A NoOption Boss 302 is no longer good enough

On 2011-09-07, > wrote:
> On Sep 6, 10:48*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-09-06, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 5, 8:28 pm, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2011-09-05, dwight > wrote:
>
>> >> >http://www.freep.com/article/2011090...ark-Phelan-Mus...
>
>> >> > Mark Phelan raves about the new Boss 302. "Best handling... sweetest exhaust
>> >> > note... sheer joy." But... no iPod connection, no Sync, no navigation
>> >> > system, and it could use more "storage cubbies."
>
>> >> > I might disagree. This is the Boss 302, not a daily-driver V6 model (in the
>> >> > Premium, please - gotta have those multi-colored interior lights). How many
>> >> > of these are going to be the primary means of transportation, where a
>> >> > hands-free cellphone is almost required?
>
>> >> I really expected the BOSS 302 to not be so stark. I figured it would be
>> >> like a '69 BOSS 302 compared to a Mach 1 with regards to comparison to a
>> >> GT premium.
>
>> > I'm very glad the Boss 302 is so stark. *But I'm afraid profits will
>> > soon trump philosophy and loaded-up/bloated versions will become the
>> > new Boss.
>
>> > Too bad they're not developing a stark version of the GT500 for the
>> > drag racing enthusiasts. *Love to see a return of a [street version]
>> > Cobra Jet.
>
>> Instant collectable marketing dictates the BOSS 302 won't be offered
>> long enough for that to happen.
>
> With the millennium generation, who seem to prefer balanced
> performance over brutal acceleration, you got to wonder if the brains
> in Ford see the Boss 302 being THE Mustang to garner continued respect
> from those who worship at the alter of BMW's M3. Make sense? If not,
> let me keep going. Perhaps the Boss 302 will stick around because it
> best displays the M3-competitor image Ford most wants to cultivate in
> the minds of younger buyers.

M3's are nice inside so I understand...

>> I'm somewhat surprised the GT500 is still sold, although it has lost the premiums in most > cases.

> And I haven't heard anything about it going away. (Which means
> another nice entry in the future used car market!)

>> Not many people liked dog dish hubcaped 428SCJ hardtops back in the day
>> and that is still true. But back in the day someone could order their
>> car pretty finely detailed. That doesn't exist today.

> Maybe it's just me, but I know/see plenty of folks who go goo goo gah
> gah over stripper, "dog-dish hubcaped" muscle cars. Or is it just
> cases of 'love it, but can't live that way. I need my
> options'?

It's because they are seen as 'odd' or 'different'. Lots cars have been
restored with all sorts of options that they didn't have when they left
the factory.

http://www.torquenews.com/106/2013-f...and-technology

TorqueNews seems to think that the complaints about the spartan lack of
features is about to be corrected in the Boss.

Joy unbounded. Another car reviewer gets his wish.

d

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 03:27:35 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2011-09-07, > wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 10:48*pm, Brent > wrote:
>>> On 2011-09-06, > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
SNIP
>
>It's because they are seen as 'odd' or 'different'. Lots cars have been
>restored with all sorts of options that they didn't have when they left
>the factory.
>
That is true. I have improved my 65 FB with bucket seats that don't
start leaning backward, 3 point seatbelts, stereo (which did exist,
but I added a CD changer and connects for USB/IPod). Mine came from
the plant with standard front disc/rear drums, 14in steel wheels,
single bowl master brake cylinder, manual steering. I now have 16"
mags (era correct mod) dual bowl master cylinder, power assisted
brakes, power R&P steering. However, just a casual look at the car and
nothing really stands out inside or out. Yet, with technology which
wasn't available when my car was built, it's now safer and far more
comfortable to drive. Even the lighting has been improved with LEDs
inside and out, so those other cars can see me, and I can see down a
dark road. :0)

On Sep 8, 3:33*pm, D E Willson > wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 03:27:35 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>
> > wrote:

> That is true. I have improved my 65 FB with bucket seats that don't
> start leaning backward, 3 point seatbelts, stereo (which did exist,
> but I added a CD changer and connects for USB/IPod). *Mine came from
> the plant with standard front disc/rear drums, 14in steel wheels,
> single bowl master brake cylinder, manual steering. I now have 16"
> mags (era correct mod) dual bowl master cylinder, power assisted
> brakes, power R&P steering. However, just a casual look at the car and
> nothing really stands out inside or out. Yet, with technology which
> wasn't available when my car was built, it's now safer and far more
> comfortable to drive. Even the lighting has been improved with LEDs
> inside and out, so those other cars can see me, and I can see down a
> dark road. :0)

Sounds like a nice car. Got pics?

Patrick

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:15:34 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sep 8, 3:33*pm, D E Willson > wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 03:27:35 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>
>> > wrote:
>
>> That is true. I have improved my 65 FB with bucket seats that don't
>> start leaning backward, 3 point seatbelts, stereo (which did exist,
>> but I added a CD changer and connects for USB/IPod). *Mine came from
>> the plant with standard front disc/rear drums, 14in steel wheels,
>> single bowl master brake cylinder, manual steering. I now have 16"
>> mags (era correct mod) dual bowl master cylinder, power assisted
>> brakes, power R&P steering. However, just a casual look at the car and
>> nothing really stands out inside or out. Yet, with technology which
>> wasn't available when my car was built, it's now safer and far more
>> comfortable to drive. Even the lighting has been improved with LEDs
>> inside and out, so those other cars can see me, and I can see down a
>> dark road. :0)
>
>Sounds like a nice car. Got pics?
>
>Patrick
I do. I even have the video of when it was Courtney Hansen's Pick of
the Month on Spike TV's Power Block in June 05