(first posted 9/7/2015. We don’t normally rerun QOTD posts, but the 372 comments in this one make for some fine reading)
The article the other day on the gen2 Seville, with all of its feeble engines, made me think: Just what were the 10 worst car engines ever? Well, who better than you all to answer that. And if a something even vaguely resembling a consensus develops,we’ll make an official CC List in a post. But I’m not holding my breath… Maybe I’ll just pick what I think is the best list and re-post it.
Just so that we keep it a bit real, let’s have a cut-off; only engines that appeared after 1965. Many of us here might not be familiar with the travails of the Copper-Cooled 1923 Chevy. But many of us will remember the hypereutectic alloys and other delights of a somewhat more recent Chevy.
The headline is “What Were The Ten Worst Car Engines Ever?”
Then later, you limit submissions to post-1965.
Maybe you should change the headlines to “What were the 10 worst engines of eggsalad’s lifetime?” 🙂
Before I noticed your username, I was going to say that I should probably never eat egg salad at your house.
Never turn your back on eggsalad–the mayonnaise will turn on you.
The Ten Worst Engines Ever…since 1965….sold in the US…in mass production….and only engines I’m familiar with.
I would think the Vega engine would be bad enough to make any other entry pale in comparison.
Though the last Pontiac i owned with its piston slapping Dexcool leaking 3.4 V-6 certainly deserves honorable mention.
That’s why I don’t like the 1965 cutoff. The Copper Cooled Chevy made the Vega engine look like a Slant 6 in comparison. And there were a lot of other really bad engines pre-WWII.
C’mon, let’s see who really has a knowledge of automotive history.
1923 Chevy had the copper cooled engine. Briefly. Very briefly. About as short as Ford’s 1942 Liquimatic transmission.
The Crosley CoBRA gives the Copper Cooled Chevy a run for its money.
Funny you mention leaking Dexcool . . . . I had a 3.4 V-6 2000 Chevy Venture that, for the last 20,000 miles I had it, constantly would ooze Dexcool . . . enough to where I always kept a jug in the back . . . . .
A new updated intake manifold gasket fixes any leaks these engines have. Most engine noises are due to owner neglect over a period of time where the antifreeze enters the valve train and eats up the lifters or worse the cam. Some of these engines also had under sized pistons from the factory like is happening today with BMW and VW engines to get those higher fuel economy numbers and they rattled until warmed up but we don’t see or hear many doing that these days.
The 3.0 liter Triumph Stag V8. A lower price gentleman’s express with a V8, a wood dash, a removable top, and Italian styling. It should have set the world on fire. Too bad it overheated and warped the cylinder head and timing chains only lasted 25k. Only 6000 were sold in the USA in the early seventies, so there is very little expertise here, although British specialists have come to grips with them.
The Stag engine would be my personal choice for #1 on the list. It checks all the boxes for disaster:
Bad design, bad materials, bad quality parts, and bad assembly.
Wasn’t it entirely the child of corporate politics too? BL had plenty of Rover V8s available but the board was stacked with people from the Standard-Triumph side who didn’t want anything but a “Triumph” engine in Triumph’s halo car.
The rationale for continuing the Triumph V-8 rather than standardizing on the Rover is a complicated subject — even among ex-BL factory people, it comes down to whom you ask. I think it mainly came down to (a) Rover didn’t have infinite V-8 production capacity and they’d had fairly ambitious plans for using the 3.5 in their own products and (b) the Triumph V-8 had been well along in development when Standard-Triumph bought Rover (which was pre-BLMC) and so they didn’t want to just write it off even aside from the relative capacity issue.
Since the Rover SD1 was in the wings spelling the end of the larger 2000/2500 sedans, the 3.0 had no future and should not have been bothered with. It also of course should have worked properly from the get go since it was in development a while and used features from the other Triumph engines.
That said, with the tradition of the tiny 1.6 liter sixes, a tiny V8 could have been a great rep builder to get an independent Triumph a foothold in the world market for higher end sport coupes and sports sedans.
The SD1 wasn’t on the table yet at that point. Standard-Triumph had been working on the V-8 and slant four since 1963–64, bought Rover in 1967, and merged with BMC/BMH a year later. Immediately after the merger with Rover, I don’t think anyone had yet given much serious thought to what would replace the 2-liter sedans, which were relatively new and selling extremely well. I assume someone said, “Well, it would make sense to consolidate these two lines in some way when we get around to it,” but I don’t think it had gotten much further than that and the sedans were not anywhere close to the top of the priority list.
Also, the idea that the Rover/Buick engine was the better engine was not yet obvious; Rover at that point had just recently gotten it into production after a fairly troublesome period of trying to adapt it for local production and supplier facilities. The Triumph V-8 was a more modern design that was intended to share tooling with the new four (which Saab got before Triumph’s own cars), so the Triumph engine had a number of on-paper advantages.
Since the Triumph V-8 was originally supposed to be 2.5 liters, not 3.0, I think the original plan was that it would go into the 2000 sedan and Stag, leaving the 3.5-liter Rover engine (and its bigger derivatives) for the P6B, the P8, and the P6BS sports car, which Rover had really wanted to build and sell as an Alvis. Obviously, that all presupposed the Triumph V-8 not being a rolling disaster, but such is the power of hindsight.
Ed Turners 2.5 V8 was still about somewhere they could have resurected that and put Triumph stamped rocker covers on it nobody would have known or cared
And don’t forget bad reason for it existing: Because Triumph did not want to ask Rover for use of its Rover all aluminum V8 even though Rover and Triumph were owned by British Leyland.
I don’t think it was “lower priced” It was designed to compete with the Mercedes SL. The major problem with the engine was not the design, but the materials of the time. A timing chain could not be made that long using the materials of those times, likewise the head gasket material was not good enough. Today’s those problems have been resolved and retrofitted motors are fine. Interestingly, loping four cylinders off the engine, made a great motor for the Dolomite, and Saab used it for 30+ years.
Higher than a TR6, lower than an E-type, way, way lower than an SL.
Correction – Triumph engines in SAAB = Disaster.
1973 on had 2-ltre redesigned made by SAAB.
This is correct, it took extensive re-engineering by SAAB to make it an excellent and long lived engine. I’ve had 6 cars with that superb powerplant, some with one of the best turbo engines ever made.
Just reading that drivel about the Vega engine made me throw up a little. They forgot to mention that it sounded like a thrashing machine and wore out about as fast as bubble gum.
Other engine stinkers on my list include the HT4100 Cadillac (had one), the early rotary Mazda engines in the RX2, 3 and 4, although when they weren’t broken they were very awesome, the V6 Volvo engine, aka the PRV, a joint venture of Peugeot, Renault and Volvo. These engines depreciated lots of otherwise nice Volvos. They also used the PRV engine on the DeLorean.
Saab 2-strokes were so bad that Bob Sinclair always carried a spare in the trunk when he was making sales call on the dealers. If they saw the replacement engine, he’d say he was delivering it to the next dealer on his route. Really, it was just there so he was confident he’d get home. Because lubrication was delivered by the gas-oil mix only, the engines would burn up if you coasted in gear or tried to use engine braking. That’s why they had the failure-prone freewheel transmissions, but that’s another conversation topic.
The PRV I can only assume is the result of corporate incompetence. A 2.9 L 6 cylinder engine that puts out 135 horsepower and is ridiculously unreliable. The funny thing is Volvo already had better engines – the 2.3L redblock engines were incredibly reliable and only put out slightly less power (114 hp) and the turbocharged versions put out more power and were still just as reliable. That engine also was part of what killed the Delorean.
The early PRVs were definitely rotten. A multitude of problems, including a propensity for clogged oil passages, with predictable results. However, the second-series PRVs, which debuted in 1985 and were used in the Volvo 760/780, Peugeot 505, Renault 25 Turbo, and Eagle Premier (among others) was a completely different animal. Heavily re-engineered, changed to even-fire and electronically controlled, the later PRVs were smooth and reliable. And in the turbo Renault version, rather exciting even..
The later PRVs were indeed much better. My cousin had a Volvo 780 with 190k miles on it when sold, it still ran quietly and used little oil. Frequent oil changes and proper attention to maintenance were the key.
The Ford 3.8L V6 with the head gasket problem.
The Ford Tempo 2.3 – a 1960 Falcon six with two cylinders removed – debuted in 1983 while Honda and Toyota were bringing out advanced OHC engines.
I would also include the GM Iron Duke and the 1.8 OHV used in the Cavalier.
The Ford Tempo 2.3 – a 1960 Falcon six with two cylinders removed – debuted in 1983 while Honda and Toyota were bringing out advanced OHC engines.
To my mind that was a great example of getting added life out of an already epic design.
I drove more than a few Tempos with that engine, it was actually quite good for what it was (albeit some people just have an automatic hate for pushrod I4s).
I’ve often thought a Ford HSC I4 would be a nice choice as a swap for an older Jeep.
Mine didn’t make it to 100,000 miles. It didn’t burn a *lot* of oil nor did it leak a lot but between the two it got through a quart every 150-200 miles. I used to buy cheap Kmart Motorvator oil by the case for it.
I’ve had scores of Tempaz’ and none of them burn oil, even the one with 230,000 miles. Some of them will, however, leak oil from the valve cover. Luckily it’s easy-peasy to put a good gasket on there. I’ve had far more issues with small block Chevy valve cover leaks than Tempazes.
I had an ’89 Topaz that had 264k on it when I sold it. Tough (but slow) little tank.
A swap into a Jeep would be splendid, and make far more sense than the ubiquitous V8 or V6 swaps.
Somebody mentioned- and I think it’s true- that Ford’s choice to develop the HSC had a lot to do with plant capacity and tooling. They already had an OHC 2.3 for many years- why even mess with an OHV 2.3 unless it was for logistical reasons? As for fitting the OHC into the Tempaz, it’s been done by hobbyists so I don’t think fitment is necessarily the reason Ford didn’t do it.
I thought it was a shame Ford didn’t get more use out of that unit. It would have been great in a stripper Ranger with a 5 Speed Manual, almost an ideal base engine in a cheap compact truck.
>>To my mind that was a great example of getting added life out of an already epic design.<<
The Falcon engine was mediocre at best. "Epic" in no way.
Aussie Ford fanbois would beg to differ.
+1 on the 3.8 V6, as I experienced that head-gasket problem on the one I owned.
I’d like to add the 1.4 L mill in the Renault Alliance, which began self-destructing at 75k miles as if meant to do so.
Niether of those are anywhere near the top 10. The HSC was very durable and the 3.8 head gasket thing is way over blown, There are a lot of Honda and Subaru engines that are guaranteed to blow the head gasket rather than might like some years of the 3.8.
as a former Tempo owner – I found the 2.3 very reliable although slow
The emissions carb could be fiddly but in my experience the EFI system is virtually trouble-free.
If it’s going through oil, first place to look is the valve cover. Never had an oil burner but if so, first thing I’d look at is the PCV valve.
I guess the Thin Film Ignition Module has some notoriety as a troublesome piece; I did have one fail on me but in all fairness the car was pretty old by then. Supposedly the “grease” on it is crucial for cooling and when I pulled the failed module out there was no grease. :/
I’ve also heard the harmonic balancer fails a lot and yet I’ve yet to have one go bad.
Nothing wrong with the Iron Duke, for what it was. Sure it used ancient, stone aged tech but that’s why it was pretty reliable also. It may be far from cutting edge, but they last. Even though they sound like a box of rocks and anything powered with one moves about as fast.
The Iron Duke was a great engine! I’ve had several and each one went well over 100,000 with no problems. The only one that ever actually broke was in a 1984 Firebird with 125,000+ miles, it put a rod through the block after cleaning the sludge out of the pans, left over by years of infrequent Pennzoil oil changes. Lesson learned!
Rover K series springs to mind. The thing is, a bit like the Mazda rotary, they’re nice, but unreliable.
Even a Metro with a K series was fun to drive, and Lotus and Caterham (among others) chose it for their cars too, but to say they had head gasket issues is an understatement.
Coventry Climax engine in the Hillman Imp? A colleague had one as his first car – “They shoulda put the engine in that thing with a zip”.
Sorry, the Imp engine was a direct descendent of the Coventry Climax racing engines. The problems associated with these engines were not the engines per se but the mechanics who did not understand the use of a torque wrench on every nut and bolt. Add to that not using inhibitor in the cooling system by careless owners they would fail. They were too far ahead of their time.
I have a 1967 version that has covered 180,000 miles, with one re-bore at 100,000 with no trouble. There is another i1964 in the garage that has done 114,000 miles on the original bore.
Funny that a neighbour had an Imp from new it never let her down it was maintained by the local dealer our across the street neighbour who later told me they were quite different to the other engines Rootes used and required different care, he knew, likely other dealers or their staff ignored the service bulletins.
Olds 5.7 diesel. For forehead-smacking reasons.
Uncle bought a Cutlass during the second gas crisis in the very early 80s. He said it was the worst car he ever had by far.
The Olds diesel went beyond just being bad, it turned America away from diesels and led to the formation of consumer lemon laws. In true GM fashion it was only offered in their higher end offerings.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Uc8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=popular+mechanics+owners+survey+Oldsmobile+diesel&source=bl&ots=aGEBHXOAzb&sig=E0QdKDDv52zS98gI4hGNfXIRL5Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAGoVChMIo_CZrNzlxwIVglSICh2_xAkG#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20owners%20survey%20Oldsmobile%20diesel&f=false
The sad thing about the Oldsmodiesel is that people loved them. Popular Mechanics did an owners’ survey when the cars had been out about a year and the people that responded gave the diesel the highest ratings of any American car ever. Then they all turned back into pumpkins.
Your owners report is at the end of the first years production when most of the engines were probably less than 6 months old. The problems took a while to begin.
Here is another Popular Mechanic’s article on the Diesel:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6599/top-automotive-engineering-failures-oldsmobile-diesels/
Check out the orange peel in that black paint accompanying the article.
I think I told this story before, but as he was picking up the car,he noticed a small dent. Went over to the mechanic and the mechanic said that he wasn’t buying a mercedes. After taking delivery of it, he noticed the rearwindows only went down about a quarter of the way. Went to the dealer and they said that was a design feature and their was nothing they could do about it.
He was very unhappy. Being a young doctor at the time he called GM headquarters and got through to the then CEO secretary. He asked if he could speak to, we think it was Roger Smith, and she asked what is was in reference to. He said their golf game. She put him through. CEO was laughing and apologized he was dissatisfied but said their was nothing he could do.
He bought a Rover a few years later, which has its own long story.
I knew the Olds 5.7L diesel was coming, and frankly surprised that I had to read this far into the comments to get to it. Our ’78 Delta-88 is still chugging along, BTW. Had a no-start problem earlier this year, but my brother traced it down to a bad ground connection on the injection pump.
My dad had a Chevy company car with the 5.7. The local Chevy dealer was useless with it, but a GMC dealer got it going very well and kept it that way. After they got it working we all agreed it was a great car.
We met a man at a convention in Dallas who had a big 5.7 Olds which has a large auxiliary fuel tank in the trunk that he proudly showed us. He said he had filled up in Phoenix and wasn’t planning to buy more fuel until he got back. In retrospect I have my doubts about that claim.
Anyway, GM: Spoiling the ship for a hapworth of tar.
My Dad had a diesel Olds, an 84 Ciera (yeah, different engine-the V6 diesel) His also had the aux. tank in the trunk, up against the back seat. He could fill both tanks, and go 2 weeks straight without a refill. 40-50mpg. He put well over 100K on that car before it broke. The only place in our little town with diesel, the attendant put gasoline in it, and the cost of replacing the fuel system wrote off the car. But when the Olds diesels ran right, they got great MPG.
Jeez, it’s hard to come up with a list that isn’t predominantly GM. Which is a shame as I really think we’re tired of heaping (though much deserved) scorn upon the “Mark of Excellence”. I do know that most of the disasters made their debut far in advance of Dexcool.
I know I will be the only one here, but it will get me off the GM bashing ride for the moment. At #2 on my list close behind the Vega 2300 is the Honda CVCC I4. Glamor girl of the automotive media, in reality this was a fragile, underdeveloped, uneven running unit, coupled with technology that quickly that turned out to be a dead end street. Just because it was smooth through the rev band and had no catalytic converter doesn’t mean it was a profound engineering achievement.
RE : the Honda CVCC four cylinder engine :
I think it was a good engine that died early because of American’s two stupid driving habits : lugging the engine mercilessly and never changing the oil .
When these cars were new they they died like flies @ 30 ~ 40 thousand miles , I’d buy them for peanuts and replace the sludge filled engines and tune ’em up and re sell them at a serious profit , the folks who took care of them and never lugged the engine , easily got 100,000 miles out of them and loved them .
-Nate
Nate, I came of age with VW Beetles. Change the oil and adjust the valves every 3K miles, tune every 12K miles, and the things would last forever. I got 2 Hondas in the late ’70s, and maintained them the same way. I had a friend with a new ’78 Accord whose ownership experience mirrored mine. As I’ve stated in previous posts, I’d buy a new Honda with no hesitation now, but the early cars left so much to be desired for me. Respectfully, I’m glad they’ve worked for you.
At some point they must have gotten their act together, because I knew lots of Accord CVCC owners that were still daily driving them in the ’90s with big mileages and no engine rebuilds. Beetle engines, on the other hand, were cheap to rebuild and getting 100K between rebuilds was unheard of.
After 1979, the CVCC may have gotten better with the cylinder head gaskets, but they still had auxiliary valve seal problems which led to increased oil consumption. OTOH, most people I knew with beetles moved on before big mileage, but I did know 2 cars that I serviced that made 180K and 200K before rebuilds – the latter one a fuel injected car that I had bought new originally.
Cheap VW parts, now that would have been handy given the short engine life most of them had. VW parts were very expensive here and I found them expensive in Aussie too 2k for a rebuilt VW flat four engine unfitted is starting price in OZ when I was around them, sorry but that more than a rebuilt 302 V8 cost.
…..because at 50000 to 60000 miles the exhaust valve of the 3rd cylinder broke.
The age limit prevents the VW flat four being listed but they were far from durable often lasting less than 50k in hilly country the intensive maintenance schedule and lack of VW dealer specialists to do said maintenance put lots of them to death. YMMV.
In Nebraska, USA, used VW Beetle parts cost more than brand new Ford or Chevy parts for certain engines. I know cuz I had an old Beetle once upon a time. It was infuriating since I bought the car to save money and it was nothing more than a 4 wheeled motorcycle to me. In hindsight I should’ve bought a plymouth valiant or AMC Hornet instead…same purchase price used with a tenth the breakdowns, half the cost per breakdown, and last 3 times as long.
“You guys can argue the VW thing for days, but one thing is for sure: you either love or hate them. Circa 1963, were I to buy a new car here in Canada, it most certainly would not be a VW product, since they rusted to dust even faster than the American stuff. The heater boxes were the first thing to rot making them freezing in eastern Canada winters. Were I to buy a new car in 1963 it would certainly have been a Valiant wagon, 225 and Torqueflite.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cannuckistan is RIGHT!
Were I to buy a used vehicle in 1980, it would certainly be a used Valiant 2door 225 or a used AMC Hornet 2door with large inline six motor.
4speed manual if possible, and a limited slip rear end.
>>coupled with technology that quickly that turned out to be a dead end street.<<
Beetle owners changed their agricultural engines w/ regularity. The virtue of VW's truly dead-end air-cooled design was the ease & cheapness of the process. Like the fenders.
When VW tried to put similar junk in the "luxury" 411, it almost sunk the company. The 4 series was VW’s last air-cooled design. That 1930’s tech had seen its day, altho Porsche pigheadedly keep them around until the later 1990’s..
Nate, my cousin who worked in the service dept of a Honda dealership in 1974 said exactly the same thing. Just putting gas in them and hitting the freeways of LA, typical US driving style was putting a lot of these out of commission early at the time.
Bryce ;
Had you been around in the glory dayze of Air Cooled VW’s you’d know that the original single port engines from the 1950’s through 1970 routinely made 150,000 miles before failure .
Then the slap-dash hap hazard rebuilding using the cheapest parts possible and leaving out critical pieces of cooling tin and rubber seals , pretty much guaranteed short engine life no matter how they were driven .
FWIW , when I had my VW Shop I bought all the wrecked / junked VW’s I could afford and for many years made a nice side line or patching grenaded 1600 engines and selling them as ‘ used take – out ‘ with no warranty , I dressed them with all the proper tin and so forth , not ever one ever came back to me broken so it *is* possible to have a long life VW Air cooled engine , even is a Van/Bus/Kombi/Camoer/whatever you call it .
-Nate
I’m probably too young but Ive had experience with most VWs We were the Cuba of the south pacific meaning cars were kept going here decades after they were junked elsewhere so early VWs are qwuite familiar to me.
VW specialist engine reconditioners in Aussie offer 60,000kms warranty on engines fitted to Beetles 30k for vans durable they are NOT.
Suitcase engines are better I’ll grant you but still not very long lasting and at 2K a throw are why most of us gave up on VWs as travel weapons. High cost of parts and a reluctance of garages to touch them doesnt help in OZ either but they are expensive to buy expensive to repair.
You could both be right. The 1200 was last sold new in 1965 and I never had one that lasted. Never bought one new. The 1300, 1500, and 1600 seemed to last pretty good. So long as I replaced a 1200 with one of them it did well.
You guys can argue the VW thing for days, but one thing is for sure: you either love or hate them. Circa 1963, were I to buy a new car here in Canada, it most certainly would not be a VW product, since they rusted to dust even faster than the American stuff. The heater boxes were the first thing to rot making them freezing in eastern Canada winters. Were I to buy a new car in 1963 it would certainly have been a Valiant wagon, 225 and Torqueflite.
I don’t know what is so bad about the Honda CVCC, my family’s 77 Accord had rust problems long before any engine issues. We did have the good sense to maintain it properly and had a clue how to drive stick.
Where do I start? They had head gasket problems which Honda attempted to fix with a recall in 1978, but it failed in my ’79 after 30K miles. The cylinder head also cracked about that time as well. There was also a problem with oil consumption due to oil leaking into the combustion chamber from the auxiliary valves in the head. The cooling fan switch was usually failing by 25K miles, which didn’t help head gasket and cylinder head service life. The carburetor had numerous tiny orifices in it which sometimes would clog no matter how fresh your gas filter was. Finally, I haven’t heard about the sludge issues mentioned above, but if you have a combustion chamber which has an excessive amount of oil and coolant introduced into it,well? I have always operated a manual transmission car assertively, I’ve never been accused of lugging any car. Why would a Honda be the only car with sludge issues?
The DOHC four cylinder engine used in Facel Vega Sports Cars….. so bad the factory replaced them with Volvo engines ! .
i just found one of these rare if worthless engines in a box .
-Nate
I was thinking about this engine when I read the question. They were made by the same company that made the optional 4-speed for the 1960 Chrysler 300F. I don’t think it is worthless at all. If you have a rebuildable core, you should put it on ebay and see if anyone trying to create a second(I think one still works) running original bites.
Nate, you found an original Facelia engine?? Even if it’s shot, it’s probably worth quite a bit of money. They were only built in the hundreds and very few have survived (most being replaced with Volvo engines). I’d scoop that up immediately if I were you!
Good pick for this topic too, that engine single-handedly put Facel-Vega out of business… although technically that was <1965.
Oddly enough yes I did .
I was talking to an old car nut buddy and he mentioned that he’d found one in the local PennySaver rag for $150 and , not believing it possible , drove over to have a looksee and there it was .
I told him some museum or concourse restoration person would give $eriou$ ca$h for it but he likes to know he has it salted away….
There’s much more super rare stuff floating ’round out there than most realize ~ they truck is finding it and getting it into the right hands .
-Nate
Iron duke was reliable.
Vega engine
4100 Cadillac
Olds diesel
3.8Ford
3.1 Chevy
2.7Chrysler
Quad 4
Nortrrstar
Aveo engine
Daewoo
Escort first generation.
Above are least durable. And the winner is general motors.
Least powerful I’m familiar with
4100 Cadillac
260Oldsmobile
Carburated 3.8 Buick
Olds diesel
Iron duke
Ford 170
265 Pontiac
Nix on a 3.8 Litre carb’d Buick V-6. Had a ’78 Skylark with the V-6. Ran great at 212K . . . . leaked oil . . . didn’t burn any. Of course, for the years I had it, I took exceptional care of it . . .
I nominate the following.
Holden Starfire 4
VK Commodore “Black Motor”
JB Camira 1.6
JD Camira 1.8 TBI
VN Commodore 3.8
Seconded that original Buick V6 was rough and awful in the VN it improved immensely in the VP and others.
What must anyone trading up from a VL have thought? Going from that lovely smooth Nissan RB30 in the VL to – this?
Might have been a bit rough, but when well-tuned it moved the auto VN from a standing start like no other factory six at that time could (short of a Charger 265 with Weber Six Pack); even my mate’s auto wagon shrugged off the extra weight to pull like a V8. I once watched a standard VN V6 auto sedan do a 70-yard wheelspin UPHILL on a fairly steep bitumen grade in dry weather. Which pains me to say, being a Ford man and all.
(The VP’s and later initial acceleration was blunted, to put it mildly – until the VE. But the VE’s standard brakes were dicey going down steep hills).
My only secret revenge was that the thermostat on early VNs was placed awkwardly at the back, the overflow bottle used to split, and the Buick V6 fitted to those VNs was fussy about oil changes. My mate, who hardly EVER changed oil in his cars, let his wife drive his – whereupon it threw a conrod out the side of the block driving up to the shops.
VK Black motor basic design was getting long in the tooth at the time but I wouldn’t call it a bad motor, let alone one of the worst.
Owned a VN for years, idle quality was a little less smooth than later versions but hardly noticable when you’re driving it every day. The radiator overflow/recovery system on the series 1 and 2 VNs was the worst, having two plastic header tanks and no radiator cap was a pretty dumb idea, as well as having the thermostat under the inlet manifold.
I agree with the Starfire, reeked of GM penny pinching.
Ford 3.8 V6 for sure, plagiarized(allegedly) off of what was one of the best V6s, the Buick V6, yet was an utter pile, that despite it’s admirable use of aluminum for the era(basically everything minus the block), proved to be completely unreliable for well over a decade until it was finally fixed with extensive casting revisions and gasket choice, by which point Ford had all but replaced it with the much more modern Duratech V6 in most applications. It stuck around in the Mustang until 2004 of course, but there’s a reason V6 Mustangs had a long lasting stigma attached to them, that engine in the 96-04s was it.
What about the Supercharged version used in the Thunderbird SuperCoupe you ask? Well Ford may very well have accomplished it’s E24 influence by making it as troublseome and costly in the true spirit of high end European cars of that period. Head gaskets are just as troublesome, harmonic balancers commonly fail, the DIS ignition system loves to fail at the worst of times, with little sign of it’s impending death, the belt drive is so cumbersome and convoluted that it and the blower assembly add so much weight to the nose it may as well just be the V8 it’s boost tries to emulate. Not to mention every service requires either physical gymnastics to get around the IC tubes, if not their removal, something as brainless as changing spark plugs is a pain on that engine.
Also GM’s LT1 V8 of the 90s. Opti-spark… Need I say more?
“…let’s have a cut-off of engines that appeared after 1965.” This says we are talking about the older engines.
Seems the Intrepid engine that sludges up- the 2.7?- should be on the list. There sure are a lot of Intrepids in otherwise great shape these days that can be had dirt cheap if one is willing to swap in a different engine.
I’m on the fence regarding the Northstar series as I have no personal experience with them. It does seem that when they run, they run well but when they fail it is catastrophic and expensive to repair/replace?
Ironic how a company named “General MOTORS” easily dominates a “worst engine” list.
Regarding the Northstar, I think your assumption as a hit or miss is accurate. I know someone who bought an early-2000s DeVille, and had issues with it, though it was close to 150,000 miles by then, and who knows the previous owner’s maintenance habits.
My great uncle and aunt on the other hand, have owned several Northstar-equipped Cadillacs and have had no issues. Granted they don’t put significant mileage on their cars, but each one of them has owned their current Cadillacs for over 10 years now without issue. I actually recently had a car conversation with great uncle, who oddly enough had a lot of praise for his Northstar’s power, efficiency, and reliability. I had to bite my tongue and not bring up the fact that they’re notorious for engine failure.
I have not been able to find statistics on what percentage of engines fail by say 100,000 miles. I know that too many do.
The case of the missing semi-colon has been solved. 🙂
I would say the Iron Duke, is one of them, but there are always exceptions to the rule.
My friend’s mom owned an 82 Camaro that had the Iron Duke 4 cyl.
That car had 370,000 and at the time, was still going strong, with only oil changes at every 3,000 miles. This was back in 1996, so I dunno what ever happened to the Camaro after that.
Something can be reliable and horrible, especially given how many ratty old J-bodies are still around.
The Iron Duke is a great example of GM at its ‘best’ – making something mediocre that lasts longer and runs cheaper than you sometimes wish it would.
Back in the 90s I knew more than a few people running beaters (mainly J-Cars and S10s) powered by the old Iron Duke.
The J-Cars never used the Iron Duke 2.5L 4 cylinder engine. The North American versions had 1.8L, 2.0L and 2.2L engines. None were related to the 2.5L.
Since it’s not on here yet, I’ll add the Cadillac V8-6-4
8-6-4 itself was fine, it was the stupid computer that couldn’t keep up with the program! Once you disabled the deactivation it was a fine (albeit inefficient) V8 engine. Actually the best engine out of all that ended up in those Eldorados and Sevilles. 🙂
It was a good engine once you deactivated the not yet ready for prime time displacement-on-demand.
I think you all mean the 368 V8 was fine, the 8-6-4 was not at all fine; once the wiring was snipped it was not the 8-6-4 anymore.
I think we simply define “engine” differently. Is it the block? Is it the block+heads+moving parts? Is it the block,etc+computer/electronic gizmos? I land more with the options A and B. So for me 368 and 8-6-4 are the same engine, especially since snipping the added wiring on one turns it into the other. 🙂
In fact, my definition is probably even closer to A, since a Ford 302 for me is a 302, whether it’s carbs or electronic fuel injection, speed density or MAF. 🙂
As others have said, at least if you unplug the computer it reverted to being a reliable Caddy big block V8. In addition to the system not responding fast enough to load changes to be seamless, it should never have had the V6 mode. A V8 with 6 cylinders firing in inherently unbalanced. Modern cylinder deactivation strategies only switch between 4-cyl and 8-cyl modes. Another problem was that they used the technology on a big block that went into heavy cars, so that the engine only ever dropped down to 4-cyl mode when idling or going downhill.
1974 Audi 100ls, 1.9, hands down. Rear main seal @500mi, oiled the clutch, repaired under warranty. Then it started to use oil and water @1500mi.. No indication of over heating, but the engine had warped it’s head and blown the head gasket. Under warranty, so back to the dealer again. When I checked on the progress of the repairs a few days later, in the bays on either side of mine, were two other brand new 100ls’, hoods up, heads off. They looked so cute together. Happened twice! Many other problems, and the start of a poor reputation for Audi. I kept buying Audis though (fool). My 2010 A4 2.0t needed pistons @25kmi, oil consumption issues. My son’s 2007 2.0t needed the of the cams replaced @35kmi. as well as the air/oil seperater, and throttle positioner. Audi does have a current recall in place for the 2.0t.. No more Audis!
My 1971 Fiat 850 racer model (900cc), as a well earned reputation would tell you, was worn out @40k mi., smoked and sounded like a coffee can full of rocks. Truely a disposible car.
Crosley’s COBRA [COpper BRAzed] 4 cyl. Block built up from sheet metal. OHC 44 cubic inches. Known for overheating and leaking. Mid 40s era.
Post 65: Vega 2300, Chrysler 2.7 V6, Quad 4, 3.8 Ford V-6
Iron Duke was crude, agricultural, powerless and noisy, but not on the same level of mechanical disaster as a Vega or 2.7 powered Mopar.
Iron Duke was crude, agricultural, powerless and noisy, but not on the same level of mechanical disaster as a Vega or 2.7 powered Mopar.
Iron Dukes had a great rep for durability. Wasn’t bad for what it was.
Three have been in the family. One still going strong in my brother’s hands. One run into the ground by my other brother and one in my 84 Citation II that I traded off. And wish I hadn’t….
That wasn’t a diss, though! I call those aspects of the Iron Duke “character” !
Neither the Iron Duke nor the Ford 2.3L HSC were by any reasonable measure bad engines. A lot of people like to hate on pushrod I4s but before compact cars hit the +3500 lbs gross weight and the expectation was for breathable exhaust fumes they were decent choices for daily use.
early 2.8 Liter V6 GM
Aluminum 2.3 Liter 4 GM
255ci Ford V8
Chevrolet 267ci V8
4.6 Liter V8 Ford
Hmm; we sold our 1985 Cherokee with the GM 2.8 V6 after 170k miles and 15 years, and it was still running fine. It did need an expensive carb replacement, but that’s the only issue we had. Luck?
Was that a Rochester varijet we had those biodegradable carbs on blue and black Holden 6s, heat warps internal passages making them untuneable and I was quoted $1000 for a replacement, a Holley was $350 but the car sucked too much fuel, I went to a single throat stromberg and had no more problems.
Given your taste Paul. I am surprised you didn’t get in your Cherokee the Renault TD that you could have had then. I for one am not surprised you got 170k out of the 2.8, but perhaps you could have gone even more economical miles with a turbo diesel.
Aside from leaking Dexcool (after 120K) on the 3.4 2000 Chevy Venture V-6, I’d always had good luck and reliability with the other 60 degree Chevy V-6’s although, in fairness, mine were ’88 and later. I have heard the early 2.8’s had some issues . . . . mostly carb related.
Luck. The 2.8 Cherokee i had was on it’s third crank.
4.6 Ford?
My daily driver is a 2002 F150 with 410,000 miles and has a 4.6.
Not to mention the police cars, taxis, town cars, and others that are still being used daily.
Here I thought I was doing good at 228k. What have you done to it? Anything major?
4.6 liter Ford? On what basis?
These have powered thousands of units that see heavy duty, 24 hour use and have done so without drama. The mileage these engines can acquire is phenomenal.
Your others? Yeah, I can see where you are coming from.
probably the ones with the cracking plastic coolant crossover.
That’s not a mechanical issue and those intakes were only used for a finite period of time.
This is similar to the intake gasket disaster with some GM Vortec V6 and V8’s. Dexcool may have incorrectly gotten the blame for this problem in some cases, but it was a bad part design. Yes, this is not a mechanical issue, but the result in many cases was a completely destroyed engine due to coolant in the oil. Is the Ford 4.6 issue similar in that the cracked coolant crossover causing coolant in the oil?
No, the crossover failure is external, as coolant crosses between the heads via a passage at the front of the intake manifold, the thermostat is also located in the manifold. When the plastic fails coolant simply starts leaking out, only real side effect it can cause is rough running as coolant can begin to puddle in the nearby spark plug wells.
Many people like to hate on the 4.6L Mod V8 over its efficiency (~230 HP out of a 4.6L) overlooking the fact that its understressed nature is why it’s so popular in fleet usage.
It’s much like the engine it in effect replaced in that use, the 390 FE, another inefficient, last-forever mill. Or the engine I’ve run in my last two vehicles, the AMC/Chrysler 4.0L I6, 200 HP out of a 4.0L cast iron block/head engine.
There are also the DOHC versions which make, depending on application, between 255 and 320 HP. And have similar durability, as long as you don’t overheat them.
Not to mention the architecture served as the basis for the current 5.0L. The 4.6 had very good bones, the 2V just wasn’t designed with intent of high performance like the 4V and later 3Vs were. Remember, when it was introduced in 1991 it matched the power of the 5.0 H.O. and it was lighter, stronger and more efficient than it to boot (stock vs. stock).
I also have to defend the Chevy 267. I have one in a ’79 Malibu, which served various members of our family for 174,000 miles over 22 years without a rebuild. (We did put either 2 or 3 rebuilt carbs on it in that time, the Rochester Dual-Jet did kind of suck.) Maybe ours was an aberration, but they weren’t all bad.
If you’re making the argument that 125 HP out of a V8 is pathetic…remember the era. And that’s more power than the concurrent Olds 262 V8 made.
The 267 is a Small block Chevy engine. Why this engine is included on a worst engine list is beyond me. It shares it’s pluses and minus with any other small block for reliability. Sure it didn’t make much power but what did in the 1979-1982 era? It also wasn’t the worst for HP. It made between 115-125 horses depending on year. For reference Chrysler’s much bigger 318 2BBL made but 120 horses for 1980, AMC had a 304 for it’s last two years making but 125 ponies, Old’s 260 made 110 HP for 1975-78, 105 for 1979/80 and only 100 for 1981/82.
Also note that Chevy made another small V8 for the 1975 model year. The 4.3 liter 262 V8 with but 110 HP. Suddenly the old 267 doesn’t seem quite so bad.
Uhh.. 4.6 Ford? Really? If you’re going with the later 3 valve, ok I could get on that train due to the problems with the cam phasers and shooting out spark plugs.
Earlier ones – specifically the 2 valve, well, I’d have to disagree. My weekend/toy pickup has it’s original 2V 4.6 and at 228k miles still runs great, returns great mileage (14 in town in a supercab 4×4 F-150) and doesn’t leak a thing. Sure it burns a quart every 2,000 miles, but I’ll let that go.
And it’s not just mine.. my Mom has had a 2001 Mustang GT since new, and that car is ~220k of in-town miles. No problems to speak of aside from now burning a bit of oil. Dad has a ’99 F-150 that he’s had since new as well, and with ~120k now the motor is still rock solid.
Neon 2.0 first generation: near 100% head gasket failure rate. Escort/Focus 2.0 SPI that is bound to drop a valve seat at some point in it’s life.
Supposedly the head gasket problem was fixed by 1998. But by then the damage was done.
multi-layer steel head gaskets have been a godsend. My dad had a Dodge Spirit R/T which ate timing belts and head gaskets like clockwork. When he finally went to sell it, it needed a head gasket. the only one I could find reasonably quickly was an MLS gasket from Cometic. I figure that will last longer than the car.
I had a 1990-something Ford Escort wagon–which I really liked–with that engine. It swallowed a valve seat.
Think about this: A valve seat!
I’d never even heard of such a thing until the guy at the machine shop says to me, “Oh, yeah, we see this a lot. We could press you in a new seat, but it probably won’t last. Buy our rebuilt head.”
Imagine my annoyance.
The early NSU Wankel engines from the Ro 80 would be high on my list. Far more serious issues occurred with those than Mazda’s rotary from the same era.
Subaru EJ25, particularly 1998-early 2003. Smooth and (with scheduled maintenance) utterly reliable when the head gaskets aren’t leaking. Best AND worst wrapped up in one engine.
Absolutely. So much to love and hate about these engines. A few in my network of friends and family are well north or 400 000 kms, and one passed 500 000 recently. My own n/a EJ25 from 2003 is now at 247 000, and I love how well built, smooth,and well packaged these motors are. Easiest timing best Ive ever done, thanks to the longitudinal engine. Belts, water pump, and sensors are all a cinch as well. And I love how unique it is, especially with how homogenized the automotive industry is becoming.
My excitement was tempered, however, when I got the dreaded dead spots in my heater last december. I flushed my coolant and replaced the thermostat, praying my head gaskets were okay. But I should have known better, the car had been drilling oil since I bought it a year previous. A month later, the car began overheating – but there was no oil in the coolant or vice versa. Luckily, it was just combustion gasses in the coolant. I didnt ruin any bearing or overheat it bad enough to warp the head. So, having to move in just eight days, with no money to take it to a shop, I removed the cylinder heads in an unheated garage with no power, with the motor still in the car – in between packing all my possessions of course. It was incredibly stressfull. I should have taken the motor out completely, but there was no room, no hoist, no money and no time. I have no idea how I managed to get those heads off and on with so little room between the framerails, without scratching the block mating surface. But I did, and I put on 3 ply MLS felpro gaskets, and had the heads machined flat for good measure. It has been ROCK SOLID ever since, but I am still peeved.
A flaw on a new product is easily excused, it happens to the best. Take Hondas auto transmission on their J series v6s, which for a while, were basically made out of porcelain and tissue paper. Instead, what boggles my mind, is that this was a known problem for about a DECADE and seemingly nothing was done. How does such a significant problem in such a widely utilised (seriously, Subaru put this pancake in everything) motor go unadressed for so long? It really is infuriating, especially when you hear stories of dealers servicing blown gaskets and warped heads with Whiz Wheels rather than machining them flat.
I love my Legacy wagon, and have no regrets about buying it. But it is truly baffling how the problem was allowed to persist for so long. A favorite, and a least favorite, motor of mine.
This is why I won’t consider a Subaru now. No matter how much the buff mags love the WRX, I refuse to buy a car with an unaddressed issue like the head gaskets.
Sadly this is one of the reasons why we got rid of our Subaru Forester as it approached 150,000 miles. The head gasket was fine but we were waiting for the other shoe to drop afraid that it would only be a matter of time because of the history of that engine.
Other than that, we liked the car very much.
This is why I won’t consider a Subaru now. No matter how much the buff mags love the WRX
Stock or even modestly modded turbo 2.5s never had the problems that the NA cars did. They used a different (the aforementioned multi-layer steel) gasket design. The current crop of FA and FB engines have a different head design and have also done away with that other Subie Achilles’ heel, the timing belt.
At the time I bought my 2003 Outback, I went for the H6 version (then a 3.0 liter) for the extra grunt, knowing I’d be paying a penalty (a small one) in fuel economy, but now feel really lucky/vindicated in having done so. *That* engine is rock-solid–mine’s gone 158K miles with no problems at all. It’s also baffling how one company could sell such a good engine on one hand and let its real bread-and-butter engine languish with such a flaw on the other. (But then we see GM, and say, “oh, that’s how”.)
I will consider another Subaru, but I’m wary of the H4.
Yes, I have a friend with one and we are both a big fan of that motor. Sadly, it was only available with an auto.
Its only really the n/a 2.5 liter motors from the mid nineties up to the early 2000s. Turbo models had no real problems with head gaskets.
Cjiguy has kind of beat me to the punch with his choice of the NSU Wankel but I am going to do a dance step and propose the Madza B13 rotary engine from the early 70’s.
Sure the NSU was bad, and it was first, but I am going to argue that the B13 was worser. It failed to produce more torque, power, better gas mileage, reduced maintenance cost, or improved reliability compared to convential reciprocating engines.
“The … problem concerned the rotary’s reliability and maintenance costs. Despite their mechanical simplicity, the Mazda rotaries were not necessarily any cheaper to maintain than a four-cylinder reciprocating engine; oil consumption was inherently high and early engines had two ignition systems to maintain as well as a prodigious appetite for spark plugs. Both J.D. Power & Associates and Consumer Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) reported problems with seal failures in federalized 10A and 12A engines. In sharp contrast to NSU’s experience, Mazda’s apex and corner seals turned out to be surprisingly robust in service — several automotive magazines did teardowns of high-mileage Mazda rotaries and found little wear in those areas — but the same was not necessarily true of the oil seals or the gaskets mating the rotor housings to the side plates. On early engines, those seals were rubber O-rings, which took a beating from the rotary’s considerable waste heat, limiting their lifespan.
I agree with most of what you say Lokki. While the Mazda rotaries had their faults, they did typically live past 30,000 miles or so before needing to be rebuilt, a very undesirable trait common among the first couple years of NSU Ro 80 production.
Dad bought my Mother a 2 year old ’82 Mazda RX7 with 18K on it. She put another 70K on if before unwillingly giving it up.
I changed the oil & filter every 3K (Dad didn’t trust quickie oil change shops, so of course his eldest son didn’t also!), new antifreeze every 12 months. It ran flawlessly and was reliable from purchasing date to selling date.
The 13B as used in 1982 was quite a bit different than the 12A and 13B from the early or mid-70s. There were extensive changes to the combustion chamber design, porting, ignition, and seals.
I thought the 12A was used on RX-7’s until the debut of the GSL-SE (1985?) which used the 13B and which was then used for the second generation (from 1986) as well?
@Jim: In the U.S. market, yes, although the 13B was still available during that period in various non-U.S. Mazdas (I think including the RX-7, which had some engine options we didn’t get, but I don’t have the presence of mind to look it up right now). The 12A got most of the same changes; in fact, Mazda originally tried to call the later 12A the 12B to reflect that, but it didn’t stick and I think they eventually decided it was just confusing people.
Don’t forget the Olds 260 Diesel from 1979. It had the same problems as its big brother the 350 Diesel, but with even less power (which is saying something).
Or the Diesel V6 which was also available on the Olds Ciera.
I think the Olds diesel V6 was better, but too late for the rep. Assuming that to be true, a diesel Ciera would have made a great rep car.
My dad had one. Bought it off a traveling salesman, too… Great car, it pulled our camper with ease, for 100K miles. I really wish I had a scanner to post pics of it now…
The V6 diesel had a revised headbolt layout which made it less prone to head gasket failure.
You could get it with a five speed, in a aeroback Cutlass. Rare one year only freaky threefer. Rare American Eugenemobile.
That car needs a write up her on CC.com!
And I’m sure it was available in brown too. We’re getting very close to that brown diesel manual wagon…
Someone mentioned the Olds 260 above, so let’s clarify that this includes both the diesel and gasoline versions – the gas 260 was also a gutless piece of crap.
Volkswagen 1600 twinport flat four, Every single one made in Germany has an inbuilt fault and will crack behind the flywheel, seen it happen to multitudes of them and been told the same thing by numerous VW engine rebuild specialists, The 1600 engine casings from Brazil do not feature this fault and can be fitted its not cheap but it is the only cure welding,stitching, glueing, all will fail.
Cummins 5.9 blocks cast in Brazil had a similar issue. A thin spot in the water jacket would invariably crack and cause a coolant leak. These were installed in 1999-2001 Dodge pickups. Known as the “Cummins 53 block” because affected blocks had the number 53 cast into them.
In no particular order:
1) Ford 3.8L V6 – Crap engine in (mostly) crap vehicle.
2) GM Northstar DOHC V8 – Expensive and unreliable and no excuse because plenty of other manufacturers had successfully made similar units.
3) GM Quad Four – Same story as Northstar.
My guess is that this is going to turn into ‘Engine configurations I don’t like’. Threads like these often do.
How many of these engines made the Ward’s 10 best engines for (year) list?
The list starts with 1995.
OK, this is a biased list, but is a pretty embarrassing indictment for a company with “Motors” as part of its name.
Cadillac: the fact that the flagship division of General MOTORS turned out some of the worst engines in history is unforgivable. The blunders cost them virtually all of their credibility in the prestige market, and more or less knocked them out of producing unique engines. Even the “reborn” Cadillacs the U.S. press gushes about today run Chevy engines.
4100 V8: painfully underpowered and woefully unreliable at the same time.
V8-6-4: for a brand that fought back against those “furriners” in the late ’70s by touting the durability and easy serviceability of its V8s, this trouble-prone one-year-wonder was a real black eye.
Northstar V8: if you need to claw your way back to respectability in one of the most demanding car segments, you can’t produce anything that is hit or miss. Saying that some German V8s are just as bad for reliability is ridiculous when you have Lexus staring you in the face.
Oldsmobile: GM’s “guinea pig” division, known for occasionally trying new things, but starting from a baseline of reliable performance, blew that to smithereens with these duds:
350 Diesel: its early popularity, driven by Oldsmobile’s sterling reputation at the time, did immeasurable harm when buyers discovered that they were the actual guinea pigs being used for a horrible experiment.
260 Diesel: If the 350 wasn’t slow enough, decrease the bore but keep the problems.
Quad 4: you’d think being nearly last to the market with a 16V engine would give you time to study and produce the best, but instead Olds gave us an engine that sounded like a blender filled with bolts.
Turbo Torture: we can thank Buick and Pontiac for tarnishing Turbo power in the U.S. with their early efforts.
Buick 3.8 Turbo: Pitched as offering V8 performance with V6 economy, it actually delivered the opposite and was trouble prone/high maintenance to boot. Granted Buick refined it into something much better in later iterations. But then again, why exactly was Buick–the staid, respectable division of GM–producing Turbos in the first place?
Pontiac 4.9 Turbo: a subpar V8 with an underdeveloped Turbo was never going to be a good marriage. Really sad for the performance division of General Motors.
Chevy: the “Heartbeat of America” division turned out some remarkably bad hearts.
Vega 140: one of the best gifts the Japanese car makers ever received. This aluminum embarrassment led generations of small car buyers to abandon Chevrolet forever.
1.8 Liter OHV: how could you launch the import-conquering J-car with such an anemic, dated engine? While this slug was dreadful in a Chevrolet, it was unbearably pathetic in a Cadillac (though of course Caddy would never again be embarrassed to use engines from Chevy).
I know there are plenty of other bad engines from plenty of other companies, but I still think General Motors deserves the ultimate raspberry for the sheer magnitude of miserable engines they turned out.
”But then again, why exactly was Buick–the staid, respectable division of GM–producing Turbos in the first place?’
Because Buick had the 231 V6…a very appropriate engine for turbocharging…simple to build, relatively reliable and an engine GM was heavily invested in. No other division had such an engine. The Chevy straight 6 was being phased out, the 2.8 60 degree V6 was not as well suited and Olds, Pontiac and Cadillac had no V6 engine….Buick did a great job with the 231/ 3.8 engine, refining it, increasing durability and power….Although underpowered when “reintroduced” in 1975, the same could be said of virtually every American engine
I bought a new ’78 Buick Turbo Regal (3.8L turbocharged), owned it for 3 years and my experience was so miserable that it was the last GM car I purchased.
The 4.9 Turbo V8 was a head scratcher to me. On paper, the power was there to replace the Pontiac 400 in the flagship Trans Am. It also should have addressed the weight problem of the TA as the 301 was a light engine. When tested though, the performance was not even close to the end of the line 400 V8. Knocking/detonation were always blamed but my guess is that Pontiac had not gotten it together properly, but with the 400 gone, it had to get out there anyway.
The 301 was essentially the same as the 400, just with a shorter deck, the weight of the turbocharger and piping likely zapped all of the weight savings there may have been between the two
I understand the two engines have the same roots. Hadn’t the 301 had it’s iron block bored so thin as to need steel reinforcement to retain strength? I don’t think this was a feature? of all Pontiac V8s, but came out of the iron duke design.
Some, not all. The 301 was not just a short-deck 350/400; they went through the entire engine in some detail to see what they could afford to trim. Consequently, it was a bunch lighter than the 350/400 — 136 pounds lighter was the official claim. The 301T blocks put back a little of that (5-6 lb) in thicker internal webs and cylinder walls and the turbo hardware probably added something like 50 lb on top of that.
Pontiac 301 – Take a look @ the crankshaft, observe where weight removed.
The 301 was a last ditch effort to keep the Trans Am all Pontiac, I believe. I think there was some customer feedback about getting a 403 Olds in a T/A (this was the same time period when people were suing GM over Chevy engines in Olds Delta 88s), plus it was a way to look high-tech in the face of stiff competition.
On paper, it should have worked. Obviously, turbos, carburetors and emissions controls were not a good mix, as other manufacturers found out, too.
Proper engine tune is vital with these 301T engines. So is 93 or higher octane fuel and removal of heat sources to the intake setup. My 1981 turbo TA wasn’t all that quick when I first bought it but after dialing the carb in with a rebuild, a complete tune up and all new vacuum lines, proper base timing, proper and checked boost (about 9 PSI) and elimination of some heat sources such as the EGR and coolant lines to the intake plenum this turbo 4.9 pulls quite a bit better and 0-60 times have dropped down into the high 6 second range which by 1981 standards was unheard of!
If you want a fairly modern engine, the Peugeot 1.4 and 1.6 hdi diesels are pretty awful. Fitted to everything from minis to fiestas to volvo c30s and mazda3s. Brilliant while they are running but you are always on a count down to turbo failure.
The 122 Cavalier engine comes to mind for just being noisy, underpowered, and just unpleasant to drive. Makes me think the people who designed it just didn’t care.
An enlarged version of the original 1.8/2.0. Never minded the 2.2 in my 99 Cavalier. I liked the yester-tech configuration of it. Easy to service, inexpensive to repair, fuel efficient. The Cavalier never pretended to be something it wasn’t, unlike the Cimarron. Pretty honest offering, another thing I appreciated about it and why I bought one.
I’ve got a 2.0 in my 98 Cabrio – Makes about the same power as the 2.2 Cav, but, it just seems to have way more usable power…right from off idle to redline, it seems to be “eager” – just pulls, without getting winded after 3000 RPM.
That simplicity and old tech character of the 2.2 in the later Cavys has been one of the things I came to appreciate the most on those little beasts. But, Good Grief, those things are slow…
Two words that will make most car guys “of a certain age” groan and reflexively cross themselves: “Renault Dauphine”.
I have been thinking that all along, but it’s pre-’65. You could add to that whatever engine it was in my parent’s Hillman Husky (Huskie?) There could be, however, a whole category of engines that were fine for their home markets, but utterly out of place in the US.
LOL. AMC Renault Alliance engine was no prize, for the younger set.
I don’t think the “younger set” even knows AMC existed.
Also: pleased to have you back “home” after your sabbatical. Paul.
1. any air cooled engine
2. any two stroke engine
3. any gasoline engine converted to diesel
4. any diesel without a turbo
5. early gasoline engines with a turbo
6. early engines with counter-ballancers
7. variable displacement engines
8. early cast iron engines newly converted to aluminum heads
9. nearly all V6 engines made from chopping 2cylinders off a V8
10. anything that is not an AMC/Jeep 4.0 inline six or a Ford 240/300six
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6599/top-automotive-engineering-failures-oldsmobile-diesels/
Oh jeez.
1. All aircooled Porsche engines were bad?
4. Plenty of Mercedes (non-turbo) Diesels still going strong after many hundreds of thousands of miles in Africa and other places. Same for VW, Peugeot, Renault, and many more non-US makes.
5. Not sure if they’d be junk or could be considered pioneers to buyers at the leading edge of tech – Porsche 930 Turbo, Saab 99 Turbo, BMW 2002 turbo all post 1965. They certainly weren’t sold as economy cars.
7. Honda V6 (2005-current), Chrysler 5.7l V8 (current), plenty of other examples working extremely well over hundreds of thousands of miles. Modern engine management is a wonderful thing, it’s only been around for over twenty years now…
10. Don’t forget the crap fiber gear on the Ford 300 six…
First off, my list was meant to be semi-humorous
but yes, air cooled engines are a joke for daily drivers in the middle of the USA…ALL OF THEM even the superior Porsche variations. No air cooled engine can cut it if it is expected to impress in 20degrees F below zero with a wind chill factor dropping that another 20 degrees…and 6 months later operate in 100 degreeF with a heat index adding another 10 degrees.
The comment about diesels without turbos was warranted due to their pathetic performance, not durability.
By the way…Just because an engine is known to last a quarter million miles does not make it a good engine. The maintenance costs along the way to make it to that bragging point often are so ridiculously high on European cars that the quarter mil mile mark is only bragged by the dimmest of owners. Contrast that with the ford 300six fiber gear which has such a cheap and easy fix I don’t see how it can be considered note worthy.
Nah. Air-cooleds work well at either temperature extreme. The hard part is keeping the rodents from building nests in the cylinder and head fins thus compromising cooling in those spots!
Air cooled engines need top end work frequently in hot climates and do not provide heat to humans in cold climates.
+1 John
Hell, take several +1s
Just finished putting in a new valve cover on my Jeep 4.0 I-6 today.
So many years of straight 4s and sixes, I love them.
9. nearly all V6 engines made from chopping 2cylinders off a V8
You did mean except for the 262 cid (4.3 L)?
Actually what I had in mind was the later versions of the Buick Fireball V6 which evolved into the Buick 231, then into the Buick 3.8L. It was used in Jeeps at one time. I mostly remember it as an option in early 80s Chevy Malibus. They tended to outperform mild tuned 305 V8s if I remember correctly. And I think the Malibus that were equipped with the 3.8L came with Buick style rims. Also, the Buick Grand National used a turbo version of it.
The Buick 3.8 was only used in the Malibu in ’78 and ’79 nationwide; thereafter I think it may have been used in California cars but I’m not certain. The 3.8 available in the 1980 to ’83 Malibu (as well as the Monte Carlo and B-bodies) was a new engine, the Chevy 229. Basically 3/4 of a 305, but with few of that engine’s virtues intact. The Buick engine was the better of the two, but in NA format, I highly doubt it would outrun a 305.
The wheels you’re referring to are the Chevy styled steel wheels, also available on the Monte Carlo, El Camino, and early 3rd-gen Camaros.. They’re similar to the Buick wheels (and to the Olds Rally IIs). I don’t think they specified any engine in particular though, they were just an option.
well gosh
I have no reason to believe the accuracy of your post but lets say it is perfect:
Then I am talking about a 1980 california Malibu with a Buick 3.8 V6 with olds ralley wheels(which looked like the buick wheels)
and yes, it would outrun a plain chevy 305.
It would be a cold day in hell or a totally whipped 305 before a gutless Buick 231 outran it. Looking at equivalent numbers between the two as an example-
1980 Buick 231 2BBL V6 made 110 Hp and 190 torque
1980 Chevy 305 4BBL V8 made 155 HP and 240 torque
I have driven and owned more 231 Buick V6 carbed engines than I care to remember. The quickest one was a 1981 Cutlass 4 door with optional 2.73 rear gears ( the std gears were 2.41 across the board) that managed a whopping 0-60 in 13 seconds flat on a perfect 70 degree day.
Any 1978-87 305 4BBL V8 equipped G-body like the Malibu did the same run in 9.5-10 seconds, Even with crappy 2.29 rear peg leg gears!
So pretty much anything not an AMC or Ford pickup based straight six is inferior? Just want to make sure.
Yes, Ford’s 300 straight six was such an efficient powerhouse. I fondly remember the one in my father’s 1984 F-150…..yes, it was a dandy at 10 to 12 mpg and acceleration that could be measured with a calendar, creating a serious pucker factor when I was foolish enough to attempt passing anyone, even with no load. Be still my heart!
Yes, I’m being cheeky, also.
Try an EFI 300. It’s even worse!
I have a hard time doing 65-70 in my 1995 F150 unloaded. 75-80 on the Interstate? Not gonna happen….
Fix it then.
It’s been in the shop four times. In my mind, the 300 is the most overrate truck engine from the period. It’s good for that guy who only drives 55MPH, but for me, give me an SBC any day. Much better engine….
When shopping for a new basic pickup in 1993, I test drove an F-150 2WD with the EFI 4.9 six and automatic. Gearing was stock, probably 3.55, but I dont remember. It was a DOG, even on level ground with no load in the back.
The next test drive was a Chevy with the 4.3 TBI six and automatic with 3.08 gears. It was a world of difference. The Chevy had a 20hp advantage, so that couldnt be the whole reason. The torque curves were different with the Chevy a higher peak at a lower rpm.
I have tried a few EFI 300’s. They came from the same kennel as the ’80s era engines.
There is little doubt in my mind the 300 was a good engine at some point in time, but I have yet to encounter any of them.
The Ford 300 had different transmission options that affected their mileage greatly. The stump pulling, low geared 4 speed would give you 10-12 mpg but the 4 speed overdrive that I had would do 18mpg easy.
The four speed was gone by 1995 (The year of my truck). It has the 5 speed Mazda and 3.31 gearing.
What I’m talking about are the EFI 300s. The carbureted ones were a completely different animal. The advantage on the carb’d 300s was the low end torque. Ford changed the camshaft on the EFI ones, reducing the low end torque. They took away the only advantage of the 300, really.
They also used a nylon timing gear, which is prone to failure. Mine stripped 15 teeth, stranding me in a snowstorm. Between the nylon gear and the lack of torque, the later 300s in my mind were junk.
I’ve never driven a 4.3L Chevy, but I’ve driven a TBI 305 couple to an automatic and 2.76 gearing (Not what you want for power). The 1987 Chevrolet will run circles around the Ford, will easily out-tow or out-pull it, and will return about 4-5 MPG more.
I also drove a 1992 Dakota with a 3.9L V6 (6/8ths of a 318). That truck had the 5 speed and 4×4 (Other two were RWD). The Dakota would run circles around the Ford, too. It would also out tow and out haul the F150, albeit by a smaller amount than the Chevrolet could do. It’s easy to see why:
The Ford 300 I6 only offered 145hp at 3400RPM and 265 foot-pounds of torque at 2000 RPM.
The 3.9L in the Dakota offered 180HP (At 4800RPM) and 225 foot-pounds of torque (At 3200 RPM) in a package that was an enitre litre smaller.
Even the TBI 4.3L V6 was pushing 160HP (At 4000 RPM) and 235 foot-pounds of torque (At 2400 RPM).
The last 300s were simply outclassed by pretty much anything else. Are they the worst engine out there? Far from it, but they do deserve a “Dishonorable Mention”.
The 10-12 mpg one my father owned (and I drove it many miles in late ’80s and early ’90s) had the four-speed with granny low but was not geared low in the rear axle.
In its defense, it was smoother and sounded a lot less thrashy than the later EFI versions I experienced.
The carbureted ones were much better from my understanding. My grandfather had an early 80s one (Not sure on the exact year), but I remember that it would pull.
My EFI 300 just seems too wheezy. I’d own a carb’d 300, but I doubt that I’ll have another EFI one.
FWIW, there’s a bit of a cottage industry in using Big Sixes for drag racing. Heated up, they put out in the same ballpark as a similar-sized V8, and the word is that when they break, it’s almost never the bottom end.
The 302 in my experience was even worse in a truck, unless you wanted to wind the guts out of it. Mileage was as bad, and lost all the usable low end power.
I had a 1978 F-100 with the 300 six and figured out how to get the most out of that engine with not much effort.
Late 70’s 300’s had 8.9:1 compression, as opposed to the more common 7.9:1 compression. Even so, they suffered from the pollution controls of the era. On top of that, Ford replaced the big bore Carter YF 1-bbl with the smaller bore Carter YFA. EGR ruined the part throttle response, as well.
In a nutshell, and over time, I found the perfect set up for any 300-six daily driver. After I was done, that 300 had plenty of power, easily revved to its red line of 4000 RPM, and only suffered a small decrease in mpg. Ford claims the engine for my ’78 F-100 put out 117 hp. My mods made it feel like 140 hp and had very snappy throttle response. I had *NO* problems on the highway and even drove up Mt. Washington without struggling.
Here’s what I did:
1). Dumped the Carter YFA and put in a YF model. All of those carbs had sloppy linkage from the throttle shaft to the metering rod. I made my own linkage with thicker copper wire and drilled out the connection holes to fit. With zero slop, the carb worked much better. On top of the float bowl, there is a hole right above the adjusting screw for the metering rod. Carefully remove the press-fit cap and use a small #1 phillips screwdriver to raise up the rod a bit. That fixes the lean condition and it runs better. The power was seamless and felt like fuel injection! I polished the lower part of the metering rod with Nev-R Dull polish. That might be overkill but, I like to think it helped!
2.) Got rid of the EGR but kept the carb to manifold spacer.
3). The primary advance spring in the distributor is a bit too fast on the initial advance because of the EGR. I put in a slightly stiffer primary spring and slowed up the initial advance just a bit. The vacuum advance can be adjusted with an allen wrench. Adjust until it feels right.
4.) Get the special exhaust manifold for the 300 Heavy Duty engine. I got lucky and got mine from a junkyard. Flows much better than what ordinary 300’s have. Forget headers on street engines. You NEED that heat for the intake manifold! Don’t waste your time and money with a Clifford aluminum intake. The stock cast iron intake works fine for daily driving.
5.) Last thing I did was put in an Isky cam for everyday street driving, along with the usual lifters, rockers, etc. I intended to get the heads ported, polished, and a valve job done (compression was still good) but, other expenses took priority and I never got around to it.
I think if I got the heads done, I would have achieved 150 hp at the rear wheels with only 1 bbl and it would have easily outperformed the EFI version. I still can’t get over how snappy it was and how it loved being revved to the 4K redline. Sold the truck 20 years ago and wonder if it’s still on the road….
3. any gasoline engine converted to diesel
So the VW 4-cylinder diesels are bad then?
4. any diesel without a turbo
5. early gasoline engines with a turbo
Agreed, every diesel engine should come with a turbo, and every turbo should come with a diesel engine.
Define “car”. If we can be more liberal, I’ll nominate the Allis-Chalmers “Big AL” semi- truck engines, which were prone to crankshaft failures by the number one cylinder.
Then, there’s the GMC Toroflow. And the Oldsmobile diesels.
And, of course, the V8-6-4 Cadillac.
And, the Chevrolet Vega engine.
And, the Saab two-stroke engine.
And, the Pontiac 4-Cylinder that was half of a V8.
And the Chevrolet 3100 (Worst of the head gasket problems in the family IIRC)
And the 1.9 SEFI in the Ford Escort (We owned one- that thing ate timing belts and had some head issues)
——————-
Not the worst, but some “Honorable Mentions”
The EFI version of the Ford 300 is in my mind, a gutless pig. Even my TBI 305 can run circles around it, and the 305 isn’t even close to the 350.
The Audi 2.7T can be a nightmare, but that’s due to the turbochargers. The same block was used on the Audi 2.8, and that is a very reliable engine.
The 305 had the benefit of better fuel economy too in my opinion.
Agreed. My 1987 Chevrolet with the 305 gets about 4-5 MPG more on the highway (Though the Chevrolet has “economy gearing”). The 300 really struggles to go above 70 MPH, but the old Chevrolet with the 305 will happily do 75 on the Interstate without much of a problem unless I hit headwinds.
The 1978-early 80’s GM diesels were tops.
Now, those Chrysler 3.7s in the Sebrings were notorious for head gasket failure and overheating. Even after fixing it, my friend fixed twice more till
Talk about a couple of boat anchors.
Anything made by Renault in the 1977-88 run, is pretty much useless crap… Think about it, do you see ANY driving around today?
The 1.6 offered in the 18i and the Fuego was particularly poor. To offer a 69hp pushrod 4 in a sporty coupe is just not enough. Even the turbo was under a 100hp. It did not have it’s power down low either so to get the most out of it you had to rev it, as if that won’t make it throw a rod.
In the Car and driver comparison test of 82 compacts, where of course they were full time ragging on the J car, they said the 18i engine lacked the refinement to even be included in the comparo.
My parents bought a new’86 Alliance, despite the fact that the Encore they test-drove broke down on the test drive. It had tons of problems. Most of them were electrical, but they finally got rid of it after the timing belt broke and took out the engine.
So you could probably put “any interference engine” on the list.
“Anything made by Renault in the 1977-88 run, is pretty much useless crap… Think about it, do you see ANY driving around today?”
Please don’t burst my bubble and say that applies to the R5 Turbo II.
Sarcasmo and others are only referring to the tired, emission choked, pushrod engines Renault was peddling in USA.
I’ll offer an asterisk to the Renault mention. Most of it was crap, but the engine of the Eagle Premier–the final, 3.0L variant of the much-maligned “PRV” V6–was actually a rather good motor. Typically, they got it right at the very end.
Surprised no one has mentioned the Ford 6.0 power stroke. I have one, and love it, although mine is a ’06. I understand the early years were a bit of trouble 🙂
Yes, this one should be on the list. FICM failures, injector failures, oil standpipe cracking. and when the HPOP and head gaskets fail, the easiest way to fix them starts by lifting the cab off of the frame.
Just removing and reinstalling the cab is 35 hours of shop labour.
+1 This engine would be on my list. My brother has some experience with these, and it’s all bad and expensive.
I wondered when this one would come up. I have never heard anything good about them, especially from my farmer brother in law who has been a huge Ford PowerStroke fan (the 7.3 version).
One of the guys I work with has one. In the two years he’s had it, it’s been in the shop nearly every month. If it isn’t the engine, then there’s issues with the front suspension. Luckily, one of his brothers is a mechanic and the owner is not averse to turning his own wrenches…
I don’t think that 8-6-4 failed so much as it did not run smoothly. The system that shut down the cylinders needed a lot of maintenance to keep it working. Disabling the variable displacement gave you back the 1980 V8.
With modern engine management it probably could have been significantly better. The technology just wasn’t there at the time. Maybe it was just a bit ahead of its time. Modern versions (Honda, Chrysler, etc) work extremely well.
The Chevrolet 8-6-4 used in the Current Holden Commodore works fine and delivers excellent economy.
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t have a 6-cylinder mode.
And it would not be using solenoids in the valve covers to do the cylinder deactivation either.
Bryce didn’t claim that it did, but he called it an “8-6-4” when it’s really an “8-4”. 🙂
Sorry you VW folks, but I used to drive a 40 hp transporter back in the mid 80’s. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe it. Worthless fussy maintenance intensive motor in a horrible box. That vehicle made me swear off air cooled VW for life. My Vega with the aluminum motor has been far more reliable. And better brakes, more power, better ventilation… I think that I will drive the Vega to work tomorrow.
An early ’60’s VW Transporter isn’t setting a terribly high bar to exceed in regards to power, brakes, heating…Ventilation, though? Open the front vent windows and there aren’t many vehicles that can get more air flowing directly onto the driver besides maybe a Wrangler with the windshield folded down.
The Olds 350 D wasn’t so bad after ’81 but the damage was done. Same with the Toro Flow, the later ones were governed a bit slower and held up better. The Detroit 8.2 was a real crapper. We had one in a school bus, UGH. Same with the 1160 Cat. I mean come on, two piston rings on a diesel engine? Oil burning nightmare with eye bleed white smoke on startup from the low compression. I wasn’t sorry to see either of those go.
A little before ’65, the Rambler aluminum six (1961-1964) was pretty awful. Most were replaced by cast-iron engines under warranty.
In the early 1960s there was also an aluminum version of Chrysler’s slant-six used in the Valiant. Not sure how those worked out.
“In the early 1960s there was also an aluminum version of Chrysler’s slant-six used in the Valiant. Not sure how those worked out.”
I remember an aluminum case transmission used on the Valiant with the /6 and the Hyperpack. But don’t remember an aluminum /6.
The slant-six engine was intended to be aluminum from the start, the cast-iron version was developed in tandem “just in case.” Nearly 50,000 of the aluminum-engine version were built.
See: http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2006/04/01/hmn_feature26.html
The aluminum slant-6 had cast iron cylinder liners, so they didn’t suffer from premature wear as the later Vega engines did.
Another, more recent, engine for which there were both cast iron and aluminum versions was the Chrysler V10. Aluminum used in the Viper, and cast iron in the Dodge pickups. If I recall correctly, the truck version was discontinued when the 5.7L Hemi was introduced. Never heard anything particularly bad about either engine, except for high fuel consumption.
If you’re talking about engines with aluminum and iron-block versions, the most numerous is probably the Ford modular 4.6 V8. The 16-valve versions were iron block, the 32 valve versions were aluminum block (except for the 2003-04 Mustang Cobra, which was iron), and the 24-valve versions used both depending on application.
I vaguely remember an interview with one of the slant-six engineers where he stated that the 170cid engine was engineered perfectly with no issues from the start, but there were some early problems with the larger 225cid version (piston ring sealing, maybe?).
While GM deservedly gets the lion’s share of the poor engine vitriol (ironic when one considers they also produced one of the all-time great engines in the small-block V8), I’m rather surprised no one has nominated the Pinto 2300 four. While everyone remembers the Pinto exploding gas tank issues, the engine, while not in the same league as the Vega, was no prize, either.
The problem, IIRC, was something known as ‘piston scuff’. I believe the culprit was a poorly designed piston which, under certain conditions, would actually ‘scuff’ the sides of the cylinder walls. It was one of those deals where, although there was no official recall, Ford would quietly repair affected 2300 engines under warranty (there was even a piston scuff kit with a Ford part number).
It was that same Pinto 2.3 that, when turbo charged and inter-cooled, became the SVO Mustang engine, the fastest Mustang you could buy in its day. I’d love an SVO variant to swap into my 64′ Comet.
The problem was that Ford decided the engine didn’t need an oil squirt hole to spray the cylinder wall; it could get by on splash & oil mist stirred up by the crank. They forgot to test that wonderful discovery in cold weather, though, when thickened oil didn’t splash so well.
I’ll nominate the Mitsubishi 6G72 (3.0 liter) V6 in SOHC form. haven’t seen a single one which wasn’t puffing blue smoke by 60,000 miles.
I’ll be “That Guy”. We owned a 1989 Chrysler New Yorker with that engine. The car died at 268k miles (Yes, you read that right- over a quarter of a million miles), and it wasn’t the engine that failed. It was the second Ultradrive that let us down.
That engine didn’t burn or leak anything. It was owned by a family friend who purchased it with 5k miles in 1990, eventually giving it to us around 240k.
I can think of many worse engines than the Mitsubishi 3.0L V6.
I’ve just become the owner of my parent’s old ’98 Voyager, which also has the Mitsubishi 3.0. It’s got 132k and runs fine. It’s about to become my swap meet/ auction pickup workhorse, once I find a place to stash the back seats.
+1. I’ve personally seen the 3.0 Mitsu hold up well in Dynastys and a Le Baron convertible.
One quirk I came across on two of them was a failed O-ring on the coolant tube that runs through the “valley”. Easy fix, once you’ve seen it.
We had a ’96 Caravan with that engine and the engine was fine. We got rid of it at 160k miles because we didn’t want to replace the transmission for the second time.
The later 3.5 is good. Ours has made 350,000km and is just starting to use oil.
You know, it’s funny… when those engines were new, I was convinced they were the biggest piles of shit for the exact same reason (a blue cloud seemed to follow every minivan in the early ’90s).
But over the years, they seem to have held up surprisingly well. What happened? Was it only the early Mitsu V6s that were oil burners? Was there an easy fix applied to them?
I don’t know what technical changes they might have made, but the second-gen Magna (first Diamante, ’91-’96) with the 3.0 is almost extinct here in its homeland – and yes, usually followed by a cloud of oil smoke when you do see one. The third-gen Magna (second Diamante, ’96-’05) had the 3.5 from ’99, and there seem to be a lot of them around still – our mechanic reckons he’s seen them with 450,000-500,000km and still going strong, so our ’00 has a lot of life in it yet.
In my family we had a Plymouth (Sundance) Duster with the 3.0, a minivan with the 3.0 and a Mitsubishi Montero with the 3.0. All of them made it over 150K with very minimal problems (Well, the Montero had lots of problems, but not with the engine…) All the cars trailed oil smoke. My understanding was the Valve Guide Seals got old and shrank, allowing a bit of oil into the cylinders, hence the oil smoke. None of the cars burned more oil than the GM stuff we were also driving at the time, either. You could replace the valve guide seals, or just put another quart of oil in every 1000 or so miles.
I don’t know if the criteria for a ‘bad’ engine is poor internal engine design, or if bad engine management also qualifies. If it’s the latter, then the ’81-’83 Chrysler Imperial’s computer controlled engine surely qualifies. The 318 V8 was the same tried-and-true Chrysler small-block engine that had been around since 1967 with no issues, but the EEC in the Imperial was designed so poorly (it’s said that electromagnetic emissions from overhead powerlines would shut the engine down) that the vast majority of Imperials were converted over to a conventional carburetor under warranty.
Yes, each car supposedly cost Chrysler $10K in warranty claims. The swap to carb from efi was horrendously expensive, and included replacing the instrument cluster and fuel tank.
They could have bought an FI and engine management system off the shelf, but noooooo, not Detroit of those days, where Not Invented Here was the rule of all the Big 3. Not anymore!
A series engine in the Austin America. mighta been OK with a standard trans- the minis survived witht the shared engine/transmission oil system, but the Americas were largely sold with Automatic transmissions. very few survived to the end of warranty period without a rebuild. and BL left the US market tail between legs. the austinamericausa.com site discusses how to resurrect these and advocates for oil changes every 1 thousand miles.
The A series was okish in RWD settings though early 803 engines like a set of bearing shells every 10,000 miles to make em last, nothing had great longevity in that BMC east west setup.
That 803 (shudder!) nearly qualifies as a Ten Worst, but later/larger versions lasted fairly well. The 1100 that replaced my aunt’s A30 made it to about 70,000 miles.
I must vigorously disagree. The A-series was one of the great inline 4s of the post-war era. Torquey and economical, robust and capable of high-performance applications. The problem with the America was the auto tranny. This very website had a nicely one history of the car a few years back: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/turkey-week-kickoff-1968-1972-austin-america-yankee-doodle-disaster/. It had much praise for the A-series.
I agree with you, but tried to specify the engine with the auto trans as the turkey… and because of the shared sump, you could not really unbolt it to drop in a manual. they took a good engine and made an unreliable drivetrain with that decision. then packaged it onto a car with a buncha quirky or beta-test level systems. quickly killed off any love for the prototype of this now-standard layout car till the rabbit came to our shores.
I concur. BL: making the Old GM look like Toyota.
lars makes the point below that he’s being specific about the auto version. Which just highlights for me how much I agree with you about the A series engine in its “purer” form.
The manual box will take endless abuse and substantial power without modification, and the engine itself can make a helluva lotta power when tuned right. I spend a lot of time at http://www.turbominis.co.uk/forums/index.php?p=vf&fid=12 and those guys can wring monstrous power out of those little motors.
in the PM owners report on the 60 plymouth owners report the brand new slant six were causing owners terrible problems! very strange that it became the most respected six
ever!
The report did note that 1960 was first year of production for the Slant Six. No doubt the engine had a few teething problems, but Chrysler did correct them, to its credit.
I think the 170 slant-six was okay. It was the larger 225 engine that had some early issues, but they were corrected relatively quickly.
From what I understand, at both the beginning and end of it’s production history the slant six had some issues with cracking exhaust manifolds, in the beginning with not enough reinforcement/ribs, and at the end due to modifications to accommodate an O2 sensor, I had to replace one of the latter and it was difficult to find an uncracked one.
Interesting question. Most modern engines are pretty good. Might just depend on how much maintenance is valued in good engine design, which opens up a whole lot of other issues, e.g.- oil change requirements, ease and cost of timing belt, spark plug, and water pump replacements, valve adjustments, etc. But here are a few that make my list:
1. Vega 2300 four (would have to be on any such list)
2. Triumph Stag V8. The Triumph TR-7 four cylinder cousin to this engine should be mentioned as well (although I had one, a later model, and it never caused me any trouble).
3. Hyundai 1.4 four, 1986-1994 (IIRC, overcoming this engine’s poor reputation was one of the reasons Hyundai came up with a 10 year, 100,000 mile warranty)
4. Cadillac V-8,6,4 (actually a nice try, but an idea in search of the right technology to make it work)
5. GM Olds 350 V8 diesel (again, nice try)
6. Toyota 3.0 V6 and 2.3 four (’97-’02). If sludge-prone is a main criteria, then the ’97-’02 Toyota 3.0 V6 and 2.3 four have to be considered (class action lawsuit for millions).
7. Trabant 2 cylinder, 2 stroke (other than emissions, not sure how bad or unreliable it really was, so maybe just for fun and variety… might not make the after 1965 requirement in any case).
Engine in first gen imported here (US) Hyundai Excel. Saw several with broken cast crankshafts when I moonlighted at my friends used car lot turning wrenches.
Were they Mitsubishi built or just Mitsubishi designed?
Hyundai built them. In 1995, I taught English to a group of Hyundai engineers. They had a terrible opinion of their early efforts, and only a slight respect for their then current products. Now they are as good as anything. They had good attitudes and darned well knew how to work!
Neat bit of info!
Since I can’t cite the copper-cooled Chevy, I’ll have to nominate the only other vehicle I know where the manufacturer had to buy back the entire production run because of engine issues – the Nissan 2.4 liter Z24i in the ’87/88 Nissan Van, due to the engine’s tendency to catch fire.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-02-04/business/fi-19061_1_minivan-owners
The unlamented Vega engine deserves every bit of criticism aimed at it. Perhaps the worst engine GM has produced in the past 50 years–and that is really saying something. I would argue it’s the worst American engine of the past half century.
I’d add the Triumph Stag V8. Although it is gifted with a sublime sound, it was absolute and utter rubbish. And given that BL had the Buick/Rover V8, it was entirely unnecessary. At least they didn’t waste much money on development: just welded two Triumph slant four engines together. Brilliant!
1. Early Porsche Boxster engine: I believe this engine had engine casting porosity issues. Also, the Intermediate Shaft was a potential failure costing thousands upon thousands of dollars to repair.
2. GM 350 Diesel. Enough said on this subject
3. GM Vega Engine. Ditto. Had it been sleeved with iron cylinder liners, the issues with the Vega would have been directed at it’s shoddy build materials, not the fact that the aluminum liners allowed oil blow by like a Texas Oil Rig.
4. GM Atlas Engine: As found on the Colorado and GMC Canyon. Many cases of valve seat inserts working their way loose on the cylinder head, requiring outright replacement of the head. The problem is when or if this condition crops up on a vehicle out of it’s warranty. This problem has been extensively documented by owners and mechanics on the on-line Colorado-Canyon Forums……
5. VW/Audi 2.0 Turbo Motor-I seem to recall this one too had a lot of owner complaints of the car suddenly seizing up, due to internal sludge build up in the oiling system. The problem here is a VW or Audi support network that did everything in not owning up to the issues, specifically, requiring owners to show proof of all oil changes in order to receive relief from the corporation. Again, many, many dissatisfied owners venting their frustrations out on the net regards to this engine.
6. GM CrossFire 350 V8- As found on the 82 and 84 Corvette or Camaro. Like the 2.3 Ford Turbo 4 or the Cadillac V8-6-4 engine, it all comes down to Detroit’s computer control systems are not sophisticated enough to handle an ever changing engine dynamic when driving down the road. The Cross Fire engine caused Chevrolet to go to the Tuned Port engine, with more sophisticated engine controls in the 85 Corvette while I believe the Camaro after 83 went back to the tried and true carburetor for their V8 engines.
7. My 1984 Ford Bronco II’s 2.8 V6. Let’s combine Fords sophisticated EEC-IV engine control system with a carburated fuel delivery system. Let’s make the TFI ignition system so touchy in high humidity conditions, that frequent stall outs and rough running become the norm every time it rains out. So to alleviated PO’d owners, Ford engineered a distributor cap with a plastic hooded vent, to vent out those vapors and ozone created by the high energy ignition. Or something like that. I failed to mention an EGR valve and top mounted EGR sensor that failed every 6 months or so. Keeping the old solid lifters in this engine was just icing on the cake…..valve clearance maintenance; on a low performance Ford motor! All of these problems went away for 86, I believe, when Ford installed a tuned port EFI system on the V6. Still did not alleviate the issues this engine had with bad head gaskets, that helped warp the cylinder heads…….
8. Any Interference engine featuring a rubber timing belt. And the water pump driven by said belt. So if the pump failed, it required replacement of the pump and the belt. If the belt failed, it usually required outright replacement of the entire engine. All to save money on a steel timing chain. And a little extra noise with said steel chain.
The Audi 2.8 is one of the engines on your list. I would rather prefer a chain, but there are worse options out there….
Timing belts are quite reliable yes they have a service life often ignored and the replacement of the waterpump with a quality OEM product at belt change time is recommended, shortcutting regular servicing might save a few peniies in the short term but in the long run is false economy,
Chains stretch and wear out tensioners and are quite expensive to replace when they wear out and they DO.
Eh. Interference engines ~should~ be designed with some common sense in mind. Like: most customers are going to be late with the scheduled PREEMPTIVE (which apparently is a complicated concept lost on most customers) timing belt change. Like, waaay late.
So give em a chain and be done with it. That way the thing might actually outlast the first couple owners.
When I had my Dynasty’s 3.0 Mitsu apart (fixing the aforementioned coolant tube O-ring) I also replaced the timing belt. As a lark, I gave it a good tug and it broke right in my bare hands! That isn’t a testament to my gorilla strength; it’s a testament to how bad that belt was. I don’t understand how it didn’t break when the engine was running.
A dealer will probably replace the belt at the scheduled time, but the corner garage mechanic probably won’t.
I found this out when I had to get my OHC Cortina towed – the mechanic knew exactly what was wrong when I described the symptoms. So why hadn’t he replaced it when he had the car in the shop the previous month? Couldn’t seem to get a straight answer there! But at least it broke only 100 yards from home.
“3. GM Vega Engine. Ditto. Had it been sleeved with iron cylinder liners, the issues with the Vega would have been directed at it’s shoddy build materials, not the fact that the aluminum liners allowed oil blow by like a Texas Oil Rig.”
the Vega’s engine problems were really due to the under-spec’ed cooling system making the engine very prone to overheating. once it overheated, the open-deck block warped causing distortion of the cylinders. BMW, Audi, and Mercedes use sleeveless aluminum blocks to this day; their “alusil” design is very, very similar to the GM 2300.
Correct, plus valve guide seals that didn’t.
I put nearly 100K on a sleeved engine I had cobbled together with a GT head, single-barrel Rochester carb and headers (and the larger radiator). Other than the inherent NHV, it was very reliable and would chirp first and second gear (and that with the tall economy gearing). Folks who rode with me would often comment on how fast my Vega was compared to others they rode in (likely automatics, which were dogs). It would also return nearly 30mpg on the highway.
No contest on the 2300 being a horrible engine out of the box, but with the major issues addressed, it worked well for me as a hoon-crazy high school / college kid.
Ed, there were shops in the 70s as reported by MT that were making a nice income putting sleeves in the Vega 2300. Worst engine ever and probably the ugliest as well. Looked like something one would use in an industrial park to make Little Lisa Slurry.
Agree about it being ugly! Although it *was* easy to adjust the valve lash, since that curved stamped cover came off pretty easy after removing the air cleaner. The only thing was that the tappets were adjusted with a beveled screw – each 360° turn of the screw gave .003″ more (or less) clearance, so you never really could adjust them dead on.
It was also easy to get to the starter, which was handy, because the relay would stick if hot and not work. I (and many others, I suspect) had a momentary switch under the dash to bypass the relay when it hung up. Sort of an anti-theft device!
The water pump, on the other hand, required removal of the timing belt, and had slotted mounting holes for adjusting the belt tension. Which meant you were trying to slide the water pump over to get belt tension, all the while trying to tighten the bolts without goobering up the gasket. In the winter, outside in the snow. Fun times!
BMW had a lot of teething problems with sleeveless aluminum blocks in the early ’90’s. We still got iron blocks in North America, while the home market customers were the beta testers.
Indeed, one of those ‘what if’ scenarios is if GM had installed a proper cooling system in the first place (i.e., larger radiator), would the engine problems have been so bad, or even exist at all? Sleeving the engine seems like a half-assed way to address the problem when the real culprit was the Vega’s undersized cooling system.
That wouldn’t have made it a very pleasant engine, though. The 2300, the Iron Duke, and the Quad 4 are all object lessons in why big inline fours need balance shafts.
Ate Up With Motor’s piece on the Vega is one worth revisiting. A combination of low budget cooling systems, a revolutionary aluminum/silicon cylinder bore and mating an aluminum block and cast iron cylinder head all conspired to make it a lemon to those who suffered engine maladies.
I had an 84 Corvette. Nothing was wrong with the digital throttle body fuel injection. Engine output was only 200 horsepower though. My 86 Corvette with tuned port injection did have much better performance.