Best engines

[mechanicx]

That's my point timing belt equiped engines require more maintenace/repair. If you have to replace the timing belt 2 maybe 3 times over the life of the engine, I don't consider that high reliability, when various timing chain equiped engines like the Ford modular etc often never require valvetrain drive repair. Also just because someone never adjusted the valves doesn't mean the mechanical followers didn't need it.

To give timing belts a pass it's not that far different than giving a plastic intake manifold gasket that needs replacement a pass, or any other essential part made of rubber plastic instead of more durable material. You have to draw the line somewhere to call an engine most reliable. Most reliable should also mean lowest repair/maintenance. I can give distributor ignition parts maintenance a pass for an engine existing while others had reliable DIS, but I draw the line at valetrain drive and having to open the valve covers for valve lash adjustment.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's my point timing belt equiped engines require more maintenace/repair. If you have to replace the timing belt 2 maybe 3 times over the life of the engine, I don't consider that high reliability, when various timing chain equiped engines like the Ford modular etc often never require valvetrain drive repair. Also just because someone never adjusted the valves doesn't mean the mechanical followers didn't need it.

To give timing belts a pass it's not that far different than giving a plastic intake manifold gasket that needs replacement a pass, or any other essential part made of rubber plastic instead of more durable material. You have to draw the line somewhere to call an engine most reliable. Most reliable should also mean lowest repair/maintenance. I can give distributor ignition parts maintenance a pass for an engine existing while others had reliable DIS, but I draw the line at valetrain drive and having to open the valve covers for valve lash adjustment.



Well-put sir.

 

[milwaukee]

Originally Posted By: Mokanic
I could also sit here and list you a dozen engines that came with chain drives that could not last as long as their belt counterparts could. Just because an engine has a "steel chain' makes it far from durable but it certain can (in many cases) cost a great deal more to replace than a belt.Belts by nature reduce engine harmonics as well.

[censored]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where is your list?

 

[milwaukee]

Originally Posted By: Mokanic
Uhh, it's called maintenance items. Though the 4.6 Ford is waayy beter than the old 302 as far as reliabilty it still is a step behind a 1UZ. The 1UZ is literally unbreakable for more miles than you could live to put on it(provided proper maintenance)of course.


When do you share your dope?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: milwaukee
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
Uhh, it's called maintenance items. Though the 4.6 Ford is waayy beter than the old 302 as far as reliabilty it still is a step behind a 1UZ. The 1UZ is literally unbreakable for more miles than you could live to put on it(provided proper maintenance)of course.


When do you share your dope?


BELTS ARE BETTER THAN CHAINS SON!!!!

 

[milwaukee]

AS in...............

Give me a belt of that pole?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: milwaukee
AS in...............

Give me a belt of that pole?


LOL! Crack. It's more than a recreational drug. It's a lifestyle!

 

[milwaukee]

That just makes me laugh you Ford fiend.

 

[S2500Dog]

Best engines in my family:

Hyundai 2.0L Beta II I-4 (my car) Currently at 89,200 miles with original Timing Belt and Accessory Belts.

Isuzu 3.5L Direct Injection V6 (Mom SUV)

Ford 5.4L Triton V8 (Dad Truck)

International 7.3L T444E (Longblock version of the Powerstroke Diesel) for the Tow Truck. (Dad Truck)

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
...I assume you Toyota guys have never driven a Nitrous powered LSx (LS1, LS2, LS3, LS7, LSA, L76, LMG, LM6 and so on and so forth)anywhere and see the lack of maintenance they really require and keep taking a beating. You know Corverttes, F-bodies, GTOs, Trucks, Cars.
You make a pretty bold statement saying the 1UZ is the most reliable V8 ever. I don't see a lot of them (spoken any) getting flogged on the weekends at the track and then making the daily driver rounds. I would like to see what it would do towing my 5th wheel around the Crounty side as compared to my 454 which is after all a V8.

At anyrate

My short list
GM 3800
GM Small Block/Big Block
Ford Small Block/Big Block
MOST Toyota 4 Cyls
MOST Honda 4 Cyls
MOST GM 4.3s
Just about any Manufactures inline 6 has been a good motor


Well, I suppose that by now, it hardly counts, but I actually did own two early 80s Trans Ams with 305s (one was a standard version, the other "high output", 150 and 190 hp respectively). From time to time, I use my neighbor's Chevy pickup which has a 350 (it's an early 90s model).

Trying to decide whether a GM small block is "better" than an xUZ engine is like trying to make the same call between strawberry and chocolate ice cream. As with ice cream, I'd say I love them both, but for different reasons. I don't think that durability is ace that the GM engines hold over the UZs, ultimate low down grunt (torque) probably is. There's a supercharger option for the 1UZ (don't know about one for the 2UZ), and the engines generate virtually no wear metal in their oils (std UOA and particle counts), so I'm satisfied they're durable. Alas, I suspect that the Toyota engineers, coming at the problem from their perspective, put too much emphasis on making the xUZs sing beautiful music at higher rpms, and not enough on stump-pulling torque. But again, since we never towed anything with our Sequoia, that wasn't an issue.

Are the UZs the "most reliable V-8s ever"? I dunno, but I would say they're candidates at least. That said, such an "honor" is really meaningless for the individual owner. As with all engines, if you get a good one, you think it's great. If you're less lucky, well, you know.

 

[ls1mike]

Ekpolk, you are trying to compare engines that went the way the way of the Do Do bird.
I was comparing 1UZ VS the LSx family of engines which is a FAR cry what you had in the 80's or early 90's. The LSx family of engines shares nothing with the old SBCs you are talking about.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Powerglide
A Datsun/Nissan L Series six is considered "broken in" at around 150,000 miles. Very often these motors will run 250,000+ miles and can be LIGHTLY honed, re-ringed and run another 250,000 miles without an overbore. The blocks are HARD. The straight six has virtually no side load wear issues. The RINGS wear. The blocks do not. Can't comment from a UOA prespective though. I never bothered to do it.

On my 76 280Z...the head came off at 150K for a freshening. The cross hatch pattern in the bores was clearly visible---having been done at the factory in 1975. FWIW.


I was gonna suggest the Nissan 4s of the same design, and the Ford OHC engine that was fitted to our escorts and Cortinas, and the Pinto over there.

 

[Silk]

The L series 4 and 6 cyl engines weren't that great to work on though,at least compared to the other Japanese chain drive engines of the period.I always thought it was a bit funny how the top end was almost a copy of Mercedes Benz....depending on which way you processed the negative.I once found one with bronze valve guides and seats,in a 180B...but never saw another like it.

The Ford sohc engines were ok,they slogged on in all conditions...although had cam and follower issues.I could do a cambelt in less than 20 minutes.Once had a customers belt break at the shopping centre at 4.00pm - I towed it in,put on a new belt was walked out the door at 4.30pm.Not many cars these days you can do a cambelt on that quick.

 

[Mokanic]

Originally Posted By: milwaukee
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
I could also sit here and list you a dozen engines that came with chain drives that could not last as long as their belt counterparts could. Just because an engine has a "steel chain' makes it far from durable but it certain can (in many cases) cost a great deal more to replace than a belt.Belts by nature reduce engine harmonics as well.

[censored]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where is your list?

I'll use the 1UZ as my example. It's belt replacement is listed at 90K MILES. Anyone who knows them knows they'll run 150K on a belt with no problem.I've replaced numerous ones that have over 200K on the original belt. Heres a short list of chain driven engines that cosistantly have chain failures at less mileage.
1.KA24 Nissan engine
2.S-10 Chevy trucks with the infamous 4cyl ratller
3.Ford small blocks that came with nylon gears(really smart)
4.Late 22RE engines
5.Infinity Q45 v-8s
6.1.8L Sentra engines
7.4.6Ford's have had issues with chains breaking for no reason
8.5.8 Ford with double row chain(just replaced one with less than 100K on it)
No it's no a dozen but it is enough. I smell the [censored] vs. Detriot thing brewing so I am done.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Ekpolk, you are trying to compare engines that went the way the way of the Do Do bird.
I was comparing 1UZ VS the LSx family of engines which is a FAR cry what you had in the 80's or early 90's. The LSx family of engines shares nothing with the old SBCs you are talking about.


Mike:

I'm aware of the genetics involved; I should have been clearer. That said, I do think there are some -- let's call them "remote general similarities" -- between the old small blocks I'm talking about and modern LSx engines. In my mind, anyway, those would be the pushrod architecture and their ability to generate massive low-rpm torque. And, I would add, those happen to be prominent "signature" features of both old and new GM V-8s. Notice also that I'm not one of those who mindlessly condemns pushrod designs. Both pushrod and OHC designs have their advantages over the other. It is a tad ironic, IMO, that one of the biggest relative advantages of a pushrod engine is its more compact external size (not of course needing to house all that overhead hardware), and yet, they're most commonly used in the vehicles that need this advantage the least (pickups and large SUVs). Of course, as we all know, compact, tightly packages LSs (and their ancestors) are what have made so many 'vettes, Camaros, and Firebirds the great cars that they are.

I suppose in the end, it is unfair and unrealistic to compare modern LSx V-8s to their ancient forebears. While it's less unrealistic (and certainly fair), comparing the GM V-8s to the UZ (and newer UR) engines is also problematic. Toyota is definitely the new kid on this block (poor quasi-pun there...). GM on one hand, and almost everyone else on the other (no judgment either intended there), offer different answers to the big engine question. GM has done a superb job matching their V-8s to the uses for which they are intended. Consider your own towing experience (albeit with a 454). Toyota is finally getting it. As I noted, I seriously doubt that the 4.7L 2UZ would do well with challenging towing. The "new" 5.7L UR series engine probably addresses that (I have not driven one).

At the end of the day, I think we come back to the Baskin-Robbins problem: chocolate or strawberry? Both delicious, and both trying to solve the same "problem" (how to get fat in a hurry?), but very different from one another.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Not the 305 is not oversquare enough myth again

. The 305 was never intended to be a high revving performance engine and didn't get much development towards that. But when it did get some in F-Bodys it made as much HP as the 302s of the era. Besides lots of stock engines are as near undersquare or more and many people stroke 350's. I think criticising the 305 because it is not the highest performance design is unfair in regard to being a good stock passenger car engine.

If you re-read what I wrote, I stated that it was an incredibly long-lasting engine (contrary to what ARCO posted). But it was never a good performance engine. And when fitted to the F-body, I do believe "performance" was the intended result. Something the 350 had no issue delivering on because of the 4" bore, which allowed for large-valve, heavy breathing heads. Something the 302 also benefited from.

We've hashed this over before. In GREAT detail. Stock for stock, the 305 wasn't much "worse" than the 302. In that sense you are correct. But I don't remember the last time I saw a stock Mustang OR Camaro from that era, and you sure as heck couldn't do the same "usual" modifications to the 305 that you could to the 302 or 350, which consisted of heads/cam/intake because the large valve heads don't fit on a 305!

I didn't state it was a bad engine. But I also don't think it had a "good" bore and stroke for a pushrod engine that was fitted to a performance car, nor do I think it was a "grenade" as ARCO put it, since I have seen PILES of them, abused like no other, still running, in spite of the owner's apparent efforts to kill them.

When I post about GM, it isn't always negative. This is in spite of your natural inclination to think so due to you riding the bowtie and myself surfing the blue oval.
The grenade comment was for those who were seeking more performance(300+HP) than the lightweight block and rods could handle. My other comments about it being a "good" engine were in its intended stock pass car config. It made good low end torque - this is what a 3700 lb car full of people and luggage need. I never built a 305 though I've built tens of other small block configurations along with internally balanced BB (I refused to touch the 454 pigs).

 

[L_Sludger]

The UR motor is sadly not well-built as the UZ. It has a timing chain but also suffers from valve spring issues, open deck design, and some issues with broken camshafts. The rods are pencil-thin and won't hold up to forced induction.

By the way, there was no supercharger option for the 1UZ-FE. I rigged a Vortech intended for a Mustang GT onto my car.

The 2UZ-FE had the option of a low-boost TRD twin-screw supercharger.

I don't understand the hate for the UZ motor by the Ford fans, but it doesn't make me lose any sleep at night. All I know is that it's a fine motor that some people are even choosing to swap into Ford F-250s to do hauling.

 

[mechanicx]

Some of the reasons GM stuck with the pushrods for the LSx V8 besides the fact it was proven reliable over many decades is they claimed lighter weight (and higher power-to-weight), lower friction and high efficiency, less parts and complexity and lower cost. Now a smaller displacement VVT tricked out V6 or V8 could probably match a bigger pushrod V8 on some of those fronts, but not with torque and lower complexity/cost. Some of the LSx make more HP/L than even 4-valve engines like the 1UZ.

 

[Rickey]

I will give a call to the ancient 307 Chevy.
(hope this statement doesn't make any one feel older than they are)

I had one in a '69 Camaro, and a '70 Malibu both with power-glides behind them.
As my dad used to say "not enough power to blow up"

Indestructible; even for a teen (I tried believe me).

Of course this only applies if the engine contained adequate quantities of coolant and lubricant.

Sadly these engines lacked considerably in the performance department. Probably saved my life once or twice.

Rickey.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's my point timing belt equiped engines require more maintenace/repair. If you have to replace the timing belt 2 maybe 3 times over the life of the engine, I don't consider that high reliability, when various timing chain equiped engines like the Ford modular etc often never require valvetrain drive repair. Also just because someone never adjusted the valves doesn't mean the mechanical followers didn't need it.


Both systems have their pros and cons. Chain drives are only superior if they never need service. Nearly all timing belts are less expensive and easier to replace than a timing chain. On a number of Nissan engines, timing chain issues are not uncommon and I would much rather replace a timing belt than a timing chain on a Nissan V6.