Motor Trend - 2012 Ford Mustang BOSS 302 (fastest stock Mustang ever made)
#61
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eau Claire-ish, WI
Posts: 853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$13k more for 32 more hp, less torque and some suspension upgrades? MMMMM no thanks. I would stick with a GT.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html
Its not much faster than the GT motortrend tested, nor does it appear to be any lighter, or have much better lat gs. When bolt on GTs on stock wheels are hitting 11s, ford isnt doing something right with this version IMO.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html
Its not much faster than the GT motortrend tested, nor does it appear to be any lighter, or have much better lat gs. When bolt on GTs on stock wheels are hitting 11s, ford isnt doing something right with this version IMO.
And to the guys saying they would take an R8 over this car- The Boss is a little more than 1/3 the price of a base 4.2 V8 R8 ($40k vs $116k), that's like saying you would take a Ferrari 458 or a McLaren MP4-12C over a Z06 Corvette haha. And this isn't some stripped out track car, still comes with everything a base GT has (power everything, CD player, A/C).
#62
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waffle Land
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I highly doubt that. The GT-R still has better power delivery overall as well as better braking and handling, not to mention it traps higher. Also the 2012 GT-R ran a faster times than the current Z06 Carbon around willow springs. I doubt the Boss 302 (Laguna Seca package or not) would beat either car.
#63
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: middle of nowhere, IL
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to the guys saying they would take an R8 over this car- The Boss is a little more than 1/3 the price of a base 4.2 V8 R8 ($40k vs $116k), that's like saying you would take a Ferrari 458 or a McLaren MP4-12C over a Z06 Corvette haha. And this isn't some stripped out track car, still comes with everything a base GT has (power everything, CD player, A/C).
Ford chose to go after the performance and driving enhancements, but ignore the stunning looks, upscale interor, etc....exactly why it doesn't cost as much as a supercar, it isn't one.
#64
I highly doubt that. The GT-R still has better power delivery overall as well as better braking and handling, not to mention it traps higher. Also the 2012 GT-R ran a faster times than the current Z06 Carbon around willow springs. I doubt the Boss 302 (Laguna Seca package or not) would beat either car.
#65
And launch control? It's in there:
http://cars2011.net/autoblog-short-c...ar-photos.html
The performance/craftsmanship gap is not like that of comparing a 1985 Yugo to a 2011 Mercedes SLS here LOL, the Mustang GT and Boss 302 (especially with it's Recaro seat option) interiors are still very good and as for stunning looks, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, strictly subjective.
That being said do I think a Mustang GT or Boss 302 are straight up as attractive looking as say a Ferrari 458?
No.
But I still consider it a damn fine looking car with stellar performance regardless of cost.
Factor in their under $40k MSRPs for all that performance and they're downright DOMINANT in my opinion.
#66
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eau Claire-ish, WI
Posts: 853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty sure nobody was even coming close to saying it was a supercar, as it's a $40k Mustang. Nobody is going to be cross shopping Boss 302s and R8s, two totally different markets. Compared to the Z06 and GTR it's a damn good bargin at half their cost, and don't try telling me the Z06 has a more upscale interior than the Ford.
#67
Hell, I think an Audi TT RS would give this new Mustang Boss a hell of a fight.
The much weaker and less grippy Audi TT-S beat the base mustang around VIR, which is a notorious power track. And yet the TT-S beat it with a measly 268hp. Whah whah...
The much weaker and less grippy Audi TT-S beat the base mustang around VIR, which is a notorious power track. And yet the TT-S beat it with a measly 268hp. Whah whah...
Last edited by DiscerningZ32; 03-10-2011 at 02:03 PM.
#68
Being 400 pounds lighter and having AWD certainly doesn't hurt.
#69
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$13k more for 32 more hp, less torque and some suspension upgrades? MMMMM no thanks. I would stick with a GT.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html
Its not much faster than the GT motortrend tested, nor does it appear to be any lighter, or have much better lat gs. When bolt on GTs on stock wheels are hitting 11s, ford isnt doing something right with this version IMO.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html
Its not much faster than the GT motortrend tested, nor does it appear to be any lighter, or have much better lat gs. When bolt on GTs on stock wheels are hitting 11s, ford isnt doing something right with this version IMO.
#70
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: middle of nowhere, IL
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty sure nobody was even coming close to saying it was a supercar, as it's a $40k Mustang. Nobody is going to be cross shopping Boss 302s and R8s, two totally different markets. Compared to the Z06 and GTR it's a damn good bargin at half their cost, and don't try telling me the Z06 has a more upscale interior than the Ford.
simply put, if you like the looks of the Boss and feel that its your best way to spend $40,000+ then go for it, I'm just saying there are plenty of other options out there for fun, affordable performance cars and maybe the Boss doesn't need to be viewed as the Holy Grail of fast cars.
#71
I should've worded that to specify it weighs more than the others and has less power than the GT500. The previous GTR had less power, but probably would lose against the ZO6. Even so, the 2012 GTR weighs hundreds more than the ZO6 and only has a rated 25hp more. I'd take that trade any day.
I prefer the GT over this one as well, but when they dyno tested, the BOSS made more power and more torque, though torque is rated lower for whatever reason.
What did MT run? 12.8... That's 1/2 second slower. I wouldn't consider that close. I hadn't seen anything close to 12.3's until this one.
I don't see a standard GT competing well against this one on track, but I'd still rather the GT for my driving.
$13k more for 32 more hp, less torque and some suspension upgrades? MMMMM no thanks. I would stick with a GT.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html
Its not much faster than the GT motortrend tested, nor does it appear to be any lighter, or have much better lat gs. When bolt on GTs on stock wheels are hitting 11s, ford isnt doing something right with this version IMO.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html
Its not much faster than the GT motortrend tested, nor does it appear to be any lighter, or have much better lat gs. When bolt on GTs on stock wheels are hitting 11s, ford isnt doing something right with this version IMO.
What did MT run? 12.8... That's 1/2 second slower. I wouldn't consider that close. I hadn't seen anything close to 12.3's until this one.
I don't see a standard GT competing well against this one on track, but I'd still rather the GT for my driving.
#72
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Louisiana, USA
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my point exactly...why are we trying to compare lap times with cars that cost twice as much and are in completely different classes? No one who is in the market for an R8, GTR, ZR1, 911, etc gives a **** if the Boss gets around a track fractions of a second quicker, that they will never drive on, with a driver that has more skill than 99% of any owners will ever come close to having.
simply put, if you like the looks of the Boss and feel that its your best way to spend $40,000+ then go for it, I'm just saying there are plenty of other options out there for fun, affordable performance cars and maybe the Boss doesn't need to be viewed as the Holy Grail of fast cars.
simply put, if you like the looks of the Boss and feel that its your best way to spend $40,000+ then go for it, I'm just saying there are plenty of other options out there for fun, affordable performance cars and maybe the Boss doesn't need to be viewed as the Holy Grail of fast cars.
Do you bitch this much when someone posts how well a Z06 or a ZR-1 fairs on the track compared to a 300-500K Ferrari or Lambo? Or is it only when someone posts impressive track times for a Mustang?
You say there's better ways to spend 40K and still get decent performance in something that will have better quality and better amenities. I say...no one's arguing over any one person's idea of what's "better" or "more fun". We're comparing numbers......cold hard facts. If the facts are disagreeable to you, then go read something else that makes you feel better. I get it, you don't like the Boss......or Mustangs in general......or whatever. But your opinion doesn't negate the times this car is turning in. So unless it's your opinion that these times are not that impressive, then I really don't see what you're on about.
#73
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Louisiana, USA
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$13k more for 32 more hp, less torque and some suspension upgrades? MMMMM no thanks. I would stick with a GT.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html
Its not much faster than the GT motortrend tested, nor does it appear to be any lighter, or have much better lat gs. When bolt on GTs on stock wheels are hitting 11s, ford isnt doing something right with this version IMO.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t_numbers.html
Its not much faster than the GT motortrend tested, nor does it appear to be any lighter, or have much better lat gs. When bolt on GTs on stock wheels are hitting 11s, ford isnt doing something right with this version IMO.
Oh, and while I know it should go without saying.....the Boss really isn't something you should be looking at if all you're worried about is 1/4 mile times and trap speeds. This is a road track car, and it will best the standard GT (and even the GT500) when it comes to hanging around the twisties.
Last edited by ThisBlood147; 03-10-2011 at 10:20 PM.
#75
Audi's website lists the car as weighing 3241 lbs and only has 265 hp.
Seems pretty damn impressive to me to have beaten a 3600 lb 412hp car.
Reason I say the TT-RS would have a chance is because it makes 70 more hp, weighs 100 lbs less, and is more track oriented like the Mustang Boss.
Realistically, I would expect the mustang to edge it out on everything but a very technical track though.
Seems pretty damn impressive to me to have beaten a 3600 lb 412hp car.
Reason I say the TT-RS would have a chance is because it makes 70 more hp, weighs 100 lbs less, and is more track oriented like the Mustang Boss.
Realistically, I would expect the mustang to edge it out on everything but a very technical track though.
#76
Mine too, but Ford is not exactly giving the cars away. The 43k plus price tag certainly is a lot of take home money after taxes.....OUCH!!!
#79
Let's hope that's correct and just as importantly, that GM looks to the aftermarket for inspiration in the handling department. Without upgrades there, hope may be lost.
#80
Lets hope it gives the Boss a challenge...cuz it is gonna get smoked by the 2013 GT500. And even then, its likely the 2013 or 2014 will get the 5.8L motor...so the ZL1 will more than likely fall slightly behind.
Last edited by 1QWIKZ; 04-26-2011 at 04:04 PM.