302 BOSS Heads
Don Folsom
I am interested in purchasing a set of 302 BOSS heads if any one knows
where to look or is selling some please write to me.
Don
Daniel Swart
You do know these wont fit a windsor 302?
If you have a Cleveland 302 block you need heads for you might try
Perogie Enterprises in Hightstown NJ 609-448-1684. They were at a
recent show in Raleigh and seemed to know alot about, and have parts
for, BOSS mustangs.
Dan in NC
(my first car was a '69 BOSS 302. sure do wish I still had it)
FENATIC
<<You do know these wont fit a windsor 302?
If you have a Cleveland 302 block you need heads for you might try
Perogie Enterprises in Hightstown NJ 609-448-1684. They were at a
recent show in Raleigh and seemed to know alot about, and have parts
for, BOSS mustangs.>>
heres a load of crap. If you look in the right places, you can find boss 302
heads bare for $350, which is better than converting 4V heads, to fit a 302
windsor.
ab8...@wayne.edu
The BOSS 302 had a modified windsor block. The heads will bolt on to a
non-BOSS block. You need the BOSS intake, pistons and con rods to do the
conversion right. I think the BOSS block also had a slight valve relief at the
top edge of the cylinders,I could be wrong but it's something to remember if
you use a bigger cam, especially if you have the larger '69 valves.
Kirk
9F02G
> You do know these wont fit a windsor 302?
> If you have a Cleveland 302 block
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Daniel Swart
OK mabey you can bolt these heads to a windsor block. What you gonna do
for a thermostat? Where are you going to stick it?
The '69 and '70 BOSS 302s and Cleveland 351s (BOSS, 2V and 4V) had the
thermostat mounted to the block, not to the intake manifold. It was one
of those quirky details of the Cleveland. Without the thermostat port
of the Cleveland block you dont have any way to get coolant to the
engine!
Dan in NC
gee...@inreach.com
Daniel Swart wrote:
>
> OK mabey you can bolt these heads to a windsor block. What you gonna do
> for a thermostat? Where are you going to stick it?
> The '69 and '70 BOSS 302s and Cleveland 351s (BOSS, 2V and 4V) had the
> thermostat mounted to the block, not to the intake manifold. It was one
> of those quirky details of the Cleveland. Without the thermostat port
> of the Cleveland block you dont have any way to get coolant to the
> engine!
>
> Dan in NC
Man, it sure is hard to find photos of Boss 302's...
Anyway, the Boss 302 uses an intake manifold with a water outlet in the
same place as the regular Windsor motors. I guess that makes the intake
manifold unique to Boss 302's.
Gerard
--
BOB Oil Recovery System: http://www.bob2000.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Geewhiz Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4277 :
A Tribute to My Late Father, Classic Ford cars, the Story of BOB,
and Real Rockets on the Freeway!
---------------------------------------------------------------
The world won't get no better
If we just let it be
The world won't get no better
We gotta change it, yeah, just you and me
"Wake Up Everybody"
Harold Melvin and the Bluenotes
Capone
The cheapest thing to do would be to forget about the expensive Boss heads and
just go with some 351 Cleveland 2 barrel heads (they work better for street
apps). I think Motorsport offers a conversion head gasket, and I know I've
seen some specialty conversion intake manifolds in the past, I think a couple
of companies make them-try B&A Ford Performance (918-427-7757). Also, you'll
need to drill the heads for the water passage, and you'll also need special
push rods to compensate for the difference in height. This will probably be a
hell of a lot cheaper than attempting to find an original set of Boss heads,
especially the '69 versions, which had even bigger valves than the '70 or the
Cleveland 4 barrels. I know this stuff is kinda vague, but I'm pulling it
from memory, and I'll try and get some more specific stuff tomorrow...
thought I could help..........Drew
Keller, Michael wrote:
> Daniel Swart wrote:
> >
> > OK mabey you can bolt these heads to a windsor block. What you gonna do
> > for a thermostat? Where are you going to stick it?
> > The '69 and '70 BOSS 302s and Cleveland 351s (BOSS, 2V and 4V) had the
> > thermostat mounted to the block, not to the intake manifold. It was one
> > of those quirky details of the Cleveland. Without the thermostat port
> > of the Cleveland block you dont have any way to get coolant to the
> > engine!
> >
> > Dan in NC
>
> ---
>
> Your a little confused on the Boss 302 motor. Boss 302 heads are cast
> with provisions for water transfer to the intake manifold, unlike a
> Cleveland head. The thermostat is located in the traditional Windsor
> motor location, its in the thermostat housing located at the front of
> the intake manifold just like any other 260, 289, 302 or 351W. The Boss
> 302 block is based on a Windsor casting, so there are no provisions for
> a thermostat or waterneck on the block itself like those found on the
> Cleveland motors.
>
> -Mike.
Stuart & Janet
Daniel Swart wrote in message <35631AC2...@nortel.com>...
>OK mabey you can bolt these heads to a windsor block. What you gonna do
>for a thermostat? Where are you going to stick it?
>The '69 and '70 BOSS 302s and Cleveland 351s (BOSS, 2V and 4V) had the
>thermostat mounted to the block, not to the intake manifold. It was one
>of those quirky details of the Cleveland. Without the thermostat port
>of the Cleveland block you dont have any way to get coolant to the
>engine!
Your only half right,
The Boss 302 is a different beast than a Cleveland .It has water jackets in
the intake unlike a 351C which does not. That is why you need a special
intake (like a Street Boss) in order to do head swap on a standard Windsor
block. The pictures of Boss 302's I have show a thermostat housing with a 90
degree turn into intake. StuK
NoOption5L
There are rumours of Mustangs with significant changes running around Dearborn.
These Mustangs are *not* the slightly changed '99 models.
Rumours say the significantly changed Mustangs could be hitting the
showrooms as early as 2001.
Patrick
Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
yes, another Tom
You use the 302 Boss head gaskets with 2V or 4V Cleveland heads. Problem
is, B&A is a couple years out of business now. You will have to find the
B&A Performance Street Boss (2V C dual plane) and Track Boss (2V C single
plane) intakes on the used market. Just get some good aftermarket wedge
heads, they are better on the street.
--
To reply remove NOSPAM from address.
Capone wrote in message <3563AEA4...@cajun.net>...
>The cheapest thing to do would be to forget about the expensive Boss heads
and
>just go with some 351 Cleveland 2 barrel heads (they work better for street
>apps). I think Motorsport offers a conversion head gasket, and I know I've
>seen some specialty conversion intake manifolds in the past, I think a
couple
>of companies make them-try B&A Ford Performance (918-427-7757). Also,
you'll
>need to drill the heads for the water passage, and you'll also need special
>push rods to compensate for the difference in height. This will probably
be a
>hell of a lot cheaper than attempting to find an original set of Boss
heads,
>especially the '69 versions, which had even bigger valves than the '70 or
the
>Cleveland 4 barrels. I know this stuff is kinda vague, but I'm pulling it
>from memory, and I'll try and get some more specific stuff tomorrow...
>thought I could help..........Drew
>
>Keller, Michael wrote:
>
>> Daniel Swart wrote:
>> >
>> > OK mabey you can bolt these heads to a windsor block. What you gonna
do
>> > for a thermostat? Where are you going to stick it?
>> > The '69 and '70 BOSS 302s and Cleveland 351s (BOSS, 2V and 4V) had the
>> > thermostat mounted to the block, not to the intake manifold. It was one
>> > of those quirky details of the Cleveland. Without the thermostat port
>> > of the Cleveland block you dont have any way to get coolant to the
>> > engine!
>> >
Keller, Michael
Capone wrote:
>
> The cheapest thing to do would be to forget about the expensive Boss heads and
> just go with some 351 Cleveland 2 barrel heads (they work better for street
> apps). I think Motorsport offers a conversion head gasket, and I know I've
> seen some specialty conversion intake manifolds in the past, I think a couple
> of companies make them-try B&A Ford Performance (918-427-7757). Also, you'll
> need to drill the heads for the water passage, and you'll also need special
> push rods to compensate for the difference in height. This will probably be a
> hell of a lot cheaper than attempting to find an original set of Boss heads,
> especially the '69 versions, which had even bigger valves than the '70 or the
> Cleveland 4 barrels. I know this stuff is kinda vague, but I'm pulling it
> from memory, and I'll try and get some more specific stuff tomorrow...
> thought I could help..........Drew
>
---
Unless someone is going for the Boss 302 "look", the cheapest, hassle
free way to go now is a modern aftermarket Windsor head instead of the
2V 351C heads for good street power. By the time you locate a Boss or
B+A manifold (B+A is now defunct), locate a set of 2v Cleveland heads,
have them modified for the conversion, have the machine work done to use
an adjustable valvetrain and have the heads freshened up you might as
have well bought a set of iron aftermarket Windsor heads and bolted them
on.
For high RPM fun, I'm still a huge Boss/351C-4v fan (I' partial to old
stuff) since ported versions have air flow numbers that are right there
with the best aftermarket "race" heads. You still, however would need to
locate hard to find intakes for the conversion.
-Mike
Brian Grier
NoOption5L wrote:
That's good, I hope. I really do not like the new interiors. The
bodies are just Ok, but IMO the interior feels like cheap plastic.
Maybe in 2001/2002 I'll look for a new car.
16 years ago today I took delivery of my car, and I think that
an afternoon of touring with the T-Tops off is in order.
Happy Cruising
Brian
'82GL/302/T-Tops
Rick Lindsay
On Thu, 21 May 1998 04:41:05 -0400, Keller, Michael wrote:
:> Unless someone is going for the Boss 302 "look", the cheapest, hassle
:>free way to go now is a modern aftermarket Windsor head instead of the
:>2V 351C heads for good street power. By the time you locate a Boss or
:>B+A manifold (B+A is now defunct), locate a set of 2v Cleveland heads,
:>have them modified for the conversion, have the machine work done to use
:>an adjustable valvetrain and have the heads freshened up you might as
:>have well bought a set of iron aftermarket Windsor heads and bolted them
:>on.
:>
:> For high RPM fun, I'm still a huge Boss/351C-4v fan (I' partial to old
:>stuff) since ported versions have air flow numbers that are right there
:>with the best aftermarket "race" heads. You still, however would need to
:>locate hard to find intakes for the conversion.
I have to agree that current aftermarket heads are a much better choice. While
the 351C type heads are "sexy", their performance leaves much to be desired
at reasonable RPMs. Watching Nascar's in car cameras you will see that the
Fords are running 7,000rpm to maybe 8,000rpm. The 351C-4V type heads
don't begin to "work" well until close to 6,000rpm. A stock Boss 302 struggles
to keep up with a current 4.6L Cobra because of this power range issue.
Keeping a Boss 302 or 351C-V together at 6,000rpm reliably is not an
inexpensive problem to solve...
I would rather have a Boss 429 or a good 460 under the hood....but then
again my former '64 Falcon Sprint ran great with a 289, 351W heads
and a single top tunnel ram...most baffling was it's amazing power
between 6,000 & 8,000rpm with a lowly Sig Erson HiFlow 1 cam and
an effective compression ratio of about 9-1.
ab8...@wayne.edu
The BOSS 302 had a windsor block (with mods). The only thing the BOSS 302 had
in common with the 351C 4V was the cylinder heads had the same ports and
valves ('69 BOSS 302 valves were slightly larger). The water passages were the
same as the windsors and the BOSS 302 manifold (which was unique) was like any
any other windsor maniford with the thermostat housing located there.
Kirk
In article <35631AC2...@nortel.com>,
Daniel Swart <daniel...@nortel.com> wrote:
>
> OK mabey you can bolt these heads to a windsor block. What you gonna do
> for a thermostat? Where are you going to stick it?
> The '69 and '70 BOSS 302s and Cleveland 351s (BOSS, 2V and 4V) had the
> thermostat mounted to the block, not to the intake manifold. It was one
> of those quirky details of the Cleveland. Without the thermostat port
> of the Cleveland block you dont have any way to get coolant to the
> engine!
>
> Dan in NC
>
Jim Manson
noopt...@aol.com (NoOption5L) wrote:
>There are rumours of Mustangs with significant changes running around Dearborn.
> These Mustangs are *not* the slightly changed '99 models.
>Rumours say the significantly changed Mustangs could be hitting the
>showrooms as early as 2001.
I think 2001-2002 is realistic for major changes. It's too late for
1999 and 2000.
Keller, Michael
Rick Lindsay wrote:
>
SNIP---
> I have to agree that current aftermarket heads are a much better choice. While
> the 351C type heads are "sexy", their performance leaves much to be desired
> at reasonable RPMs. Watching Nascar's in car cameras you will see that the
> Fords are running 7,000rpm to maybe 8,000rpm.
Atleast that, the Nascar boys run thier motors between 6500 and
9000+RPM throughout the race, typically running 7200-8500 most of the
time. Love those Yates heads!
> The 351C-4V type heads don't begin to "work" well until close to 6,000rpm.
Quite to the contrary, the Boss 302/351C-4v heads start coming on
around 2800-3500RPM depending on the cam and displacement. They pull
very hard to and peak in the 6800-7200 RPM range, unported and stock
assuming the motor had descent carburation and headers. The torque peaks
seem to run in the 4500-5000RPM range.
> A stock Boss 302 struggles to keep up with a current 4.6L Cobra because of this >power range issue.
I beg to differ. The 290HP Boss 302 is very much underrated. The Boss
302's power peak is not the 290HP @5800rpm. That figure is probably true
but well beyond the factory installed 6150RPM rev limiter is the actual
HP peak of about 325-340hp at 6500RPM....through the manifolds. Add
headers and the obligatory re-jetting of the carb and the stockers pull
between 375 and 390HP at 7000+RPM. The total package balance is MUCH
better in the Cobra which exploits the output of the 305hp Cobra quite
nicely. The Cobra motor/drive line package was designed with street use
in mind, the Boss 302s are detuned race motors stuck in production line
car. On the other hand, put the Boss motor in the 4.6's motors
environment (five speed, deceent gearing out back, good exhaust) and
there is no comparison in output.
In all reality, we're looking at apples and oranges, each having its
right place.
> Keeping a Boss 302 or 351C-V together at 6,000rpm reliably is not an
> inexpensive problem to solve...
HUH? Stock Boss 302's are good to 6500RPM all day long. Add good rod
bolts, a cam swap, balance the motor and add a scatter shield and
8000+RPM is yours until you feel like letting off. Ford put the 6150RPM
rev limiter there to appease thier lawyers due to posible liabiliy
issues surrounding the potential for blown up clutches and the bean
counters were worried about warranty claims on over rev'd motors and
abused driveline components. They made little (some say lost) money on
each Boss 302 car they sold.
The 351 Cleveland block has its own set of problems and, yes, they need
work to be used in a high RPM/high HP envronment, unlike the Boss 302
block which needs relatively little preparation.
>
> I would rather have a Boss 429 or a good 460 under the hood....
Who wouldn't but they are way too heavy. I drive a 428SCJ powered Mach
I at open track events, one guy in our club ran his '69 Boss 429 in
these events for years and back in '88, some company ran a 460
conversion in a late-model during our WGI event. All three are handfuls
on the road course.
> but then again my former '64 Falcon Sprint ran great with a 289, 351W heads
> and a single top tunnel ram...most baffling was it's amazing power
> between 6,000 & 8,000rpm with a lowly Sig Erson HiFlow 1 cam and
> an effective compression ratio of about 9-1.
See, it does work!.... (related to another post on using tunnel rams on
the street.
-Mike
CobraJet
In article <3564CE61...@aleis14.kp.kodak.com>, "Keller, Michael"
<kel...@aleis14.kp.kodak.com> wrote:
As usual, Michael, you have helped dispel some of the baloney spread by
the late model people about the older cars. Thanks much.
In the 70's (my street racing days) the machine shop that did my engine
work was called Road And Competition Engineering (R.A.C.E.). Those guys
were heavy into building SCCA road race Mustangs for themselves and
customers. There were always a few Boss 302's sitting around amidst the
289-powered cars. Since I was dating the owner's niece, I used to be able
to take some of the Mustangs for "evaluation" drives. I remember piloting
this one yellow street Boss 302 that was "brought up to spec". With 3.91's,
that SOB could run and hide from my 289 GT/CS, which was running 13.20's at
the time. Of course, the rev limiter was for fags back then so it was
missing from this car. The sound of that sucker at high R's can never be
duplicated by modern machinery, either. The only nastier car I drove out of
that place was a very built '71 Cleveland Pantera. Charismatic. And still
my dream car.
CobraJet
.
Dennis Jensen
In article <3570b41f...@news.visi.com>,
Yep, and the news is that these Mustangs will be based on the Australian
Falcon platform, which is a damn good thing. You guys will finally get decent
suspension and a stiff chassis.
Dennis
NoOption5L
In article <6k2m62$v8_...@dwt.csiro.au>, Dennis...@dwt.csiro.au (Dennis
Jensen) writes:
>>> These Mustangs are *not* the slightly changed '99 models.
>>>Rumours say the significantly changed Mustangs could be hitting the
>>>showrooms as early as 2001.
>>
>>I think 2001-2002 is realistic for major changes. It's too late for
>>1999 and 2000.
>Yep, and the news is that these Mustangs will be based on the Australian
>Falcon platform, which is a damn good thing. You guys will finally get decent
>suspension and a stiff chassis.
Now if that's true, let's hope the stiff chassis is also a light weight
platform. Imagine a 270HP GT and a 330HP Cobra with a 3000-
3100lb fighting weight.......... Oh and for me a "sleeper Mustang."
A plain, stripped, no option, DOHC Mustang, and then paint it black!
SEEverist
Patrick wrote:
> Oh and for me a "sleeper Mustang."
>A plain, stripped, no option, DOHC Mustang, and then paint it black!
Wait a minute, if stock, the Mustang came with SOHC, wouldnt DOHC be an option?
Doesn't having "options" go against everything you stand for?
Steve
The Only Substitute For Cubic Inches Is Cubic Dollar$
Have:
'71 Buick GS 455 (torque rules!)
'93 Ranger Splash 4x4 4.0
Had:
'86 5.0 coupe (ex-stater)
'88 5.0 coupe ( " " )
Schtoo
On Thu, 21 May 98 08:11:12 -0600, "Rick Lindsay" <l...@jumpnet.com>
wrote:
>I would rather have a Boss 429 or a good 460 under the hood....but then
>again my former '64 Falcon Sprint ran great with a 289, 351W heads
>and a single top tunnel ram...most baffling was it's amazing power
>between 6,000 & 8,000rpm with a lowly Sig Erson HiFlow 1 cam and
>an effective compression ratio of about 9-1.
Please tell me more about the sprint. I have one, and wish to know
what works for them without sifting through garbage. Anything you may
be able to throw my way would be appreciated.
......................................................
Cure all handling problems, with more ponies.
sch...@alphalink.com.au
My car isn't going yet, so I can't say anything
about it, can I?
NoOption5L
In article <199805220927...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, seev...@aol.com
(SEEverist) writes:
>> Oh and for me a "sleeper Mustang."
>>A plain, stripped, no option, DOHC Mustang, and then paint it black!
>Wait a minute, if stock, the Mustang came with SOHC, wouldnt DOHC be an
>option? Doesn't having "options" go against everything you stand for?
Technically speaking, yes. So your trying to pin me to an 2.3L 88HP '87 LX.
Sorry, but the first amendment to my basic automotive constitution allows me
the "power option."
Next question..............
狂人
In <199805220927...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, on 05/22/98
at 09:27 AM, seev...@aol.com (SEEverist) said:
>Patrick wrote:
>> Oh and for me a "sleeper Mustang."
>>A plain, stripped, no option, DOHC Mustang, and then paint it black!
>Wait a minute, if stock, the Mustang came with SOHC, wouldnt DOHC be an
>option?
> Doesn't having "options" go against everything you stand for?
He likes all the power adding option for the engine... :) not anything
else... so Pat, how about a mustang with no window/wind shield, no doors, no
trunk door, and a driver seat only? :)
--
Change syber to cyber in E-mail address to e-mail me
===Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICE News Beta Tester. Bovine Team===
======Warped Key Crucher, And OS/2 ISP CD Project Member. TBA #3======
US Mirror http://www.cybermail.net/~davidwei
Taiwanese Mirror http://www.taconet.com.tw/~davidwei
光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 Internet Pioneer CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
Java 1.1.4 - MR/2 ICE REG#:10510 - OS/2 T-Warp Connect 4.0
ICQ# = 8943567 (Still Experimenting with ICQ for Java :) )
NoOption5L
In article <3566d3bc$7$qnivqjrv$mr2...@netnews.hinet.net>, "狂人"
<davi...@sybermail.net> writes:
>>Wait a minute, if stock, the Mustang came with SOHC, wouldnt DOHC be an
>>option?
>> Doesn't having "options" go against everything you stand for?
>
>He likes all the power adding option for the engine... :) not anything
>else... so Pat, how about a mustang with no window/wind shield, no doors, no
>trunk door, and a driver seat only? :)
A dragster? Cool!
狂人
In <199805232210...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 05/23/98
>A dragster? Cool!
Not quite... it should be an engine, a chassis, a seat, a single ratio gear
box, dragster type clutch, a seat, and a ignition button... no gas pedal,
since the throttle is fixed at WOT, no brakes, it will stop when run out of
gas, and wheels are fixed in one direction only, so no steering wheel... :)
You'd love this car... :)
im_c...@hotmail.com
I have to agree...a Mustang "dragster" would be fun, but I'll take
mine with a windshield, thanks! :)
Chuck
94 GT Convertible 5.0 Yellow/Black
>
> A dragster? Cool!
>
> Patrick
>
> Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
>