (and the XKR-RS concept is 550HP).

 

I don't mean to imply using the Jag transaxle is a trivial change (or that there's any plan to do so), but there may be a good business case for the '09 to be able to accommodate it. We can only hope.

 

<edit:> Actually, I just looked up the specs on the new Jag and it's only offered as a 6-speed paddle-shifter :doh: oh, well... not that I have anything against paddleshifters but I wanna shift my Boss the old fashioned way :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

08BOSS.jpg

 

 

Awesome find, thanks!!! I need that article!! :wub:

 

Well, the IRS-Transaxle unit would displace the Tremec + live-axle/diff, and move significant weight from front to rear. It would also enable superior handling (IRS + better WD + lighter overall). So it's kind of a 3 for 1 benefit. It should hold the HP of a Boss ok since the XKR is 420HP (and the XKR-RS concept is 550HP).

 

I don't mean to imply using the Jag transaxle is a trivial change (or that there's any plan to do so), but there may be a good business case for the '09 to be able to accommodate it. We can only hope.

 

<edit:> Actually, I just looked up the specs on the new Jag and it's only offered as a 6-speed paddle-shifter :doh: oh, well... not that I have anything against paddleshifters but I wanna shift my Boss the old fashioned way :)

 

 

You and me both!! :shift:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...
...