Talk:Boss 429 Mustang

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) 12:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boss 429 → Ford Boss 429 — If the car was sold as a Ford, it should be refered to as a Ford. --Falcadore (talk) 10:52, 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 429, not the proposed Ford Boss 429. 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) 22:58, 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.

1969 and 1970 engines total

Total amounts for those years mentioned are over the 859 stated.--24.31.244.115 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the power claims of 500hp and more are exaggerations. The performance of the boss 429 was disappointing in stock form with a 14 second quarter mile, slower than the 428scj at low 13 seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:18A4:ADD3:F7E7:5E95 (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been acquiring source material in preparation of editing the content to address the above comment, and to make the text more in line with referenced materials. This would be my first wiki edit, starting off with this talk entry. Sbradley02 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article tone

This whole thing ought to be rewritten. Totally sounds fanboy written, full of "supposedly made this" and "it's said that because of", non of which is proven fact, and much of which is just popular legend created around a desirable car. I don't feel that this stuff has a place, at least not such a prominent place, in a wikipedia article. Also, I notice a great number of things in the text that ought to be linked to other articles, but aren't, as well as a lot of things that pre-suppose way to much knowledge on the part of the reader (I find that a lot in car articles). Basically, the tone doesn't sound at all encyclopedic, it sounds like a gushing praise of A Legendary Car, which is not how it's supposed to sound. Figures ought to be based on proven facts, with references, and if no manufacturer has ever admitted to understating power ratings, how can this be stated as fact? It's mere conjecture, blatantly so. I'm personally of the opinion that 60's era muscle cars didn't make anywhere NEAR the "unofficial" power levels that fans like to claim today. They made a lot of power compared to other cars of the era but they were not mythical creatures. In any case, the phrasing of this article seems blatantly against wikipedia policy..45Colt 06:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If power was so underrated by Ford, then so was the tested 1/4 mile and 0-60 times when it was sold. The latte were consistent with the advertised 375 Gross hp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.47.38 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

428

How much for the 428 Johnnymeeks (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]