Talk:Boss 302 Mustang

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LSUFish09.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved as it would add an overprecise descriptive disambigutor to a common name that is unambiguous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boss 302 Mustang → Ford Boss 302 Mustang — If the car was sold as a Ford, it should be refered to as a Ford. --Falcadore (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:TITLE spells out the principle criteria we use to decide what titles should be. Among those criteria is we should use the most natural or common name when possible, and in this case that's clearly the currently title, Boss 302 Mustang (or even Boss 302), not the proposed Ford Boss 302 Mustang. The current title also is more concise, and the proposed title is "more precise than necessary". I see nothing in policies, guidelines or conventions to support the nom's argument... "If the car was sold as a Ford, it should be refered to as a Ford". If we just make up naming rules as we go, there will never be stability in naming. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Production Run

The Boss 302 is only being made for the 2012 and 2013 Model Years. It has been confirmed by Ford, and their ordering guide, that the Boss 302 will not be available during the 2014 Model Year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugenhold (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 302 engine

I notice that the 1st gen had a pic of the engine, but the 2nd didn't. I have a pic of it I can up load if you guys want? (Dandvsp (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

1971 Boss 302 Mustangs

There is no mention of the 1971 Boss 302 Mustangs. While they were not offered to the general public they are still out there. As well as a 1969 Shelby Boss 302.

Tunnel-port engine block?

How can you have a "a 'tunnel port' Windsor block and Cleveland heads"? All of the ports are in the heads. A Windsor block doesn't have any ports, and if the tunnel ports are in the Cleveland head, then they obviously belong to the Cleveland, not the Windsor. The only time a Windsor is a "tunnel port" is when it is equipped with Windsor heads..45Colt 19:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boss 302 Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123230328/http://media.ford.com:80/mini%5Fsites/10031/2012Boss302/ to http://media.ford.com/mini_sites/10031/2012Boss302/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"high nickel content block casting"

The idea that it had a "high-nickel-content block casting" is a common fallacy. Ford made one test run of nickel added to a few blocks, but quickly worn tooling nixed the idea for future production (too difficult to machine). Also, the high nickel blocks idea has been dispelled many times on the "332-428 Ford FE Engine Forum", by former Ford engineers and foundry workers;

re: "Ford did cast a few 427 blocks with nickel, just as they cast a few with nodular iron (six, if I recall), and other adders, but these are anomalies that were not so much for racing as they were for learning how they machine and perform. Ford added chromium to a limited number of their performance FE blocks, because the machining line had established a proper machining protocol for the extra chromium that did not disturb the cutting tools during the eight hour shift between cutter bit refreshening." = "The chemistry of ESE M1A116 A cast iron is: C = 3.25 min Mn = .60 - 1.00 P = .12 max S = .15 max Si = 2.40 max Cu = - Ni = - Cr = .15 - .40 (Cr amount were varied slightly, depending on application) CE (Carbon Equivalency)= 4.25

Nickel was NOT used in cast iron for Ford cyl blocks or cyl heads, but it may show up as a tramp element." Dr. Dale (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]