The greatest Mustang of all

(Photo by Roy Ritchie.) The 2012 Boss-302 Mustang.

The May 2011 issue of my Car & Driver magazine says the 2012 Boss-302 Mustang is “the best Mustang ever.”
I’ll let Car & Driver Editor-at-Large John Phillips do the honors:
“We expected the Boss-302 to be little more than a marketing exercise in nostalgia, a somewhat more brutal, slightly faster GT, with alluring graphics but primitive predilections.
It isn't. Nose to tail, this feels like a whole new equine—thoroughly sorted, conscientiously massaged, the object of considerable forethought and ambition.
As automotive resurrections go, this is a knockout that venerates the original Boss while embarrassing it objectively and subjectively in every meaningful measure. What this is, is the best Mustang ever.”
The new Boss-302 is a reprise of the fabulous Boss-302 which was only produced in the ’69 and ’70 model-years.
A 1970 is pictured below.


(Photo by David Newhardt.) A 1970 Boss 302 Ford Mustang.

The Boss-302 was Ford’s response to the Camaro Z/28, which was selling like hotcakes.


(Photo by David Newhardt.) A 1969 Z/28 Camaro. (The first Z/28s were 1968.)

The Z/28 was a package of “hot-rod” options to make the Camaro dominant in Sports-Car Club of America’s (SCCA) Trans-Am series.
SCCA wanted 1,000 cars to have the improvements made to ponycars to make them dominant in the Trans-Am series.
In fact, “Z/28” was the package option number. Car & Driver suggested they name the concept Z/28.
Trans-Am wouldn’t allow any more than 305 cubic-inches engine displacement, five liters.
But the Chevrolet Small-Block could be made immensely powerful even at that displacement.

A Penske/Donohue Camaro. (This is a restored Penske Camaro; it’s not Donohue’s number, which was “6.”)

Entrant Roger Penske (“penn-SKEEE”) entered Z/28 Camaros driven by Mark Donohue in the Trans-Am and won the series.
A Penske Z/28 is pictured at left.
Chevrolet was stealing Ford’s thunder.
The Mustang was in eclipse.
Ford president “Bunkie” Knudson, ex of GM, pushed through a Mustang that could compete with the Z/28, named the “Boss-302” at the suggestion of stylist Larry Shinoda.
Shinoda had a lot to do with the graphics on the Boss-302.
Like the Z/28, the Boss-302 came at 302 cubic-inches engine displacement, to meet the Trans-Am five liter limit.
The Boss-302 was taken up by old stockcar racer Bud Moore of Spartanburg, SC.
Moore had been running Trans-Am with Cougars, modified for racing per stockcar practice.
He hired old Indianapolis racer Parnelli Jones (“parr-nell-EEEE”) to be his lead driver.
Parnelli won the Indianapolis 500 in 1963.
By then Jones was ratcheting down.
Trans-Am cars were not as dangerous as open-wheel racers.
But Jones was extremely competitive, probably the most competitive driver in Trans-Am.
And Bud Moore’s Mustangs were dominant — they usually qualified fastest.

The Bud Moore Parnelli Jones Boss-302 Mustang (1970).

A Bud Moore Parnelli Jones Boss-302 Mustang is pictured at left.
In 1969 I attended a Trans-Am race at Bridgehampton road-course out Long Island. (Bridgehampton is gone.)
Moore’s second driver was usually George Follmer (“FOAL-mer”)
Jones had the pole, and Follmer was second.
Right after the start-straight was a long blind downhill curving right.
Jones and Follmer barreled over the crest of that hill flat-out at 165 mph, each giving no quarter.
It was awesome and frightening; I will never forget it! That’s goin’ to my grave.
At the bottom of the hill, their rear-suspension trackbars grounded throwing up sparks.
As Jones used to say: “If your car’s not outta control, you’re not driving fast enough.”
Supposedly this new Boss-302 is better than the old Boss-302.
Well, it should be; over 40 years have passed.
I used to say the old Boss-302 was the most appealing of collectable classic cars.
It had the Cleveland version of the Ford Small-Block, supposedly better than even the Chevy Small-Block.
This is because the Cleveland has splayed valves, like the Chevy Big-Block, which allow larger valves for better breathing.
The new Boss-302 is almost attractive enough for me to buy one, but there are downsides.
—1) It’s still the tractor layout: solid rear-axle with center differential.
At least it’s better up front, probably struts.
But it needs independent-rear-suspension (IRS).
A bump to to one tire will effect both tires, and that heavy rear-axle will side-step in curves.
My Vega used to do that.
If it crossed a bump mid-corner, the back-end would side-step.
That heavy rear axle would bounce off the pavement, and hang up for a while. Its momentum was not allowing it to respond quickly.
With independent-rear-suspension you take the heavy differential out of the suspended parts.
Plus you make the opposite tire independent of the bumped tire.
The tractor layout can be made to handle quite well. That’s what NASCAR uses.
But state-of-the-art racecars are independently suspended — they have been for years.
—2) It’s not All-Wheel-Drive. In fact, it’s Rear-Wheel-Drive, which means blowing out my driveway if it snows.
With All-Wheel-Drive I can negotiate up to a foot.
With Rear-Wheel-Drive it’s about six inches max.
—3) It’s a car; it won’t have the high under-clearance of an SUV.
The above two factors make it a poor choice for chasing trains. I noticed this last February.
Facing us was a narrow dirt-track clogged with ice, the kind of road my friend Phil Faudi (“FOW-dee;” as in “wow”) is afraid of trying with his newish Buick.
His Buick doesn’t have the high ground-clearance of my Honda CR-V SUV.
Nor is his Buick All-Wheel-Drive.
Up that ice-lined dirt-track we went easy-as-pie; no worries about bottoming, and the All-Wheel-Drive just clawed through the ice.
Beyond that, some of the places we chase trains are dirt-roads through the outback — they prompt fear of damaging paint.
My CR-V is eight years old, although in pretty good shape.
It comfortably seats four, and can go through anything.
There’s little worry about damaging anything, or bottoming.
—4) I’d have to keep a Boss-302 in gas, and it’s a V8.
My CR-V is a four, and averages over 24 mpg. A Boss-302 might get 20.
—5) What sense does such performance make when stuck in traffic?

My 2003 Honda CR-V.(This is as-new; I’ve installed alloy-wheels, and better tires.)

Plus most of my driving is pillar-to-post. I’m more interested in dependability than crushing the competition.
My CR-V, which I almost traded, is the best train-chaser I’ve ever owned.
About all I don’t like about it is its rear-door which opens sideways, conflicting with our garage-door.
And fold-up rear seats that are dog unfriendly.
A Ford Escape would better — the rear-door is hinged at the top, and the rear-seats fold away.
But it’s slightly bigger.
Plus Fords seem to have a habit of rusting.

• I’m a railfan, and have been since age-two (I’m 67). (“Do ya fish?” a friend once asked. “No, I chase trains,” I said. “Fisherman are gratified when they snag a big one; with me it’s a train.”)
• The Chevrolet “Big-Block” V8 was introduced in the 1965 model-year at 396 cubic-inches. It was made in various displacements: 402, 427 and 454 cubic inches. It’s still made as a truck-motor, but not installed in cars any more; although you can get it as a crate-motor, for self-installation. The Chevrolet “Small-Block” V8 was introduced at 265 cubic-inches displacement in the 1955 model-year. It continued production for years, first to 283 cubic inches, then 327, then 350. Other displacements were also manufactured. The “Big-Block” could be immensely powerful, and the “Small-Block” was revolutionary in its time. (The Ford Small-Block was a Ford V8 designed to compete with the Chevy Small-Block. The first overhead-valve Ford V8 debuted in the 1954 model-year, but was a boat-anchor compared to the Chevy Small-Block. —Ford also had large “Big-Block” engines. The Ford Small-Block debuted in the early ‘60s.)
• “Phil Faudi” helps me chase trains in the Altoona (“al-TUN-uh;” as in the name “Al”), PA area. Phil is the railfan extraordinaire who supplied all-day train-chases for $125. —I did my first over two years ago, alone, and it blew my mind. He called them “Adventure-Tours.” He’d bring along his rail-scanner, tuned to 160.8, the Norfolk Southern operating channel, and he knew the whereabouts of every train, as the engineers called out the signals, and various lineside defect-detectors fired off. He knew each train by symbol, and knew all the back-roads, and how long it took to get to various photo locations — and also what made a successful photo — lighting, drama, etc. I’d let Phil do the monitoring. I have a scanner myself, but I left it behind. Phil knew every train on the scanner, where it was, and how long it took to beat it to a prime photo location. My first time was a slow day, yet we got 20 trains. Next Tour we got 30 trains in one nine-hour day. Phil gave it up; fear of liability suits, and a really nice new car he’s afraid he’d mess up.
• Altoona is the location of Horseshoe Curve (the “mighty Curve”), by far the BEST railfan spot I have ever been to. Horseshoe Curve is now a national historic site. It was a trick used by the Pennsylvania Railroad to get over the Allegheny mountains without steep grades. Horseshoe Curve was opened in 1854, and is still in use. The viewing-area is smack in the apex of the Curve; and trains are willy-nilly. Up-close-and-personal. —I’ve been there hundreds of times, since it’s only about five hours away.)