Worst engine ever

[lordairgtar]

After reading the thread about GM recalls, I got to thinking, what do you people think is the worst engine? Worst engines in my opinion are the Chevy 307 from 1968 and the Ford 3.8 V6.

[RanJer]

Cadillac HT4100 - Most gutless V8 I've ever encountered, but I suppose... it's still on the road today...

[Prince Valiant]

I'm tempted to say the ubiquitous "Iron Duke," 2.5 four...

Another strong candidate is the Ford windsor based 4.2 liter v8. A v8 that didn't even make as much power as some 8v four bangers (namely the jeep 2.5 had 2hp on it I believe).

For a long time, I considered the old buick 215 v8 a horror...but not it so much, but it's descendants when range rover started using them. Low on power, inefficient, hard to work on.

Worse than the 307 was the 262 v8...same small block chevy, true...but much much smaller, with teeny tiny piston and stroke. The 4.3 v6 was far more efficient.

The caddy 4.1 should be mentioned...but it's not THE worst.

The pontiac 301 was easily worse than the chevy 307....common intake ports?!? c'mon! And don't get me started on the turbo version (though the light up boost guage on the hood was kind of cool).

The EARLY 3.8 turbo's of the late 70's were great in idea's, but poor in execution....not many survive today for a reason...

Whereas I generally like the engine...the mopar turbo III (16v, lotus designed heads) were nothing but problems. The just as powerful Masarati designed heads were far more reliable...should have stuck exclusively with them.

The old GM 3.4 DOHC v6 was decent at first...but became one of the least reliable engines they ever produced.

The yamaha built Ford 3.4 V8 was a joke...not very powerful (230hp) and had a nasty habbit of breaking it's cam sprocket at less than 50,000 miles, thus kissing the valves to the pistons leading to an extremely expensive repair should also be considered.

Other mentions should be caddy's V8-6-4...also mopar's "lean burn" equipped v8's as well as their 1981 fuel injected 318 v8's in the imperials (at least both fixes were fairly easy and straight forward).

Pontiac's 1.8 turbo could be mentioned...

worse than ford's 3.8 v6, were their 2.9 v6's...

That would be my short list....I could probably put up another 20 if I put some thought into it.

[Irish]

The 307's weren't that bad. I would say that it's a toss up between any of the motors in the smog area to the early 80's.

[Voodoo Chick]

Smog-era engines. They need to be sent far, far away.

[TheRX7Project]

Ford 1.9L

Just garbage.

[Sprayaway Fox]

307 are High nickel content and some had thick walls to make a 350 bore. In my opinion a 6.6 or 301 smog era Poncho, cam profiles that look like golfballs, Weak webbing for the mains, bad oiling and the valvetrain is junk.

[Plum Crazy]

2.7L chrysler motors, you miss one oil change, the motor sludges up. Have had to replace several myself at the dealer i was working at, numerous waterpump failures that caused timing to jump, and slam the valves. They are a bitch to work on. I LOTHE these engines!!

[xFullThrottlex]

I think Hot Rod or Car Craft had an article on this a few years back.
It was very domestic heavy:(

[domokun]

I was never a fan of the quad 4. they always failed on me :-/

[Karps TA]

From when I worked at a dealership I'd say the Quad 4, atleast the earlier ones. Every winter every single heavy duty bay would be filled with them needing head/head gaskets. As soon as one was pulled out, another would be put in it's place for about 2 months straight.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

the 03,04, and 05 ford 6.0 gets worst diesel engine in my book.

sorry mike (sprayawayfox), LOL!

[Got Boost]

Chevy 305 .. and whatever that 4/6/8 V8

[indyzmike]

How about the 2.3 aluminum four cylinder, with no sleeves, that Chevy put in the Vega in the 70's. Cylinder bores wore out fast and you ended up with an oil burner. The car was also a pile of crap. Rust took over way too fast. This was Chevy's first disposable car.

http://photocarsonline.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/chevrolet-vega/5-chevrolet-vega.jpg

[Waver]

Ford 1.9L

Just garbage.

How so, they are known to be high mileage engines, and infact, even though they stopped putting in the 1.9 in escorts/tracers after 96 (replaced by a slightly bigger 2.0, but essentually the same engine) there are plenty still on the road today. I cant even begin to think of one common problem that they all suffered, and in a lot of cases, the engines outlived the cars. Now the quad 4 baised engines, that was a shit engine, mostly because of headgaskets, the neon 2.0 that was also known for head gasket failure...I will agree with the ford 3.8 however, once the headgaskets were replaced, you were trouble free, for the most part

[agent orange acr]

whats so wrong with the 307, i had an 1984 oldsmobile delta 88 with a 307 and it has 145k on it and it's still kicking.

[TheRX7Project]

I got nothin really. The only engine I can actually complain about based on personal experience is the 1.9L in the Escort. I could tell you a whole lot of GREAT motors, but really, I'd say the 1.9L in my Escort is the crappiest motor I've ever had to deal with.

It's ungodly slow, especially when comparing it to other 4-bangers of the same era. A friend of mine had a 1.9L Escort, and somehow the piston rings on one of the cylinders lined up gaps... and it burned oil like it was blown up. He pulled it apart and rebuilt it, only to find it wasn't in need of a rebuild. Although I should probably keep quiet while mine still runs :goof

[BeesTwinEG]

dodge 2.7 intrepid:stare
piece of junk!!!

1. 2.7 out of all !!! is the worst one~!lol.
2. 3100....
3. dodge stratus v6....
4. ford in general
5. 3400

and rotary of course haha

[BeesTwinEG]

2.7l chrysler motors, you miss one oil change, the motor sludges up. Have had to replace several myself at the dealer i was working at, numerous waterpump failures that caused timing to jump, and slam the valves. They are a bitch to work on. I lothe these engines!!

amen!

[Waver]

I got nothin really. The only engine I can actually complain about based on personal experience is the 1.9L in the Escort. I could tell you a whole lot of GREAT motors, but really, I'd say the 1.9L in my Escort is the crappiest motor I've ever had to deal with.

It's ungodly slow, especially when comparing it to other 4-bangers of the same era. A friend of mine had a 1.9L Escort, and somehow the piston rings on one of the cylinders lined up gaps... and it burned oil like it was blown up. He pulled it apart and rebuilt it, only to find it wasn't in need of a rebuild. Although I should probably keep quiet while mine still runs :goof


meh one car, and you really think that an engine that makes 108 hp is going to move fast lol

[Waver]

dodge 2.7 intrepid:stare
piece of junk!!!

1. 2.7 out of all !!! is the worst one~!lol.
2. 3100....
3. dodge stratus v6....
4. ford in general
5. 3400

and rotary of course haha

how about any interfearence engine. that should take out just about any honda engine out today

[TheRX7Project]

meh one car, and you really think that an engine that makes 108 hp is going to move fast lol

I don't even think it makes 108hp.... ever. More like 90, or 80... and no I don't expect it to be fast, but as I said, compared to other 4-bangers of the 90's...

[WhatsADSM]

Already all mentioned, but my order would be:

1) Vega motor. Before my time, but heard TONS of bad stuff about this one. Did anyone ever get on of these things to run more than 50k?
2) Intrepid 2.7. HG, and sludge issues.
3) Quad 4. HG, and tons of other crap.

[Waver]

I don't even think it makes 108hp.... ever. More like 90, or 80... and no I don't expect it to be fast, but as I said, compared to other 4-bangers of the 90's...

108 was the rated hp on those....the 1.8 made 127

[Prince Valiant]

2.7L chrysler motors, you miss one oil change, the motor sludges up.


2) Intrepid 2.7. HG, and sludge issues.

The sludge issues on these engine were far less common than were the toyota sludge issues for both their 4 and 6 cylinder engines...

Nor is it related to missing oil changes...but the earlier PCV systems were inadequate to remove gasses that formed within the crankcase and THIS is what leads to sludge formation. In as far as I can tell, the problems with sludging was rectified by 2002 model year and in subsequent engines (of course, if you don't perform maintenance and change the PCV valve occassionally, the problem can appear in any year, any engine).

[Prince Valiant]

whats so wrong with the 307, i had an 1984 oldsmobile delta 88 with a 307 and it has 145k on it and it's still kicking.
completely different engine for one...the olds and chevy 307 are in no way similar.

[MurphysLaw88GT]

I hate the caddy 4.1

2.7 chrysler as mentioned

there are more








the 3.8L GM (JUST PLAYIN)

[SmokinRAM114]

6.4L powerstoke :durr

[Sprayaway Fox]

the 03,04, and 05 ford 6.0 gets worst diesel engine in my book.

sorry mike (sprayawayfox), LOL!

Mines a 06! :banana....I hope that means its better:confused

[domokun]

any LSx, 2JZ, or 4g63. all 3 are POS's :durr

as stated before. can't forget the GM 3800 :punch:

[Windsors 03 Cobra]

All cadillac V8's, what a waste.

[Exitspeed]

any LSx, 2JZ, or 4g63. all 3 are POS's :durr

I take it that is sarcasm on the LSx and 2JZ right?



as stated before. can't forget the GM 3800 :punch:

That's what I was gonna say. JK. It's a pile, but far from the biggest pile.

I'm going to add the VG30DE/VG30DETT in the Z32's (300zx). NOT because of the engine's dependability, power, etc etc but because of how fucking stuffed in the engine bay it is. Because of that it would probably be the last engine I'd want to work on.

[deuceWI]

Ford 1.9L / 2.0L nothing terribly wrong with them.

Their main problem lies between the engine and the axels, the miserable box of crap they call a transmission.

[wrath]

GM's 2.8L V6. There is no redeeming quality of this engine.

GM's 4.1L transverse and longitudinal V8 found in Cadillacs. If they'd fixed the oiling problems it wouldn't have been bad. But wiped cam lobes is teh gay. The through-block head bolts are interesting but a nuissance. They got pretty sweet fuel economy for the amount of power they made though.

Chrysler's 2.5L found in all their shitboxes and Jeeps. Only Chrysler can take AMC's crappy engine design and make it worse. The valvetrain is a complete joke. It costs more to replace the rockers than the engine is worth.

Chrysler's injected 318. WTF? Take a great engine and make it horrible.

Ford's 2.9L and 3.0L. These seriously compete with GM's 2.8L V6 for crappiness.

Ford's 5.4L 2-valve. Seriously, did they not learn from GM's mistake of long and narrow bores?

[Prince Valiant]

All cadillac V8's, what a waste.
I'd disagree...the 472 ci (375hp/525ft-lbs) and 500 ci (400/550ft-lbs) were great engines...they've even got a healthy aftermarket with a couple suppliers for aftermarket AL heads, cams, intakes, etc...GREAT engine.


Chrysler's 2.5L found in all their shitboxes and Jeeps. Only Chrysler can take AMC's crappy engine design and make it worse. The valvetrain is a complete joke. It costs more to replace the rockers than the engine is worth.
Now which 2.5 are you talking about? The OHC chrysler that was in their shitboxes AND the pushrod jeep engine that was in jeeps and dodge dakota's from around 91 on?

Personally, in terms of 4 bangers the Jeep is based 4 bangers are GREAT engines imo...shortened versions of the AMC 258 I6 -which is basically a carb, long stroke, small bore version of the later 4.0 I6. For their time they made good power and torque relative to other 4 cylinders...iirc, they produced 117hp in the original cherokee's while the 2.8 v6 only made 115hp...the only reason to get the six was smoothness over the rather rough 4 banger. They got a little long in tooth in the 90's, but for what they were in, the wrangler, they worked well.

[wrath]

Personally, in terms of 4 bangers the Jeep is based 4 bangers are GREAT engines imo...shortened versions of the AMC 258 I6 -which is basically a carb, long stroke, small bore version of the later 4.0 I6. For their time they made good power and torque relative to other 4 cylinders...iirc, they produced 117hp in the original cherokee's while the 2.8 v6 only made 115hp...the only reason to get the six was smoothness over the rather rough 4 banger. They got a little long in tooth in the 90's, but for what they were in, the wrangler, they worked well.


Both of them but I have particular distaste for the AMC 150/Chrysler 2.5L used in their small RWD vehicles.

My Dad has a YJ with the 2.5L. With 31" rubber and 4.10s you aren't going to get past 70mph. My old S10 with 31" rubber and 4.10s would go 80 with the TBI 2.5L. I wouldn't even trade the wrist pin problem of the GM 2.5L for the valvetrain problems of the AMC 2.5L either. Even if it did magically have 25 more ponies.

I don't particularly like the 4.2L either. The 4.2L was great as long as you never wanted to spin it past 4,000 RPM and you converted it to GM HEI. The 4.2L is fat and heavy while making no real power. I'm pretty sure the 258 only made like 115hp also. I know both engines have a huge following but I'd rather have a GM TBI 2.5L/151 over a AMC TBI 2.5L/150.

The 4.2L can't compete with the 4.0L either. 4.0L is a nice motor for what it is but I'd rather have a Ford 302 or a GM 4.3L.

[Rocket Power]

as stated before. can't forget the GM 3800 :punch:

The 3800 is one of the best engines GM ever made. Reliable, great gas mileage, reasonable power.

Much better than the 3100 I have in my GP. I got 30+ MPG highway in my fullsize 88 vs mid 20's in a smaller GP.

My votes for turds would go to the 301 Pontiac which ran a blistering 19 sec 1/4 in my old pontiac G-bod wagon. and probably the Olds 260 diesel.

[SMOKDU]

the caddy 4100 that was converted to the diesel..:goof

the camry (import ) v6s sludge up bad.:rolf

all chev upper intake gaskets 6 cyl's i hate them. more the gasket then the engine.
:durr

now if you combime it with the drivetrain chysler/dodge win hands down.

eagle/mits talons engines with zero tol timming belt that breaks and take out the heads.
.

[WhatsADSM]

The sludge issues on these engine were far less common than were the toyota sludge issues for both their 4 and 6 cylinder engines...


I knew the toyo v6 had sludge issues, but I was pretty sure the 4-cyl was solid as a rock. Which toyo 4-cyl are you referring to?

[Prince Valiant]

I knew the toyo v6 had sludge issues, but I was pretty sure the 4-cyl was solid as a rock. Which toyo 4-cyl are you referring to? Toyota list 2.2 4's built from 96-2001 as being prone to sludging as well, and thus if it occured, toyota would cover the repairs.

[WhatsADSM]

Toyota list 2.2 4's built from 96-2001 as being prone to sludging as well, and thus if it occured, toyota would cover the repairs.

Wow I never knew that, thanks for the heads up.