The "lost" Boss 302 (1F02H100053) - observations + "The blue Boss 302"

[Boss1Ray]

Look familiar? I noticed the clear sportslamps in the grill first.

Sorry, Ray - that's a real car, not a buck. Production urethane bumper, production grill, production driprail location, big panel gaps in the urethane NACA scoop inserts, and none of the early coupe trim at the back edge of the hood and fenders.

At least a few really early drivable cars did exist with clear Sportlamps, as per this image from IMCDB.org:

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_605253-Ford-Mustang-1971.html

-Kurt

Wow. OK. I did not know about the clear Sportlamps in actual production cars. Interesting.

Ray

 

[cudak888]

Wow. OK. I did not know about the clear Sportlamps in actual production cars. Interesting.

Ray

I wouldn't be surprised if not a single car was actually sold like that. Probably unique to the pre-production - but functional - cars running experimental VIN numbers.

-Kurt

 

[JimNiki]

What's the consensus on the clear sports lamps?

Do we all love our yellow lenses?

Does anyone have anything other than yellow?

 

[Mike429cj]

What's the consensus on the clear sports lamps?

Do we all love our yellow lenses?

Does anyone have anything other than yellow?

I like the yellow lense but clear with amber bulb might have been cool to have too.

 

[71BossPrototype]

-Kurt

Kurt, I have been looking at the door line beneath the glass, on the car in the top photo. What's going on with that body line running below the mirror? Is it the photo, or what ?

On the hue issue, I think you missed my drift. I wasn't intending to say it was impossible to intentionally modify the negative or photoshop it to accomplish a change in shade from Vermillion. I was referring to an ordinary situation where a photo is displayed on different monitors or different saturations in the printing process etc, as was discussed earlier in the thread. Look what happened to the color of the front seat in your "modified" photo.

Again, I know you can intentionally fix that, but I am saying that the original published photo doesn't look vermillion at all, unless they intended to alter it, as you have done. Also, what do you think about that apparent "seam line" showing on that seat. There's no piping in that location. I say "seat cover" pulled over the seat. I do agree the gutter trim piece seems narrower than what I have seen, but we are looking at a photo. Sorry, not convinced. I hate to disparage all your guys' "deeming and dubbing", but I say"Show me the VIN !" LOL.

Next up, did you know that was my car in this photo? :

You can tell because it's Grabber Yellow, it says "Boss" in that back window, and my car had those same oil stains on the tail panel when we looked under the honeycomb !! Okay, Okay, maybe it's not my car, but it coud be !! Hope you guys can take a good natured "ribbing" -Andy (I think I know that one guy on the right, too !)

 

[cudak888]

Kurt, I have been looking at the door line beneath the glass, on the car in the top photo. What's going on with that body line running below the mirror? Is it the photo, or what ?

Good catch. The mirror's shadow is throwing off the taper of the line. The bodyside crease is A-OK:

Again' date=' I know you can intentionally fix that, but I am saying that the original published photo doesn't look vermillion at all, unless they intended to alter it, as you have done. Also, what do you think about that apparent "seam line" showing on that seat. There's no piping in that location.[/quote']
I had to look at this photo to get a better idea of the piping you refer to, for the fancy pants picture doesn't appear to have anything wrong with it.

I see a zig-zag pattern in it, but it doesn't seem to re-replicate itself in the fancy pants picture. The seat does look off and thicker than the production seat though.

The buck has its own odd seats, which look very similar:

I don't see how they'd have to put that zig-zag in the seat (if there is, indeed, piping there) to make an effective cover though.



That said - I did come up with one theory today, which I'd like to run out here just for discussion:

Note that Ford continued the look of the red styling buck and wound up making quite a few black/red Mach 1's early in production - not to mention that quite a few marketing photos showed the color combo, and visually identical cars (paint and decals, that is) were provided to Eon/Danjaq for Diamonds Are Forever.

My theory is that Andy's Lost Boss was created specifically to replicate the buck used for the publicity photos, for purposes of the auto show circuit (and, as Lois Eminger data shows, it was shipped to Las Vegas for that very purpose).

Someone at Ford probably had the sense to order the real demo (the Lost Boss) with black seats to increase the appeal and minimize the McDonald's effect.

Incidentally, Andy - is there any data on the 6 month invoice date gap on Lois Eminger's report (unlike any of the other cars?):

It could also be - and this would explain the interior - that the buck was built with some production sheet metal on it, and that sheet metal was re-used when the Lost Boss was ordered. Again, just a thought.

-Kurt

 

[71BossPrototype]

Well, I think you need to look more closely at both photos of the desert car, as I can easily see the same seam in both photos, though it is less obvious in the one, but still visible on the extra large blow up. Also, I say "seam" not "piping". It is like a cloth "pull-over" cover that has simply been sewn or pinned then pulled over the seat.

By the way, when you blow up your "modified" version of the desert photo, I'm starting to like your Navy colored seat and the "Greenish" exterior, and the red casted cement. I think you proved my point about the hues issue. On that sunlight point, don't you think we need to know the car's location and direction before we can declare it a morning sun, because I think it looks more like a late afternoon with a setting sun. Just sayin'. What do you think is hanging under the center of the car? A loose e-brake cable, or wiring harness?

Then, on the Eminger sheets, I will look at mine, when I get a chance, but it won't be for a little while. I did notice that one of the red cars (059 DAF car) is noted as built 429, non-ram air, yet "to be shown as 351 Mach I." This would appear to have again, been a job for the West Coast Job shop, to put the Mach I appearance items on the car, if it was necessary for the display at the LV Convention Center. Would need to see photos of the car "as displayed" to know for certain. Likely, the same way my car's graphics were changed for the desert photo shoot or LV Con show, depending upon whether is was displayed as a 302 or 351 Boss car by Ford Marketing Group. Gotta find someone with photos from that show ! Anybody got any ideas on how or where we can get such?

Also, since you guys have done an excellent job of locating those huge photos of the car, have you ever found a very large version of this photo:

I would really like to find one this one in large format.

Did you notice the "canvas-like" texture, or "oil painting effect" on the background in that one. The marketing people had a large bag of tricks at their disposal, even back in 1970. That's why you really can't rely on the photos on a monitor 40 years later for anything. Even trim pieces can be streamlined for effect in a photo, to make it all look better than the real thing. And that, I have no doubt Ford would do !

Much about this is still a mystery till we find documentation, photos, VIN numbers or some person with actual knowledge. Still interesting conversation though! -Andrew

 

[cudak888]

Well, I think you need to look more closely at both photos of the desert car, as I can easily see the same seam in both photos, though it is less obvious in the one, but still visible on the extra large blow up. Also, I say "seam" not "piping". It is like a cloth "pull-over" cover that has simply been sewn or pinned then pulled over the seat.

I'll give it a good look-over this afternoon - definitely an oddity, and worth looking into.

By the way' date=' when you blow up your "modified" version of the desert photo, I'm starting to like your Navy colored seat and the "Greenish" exterior, and the red casted cement. I think you proved my point about the hues issue. On that sunlight point, don't you think we need to know the car's location and direction before we can declare it a morning sun, because I think it looks more like a late afternoon with a setting sun. Just sayin'. What do you think is hanging under the center of the car? A loose e-brake cable, or wiring harness? [/quote']
Evening would have been more likely to have a gold tint over everything - the "golden hour" as referenced by photographers.

As for the object hanging out from under the car - it isn't anything found on a factory car, that's for sure. The braded E-brake cable wouldn't hang loose like that and sits too far center to be where that hose is. The brake line is solid in that area, and so is the fuel line.

Also note the weird box shape underneath. That's not the front framerail, as it extends at least 8" farther rearwards. Lots of low-hanging stuff around the front steering linkage:

EDIT: That low-hanging stuff around the front steering linkage has been airbrushed out on the same angle w/o the models. Possibly even the models have been airbrushed out? Would be one hell of a job if they did.

Then' date=' on the Eminger sheets, I will look at mine, when I get a chance, but it won't be for a little while. I did notice that one of the red cars (059 DAR car) is noted as built 429, non-ram air, yet "to be shown as 351 Mach I." This would appear to have again, been a job for the West Coast Job shop, to put the Mach I appearance items on the car, if it was necessary for the display at the LV Convention Center. Would need to see photos of the car "as displayed" to know for certain. Likely, the same way my car's graphics were changed for the desert photo shoot or LV Con show, depending upon whether is was displayed as a 302 or 351 Boss car by Ford Marketing Group. Gotta find someone with photos from that show ! Anybody got any ideas on how or where we can get such? [/quote']
I cannot see where that car would have require any external visual modifications. A C-code 429 Mach 1 and an M-code 351C Mach 1 would have no external, visual differences perceptible by the general public - provided the car was to be shown as having no Ram-Air.

The ISOMustangs database says that car was owned by a Don C. in Georgia prior to 1993. Bo Durban has been trying to track him down.

FYI - not a single one of those first 100 cars were used in Diamonds Are Forever. They pre-date the purchase of the stunt cars by 4 months, and the Marti reports on them all have one feature or another (map lights, deluxe vs. standard belts, etc). which negate them from the film. Alemeda's incorrect research on his own car has everyone believing that the Las Vegas Convention Center cars had something to do with the film. They didn't.

Lots of meaningless speculation and still a mystery till we find documentation, photos, VIN numbers or some person with actual knowledge. Still interesting conversation though. -Andrew

Worth it to beat the subject until someone with that knowledge can't ignore the existence of our discussion on Google.

Without asking questions, we will never get answers - and that's probably why the '71-73 group has lagged behind (in comparison to other years) in overall recognition and dissemination of knowledge (which would explain the prominence of incorrect restorations claimed as perfect originals, and the number of people willing to accept them as such).

-Kurt

P.S.: The photo you have of the side view with no model is the largest on the internet right now - 776 x 470px. Ford's stock image archive probably has the full-size version for purchase.

 

[71BossPrototype]

Worth it to beat the subject until someone with that knowledge can't ignore the existence of our discussion on Google.

Without asking questions, we will never get answers - and that's probably why the '71-73 group has lagged behind (in comparison to other years) in overall recognition and dissemination of knowledge (which would explain the prominence of incorrect restorations claimed as perfect originals, and the number of people willing to accept them as such).
-Kurt

P.S.: The photo you have of the side view with no model is the largest on the internet right now - 776 x 470px. Ford's stock image archive probably has the full-size version for purchase.

I agree 100 percent that the more we discuss this, the better the likelihood someone will see it and come forward with more actual photos, docs etc. We know how many years "internet experts" have posted the statement "there was never 1971 Boss 302 built." And when my car's history surfaced, there was, and is, a lot of grumbling and nay-saying. Which is OK. I really don't mind that, because it helps to get more people into the discussion and possibly find more data, as you have pointed out.

I'm thinking (hoping) that someone who has access to the newspaper database on-line might find a published story on that Las Vegas show, and we might get a lead on a photographer or company that covered the show.

As for the "stuff under the car," it looks to me to be the shadow of the front tire, blending with the exhaust pipe going back. But I have no idea what the cable is. The front stuff looks like the torsion bar fading into the passenger tire shadow. All just a guess, though. I appreciate your input. -Andrew

EDIT: That low-hanging stuff around the front steering linkage has been airbrushed out on the same angle w/o the models. Possibly even the models have been airbrushed out? Would be one hell of a job if they did.

Holy kwap! I think you are right about air-brushing the models out ! That might explain the "canvas texture" and "oil-painted" look they gave the photo. Even the overall color temperature was warmed up. I would have to try to overlay the two car photos, but you may have "nailed" that one.-Andrew

 

[Flatback72]

Next up, did you know that was my car in this photo? :

You can tell because it's Grabber Yellow, it says "Boss" in that back window, and my car had those same oil stains on the tail panel when we looked under the honeycomb !! Okay, Okay, maybe it's not my car, but it coud be !! Hope you guys can take a good natured "ribbing" -Andy (I think I know that one guy on the right, too !)

Ha, I'm the bloke who photoshopped the colour into that River Rouge pic, for all I know the original colour of that car was blue or green.....

 

[Kit Sullivan]

Ok, back into the fray!

The drip rail moldings on the yellow "buck" are clearly and most definitely NOT production items. They appear to be attached flat and flush to the roof, providing no "gutter" function. Anyone who has owned a 70s-era F-body ( Camaro/Firebird) will know exactly what I'm talking about: utterly useless, water pours directly into the window.

The production 71-73 roof molding/ gutter is very clearly mounted a 1/2" or so away from the roof to help form the "gutter".

Also, the stainless channell along the inside of the upper window opening along the roof is much thinner and more trim in the "buck" than on a production vehicle.

I am 100% certain the yellow B'1 as well as the similarly-equipped red Mach are non-production prototypes...and I believe there is a possibilty they actually be the same vehicle.

A note: it is extremely unlikely that any part of a "buck" or prototype car...sheetmetal, glass, trim, drivetrain, etc...would ever be "recycled" and/ or used in an actual retail, production vehicle.

The legalaities required demand that every single component, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant in nature must be thoroughly tested and approved for production. That is really the main reason that million-dollar one-of-a-kind prototypes are routinely destroyed by manufacturers.

If any non-approved car, or part could ever be determined to be the cause if a fatal accident to a retail customer, it would be catastrophic financially to the manufacturer.

GM and Ford have sold collections of bucks and prototypes over the years, but they have all been without drivetrains and the new owners must sign documents that they are never to be driven, and are for "display purposes" only.

And the seats in the early 71 bucks were clearly 69/70 units with new upholstery. The 71 thin-shell seats were probably not even designed yet.

 

[71BossPrototype]

Next up, did you know that was my car in this photo? :

You can tell because it's Grabber Yellow, it says "Boss" in that back window, and my car had those same oil stains on the tail panel when we looked under the honeycomb !! Okay, Okay, maybe it's not my car, but it coud be !! Hope you guys can take a good natured "ribbing" -Andy (I think I know that one guy on the right, too !)

Ha, I'm the bloke who photoshopped the colour into that River Rouge pic, for all I know the original colour of that car was blue or green.....

And you did a darn good job of it too ! I remember when you did that. Which software do you use for that type of thing? Do you pick a color for each item in the photo, or is it based on some shade analysis of the Black and white photo? Like Turner "colorizing" the old movies !

 

[Flatback72]

And you did a darn good job of it too ! I remember when you did that. Which software do you use for that type of thing? Do you pick a color for each item in the photo, or is it based on some shade analysis of the Black and white photo? Like Turner "colorizing" the old movies !

I use Corel Photo Paint which is a pretty simple program for a novice and infrequent user like myself. Nothing as complicated as shade analysis was used, the colour of the cars I picked randomly, yellow for the Boss mainly because that's the colour I associate with a Boss 351 (probably because of those publicity shots...). It was fairly obvious that the Boss was a light colour car as you can see the Cougar in front is darker in the b&w original photo, which is why I decided a mid range green would not look out of place there.

 

[luxstang]

as you can see the Cougar in front is darker in the b&w original photo, which is why I decided a mid range green would not look out of place there.

On a side note: I used to develop my own photos back in the days and I had a pretty good eye when it came to guessing colors on a b/w shot. I am pretty sure the Cougar in that pic was red.

The Boss was probably yellow.

But having said that, you did a real good job and the green had me fooled until I saw the original pic.

 

[Flatback72]

On a side note: I used to develop my own photos back in the days and I had a pretty good eye when it came to guessing colors on a b/w shot. I am pretty sure the Cougar in that pic was red.

The Boss was probably yellow.

But having said that, you did a real good job and the green had me fooled until I saw the original pic.

Interesting that you say that Mike; I remember thinking at the time that the darker shading on the Cougar could mean it was red, but I made a conscious decision not to use red because I didn't want it to stand out too much over the Boss

 

[71BossPrototype]

Thanks for the interesting info on the software. I'm remember the old days, when you had to actually "paint" inside the objects lines, like a coloring book. LOL. So these days, the software "knows" where the lines of the object are, automatically. Now, I really feel old! -Andrew

 

[Boss1Ray]

Thanks for the interesting info on the software. I'm remember the old days, when you had to actually "paint" inside the objects lines, like a coloring book. LOL. So these days, the software "knows" where the lines of the object are, automatically. Now, I really feel old! -Andrew

Me too. It knows what I want to do before I do!!!!

Artificial Intelligence = smarter than me... :dodgy:

Not sayin' much but

I need a beer!

Ray

 

[cudak888]

And the seats in the early 71 bucks were clearly 69/70 units with new upholstery. The 71 thin-shell seats were probably not even designed yet.

Kit, have a look at Page 10 of the 1971 Mustang Illustrated Facts and Specifications Manual.

Say "hello" to those '69/70 seats upholstered as '71 Deluxe seats. It's painfully obvious.

-Kurt

 

[Big Block MACH]

A lost Boss 302 71 mustang is it for real? A few years back well a lot of years back in the early 70s I saw the blue Boss 302. Back in the day every thing was hot rods, every parking lot was a car show. In SoCal the biggest Cruz street ever was Whittier Blvd. I remember every thing from then. I wish I had pictures. But I remember a 302 Boss 71 mustang that to this day didn't believe that it really exist. Until I read all of this about the lost 71 Boss 302s. I was a young teenager then my girlfriends older sister was dating the guy who had the boss 302. Thats all I know to this day, sister broke up with guy, and that was it. I never thought that, that car was for real until now. I thought I remembered it wrong that the car was a Boss 351 because I never saw another one ever again. Be leave me I looked for another one. I did talk to the guy about his car because I didn't think a 302 was that great at that time, I'm talking about the 70s when there was hipo 327, 350s, the occasional hemi, the most beautiful 429 SCJ.

So he showed me what that engine was all about and did an awesome 4 speed burnout out of the parking lot. After that I was a be leaver in the power of the Boss.

 

[cudak888]

A lost Boss 302 71 mustang is it for real? A few years back well a lot of years back in the early 70s I saw the blue Boss 302.

Someone must have made a replica then (and might have been faking its originality even back then), because that blue Boss 302 prototype was turned into a Boss 351 prototype at the hands of Ford:

-Kurt