It was a lot harder to think of the bottom five engines, but after at least ten minutes of deep contemplation, I have compiled a list, in no particular order.
“Small” V8s:
The motor pictured is the Pontiac 265 but all the “small V8s” sucked big time. I have driven all of them including the craptastic Ford 255 and they were, to a one, stinkers. In the case of the SBC 267, Olds 260 and Pontiac 265, there was no point it buying it over the V-6 models. I suppose that’s why they weren’t around long.
Vega 2300
What else can be said about this absolute stinker that has not been said? In any car out of warranty there was usually a blue cloud out the back. The valve noise would wake the dead. How a company like GM could come up with something his horrid is a real head scratcher, but it did usher in the age where GM starting producing some real junk, which leads us to the next stinker.
Iron Duke
No doubt I am going to get comments like, “Well, my Iron Duke lasted a gazillion miles” but I saw plenty of broken ones in my day. This turd was an example of GM’s cynicism that started with the Vega. By the time I drove one of these, I was used to both Toyota and VW four cylinder engines, which were smooth, flexible and quiet. The Duke was anything but. After 3000 rpm it sounded like ball bearings in a coffee grinder. Crap like this lost GM a lot of customers.
Ford 200 Six
Now, this is going to be a flame-o-rama but I can’t find any love for this boat anchor. Every one I ever drove was manifestly inferior the its Mopar and GM competition. The 170 Slant 6 and Chevrolet 194 were both way better motors. Every 200 I have driven was gutless and the died at relatively low mileage. In contrast, the Slant 6 and Turbo-thrift were practically indestructible.
Chrysler 2.7 litre V-6
Last but not least, was the legendarily awful Chrysler 2.7 and its equally crappy brethren, the 3.2. These were under or just coming off warranty when I was a Chrysler service advisor. The real problem with these motors is they were designed by a bunch of engineers being squeezed for every penny. These things were notorious for sludge. The water pump gasket let coolant into the oil and the sludge clogged up the oil passages. This didn’t happen in all of them and regular oil changes mitigated the problem. Problem was at this time, customers were coming off iron block V-8s which could tolerate one oil change a year. The 2.7 need clean oil every three months or 5000 km. My uncle had one with over 300,000 km on it because of regular oil changes. The ones we saw had all been neglected and we didn’t warranty them without at least two oil change receipts a year. Many customers were lost but in the Daimler period, warranty claims were very tough.
So ends my bottom five. It’s really meant in fun and they are only lumps of metal and not worth getting too worked up about. But go ahead…
The worst thing about the 2.7 was that I didn’t get one in my Stratus because of oil sludge fears.
The 2.4 may have been reliable, but 3200# of Dodge was too much for it.
I would rather have dealt with the sludge
Wow, I agree with just about all of this list. Many with personal experience.
The 200 I-6 in my ‘79 Futura was “gutless” as you describe. Especially with the little 1 barrel carburetor that I constantly had to fool with. Smooth, yeah, but the 302 would’ve been much better.
While I have no experience with MOPAR’s 2.7 liter, a friend of mine had one of these in a Dodge Stratus. He was constantly having problems with it.
Chevy’s small V8. Check. The ex had one in her ‘81 Camaro. That car had anything but sporty acceleration. Her 4.3 L V-6 Monte Carlo was a much faster car.
Iron Duke… Agreed. They sound terrible. My dog Molly can’t even stand the sound of that engine. Of course it’s also powering the mail truck, so there’s that. But then that may say something positive about the engine being the Duke of Reliability.
Finally, I will nominate my own 3.8 L Essex V-6 from my ‘83 T-Bird as worst engine ever for me. I could do a COAL on why this one sucks. And I was dumb enough to buy a second Thunderbird with this engine in 1997. Again, I coulda had a V8!
Oh yeah, I had a good friend with an 83 LTD with the 3.8. Horrible running engine. Of course, he abused the snot out of it so it was a two way street!
Yes, the Essex was a true stinker. Imagine not being able to reverse engineer a motor.
Yes, both the Ford and Iron Duke were awful. I reserve most of my contempt for the Ford, however, as I had two (2) members of that engine family in our 1972 Maverick, the 250 it was born with and the 200 we replaced it with when the 250 threw a connecting rod idling at a stop light one night. My big beef was that many members of the Ford six cylinder engine family had the exhaust manifold cast as part of the cylinder head, making it impossible to replace a cracked exhaust manifold without also replacing the cylinder head!
As for the Iron Duke, I consider it one of the biggest mistakes GM ever made, compounded by its use in the Fiero, especially when GM had so many better choices for use in the Fiero in place of that boat anchor!
Keep seeing the Iron duke criticized. I’ve owned a wrecking yard for many years, every single vehicle with the Iron Duke that came along, the engine ran perfectly. No knocks, no smoke, no lifter noise, they all 100% ran fine. Now to go on with what I witnessed, every single early Buick V-6 was bad. Rods knocking, broken cranks. Every 351M-400 Ford was bad. V-8 Buick engines mostly bad, no oil pressure, and bad bottom end. Most Mopar engines all good until the Daimler Benz junk, like the 4.7. Maybe the Iron Duke wasn’t sophisticated, but they were durable and actually still built today as the 3.0 Vortec.
Robert, my neighbor Spike bought a 1969 Maverick. He loved and extolled it’s virtues vs a VW. When he opened the hood I saw the intake manifold that I later learned was all one piece with the head. What an odd decision. I concur with your assessment.
I consider myself lucky that the 250 threw a rod at idle and not on a highway at 60 mph. At idle, the broken con rod jammed against the bottom of the cylinder and stalled the engine for good. If it had happened at highway speeds, the pieces might have come through the hood after punching a hole in the block. When the engine locked up, it might have also exploded the C4 automatic transmission for good measure, locking the rear wheels and throwing me into a spin! Oh, the irony! Naming a transmission after a form of plastic explosive, LOL!
I would agree about the small V8s. In an era of amazingly low output engines, these little V8s were just astoundingly gutless. I owned a 260 in both a 76 Omega and a 76 LeMans. Zero get up and go and not great gas mileage. I will say, though, that they ran pretty smooth and in my experience were reliable.
It is tempting to say they were pointless. This was an era when many people had been driving V8 cars for a couple decades and they were considered desirable and premium, anything with less cylinders considered small and cheapskate. Also the manufacturers had a lot of experience with V8s, not much with V6s. If downsizing was the name of the game, I think everyone was just more comfortable with a small V8, at least as a stepping stone to V6s.
I was driving those when they were 15-20 years old, as a young guy. I was all about V8s and I would have been much more enthiastic buying those cars over their X body and A body bretheren with V6s for no more rational reason than “Its got a V8”. I doubt if those 260 cars were any faster, but at least they had a little bit of V8 feel. They were so emasculated there was not much of that and precious little V8 sound. Press the pedal to the floor and you got a tiny growl and virtually no thrust!
I think the fact the small V8s didn’t last very long shows customers really weren’t too averse to V6 cars. In fact, the V6 in a A body felt just as quick as the 267, if not more so.
Yes, in 1975, the 260 V8 was anemic–for a V8. It put out about the same power as a 250 Chevy Six.
But it was a smooth V8. And the one in my parents’ 75 Ventura was trouble-free. Bought used with 30k miles, the car spent 10 years and 65k miles with us, about 3-4k a year for the last 7.
It started flawlessly, in any weather (NY car). It didn’t stall. It didn’t hesitate. It didn’t surge. It didn’t race at idle or stall. Many other malaise cars had these issues–just read any 1970s Consumer Reports auto review.
The electronic ignition module went out, and we were stranded at home. That’s IT. The only problem we ever had with the engine–or the car (and the A/C was inop, but my father never fixed it….)
So, with the benefit of 4 decades car experience, I’ve come to appreciate this engine I also used to mock when I was 15 as “power of a six, gas mileage of a big V8” (which was wrong, it was closer to gas mileage of a six– 13-17 mpg was our urban/suburban, no freeway driving)
Yeah that sounds about right. Not a bad engine if you could be content with no power. Wasn’t it just a debored version of the regular rocket V8?
The water pump, a service item, was located behind the timing chain in the 2.7/3.2 and necessitated removal of most of the front of the engine for replacement. Timing chain tensioners were also a weak point, IIRC from helping a friend on his.
I’ll agree with the Vega 2300 engine, at least for the first 3-4 model years. They were reliable and durable (by standards of the day) by 1975-76. Even the earlier engines could be made reliable (as I did with my ’71), but you were still stuck with the NVH inherent in the top-heavy design.
Worst engine I personally have experience with is the Ford 2.3l that was in my son’s ’84 Mustang L. Never really ran right.
The timing chain tensioner was the root of the problem with the 2.7. With a factory fresh chain, guides and tensioner the tensioner was almost at the end of its travel. Once it failed to maintain tension the guides would get broken and shortly there after the chain would fail. It has nothing to do with sludge.
Aren’t there several modern American V-6’s with the internal water pumps that basically destroy the engine when they fail?
When the 2.7 water pump failed, it leaked coolant out the bottom of the timing cover onto the ground. That’s how you knew the pump was bad. Removing the pump and the chains wasn’t bad, but it was the tight quarters and all of the other stuff you had to take off to get to it. I’ve done that job twice, but no more.
PRV V-6; The most contractually-obligated engine ever? DeLorean used it because it was the only engine they could get, an entire brand name (Dodge Monaco) was resurrected to pick up an extra few marginal sales of these before Chrysler paid a huge extra fee to Renault to buy out their contract, and I have to wonder if there are any blocks buried in the concrete slab the Chrysler Auburn Hills HQ sits on. For that matter, it did its’ European co-developers no favors. Volvo had a fine engine in their Redblock-and-a-half straight 6, Renault coulda/shoulda designed any senior models around an AMC I-6 and Peugeot, hindsight being 20/20, should’ve kept the traditional big Peugeot 405/505 etc as the top of their line and doubled down on the smaller line extensions that would prove tremendously successful with the 205.
On the Vega 2300, it’s a child of corporate politics. Aluminum block because they have the casting facility built for the Corvair, iron heads to save on cost. Weight up high where it shouldn’t be. Why not just put an aluminum crossflow head on the Chevy II engine? For that matter, why not go FWD a decade earlier by carrying the entire Corvair powertrain over to the front of the car? We’re GM, we don’t do things by half-measures! Until cost accounting gets involved at just the wrong point in the process and then we do…
Ford 2.3; This is the worst engine I ever owned. Burned and leaked oil at 70k miles in such an amount that there was never a puddle under me or a cloud behind me but I never had to worry about the ’84 Topaz’ front subframe rusting… Never had to drain the oil either, just keep buying Kmart “Motorvator” oil at 95 cents/qt in the mid ’90s and pouring one in every few weeks…then every couple…then weekly. Was told there was a ticking time bomb in its’ malaise heart and a car-ending failure would likely happen before 100k miles (something specific, can’t remember what, not the timing belt on this pushrod engine). The rest of the car fell apart first, at just about the 12-year mark but still 5-figure mileage. Such a gray lump of malaise.
How about some of the worst motorcycle engines? In no particular order:
Moto Guzzi V7 (small block, not to be confused with the big block V7 Sport): The most wheezy, asthmatic “modern” engine I’ve ever experienced – saddled with horrid mechanical issues like crankshaft walk and terrible build quality that lead to my service department replacing three seized engines before the first service on brand new bikes. It doesn’t have to be this way: 1980s small blocks are lively, fun little engines that make more top-end power and have genuine character, the modern small block is an utter turd.
Bimota V-Due 500: What should have been the ultimate road going two stroke became a boondoggle that bankrupted Bimota. Poor engineering and assembly by supplier Morini Motore lead to leaky crank seals on new bikes and the half-baked direct injection system never functioned as intended. They were well-nigh unrideable and would seize within 10,000 kms. Carburettors conversions were a band aid fix that ignored the mechanical flaws, you need to remachine the crankcases to make them reliable.
Imme R100: One of the most clever designs of all time, the rush to save as much cost/raw materials as possible led to brilliant solutions like single-sided front and rear suspension and a swingarm that doubled as an exhaust pipe. Unfortunately they applied the same thinking to the air-cooled two-stroke single: the crankshaft was only supported on one side, floated on a single main bearing. Yeah. The warranty repairs effectively bankrupted the company, even after they adopted a proper crankshaft arrangement on later versions.
I wouldn’t worry about protecting the V7 Sport engine. What idiot decided you didn’t need an oil filter on the engine? A screen will do? Throw in the gear drive cam crap. Great idea but use an aluminum cam gear that sheds like your dog and no oil filter and next thing you know your pushing your bike home with a trashed engine.
Then they “fix” the problem on the T-3 by putting the spin-on oil filter INSIDE THE ENGINE. Who thought this was a good idea? I’m sure every salesperson pointed that out to a potential buyer. “Just a minor thing, you do have to drop the oil pan to replace the oil filter.” Then the service dept. helps you out by not getting the filter tight enough so the filter comes off while you are cruising down I-80 in the middle of Nebraska. This is the one great benefit of the design, no massive oil leak mess to clean up when the filter falls off, the leak is self contained!
Dang, at least BMW put an access hatch in the K bike’s oil pan so you can remove the filter without too much trouble, just don’t park on the side stand unless you want to lay a smoke screen when you leave.
I agree with every choice by Len Peters.
How many otherwise acceptable/decent cars were ruined by these engines?
My brother, a die-hard GM man, drove my Honda home from the dealer performed oil change/tire rotations for me when I was forced into a 16 hour shift at work. He left the keys & car at my house; not one comment from him about the car.
It’s not what he (didn’t) say; it’s what he did.
Two weeks later his low mileage Iron Duke Buick Century Luxus was traded in on a new Honda Accord SE. He said that he took a financial bath on the trade in; but could not stand driving the Buick any longer.
That’s like my friend who was a diehard Volvo guy, he owned three including a beauty of a late 244GL. He borrowed my MB 300TD turbodiesel wagon for a 10 minute errand.
By the next weekend he had sold the Volvo and showed up in a 300D turbo.
The worse engines are Buick V-6 and V-8 with the terrible front oil pumps that didn’t pump oil, Ford 351M-400M another bad oiling system, Chrysler 4.7 V-8
Yet tens of millions of Buick V-6 engines were built and it is widely lauded as being one of the best engines every built. I never saw one blown up or worn out and we had plenty in my family taxi fleet.
Have plenty of early rod knocking Buick V-6’s, broken cranks, in the local wrecking yard.
Note there are two different oiling systems used on the Buick V-6. The early models used the same timing cover as used on the V8. There are a number of short comings to that design for sure and they didn’t handle neglect well.
That was changed in 88 though which uses a crank driven gerotor pump and significantly revised oil passages.
Scoutdude is correct. The crime that Buick committed though, was that they used the bad design from 1961 to 1988, 27 years of bad engines. The 215, 300, 340 350, 400, 455, every V-6, 3800 until 1988
If it was marked/marketed as a 3800 then it has the new style oil system.
I assume that they started calling it the 3800 instead of the 3.8 was to show that it was “new”. While it wasn’t a clean sheet design, they did make enough changes that there are very few items that were carried over. The Series II further distanced itself from the versions that came before it.
Should have said 3.8.
I heard that Buick V8s were inferior…would be nice idea to have an article about them some day
Buick V-8’s had a bad lubrication system. A oil pump hanging out in the front that fights to pull oil from the bottom of the pan. Often pump will loose it’s prime from sitting too long. Result is no oil pressure. Buick shop manuals all contain the method to regain pressure, but that’s no repair. Even when working properly, oil pressure slow to build resulting in all worn out bearings. Criminal of Buick to use this from 1961 to 1988. Criminal of GM to end Oldsmobile and keep Buick
I’m going to say the 1.8l K series ohc 4-banger in the 1988 Pontiac Sunbird. It rounded it’s cam lobes out right after rounding out the warranty. At the time the cam was a dealer only item at $275 as were the cam followers at $50 each. An expensive repair even for a DIY like myself. Judging by the owner of said vehicle, lack of maintenance was probably a big factor. Though I know someone else who had the same issue. It only took another three years or so before it rounded out a couple of more lobes on the new cam. By that time the cam and followers were available aftermarket at half the dealer cost and my willingness to fix was long gone.
The car that replaced it was purchased used and gave reliable service until the day it developed a rod knock. My advice was to decide what colour the next car would be. I drove it to my friend’s scrap yard and on the way was a very steep hill to climb. I rugged it at the bottom and by the time I got to the top there were two rods knocking. It made it to the boneyard where my friend said to keep it running. He covered his eyes with his left hand and waved his right hand in a circular motion above the hood and said “Quad 4 with 219,000km”. He was close 221K. “Park it over there with the other five just like it”.
I did mention lack of maintenance. The same owner stopped by my house when her oil light was flickering and she couldn’t get any oil to go in it. The hood latch had rusted shut more than 2 years prior.
I have driven a few wheezy rental cars in the 80’s, One may have had an iron duke. Recently there was the Jetta 2.slow that took great courage to try and merge with rush hour highway traffic in Calgary that consisted of mostly “lifted bro trucks” traveling nearly bumper to bumper at speed.
My Dad had an ’84 2 litre Sunbird which despite dealer service, went through 2 engines in about 80k miles. Worst car he ever owned. Started badly; car had less than 1k miles on it when the timing belt broke. Dealer replaced with another new 2.0 about halfway (40k miles) and it threw a rod at about 80K (40K on the 2nd new engine). Car also had leaky power steering rack, other misc. broken switchgear, by 1990 it was junked (only 6 years old). My dear departed youngest sister inherited it about halfway through and it singlehandedly drove her to Japanese cars, a 200 then 240SX and a Camry after that. Only car my Dad ever had to have the engine replaced on, let alone twice on the same car.
I have no real disagreement with the primary list – though I would argue that the Ford 200 cid 6 was merely undistinguished and not actually bad, but an undistinguished engine surrounded by great ones is kind of the same thing.
Here is my list – I am avoiding the many good choices noted in the comments above. In no particular order:
1936-48 Lincoln V-12. An extremely smooth engine. For about 30,000 miles for many owners. It was kind of the 2.7L Chrysler of its day – fastidious maintenance and keeping the revs up to keep its juices flowing freely (the opposite of how most folks drove based on experience with their lug-loving flatheads) could keep it alive, but when a swap with a Mercury V8 gave about the same performance, why bother?
I am surprised nobody mentioned the Cadillac HT4100 from the 80s. The Standard Of The World. Right. At least it sounded like a V8, but I don’t think it had any redeeming features.
The Cadillac Northstar. At least it had some redeeming features when it was new and fresh – it was a really good performer for its day. But it had so many ways to fail expensively.
The Mitsubishi 3.0 V6 as seen in many US Chrysler products of the late 80s-early 90s. You never had to squint to look for the “V6” badge on the fender – just see if there was a blue cloud.
I may get some blowback on this, but I nominate the Buick/Oldsmobile aluminum 215 V8. It had all the disadvantages of the many ultra-small displacement V8s Len noted (a failed concept since Henry Ford’s “V8 60”, but it also turned American buyers into beta testers for GM’s early foray into aluminum engine blocks. My family’s version was quite used to sitting on the side of a road with the hood up. At least aluminum dissipates too-high heat quickly. It took the English to make a good engine out of it. And to prove my point, where are all of the 1961-63 Olds F-85s and V8 powered Buick Specials today? Or in 1975?
Oh crap – I have a tie for 6th (dishonorable mention?) the aluminum Rambler 6 from, what, 1960-61? And the 1961-64 Studebaker Skybolt 6. Both took a solid, durable design and tried to make it modern. The Rambler engines died from a combination of causes while the Stude engines were either OK or would crack their heads, depending on the flip of a coin.
Back when I had a complete collection of “Skinned Knuckles” magazine, Matt Joseph did a detailed, photo-illustrated series of articles on the giant job of refurbishing one of those Lincoln V12s. A 1940 Zephyr engine, I think it was, in severely bad condition at the start. I got the impression that matches your conclusion: this was a doglick motor (“because they can”).
Cadillac HT4100 and Northstar: Let’s call it a hat trick by adding the V8-6-4(-3-2-1-0).
I’m of two minds on that Mitsu 3.0 V6. It had a really dumb problem (dropped valve guides with resultant blue smoke, like clockwork at 70k miles) because of the kind of slipshod, halfassed, eh-good-enough-who-cares, GM-style engineering the Japanese automakers were reputed not to do. And it had a couple of other eyerollers and headsmackers, too—the PCV passages were cast into the aluminum cam covers and could not be cleaned; once they clogged up, new cam covers were required. But despite my STFU reaction to the salesman’s spiel about it (see today’s COAL) the valve guide thing really could be fixed rather easily with snap rings, and the PCV passages could be kept clean with a psshht of carburetor cleaner at oil change time, and all in all these engines ran well, dependably, smoothly, and durably. Not gonna make my list of favourite engines, but.
As I recall Chrysler had an aluminum version of the Slant Six for a short time. Aluminum engine blocks are picky about coolant and coolant changes, more so than cast iron. There was probably a consumer learning curve involved in the successful adoption of water-cooled aluminum engines.
Chrysler built and installed just over 50,000 aluminum-block 225 Slant-6s between the middle of the MY 1961 and the start of MY 1963. There were long-term challenges brought by the primitive, folklore-based maintenance practices of the time (drain the antifreeze out in Spring and run straight water until Autumn), but they were not problematic engines. They were discontinued not because they were failing and making costs and badwill, but because demand for Slant-6 engines was enormous and despite the faster machining speeds of aluminum, it was overall faster to churn out iron ones.
Ditto the aluminum Buick/Olds 215, which lived a long life with Rover: high early-60’s manufacturing costs coupled with owners’ ignorance of aluminum block cooling system requirements.
At least the 215 used iron sleeves in the cylinders. The Vega was GM’s first attempt at Nikasil coated cylinders in an aluminum block, and it didn’t go well. Cosworth bored out every Vega block that they built for the Cosworth Vega and pressed in iron sleeves to solve the cylinder scuffing issues that were common in the original design. Mercedes had much better luck with all-alloy engine blocks, but they used Reynolds 390 aluminum alloy for their engine blocks, which had a high silicon content for hardness, which helped eliminate scuffing.
“The Vega was GM’s first attempt at Nikasil coated cylinders in an aluminum block, and it didn’t go well. ”
No, the Vega (and the over-the-parts-counter aluminum Big Block for Can-Am racing) were cast in Reynolds 390.
Thus the “felt lapping” required after re-boring: You’d have to “hone” the cylinders with a felt-pad system that would wear the aluminum down enough for the silicon crystals to stand proud–they became the cylinder wear surface.
I assume the benefit of aluminum was lower weight and better handling. Did it make a noticeable difference?
You are correct, sir. It only lasted from 1961 to 1963, as I recall. They used a cast iron cylinder head, with a copper head gasket, due to the dissimilar coefficients of thermal expansion between aluminum and cast iron, which was problematic. The engine was quite costly, due to the reject rates of the engine block castings, as they had problems casting the aluminum blocks without porosity and voids in the raw castings. My brother looked at buying a classic 1963 Dodge Dart convertible with one of those aluminum engines, but thought better of it when he read about the issues associated with these engines on-line.
Definitely seconding the Cadillac 4100 and northstar and Mitsubishi 3.0 v6. The 4100 made no more power than buicks 3.8 v6, which was slow and weak in a lighter g body. Imagine moving a 4200 lb deville or 3900 lb Eldorado with that fragile, slow, underengineered garbage. Gm did an aluminum block AGAIN with iron heads AGAIN and it was garbage AGAIN. Much as I love the bustle back Seville and the Eldorado I’ll never buy one, or a northstar cadillac for that reason.
Every car in the 80s and 90s blowing blue smoke had a Mitsubishi 3.0 in it. Every car with a Mitsubishi 3.0 in it was blowing blue smoke.
Oldsmobile diesel has not been mentioned that I saw but that’s a top one.
Whatever engine Hyundai put in the early excels was garbage. Most of these mentioned were bad engines surrounded by decent cars but the engines in the excels was pretty bad.
Agreed on the 1.8 l used in the sunbird. We had a 1985 bought used in 1988? 1989? And it may not have made it a whole year. Chronic overheating and never could be fixed and blew a head gasket and died.
The early buick 3.8 was pretty bad. We had a 1977 century in 1984 and it lunched its timing chain. It was rough and poorly constructed at the beginning and only gradually got better. It didn’t help that gm put it in a bunch of cars which were far too heavy for it.
Which BMW engine had nikasil problems? I still have catera PTSD so I would blanket never buy another german car but one of bmws engines blew up early and often.
Every car in the 80s and 90s blowing blue smoke had a Mitsubishi 3.0 in it. Every car with a Mitsubishi 3.0 in it was blowing blue smoke.
Both factually incorrect. Sweeping generalizations only weaken your position.
When I worked for Chrysler, most of the Mitsubishi 3.0 V-6’s faults had been rectified. They were very reliable after about 1990.
?? All those Mitsubishi 3.0 v6s had the same design defect with the valve seals or something to do with the valves. Just like all the Vegas burned oil because of design defects, all the early Ultradrives failed because of design defects, all the bumper fillers in 79-85 GM E bodies, and most of the G bodies, and 77-92 D body Cadillacs fail because of whatever they were made out of. Other people have mentioned the same problems with the Mitsubishi V6 so we’re all factually incorrect?
There is a critical difference between “all” (100%) and many/most. Where are the stats to back up your claim of 100% in both these cases.
FWIW, I have heard folks stating that these ailments didn’t affect their Mitsu 3.0 V6 and A604 transaxles. Only one of each is enough to make your claim of “all” false.
Did you take statistics in school?
Not all of them. By 1990 in fact very few of them.
I’m no statistician, and I’m not willing to condemn ALL, as in EVERY 3.0, Vega and Ultradrive.
That said, SavageATL has a point about the fillers.
Yes, ALL, as in EVERY said filler was bad.
Low miles, museum stored, hermetically sealed, Chicago winter… didn’t matter, they ALL crumbled. EVERY last one. LoL
But that’s another story, back to engines for now.
I’m honored to have owned one of Len’s best and worst, the Vega and VW Golf 1.8T. I always liked my Vega when I owned it, within context, and still feel nostalgic fondness for it. But while the VW is objectively excellent and conventionally more fun to drive than our other two vehicles, both trucks, I have no emotional connection with it.
Early Ford 200 I-6 engines weren’t great, but they weren’t awful either. The 200 six in our family’s ’64 Comet was smooth, quiet, reliable, and lasted well over 100K miles with minimal maintenance. But I agree that later models that had Ford’s crude emissions controls became substantially worse.
How can a list of the worst engines not include the Cadillac V8-6-4 or the Olds diesel?
Well, I could only choose five and I chose the ones with which I am familiar.
I upvote your opinion on the Ford 200 I6 for a similar benign experience with a similar ’64 Comet.
And I upvote your early 200 experience (’67 Falcon). Dad got 120,000 miles out of his before a rebuild, and he was tough on cars. Lasted much better than the 144 in our ’62.
The Falcon six wasn’t a genuinely bad engine. The 144 was decidedly underpowered, but that’s how Ford wanted it. The 170 was already a bit better. The 200 was substantially better, with a 7 bearing crank and more power. For their size and intended purpose, the were ok, and could be readily hopped up to make gobs of power. The Falcon six was repeatedly developed in Australia until it become an extremely powerful and appealing engine.
It had no grievous faults except for the fruity, nasal exhaust whistle when teamed up with the 2-seed Fordomatic. Sounded worse than it was.
Hey, I didn’t say my list had to be logical. My experience with the 200 was in my Fairmont driver’s end car. I much preferred my later experiences with the Slant 6 and Turbo-thrift.
Didn’t they have the one piece cast-with-head Intake?
Yep
We had the 144 six in our Falcon. It was fine. Not at all underpowered, except for when windshield wiper action was called for (it rains a lot in Vermont) on a hill of which there are many in Vermont. Then removing the pressure on the accelerator pedal was called for. Otherwise, it was blissful.
Five worst engines?
How about every 4 cyl and 6 cyl engine made by the Big Three until sometime in the mid-90’s when they started to figure out that the crap they were pedaling wasn’t cutting it.
I’m throwing the SBC under the bus too. Good engine but a few minor changes would have made it a great engine, only took then 30 some years to fix a crappy valve cover oil leaking mess. Copied the design used by Detroit Diesel, only been around since 1938 or so. Then it took another 15 years or so before they finally dumped the Siamese exhaust ports. What the hell was with the GM engine divisions fascination with Siamese exhaust ports?
The best part of this is I was a GM employee for 9 years.
Being a GM employee makes one very cynical about their products. This comes from a former GM employee!
I have to respectively disagree about the sixes, for what they were intended. The seven main bearing Chevy 194,230,250 and 292 were smooth and nearly indestructible. Specific output was low, by design. The Ford big sixes and Mopar slant six also worked extremely well for the intended purpose. the excellent GMC V-6 was truck only, so may not be part of this discussion.
I put the Turbo-thrift in my top five for just these reasons. Shoppers of a six cylinder motor circa 1963 weren’t that worried about horsepower. That was for V8 cars. A six had to be smooth, economical and durable. All the makers made a good big six.
Small V-8? You forgot the Chevy 262. But I wouldn’t include them on this list. Any one of them is a *perfect placeholder* for a real engine. Remove the 260, drop in a 350, 400, or 455, for example.
1. Iron Duke. Hell, yes–probably the worst, least-refined engine GM produced after WWII. Derived from the 230 six-popper Chevy via the 153 4-popper Chevy II engine, with the primary work done in Brazil years before Pontiac revised the intake manifold and a bunch of other details, and then took credit for the whole thing. In stock form, the early Iron Duke was a no-power turd infamous for detonation. 200+ revisions later, it was a no-power turd with knock sensors.
2. Honda 1300 CVCC No power, no durability, no heat in the winter turd. Mine flung the #3 connecting rod through the aluminum block at 58K miles. #3 rod bearing was largely missing, what there was, was burnt black. The other rod bearings and the main bearings looked like new. The 1500 had an iron block, was a much superior engine, and probably got the same or better fuel economy in real-world operation.
3. Ford “Modular” V-8 and the similar V-10. The two-valve versions need an iron lung to keep up with GM and Chrysler’s pushrod V-8s. Years of development time on the Modular, and GM’s LS-series engines made them look silly in the LS’s first year of production. The Modulars are graced with Ford’s finest spark-plug engineering. The ones that don’t seize in the cylinder head and break off, get spat into the hood when the weak threads fail and combustion pressure turns them into missiles. And the best part is that Ford’s first scheduled spark plug change happens AFTER the warranty runs out. Criminals. NOBODY can screw their customers like Ford. There’s two manufacturing plants–Romeo, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario. The engines are almost completely non-interchangeable. The blocks, heads, cams, valve covers, crankshafts and flywheels–COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. It’s even worse than the old 351W/351C. You can’t fix a Romeo engine with Windsor parts, and neither one of them makes any power unless it has 4-valve heads or a supercharger. The LS and the Hemi are so infinitely superior that I don’t know how Ford ever sold a Modular after ’97. I don’t know how Ford ever sold a V-10 at all–the old 460 was a far better engine with more power.
4. Ford Flatheads (V8-60, the “Medium Block” and the Lincoln/truck versions, from 1932 onward.) As engines, they’re all three hateful, no-power, crack-prone overheating junk. As icons, they led the charge for “V8s for the Masses” and got generations of Americans away from inlines. The “Ford Flathead” changed the world. The hot-roddy “Ardun” overhead-cam cylinder heads were originally intended to make enough power for bigger trucks, because the Flattie was such a gutless pile of crap. Hot-rodders adopted the Ardun heads after-the-fact.
5. Open a book on English engines, pick one.
Honorable Mention: All the politically-correct, Government-subsidized “Electric Vehicle” nonsense. If people wanted them, they wouldn’t have to be bribed or legislated into owning one. And if people understood the environMENTAL hazards involved in making the batteries, no-one would claim the EVs are “green”.
EVs are the future. They are not going away. I see more in my neighbourhood every day. The most popular by far is the Tesla Model 3 which does not qualify for any rebates. It’s just a better car than its 3 series BWM competition. The Model 3 has taken over the entire near luxury segment. Audi and BMW dealers are screaming for EVs and so far there is no competition for Tesla.
Mining and refining oil is horrible for the environment. Lithium is non-toxic. I fully understand the environmental impact of an EV vs ICE and the EV is better hands down.
However, the best thing about an EV is you don’t have to buy one. There are waiting lists here on pretty much every EV available.
You couldn’t be more wrong :
The lithium extraction process uses a lot of water—approximately 500,000 gallons per metric ton of lithium. To extract lithium, miners drill a hole in salt flats and pump salty, mineral-rich brine to the surface. After several months the water evaporates, leaving a mixture of manganese, potassium, borax and lithium salts which is then filtered and placed into another evaporation pool. After between 12 and 18 months of this process, the mixture is filtered sufficiently that lithium carbonate can be extracted.
South America’s Lithium Triangle, which covers parts of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, holds more than half the world’s supply of the metal beneath its salt flats. But it is also one of the driest places on earth. In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, mining activities consumed 65 percent of the region’s water, which is having a large impact on local farmers to the point that some communities have to get water elsewhere.
Compared to oil extraction and refining, it’s peanuts. An EV has like 12 kg of lithium in it. It’s also nontoxic.
EVs are the past. They were very popular early in the 20th century.
I do not plan to ever own an electric car. The mere fact that government is pushing them is reason enough to reject them in my view. I don’t care what kind of “incentives” are offered to go electric or what disincentives are imposed for sticking with gasoline power. I will not cooperate.
Tesla in particular would have folded years ago if not for the carbon credit racket that lets them pick the pockets of companies that actually make money producing products that people want.
As has been pointed out if electric cars were truly the better alternative there would be no need for the use of force and coercion to push them on a largely disinterested buying public.
PThe big bad gubmint is after you to but an EV!!!
“Largely disinterested?” HAHAHAHA!
Tesla, Nissan and Hyundai all have waiting lists.
The only repair items that are Windsor/Romeo specific would be the valve cover gaskets/grommets and flywheel since the Windsors use an 8 bolt crank to the Romeo’s 6. Everything else does in fact interchange, in the very early 2000s it was very common for people to upgrade 96-98 Mustangs to PI heads and intake, with Windsor parts being the only option, but they were a direct fit to the Romeo block and timing cover. Others have used 4V blocks with 2V heads and veice versa(the 2003 Cobra uses the GT iron block) There are indeed differences in everything you mentioned but the bulk of them are trivial( jackscrews for the mains, pressed on sprockets for the cams, different patterns for the valve covers and flywheel) and in fact interchange between Romeo and Windsor, the internal specs and tolerances are identical as well.
Performance deficit from Chevy and dodge? Sure, they lack over a full liter in displacement to them, but I’d rather have a 4.6 SOHC than a Chevy 4.8.
Yes Ford flathead V-8. Grandpa bought a ’32 brand new, never another Ford product the rest of his life and claimed “V-8’s burn oil” until finally getting his last car, a ’65 Plymouth with the 318.
My dad said that in a Ford, “You check the gas and fill it up with oil.”
One more thought on five worst engines, lets try diesels!
#1 – Olds 5.7L diesel – not even half baked
#2 – GM 6.2L diesel – half baked – member of the head gasket of the month club
#3 – Detroit Diesel 4-53T used in the medium duty – the first design using a one piece piston that eventually will become a two piece piston.- at least it had a turbo
#4 – Detroit Diesel 8.2L V8 – this engine joined the head gasket of the month club almost from birth – turned out the real problem was the head bolts – field fix – remove engine – disassemble 0 drill out head bolt holes in block & tap for larger head bolts. Also drill out the holes in the cyl. heads.
#5 – Detroit Diesel 92 series – they didn’t fix any of the problems with the 71 series, they just bored the damn thing out and added new problems.
Water pump designed so the weep hole would plug forcing an anti-freeze leak to go into the crankcase – not good for the crankshaft bearings!
Cylinder liner O-rings leaked. Bad enough except their idea to route the air box drains into the crankcase meant the anti-freeze leak at the cylinder liner now was route right into the crankcase, poor crank bearings.
They also screwed up the injector sleeve sealing in the cylinder head. The O-rings leaked anti-freeze and of course the leak is into the crankcase again. What did these DD engineers have against those poor crankshaft bearings?
Of course DD did fix these problems but not until they drove the customers out the door.
The worst of it was I really loved the the 92 Series.
Brigadiers with a hot 6V92 under the hood.
Generals with a Silver 8V92, 500 hp screaming Jimmy.
Wonder if xr7 ever owned a Olds diesel? I drive several of them as daily drivers, and I regard this engine as a remarkable invention, 20-25 MPG in a full sized luxury car, in total silence, (once you get moving). Most of them have 150,000 to 220,000 miles on them. The problems were due to water and ignorant owner’s.
The second generation of the 5.7 diesel was much better but by this time it was too late to save any part of the programme.
I take it that you are an experienced technician who is aware of how to keep these motors running. The problem was that owner just kept abusing their new diesels like they did their iron block gas motors.
Yes. And the DX engine was bullet proof. But the only high tech actions are change oil with proper weight and keep water out of the fuel system, pretty easy really. No spark plugs, distributor, no vapor lock, no tune ups, really takes less work than a gas engine.
I’ll get torched for this, but as I’ve said previously, the Honda CVCC. If you could stand the wonky drivability, these were good for around 25K peaceful miles before the fun began. Perhaps the first thing to go was the head gasket, yet if you were really lucky you had the cylinder head crack too, a sort of “twofer”. And also by this mileage, the auxiliary valve seals would start to leak as well, causing significant oil consumption. I had first hand experience with 3 of these cars like this from new, Maybe the later versions (82 up?) were better, but I was in no mood to find out.
Head gaskets were quite profitable on those early CVCC engines, once you figured out the right way to do it. Can’t say I’ve one crack though.
You reminded me of my ’70s Honda era. Had a ’77 with the 1200. Well 2 engines and 4 body shells. They were cheap enough in the mid eighties that you could buy one any day of the week for about fifty bucks in what ever condition you needed. These engines had the oil pump driven by a gear on the ohc. You couldn’t inspect the gear without taking it apart so blissfully unaware… The teeth wore of the drive gear and the oil pump stopped. The bearings seized to the crank in about the time it took for the oil light to come on. I tossed that motor in the bin at work and swapped in a 46K mile unit from a rotted hulk. Two days later that low mileage mill threw a rod. Back at the shop I fished the old block from the dumpster, flushed and cleaned, honed it out and installed new rings and bearings. New pump drive gear and good to go. That engine went on in 3 other bodies until I finally threw in the towel. Less rotted body shells were by that time getting harder to find. I learned early on that if you lifted one of these engine/transaxle combos by the hooks on the head you were almost guaranteed to be changing the head gasket within a week. Sling them low under the block and tranny.
My brother in law worked at a garage in Central Vermont in 1980. I stopped by once to chat. The owner mentioned that the engines in the small cars, like the Honda that was being worked on, needed rebuilds at about 80K miles. I was shocked. Later my uncle mentioned that when he was our age, about 1950, cars needed rebuilds with 40K miles. I imagine he was talking about the cars available to him at that age, like a Model A or B.
During the years I sold import auto parts, I’d proclaim that Honda engines were the best 100K mile engines produced. After 100K, not so much.
No mention of the craptastic GM Quad 4 or the wonders of the CoBra Crowley engine?
When I first experienced the Quad 4 I was shocked by how bad it was.
I had a. quad 4 Alero loaner while our Corolla was in the body shop, and I didn’t think it was that bad. The engine certainly wasn’t the worst part of the car. And by then, I hadn’t owned my Vega for 20 years, so I was comparing the Quad 4 to other modern engines, not to the earlier GM 2300 shaker.
Tie between small UK engines and early Ford escort engines as VERY WORST… both died by 25K miles!
The water pump on Escorts seized and broke the timing belt at 25K, the cam stopped spinning, it was an interference engine so pistons crashed into valves. Also, pulley on end of crankshaft was 1/8″ from body so couldn’t get a wrench in to remove the nut if attempting to get to timing belt/water pump even on later noncrash engines.
BTW, still driving the Iron Duke in my ’77 Pontiac Astre and ’85 Pontiac Fiero !!! NO timing belts or chains so nothing to go wrong!
If GM, Ford, Chrysler and Honda had developed fuel injection (electronic) in the late fifties and sixties, and four speed automatic transmissions controlled by the ECM, perhaps these small block V6 and V8 engines could have been functional, responsive, fuel efficient, durable and long lasting. The GM six, small block cast iron V8, Chrysler slant six, small block V8 and Volvo slant 4 and 6 cylinder cast iron engines were excellent.
Chevy 305 (cam eaters) and the Essex 3.8L Ford V6 (head gasket eaters) were the two worst engines I had. I pretty much agree with ALL of the rest of the comments, good site here.
I had a couple of soft-cam 305s in my taxi fleet. It was really no biggie because swapping out the camshaft wasn’t much of an issue. The SBC gave excellent service for us, anyway. My dad’s 350 equipped eventually went over 1,000,000 km with only valve guides needing replacement.
We did eventually get a few better “small” V8s from GM -> 4.3l V8 (LT1) in the Caprice and the 4.8l V8 (LS) in the trucks.
The Honda 3.5 litre V6 is an okay engine but when equipped with VCM (cylinder deactivation) it becomes a nightmare leading to oil seepage, fouling of spark plugs and heavy oil consumption. I just replaced a set of plugs that I had to replace 1 year ago for the same issue.
Honda faced a class action suit in the US and had provided repairs to some but good luck getting them now. I was denied in Canada. Google “VCM Muzzler” and you will see a whole world of hate for this system and inventive solutions to trick the engine into thinking it isn’t warm enough to allow the engine to activate the VCM.
I put the Mazda Rotary Engine as one of my five best, as for the era and when it was working properly, it was a brilliant mechanical device. But it is, at the same time, the worst. The engine is completely intolerant of overrevving (which it will easily do, as there are no valve train rpm limitations), overheating, or lack of oil (as it continuously drains oil into the engine, as a way around pre-mixing oil into the fuel).
On top of that, basic and complex engine parts, such as rotor housings, are actually wear parts, and the engine eventually becomes like George Washington’s axe, with both the head and the handle replaced. Speaking of engine parts, while I am a Mazda fan, they lost my good will when, a few years back, they decided to destroy all of their inventory of older model rotary engine parts, rather than keep them or wholesale them out to someone else. This included large and complex rotor housing castings (wear parts, remember), which will never be replicated in the aftermarket. They signed a death knell to the long term maintenance of engines in the older part of the rotary engine community. They made a bad engine maintenance situation worse, and they didn’t need to. Price out used and worn old rotor housings (sometimes seen offered at four figures apiece), and what would a cache of fresh factory pieces be worth?
I had a summer job at a Mazda dealer in 1987 because I was sick of taxi driving. By that time, the rotary was extremely reliable. The only problems we ever had with them was the wickedly complicated catalytic converter system. Fuel injection in 1985 took care of that. They were really fun to drive, too.
As bad as these engines were and some where truly miserable I think this abysmal tradition is still being perpetrated by almost every manufacturer who builds a direct injected engine!
It pains me to say it as I do love Honda cars but… a perfect example of dreadful engine technology is being marketed to the public in the way of Honda’s “1.5L Earth Dreams engine.” As many here may be aware this is the latest engine used in the CR-V, Civic, Accord, etc.
The engine allows fuel to leak into the crankcase and mixes with the engine oil. Inevitably the diluted mixture raises the level of oil in the oil pan and can lead to serious engine damage.
The following comes from HondaProblems.com:
“Oil dilution is a known issue for owners of the 5th generation CR-V and 10th generation Civic What are the consequences of diluted oil? Well in this case there are quite a few.
“The check engine light comes on once the oil level reaches 21mm above the dipstick’s current limit.
Reports indicate the problem creates a stinky, gas-fumed cabin that’s so bad owners feel nauseous and dizzy while driving.
In certain cases owners have said their engines have mis-fired or stalled once the oil becomes diluted.”
Unfortunately it’s not just Honda as many other companies suffer from similar problems.
Compounding these issues (based on my perception) is car prices have never been higher (even after adjusted for inflation). Average transaction prices are averaging around $40K for new vehicles. Car makers have reduced engine displacements and cylinders in an effort to make them more fuel efficient.
But the sad fact is despite these drivetrain “improvements” we’re paying significantly more and getting less in return. If you factor in reduced reliability, shortened engine lifespan, dubious fuel mileage improvements and frequent inconvenience due to recalls and TSBs to fix continuing issues that should never have occurred it’s all pathetic.
Don’t get me started on Start/Stop, DCTs, ECUs and other electronic controls that alter car driving characteristics that make it difficult to accelerate, shift and brake smoothly!
Adding insult to injury is how manufacturers continually increase “destination charges” virtually unchecked as a means of increasing profits. $1000 to $3000 is not unheard of for just shipping!
As far as I’m concerned we’re continually buying cars that are technological “lab experiments” that haven’t been completed. Ultimately we are sold cars that are not fully mature and the unsuspecting public is left to be the guinea pigs. Shouldn’t there be substantial discounts for buyers who Beta test manufacturers immature tech!? For that matter shouldn’t there be additional discounts for the all the continual data they collect and are enriched from the products WE pay for?
Face it we’re paying unreasonable prices for vehicles marketed as affordable, safe and reliable… really?
Now repeat after me “now that I’ve given up all hope… I feel a lot better” 😉
Cars are not more expensive than ever. In 1979, my father paid $9200 for a Chevrolet Impala. It had a/c and split bench seat and not other options. That translates to $33,105 in today’s money.
In 1986, I bought a VW Jetta. It had ZERO options, not even power steering. I paid $10,200 for it. That translates to $22,000, or almost exactly what a 2021 Jetta would cost. That Jetta has all kinds of kit that was optional in 1986.
It sounds like a 1962 Chevrolet would be a good car for you.
My pick for the worst ever is the air-cooled engine that Chevrolet used to sell. No, not the Corvair engine, but the other air-cooled Chevy, the one almost nobody remembers if they ever knew about it at all – the 1923 M series with the four-cylinder “copper cooled” engine. Intended to reduce costs and help Chevy finally take on Ford’s Model T head on, instead they had so many manufacturing defects that more engines were destroyed by Chevrolet than installed in cars and sold to customers. Detonation/preignition was a chronic issue, as was sand getting in the casting and ruining the cylinder bores and loss of compression when it (frequently) overheated. GM wound up recalling nearly all of the cars they did sell and destroying them too, not just the engine but the entire car.
I have a personal beef with the Iron Duke for all the usual reasons since I drove one for many years in my family’s ’82 Pontiac Phoenix, made all the more worse because I was present when the car was special-ordered at the dealer. Why, why, why didn’t I try to persuade my folks to spend $125 for the Chevy V6 instead? (which I probably could have done in 30 seconds – I was the car guy in the family) Answer: I was a high schooler and didn’t realize the reason that some cars we test drove seemed noisier than was due to them having this noisy lump of a motor under the hood. I thought it was because some of them had the optional extra sound insulation that was also included in the high trim levels. But I still can’t hate on the Iron Duke too much because it did prove durable. Many of them are still toiling away in Grumman postal vans. So for worst postwar engine I’ll go with the Vega 2300 which fully deserves its infamy.
Let’s see if I can make a European list…
1. NSU Birotor — woefully underdeveloped, literally sank the company.
2. Maserati V6 (2.7 – 3.0 litre) — decent enough (though gruff-sounding) when working properly in the Citroen SM, but can and will go horribly wrong at an undetermined juncture. Can be made to run nowadays, but broke many a heart (and Citroen’s bank balance) back in the day.
3. Peugeot-Renault-Volvo V6 — in its initial incarnation, i.e. for the first decade or so, was a rather thirsty, heavy and unreliable boat anchor. Volvo ditched it as soon as they could, but the French had to make do with it.
4. Jaguar V12 — stuffed in cars that were designed to have a straight-6. Too heavy, too thirsty, too complicated, too expensive. Leave those things to RR and Ferrari.
5. Ford Essex V4 — unlike its German (US-designed) cousin, this one is reputed to be gutless and rough when working properly, but soon develops some terminal malady (oil pump, head gasket, timing gear… the opportunity for disaster was wide)
The last engine on your list sometimes wound up replacing the first, as it was about the only piston engine that would fit under the Ro80’s low bonnet.
To my knowledge, it’s the German Cologne V4 that gets swapped in, not the British Essex V4. Two engines similar only in general concept, but otherwise quite different.
I’ve seen references online to both being swapped, but the Essex seems to be the more common one. There’s a section on Ford V4 swaps on the Ro80 Wikipedia page stating “In the UK, owners left with cars with seized engines were provided with a solution by the Hurley Engineering Company. They supplied a torque converter adapter plate and other fittings so that a Ford Essex V4 engine could be fitted in the space left by a removed rotary engine. It was the only engine short enough to fit in the vacated space without modification to the bodywork.”
Apparently some versions of the Lancia flat 4 will fit too. A few minutes with Google Image Search failed to turn up any Ro80s with any swapped engines though other than later Mazda rotaries.
Why not? V4’s for both sides of the channel.
Here’s a nifty show car using the V4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_I
Ideally it would be the Cologne the Essex version is far from smooth or reliable.
Rover K Series with head gaskets made of fried egg – compounded by Rover’s reluctance to admit the problem.
Triumph Stag V8.
Pretty much every modern direct injection diesel. Problematic injectors which fail with regularity and replacement costs more than the car is worth. All for barely any improvement over their immediate IDI predecessors.
Oh, great call on the Triumph V8. Far worthier than the Ford V4 I put in my list.
Here’s a Stag with EV powertrain.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36133070/triumph-stag-and-morgan-44-get-ev-power/
HT4100 (only the 4100, not the later 4.5/4.9 versions), Olds 350 Diesel, Quad-4, Studebaker V8 and Vega 2300
Ford HSC 4 cylinder and GM Iron Duke. Junky I4s cut down from junky I6s supposed to compete head to head with technologically advanced European and Japanese fours. The Iron Duke at least emerged in the 70s in the panic period of the malaise era, that Ford concocted the HSC in the 80s for cars that were supposed to appear forward thinking in their aero styling is just dreadful.
Ford Essex 3.8 V6. This engine got decent in longitudinal applications at the end, making nearly 200 horsepower with less failure prone head gaskets but it took 15 years of steaming boat anchors to get there.
I don’t know what happened to Ford’s mechanical engineering department in the 70s and 80s but there must have been a purge of talent because the best engines they could come up with through the entire decade of the 80s was the 5.0 H.O. V8 using old marine grade parts and the Vulcan V6, everything else was either half baked(CVH), half assed (HSC), plagiarized (3.8 Essex), carryover (both big and small I6s, 5.0, 5.8 Windsor, 460), or outsourced(SHO V6). Though Ford was quick on embracing multiport fuel injection at least.
Yup. The HSC was horribly crude and agricultural. In Victoria BC the Tempo was he official retirement car of 1985. They were largely bought by the WW2 generation. Ford foisted this on them because they knew they were loyal customers as brand loyalty was a big deal back them. When these customers died, Ford had none to replace them. GM did the same with the Iron Duke. Heck, even my GM obsessed Dad had enough of them and bought his first VW, a 1984 Jetta GL Turbodiesel. I loved that car and dad lamented the day he traded it on his 1986.
How about the Pontiac and IH slant fours that were half of a V-8. With no balance shafts these were real shakers and didnt save all that much weight due to the crank and crankcase dimensions.
The rope drive LeMans was never sold in Canada. Instead we got a rebadged Chevelle, the Beaumont. Not a Pontiac Beaumont, just a Beaumont which happened to be sold at Pontiac stores. Remember, in Canada of 1966, spending the extra $25 to get Pontiac means you had really arrived!
I have never seen the slant four but I had a Consumer’s Report back issue that mentioned it jumping around on its mounts.
Nikita, I am so glad you mentioned that Pontiac slant 4. 195 cubic inches of misery. We had one of those in our Tempest with the rope drive. It started poorly in winter even when the heater was plugged in. We went to Montreal one winter… We needed a jump almost every day. With all those jumps, I did have many opportunities to see it gyrating around in the engine compartment. Very different from the cars that were giving us the jump, or just about any other car I saw idling. I just saw that according to one list, it weighs 470 lbs! only 180 lbs lighter than its parent, the 389 V8. The car was a nice size, the absence of a tunnel was nice, it had good visibility. It was a total rust bucket and the driveshaft broke.
Excellent article and follow up comments.
I can only think of 1 bad engine. 1998-2002 Dodge Cummins 5.9L VP44.
Is Len Peters the same person as Canucklehead?
Or perhaps both are coincidentally from Vancouver/lower mainland B.C.?
One and the same and yes, I live in the Westside of Vancouver.
I’ve been fortunate in not having any experience with a bad engine. My most experience is with Fords 289, 302, 390, and 410 and Vulcan 3.0L. Chrysler’s 225 Slant-six, 318, and 360. GM would be the 250 six and the current 3800. Throw in the Mazda 2.2L and one Squareback engine and that is my sum total. The wife’s 2.0L Skyactiv is still new but I expect it won’t disappoint.
Pre-DX block Olds 5.7L diesel
Cadillac HT4100
Toyota 3VZ-E
Ford 4.0L OHC V-6
Ford/IH 6.0L ‘Powerstroke’ VT365E diesel. I have never seen an engine more prone to random catastrophic failures than the 6.0L Powerstroke. On top of all that they are not easy to work on. Quite a cottage industry sprung up to address the 6.0L’s many issues, but it’s more cost effective to go with a Cummins or Duramax.
I thought the Detroit 92 series was actually quite good after the 92OO and Silver 92 versions came out. Lots of them ended up in fire apparatus.
Good call on the OHC version of the Cologne V6. That timing set sent more Explorers to the junkyard than cash 4 clunkers
I forgot about the Ford Powerstroke V8 diesel’s. Since I won’t ever go near them.
I’m a Ford guy but the 6.0 and 6.4L Powerstroke V8 diesels are a disaster from every angle.
And then you get into the incredibly difficult serviceability of the light truck V8 diesels.
Even the GM V8 Duramax diesel is a disasterous packaging design under the hood.
The Ford and GM diesel HD trucks are now even designed for the cab to be lifted for almost any kind of engine repair.
I must admit the the 6.7L Powerstroke V8 diesel with the reverse flow heads does make for a better package layout under the hood.
The curious thing about the 6.7L Powerstroke, is how many changes Ford has made with that engine since introduced in 2011.
All this made me go to RAM and the simple in-line 6cylinder Cummins.
Hardly perfect trucks but excellent packaging with the cross-flow head, easy to service and repair.
And the Cummins still doesn’t need glowplugs, unlike the Powerstroke and Duramax. Glowplug failure makes for a extremely difficult repair.
A diesel in a light duty truck is an unnecessary money pit. It takes some serious turbo boost to make 400 hp in 6.7 litre engine. In a heavy truck that would be like 18 litres to make 400 hp.
Thank goodness the Ford 6.0 diesel was brought up. I am no fan of the 1st series Duramax either. Fuel systems designed to fail without aftermarket intervention. And not a pleasure to work on either.
The crossflow “Kent” engine. Just because for a simple design, Ford made it so hard to work on. I will concede that part of the problem was the car around them.
I reckon it’s possible to do a BL-only list.
Triumph V8. Constant overheating, with the added bonus of self-destructing if the timing chains stretched. This was a development of the problematic slant-4 used (and sorted) by SAAB. Triumph later developed an inline 6 that was also rubbish.
BMC E-series. Wrong shape, wrong size, wrong displacement, no power, no revs, poor economy. Ruined many an otherwise merely awful BL car in the 70s.
Austin-Rover R-series. A development of the E-series. BL needed a 1.6 engine and found that turning the E-series (1.5 and 1.75) into 1.6 was a sweet spot that solved the performance and economy issues of the E-series. Unfortunately, all the other problems remained and BL fitted some new unreliability. Was swiftly replaced by the S-series, which was designed to leak oil and break down frequently.
BMC C-series. Astonishingly high fuel consumption, considering that it never seemed to actually do anything it should do, like revving, generating power, etc.
Rover K-series. The original 1.1 and 1.4 were reasonable, but the larger 1.6 and 1.8 versions chewed their way through head gaskets as standard. Rover knew what the problem was, but couldn’t be bothered to fix it.
Other European, but non-BL: Ford CVH “coarseness, vibration and harshness”, and that tappety thing they put in SIMCAs and Talbots – was pretty reliable, but sounded as though it was on the verge of failure after about 20,000 miles.
I thought of putting the CVH on my list – but I wasn’t aware of anything terribly wrong with them, although I don’t think they were particularly long lasting.
They were everywhere in Scotland when I was a kid and just listening to them convinced me they were a bag o shite. To be fair to Ford, they fixed K Series equipped Land Rovers while Rover just walked away whistling.
Fortunately, here in Soviet Canuckistan, we never had many BL cars.
1: Northstar. Yes, these still leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Forget the head-bolt issues for a second, they leaked oil badly (I’ve seen Northstar engines get new gaskets and then develop leaks again when I worked at my old dealership job), needing to remove the intake manifold to get to the starter motor, the lack of space for repairs requiring everything to be engine out for major work. There’s a reason these engines tend to be saddled for below 5k Craigslist and FB marketplace “deals”. Yes, by 2005 the kinks were worked out, and in typical GM fashion, it was way too late to undo the damage already done.
HT4100: As bad as the Northstar was, it made good power. How would you like a motor that couldn’t even have that along with it’s own infamous issues? These two were conjoined at the hip twins of failure that I guarantee got a lot of old Cadillac buyers into Lincolns and Lexus’. The only reason I’m not including the V8-6-4 is because it was just hampered by the technology not being up to snuff for the time period and once you disabled it, you still got a 368 that was at least a solid motor.
Oldsmobile Diesel V8: Must I go over what others before me have explained much more eloquently than I ever could?
Ford 3.8: One of the main reasons why the majority of 88-94 Continentals and Windstars are in the junkyard in the sky. It’s not like Ford didn’t have a decent V6, The Vulcan was perfectly serviceable even if it was slow as molasses. True story, at my current job, we had a 96 Thunderbird come in for a trade in with the 3.8 saddled in it. Less than 50k on the odometer and the check engine light was on. Of course, I’m pretty sure it was probably a sensor, but you can’t tell me that’s nothing if not apropos.
BMW S85 V10: Yes, an import engine this time, but if this isn’t the best example of holding true to the stereotype that BMWs made from 2001 onwards become absolute nightmare and headache inducing money pits, I can’t figure out what is. I bet anyone who’s worked on these or owned them could still foam at the mouth in rage if you say the words “Rod Bearings” around them.
These are the ones I say for the worst. There are others that many have mentioned, and are honorable, but I went for the ones that prove that just because things look good on paper, it doesn’t mean they’re good in practice and performance means nothing if it’s not backed up by peace of mind.
Let me put these VW T3 Vanagon and Porsche 911 “water boxer” engines on the table. Having struggled much with leaky tubes, hoses, sealing issues, air in the system and more I am sure I will never own one of these.
I still own a South Africa engine equipped T3 Vanagon: It has got an 2.3 inline five like Audi 5000/100. No cooling issues, no issues at all!
Ford Essex V6 the distributor/oil pump drive will fail without warning and leave you stranded or running the bearings if it doesnt overheat and seize first,
Triumph Stag V8 if they had washed the casting sand out before assembly a lot of overheating would have been prevented if theyd just used the Rover V8 it would have been a good car
O series from BMC underbaked underpowered and unreliable.
Hillman Imp not long enough in the oven at release they got it right eventually but the customers had mostly moved on.
Wolseley 680/Morris six,despite building bevel gear drive OHC engines since the mid teens Wolseleys last effort was a lemon valves burned out often and regularly the very last of them had a fix but it was too late from then on they got a BMC 6,
The Stag V-8 was a solution looking for a problem and Triumph’s own case if NIH.
Wait, I forgot a couple. The early carbed American Turbo engines, the Ford 2.3 in the Mustang and a handful of Fairmonts and the Buick carbed turbo was pretty bad. I read in Car and Driver that with the Mustangs, if the driver was going highway speeds and then suddenly let off the throttle then the mixture went lean and boom the turbo went. Plus, early 80s oils and cooling systems weren’t really up to turbo specifications. I know Chrysler added water cooling to the impeller bearing later but the early ones weren’t very good and carbs couldn’t meter fuel accurately enough for the turbos to work well and they had a lot of drivability problems.
The GM 3.4L DOHC engine was a horrible nightmare to service and was prone to leaks. It was oversized and overcomplicated for the engine bays it was installed in and like trying to cram a gallon into a pint pot. I had it (this phrasing reminds me of saying I had a social disease, but it cleared up) in a 93 Olds Cutlass Convertible. The alternator was mounted UNDERNEATH the engine and had a long complicated and EXPENSIVE procedure to replace, and this was in the days when an alternator was more of a wear item than it is today. I read timing belt failures were also common and it had a complicated and expensive to replace timing belt system.
I forgot about them, too. I drove a Buick Turbo V-6 in a LeSabre coupe and it was a very weird experience. Off idle it was a total slug and then at about 300 RPM, whoopee, which then resulted in spark knock and retarded ignition. They didn’t even have an intercooler!
I am glad that the Olds 350 Diesel is not listed although that engine is usually top of the list. Since I have an Olds Diesel and I repaired the flaws of the engine I’m happy with it. And after all it’s not such a bad engine anymore.
Like tbm3fan, I have not had many experiences with really bad engines. I escaped the Chrysler 2.7 by buying a earlier Dodge Intrepid with the 3.3, prior to the introduction of the 2.7. My Ford Taurus/Mercury Sables had the Vulcan V6, not the Essex 3.8 V6. Slant Sixes, Chrysler 318s. Two Chrysler 440s, a 413 and a 400. No Vegas. No Mini-V8s, no Iron Duke.
But into every life a little rain must fall. I “inherited” a Cadillac Eldorado with the Oldsmobile Diesel V8. It had an aftermarket water separator and I may have been lucky with no injector problems. As long as I kept changing fuel filters at one-fourth the GM-recommended interval, it ran okay (when it started to run rough it was time for another one), though it still left a big cloud behind it whenever accelerated. That finely-styled car aged shamefully (paint, vinyl roof, headliner, and a worn-out front end), but the Olds Diesel was still running when the car was traded toward one of the aforementioned Tauri. It just was never enjoyable to drive.
I’m just going on memory here, but I don’t think the 2.7 had anything in common with the 3.2. IIRC, the 3.2 was a smaller version of the 3.5. The 3.5 was an OHC conversion of the 3.3/3.8 pushrod, which I think was designed by the guy who created the slant six.
I remember early 3.5s having problems, but by the time the second generation LH came out, most of its kinks were worked out. The problem with the 3.2/3.5 engines, was that they put a more of a strain on the transmission, and were more likely to shred it than the 2.7.
That being said, I had a 2000 Intrepid with the 2.7, and it was still running fine at 10 years and 150,000 miles, when it got totaled. I tried to be religious about changing the oil, but admittedly, as it got older, slacked off. I always tried to shoot for every 3,000 miles, but one day I checked my service/repair records, and saw I had slacked off a bit, and it was more like every 4,000. I also learned, from experience, that once it got down to about two quarts, the oil light would come on if you made any sudden movements!
I’ve heard that the 2.7 is sort of like a Pontiac 301, another engine with a bad rap. That basically, you’ll be fine as long as you don’t overheat it, let it run low on oil, go too far between changes, etc. So, admittedly I did slack off a bit, with the change intervals, and letting it get low once or twice.
Another problem with the 2.7 is that it was more complicated than the 3.2/3.5, being DOHC versus SOHC. When the engine did fail, supposedly it was actually cheaper to put a 3.2 or 3.5 in, than a direct replacement 2.7!
1. Chevrolet “Copper Cooled” engines. They were such a problem the factory tried to get rid of not just the motors, but all the cars [Get rid of the evidence?]
2. Cadillac HT4100 V8. I had friends who were senior line mechanics at one of the biggest Cadillac dealerships in the world [Capitol Cadillac of Washington, DC] who jokingly claimed the “Minor service” included camshaft replacement, and the “Major service” included a crankshaft replacement.
3. Triumph Stag V8. A general engineering design fiasco. What mechanical engineer designs a block to head surface with the head studs to be installed at an angle that is not even close to the normal 90 degrees. And to make matters worse, the Alloy heads were held in place with steel head studs. Those 2 dissimilar metals usually resulted in the stud holes filled 100% with corrosion from the electrolysis. [I’ve worked on plenty of Stags, and replaced several Stag V8 engines with TR-6 engines.]
4. Crosley CoBra [the CoBra is short for Copper Braised]. This stamped sheet steel block meant the water cooled passages in the block were unprotected sheet steel panels. It didn’t take long for these engine blocks to begin rusting thru. The CoBra engine was designed as a WW2 US military power source for generators, not expected to last for more than a couple of years. It should never have been used as a motor for an automobile expected to last 5 to 10 years.
5. NSU Wankel engines, single or twin versions. The designs and engineering were cutting edge, but the technology wasn’t quite perfected to the point where warranty issues would not swamp the company. The overwhelming warranty claims meant NSU was absorbed by a larger automotive organization.[I’ve worked on and owned several NSU rotary engine cars.]