sorry i can't spell we due need an edit button
Ward's 10 Best Engines for 2007 at a glance
- Thread starter Colt
- Start date
- Status
Kestas
Staff member
"Best" is a nebulous term. The "best" engine would possess the following qualities:
- most horsepower per pound
- burn the least fuel per HP-pound
- produce the fewest noxious emissions
- cheapest to produce
- need fewest repairs during its life
- easiest to repair
- smallest archetecture to fit under the hood
- most recyclable
Did I leave anything out? I don't even read Ward's best engine list anymore because not all important factors are taken into consideration. "Best" for one person may not be "best" for another. It depends on what you're looking for in an engine.
- most horsepower per pound
- burn the least fuel per HP-pound
- produce the fewest noxious emissions
- cheapest to produce
- need fewest repairs during its life
- easiest to repair
- smallest archetecture to fit under the hood
- most recyclable
Did I leave anything out? I don't even read Ward's best engine list anymore because not all important factors are taken into consideration. "Best" for one person may not be "best" for another. It depends on what you're looking for in an engine.
There are two things worth doing when looking at this list .
1 ) Starting with the first year ,( 95 - 96? ) read all the commentary around the list - including the material about the decision making process , each winner , and in the years available , the also rans .
2 ) Look back at all the old winners and compare those listings to their performance in the field , ie over their lifetime to date .
Do both , and amongst other things , you will notice that the Nissan VQ V6 series is the hands down champ if you include the view from both angles .
If you are a toyottite , you will also notice that its a darn good thing they don't have a " where are they now " feature in general , and specifically for basically all the very few toyota engines that even made the list to start with .
Now here is what is even more fascinating and revealing when considered with the above in mind .
Nissan was well into their meltdown when they designed and introduced the VQ - much more so than most people knew at the time , given the creative Japanese accounting methods of the day .
On the same note , it is also worth remembering toyotas sales and financial success during this period and after , when they intoduced so many no shows for the list and the two " troubled "
V6 designs that even made the list to start .
To give you an idea on the differences between the two companies position , when Nissan was finally rescued by Renault , published reports put Nissan somewhere in the red to the tune of 35 - 50 Billion while toyotas cash reserves where being reported as 50 - 50 + Billion in the black .
Much of this difference was in place at the time of the VQ intro , which makes the engineering discrepencies between Nissan's outstanding accomplishment and toyotas DNF status with virtually every single V6 engine design to date , all the more inexcuseable .
And that sad to say , can only be explained by some combination of very , very , surprising conclusions . In light of their previous record its way too early to tell whether or not the new V6 on the current list is going to break with tradition or not .
This undoubtedly is one reason why the factory/dealer toyottites ( similiar to Hittites - both pronounciation and methods ) put this list down . Notice as usual they can't stay on topic if their life depended on it and at this point , I kinda wonder if for some a paycheck might depend on them doing just that .
Generally speaking , if you look around , they do much the same for racing for pretty much the same reason - DNF .
Heck , when you really look at that , many times they can't even make it thru time trails due to , yep ,engine failure , which if you are an engine guy is always a bad sign . :grin :
1 ) Starting with the first year ,( 95 - 96? ) read all the commentary around the list - including the material about the decision making process , each winner , and in the years available , the also rans .
2 ) Look back at all the old winners and compare those listings to their performance in the field , ie over their lifetime to date .
Do both , and amongst other things , you will notice that the Nissan VQ V6 series is the hands down champ if you include the view from both angles .
If you are a toyottite , you will also notice that its a darn good thing they don't have a " where are they now " feature in general , and specifically for basically all the very few toyota engines that even made the list to start with .
Now here is what is even more fascinating and revealing when considered with the above in mind .
Nissan was well into their meltdown when they designed and introduced the VQ - much more so than most people knew at the time , given the creative Japanese accounting methods of the day .
On the same note , it is also worth remembering toyotas sales and financial success during this period and after , when they intoduced so many no shows for the list and the two " troubled "
To give you an idea on the differences between the two companies position , when Nissan was finally rescued by Renault , published reports put Nissan somewhere in the red to the tune of 35 - 50 Billion while toyotas cash reserves where being reported as 50 - 50 + Billion in the black .
Much of this difference was in place at the time of the VQ intro , which makes the engineering discrepencies between Nissan's outstanding accomplishment and toyotas DNF status with virtually every single V6 engine design to date , all the more inexcuseable .
And that sad to say , can only be explained by some combination of very , very , surprising conclusions . In light of their previous record its way too early to tell whether or not the new V6 on the current list is going to break with tradition or not .
This undoubtedly is one reason why the factory/dealer toyottites ( similiar to Hittites - both pronounciation and methods ) put this list down . Notice as usual they can't stay on topic if their life depended on it and at this point , I kinda wonder if for some a paycheck might depend on them doing just that .
Generally speaking , if you look around , they do much the same for racing for pretty much the same reason - DNF .
Heck , when you really look at that , many times they can't even make it thru time trails due to , yep ,engine failure , which if you are an engine guy is always a bad sign . :grin :
Actually what it turned into awhile ago , is toyota uberalles vs the rest .
1) Look carefully all around . Look again .
2) Go back to the beginning of some posters start here , look forward at all their postings - pretty easy to see the pattern .
---2A.)There are at least three you can correctly identify and describe as having always misstated information favorable to toyota , and always misstated information unfavorable to GM and usually the same in regards to toyotas other major competitors . That doesn't happen by accident . To be fair , notice all the rest as well .
Keep in mind when you read that and what follows , that I spent at least 80% of my automotive working career going against GMs business interests in one form or another , and 95% of my racing/car stuff the same . About 70% of that 80% was related to an Asian HQed company of one type or another , including business interests tied into toyota , and the rest equally split with European/other domestic interests . I have never worked directly for an OEM .
Anything even remotely affliated with GM was completed by 1985 .
I left the industry as a whole , pretty much by mid 1999 to pursue completely unrelated business interests , and then entered a comfortable retirement stage that is at this point is wearing a little thin .
Also relevant ,I seriously doubt anyone here over the last 45 years would have taken GM to the woodshed any more vigorously than I would have .(Don't you toyottites try and jump on that - I would have dismantled toyota right after the war , or by 198x at the latest , probably on criminal grounds and for being just as destructive to the JDM as constructive esp. in regards to Honda - so sitdown ). These woodshed visits would have been done at arms lenght , without a whole lot of love and would have been based on their leadership role and size ; I'm largely an old Mopar guy on the domestic front . My first automobile that was truly my own was a 1962 Jaguar Mk2 3.8L .
Also perhaps relevant , one way or the other , there has always been an import car of some sort in the driveway or garage since the 1950s .
I compare the GM VS toyota thing , and " toyotitis " in general , to a diner .
Mr GM walks in , recently shaven , sits down quietly , says hello , and can't get a cup of coffee with two new twenties showing .
Mr toyoda walks in , clearly in need of the bathroom , possibly the hospital , disrupts the diner in more ways than one , has some suspicious bulges in his trousers that just won"t go away no matter how he squirms and gets the blue plate special handed to him for free . Later , Mr. Toyoda leaves , leaving no tip , and when confronted , claims Mr. GM must have taken it .
Before that happens though Ford , Chyrsler AND Honda/Nissan get B****slapped and alternately patted on the back as needed by the same Diner . Then GM is asked to leave the Diner . Go figure .
Hopefully , that idea circulating on the Internet that blogs and bloggers should have to declare their affiliations and financial backers will come to pass , then all enthusiasts of all makes including the many , many good and decent toyota people , both owners and enthusiasts alike , will be able to get together in accurate and constructive dialogue and have fun doing it -- including here . I lurked here , since sometime from the beginning and for a variety of reasons , only started participating last year , although I think I may have posted in 02 , I was that excited when Bob got this thing off the ground . I remember those days fondly ,and very much appreciate the vast majority of the boards senior members still participating , including a few who might think the opposite , although I'm not naive when I say all that .
On that note , allow me to say unequivocally none of the above is directed at the forum ownership , the moderators/administration , or any of the people who own toyotas or are legitimate toyota enthusiasts .
It is very specifically aimed at the Spin drs who use this place , and use it poorly to promote their agenda , at the expense of everyone else , including in truly reprehensible fashion , their own people and brand owners . I have followed decorum and not named you , but you know who you are and as the toyota saga continues your purpose has become very clear .
Exactly.For some reason people think that Ford dont put out good engines.
While their engines are less powerful than say GM engines,they are smoother,and more durable.
Ever seen the kind of milage taxi drivers put on the cabs?its unreal.
I own 3 Fords a Taurus with a Vulcan V6 that runs great at 120K and does not burn or leak a drop.
A ranger with a 4.0 OHV that has been abused off road for the last 10 years.While the intake does leak oil,it runs great.
An F150 with a 5.4 with 50K Runs like a champ,and not a drop.
My mom has 2 explorers,one with 130K runs great and one with 37K.Both have SOHCs.
brother has a bronco with a 5.8.
Again,runs great at 200K(I did have to replace the timing cover gasket recently)
sister in law has an expedition with 150K.Has not had one single problem engine wise.
Ive owned Ford for many years,and had never had to replace,or rebuild not one engine.
my nehibor owns chevys.Oh boy.seems like hes always working on them,plus hes had to replace the engine in his tahoe that had 110K.
While toyota makes great engines,theres other companies that make great engines too.
i know my family has owned a lot of Fords' we LOVE them 93t-bird 250k 2escorts 225k, and a 90' conversion vans #@$%! only knows how many miles when we sold it , it had 200k and i still see it around town, that was over 4yrs ago! In defense to the GM comment i myself have a grand prix with the 3800, and wow what a great engine, can't speak for the rest of GM cars thou
As Kestas suggest above, doesn’t this all come down to how one personally defines “best”? I’ve owned or own two of the listed engines (a VQ35 in a previous car, and the Toyota 3.5, we have the Avalon version), and I really like both designs. But others may just as well find that those engine don’t meet their needs or just don’t tickle their fancy.
How about a list of the Ten Best Ice Cream Flavors? If this year we leave strawberry off the list, all the strawberry diehards will be howling (right along side the small black raspberry contingent who complain every year that they have been left out). Of course, the smug and arrogant chocolate fans are always there, touting their superiority since their flavor makes the list every year. And then there’s the tiny handful of rabid pistachio freaks, always left out, and always raving about how ignorant the rest of us are. Sound familiar (or just crazy)?
At best, such lists are, to me, nothing more than barely interesting discussion points. I’ll pick my cars and engines based upon what I want and need, and I will give very little weight, if any, to whether or not the engine or car I want is included in someone else’s list of best (or worst).
How about a list of the Ten Best Ice Cream Flavors? If this year we leave strawberry off the list, all the strawberry diehards will be howling (right along side the small black raspberry contingent who complain every year that they have been left out). Of course, the smug and arrogant chocolate fans are always there, touting their superiority since their flavor makes the list every year. And then there’s the tiny handful of rabid pistachio freaks, always left out, and always raving about how ignorant the rest of us are. Sound familiar (or just crazy)?
At best, such lists are, to me, nothing more than barely interesting discussion points. I’ll pick my cars and engines based upon what I want and need, and I will give very little weight, if any, to whether or not the engine or car I want is included in someone else’s list of best (or worst).
People are speaking of the 35 Duratec engine as if it is very impressive, in what context I know not. The context that matters to me is in the context of all automotive gasoline engines ever made with both fuel economy, accleration and horsepower being the performance metrics. In that Spirit, I asked whether or not the 35 Duratec would be impressive in terms of fuel economy when compared to engines of a similar class that deliever similar performance in vehicles of a similar (i.e. almost identical weight). The comparsion of the Toyota Avalon to the Lincoln MKZ was the natural choice to procure the appropriate parameters, as the Toyota Avalon has a similar weight (60 pounds less) to the Lincoln MKZ, the Toyota Avalon has similar horse power (5 more horse power) to the Lincoln MKZ and the Toyota Avalon has similar acceleration (0.1 seconds faster) to the Lincoln MKZ.
I do not know if you are either a Ford fan blindly praising Ford or someone geniunely concerned with the fairness of the comparsion, but anyone who is concerned with the fairness of a comparsion of two engines, should be satisfied upon seeing that parameters not being compared are similiar. Now that I have demonstrated the similiarity of the parameters not in consideration, if you are geniunely concerned with the fairness of the comparsion, you should be satifised.
jeep4.0... toyota's 3.5 in the '07 camry does NOT reqire premium gas as you claimed. In the IS350 it does.
I'm excited about Mercedes's bluetec diesel. I read about some amazing durablity record it set.
I'm excited about Mercedes's bluetec diesel. I read about some amazing durablity record it set.
The Duratec, when it was introduced in 1994 was a Ward's 10 Best Engine, and made the list again in SVT form.
Ford certainly didn't keep up with that engine in the same way that Nissan did with the VQ V6.
There is no reason Ford could not have remained on that list with the 2.5L or 3.0L Duratec. I think it speaks volumes that it took so long for the 3.5L Duratec to appear when many of Ford's competitors had already surpassed the 2.5L and 3.0L Duratec.
Ford certainly didn't keep up with that engine in the same way that Nissan did with the VQ V6.
There is no reason Ford could not have remained on that list with the 2.5L or 3.0L Duratec. I think it speaks volumes that it took so long for the 3.5L Duratec to appear when many of Ford's competitors had already surpassed the 2.5L and 3.0L Duratec.
I think it speaks volumes that if it didn't come with 4WD, the local Ford dealer neither wants to work on it nor do they stock parts for it. I had to special-order a PCV valve for the Contour from them way back when. And, of course, they outright refused to do the wiring harness repair on my 1996 Ford Contour, so I had to go to another dealer who did do that replacement under warranty.
As far as premium gas, my 2006 Saab 93 is turbocharged and the manual recommends 87 octane as a minimum and 91 octane for best performance. I've tested both 89 and 87 octane and I have noticed no difference, so I use 87 octane. It is possible that when summer comes around 87 octane won't work as well.
As far as premium gas, my 2006 Saab 93 is turbocharged and the manual recommends 87 octane as a minimum and 91 octane for best performance. I've tested both 89 and 87 octane and I have noticed no difference, so I use 87 octane. It is possible that when summer comes around 87 octane won't work as well.
Sir,
I think you are correct. How can anyone know what the best engine is until they have been used for a while? There are some engines, which we all know of, that are great on paper, but fall down in practice. Empirical results beat theory every time.
I think you are correct. How can anyone know what the best engine is until they have been used for a while? There are some engines, which we all know of, that are great on paper, but fall down in practice. Empirical results beat theory every time.
lS2>4.6
The best engine is the one that keeps me away from the mechanic the longest
Ward's 10 Best Engines 2007
By Bill Visnic
Ward's AutoWorld, Jan 1, 2007 12:00 PM
The 13th year of the Ward's 10 Best Engines competition finds the auto industry and its powertrain sector in acute transition entering 2007..............................
................................. All of this affects powertrain development, of course, and 2007's 10 Best Engines award winners already reflect a changing environment.
Past 10 Best Engines lists have been dominated by large-displacement engines. Half of this year's winners displace 3L or less, and only two are larger than 3.5L. Four of the 10 winners use forced induction.
In accordance with the average lower displacement of winning engines comes a broad trend toward increased fitment of efficiency-enhancing technology in addition to forced induction, such as direct-injection gasoline (DIG) fueling, cylinder deactivation and more sophisticated variants of variable valve timing.
The landscape of powertrain development may be transforming, but rules governing the competition have not .
Nominated engines - 31 (should read 33 ) this year must be available in series-production, U.S.-specification vehicles that go on sale no later than the first quarter of 2007.
To ensure the 10 Best Engines winners reflect mainstream sensibilities and relevance to the broad industry, eligible engines must be available in vehicles with a base price of no more than $54,000. Ward's believes engines in more expensive and exotic vehicles should, by nature, be superior examples of powertrain engineering.
This year's price ceiling reflects a slight increase over the competition's $52,500 price limit that had been in effect for several years. The amount is indexed to the average price of a new vehicle.
Winning engines from 2006 are automatically nominated for this year's competition unless the engine no longer is available in a vehicle costing less than $54,000.
The head-to-head format generates a list of true winners, with no artificially constructed segments or sub-categories to diminish the results. All nominated engines must compete against all others.
During an approximately 2-month period in fall 2006, a panel of six Ward's editors evaluated each engine using a variety of objective and subjective measures. There is no instrumented testing. Editors evaluate each engine during their daily driving routines.
There is a variety of engine layouts, sizes and power ranges represented by 2007's 10 Best Engines winners.
Heavily influencing judges' voting are an engine's fuel economy; noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) attributes; technical innovation; and power and performance — particularly specific output, or the power generated in relation to the engine's size.........................
By Bill Visnic
Ward's AutoWorld, Jan 1, 2007 12:00 PM
The 13th year of the Ward's 10 Best Engines competition finds the auto industry and its powertrain sector in acute transition entering 2007..............................
................................. All of this affects powertrain development, of course, and 2007's 10 Best Engines award winners already reflect a changing environment.
Past 10 Best Engines lists have been dominated by large-displacement engines. Half of this year's winners displace 3L or less, and only two are larger than 3.5L. Four of the 10 winners use forced induction.
In accordance with the average lower displacement of winning engines comes a broad trend toward increased fitment of efficiency-enhancing technology in addition to forced induction, such as direct-injection gasoline (DIG) fueling, cylinder deactivation and more sophisticated variants of variable valve timing.
The landscape of powertrain development may be transforming, but rules governing the competition have not .
Nominated engines - 31 (should read 33 ) this year must be available in series-production, U.S.-specification vehicles that go on sale no later than the first quarter of 2007.
To ensure the 10 Best Engines winners reflect mainstream sensibilities and relevance to the broad industry, eligible engines must be available in vehicles with a base price of no more than $54,000. Ward's believes engines in more expensive and exotic vehicles should, by nature, be superior examples of powertrain engineering.
This year's price ceiling reflects a slight increase over the competition's $52,500 price limit that had been in effect for several years. The amount is indexed to the average price of a new vehicle.
Winning engines from 2006 are automatically nominated for this year's competition unless the engine no longer is available in a vehicle costing less than $54,000.
The head-to-head format generates a list of true winners, with no artificially constructed segments or sub-categories to diminish the results. All nominated engines must compete against all others.
During an approximately 2-month period in fall 2006, a panel of six Ward's editors evaluated each engine using a variety of objective and subjective measures. There is no instrumented testing. Editors evaluate each engine during their daily driving routines.
There is a variety of engine layouts, sizes and power ranges represented by 2007's 10 Best Engines winners.
Heavily influencing judges' voting are an engine's fuel economy; noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) attributes; technical innovation; and power and performance — particularly specific output, or the power generated in relation to the engine's size.........................
Last edited:
Yep .
Ward's 10 Best Engines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ward's 10 Best Engines is an annual list of the ten "best" automobile engines selected by Ward's AutoWorld magazine. The list was started in 1994 and has been drawn every year since then..................................
............................................The Nissan VQ engine is the only engine to have been present on the list every year since the competition’s inception in 1995.
Maker Country Displacement Type Engine
2007
Audi 2.0 L I4 FSI turbocharged DOHC
BMW 3.0 L I6 N52B30
BMW 3.0 L I6 N54B30
DaimlerChrysler / 5.7 L V8 Hemi Magnum
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular
DaimlerChrysler / 3.0 L V6 Bluetec Turbodiesel
Ford 3.5 L V6 Duratec 35
Mazda 2.3 L I4 DISI turbocharged DOHC
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Toyota 3.5 L V6 2GR-FSE
2006
Audi 2 L I4 FSI turbocharged DOHC
Audi 4.2 L V8 DOHC
BMW 3.0 L I6 Model N52B30 Naturally Aspirated, magnesium-aluminium block, Double-VANOS, Valvetronic
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi Magnum
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular SOHC
General Motors 2 L I4 Ecotec LSJ supercharged DOHC
General Motors 2.8 L V6 High-Feature turbocharged DOHC
Mazda 2.3 L I4 MZR DISI turbocharged DOHC
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Toyota 3.5 L V6 DOHC 2GR-FSE
2005
Audi 4.2 L V8 DOHC
Audi 3.2 L V6 DOHC FSI
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L I6 DOHC CDI Turbodiesel
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular SOHC
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda/Acura 3.5 L V6 J35
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30 IMA Hybrid
Mazda 1.3 L Wankel engine RENESIS
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
2004
Audi 4.2 L V8 DOHC
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi
DaimlerChrysler / 5.9 L I6 Cummins turbodiesel
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30
Mazda 1.3 L Wankel engine RENESIS
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Subaru 2.5 L H4 STi
Toyota 1.5 L I4 1NZ-FXE Hybrid Synergy Drive
2003
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi
Ford 6.0 L V8 Power Stroke turbodiesel
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda 2.0 L I4 K20
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30
BMW MINI 1.6 L I4 supercharged
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo
2002 [4]
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
Chrysler 5.0 L V8 SOHC
Ford 5.4 L V8 Modular SOHC
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
General Motors 6.6 L V8 Duramax
Honda 2.0 L I4 K20
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Porsche 2.7 L Flat-6 DOHC
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo
2001 [5]
Audi 1.8 L I4 5-valve turbo
Audi 2.7 L V6 twin-turbo
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
DaimlerChrysler / 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 6.6 L V8 Duramax
Honda 2.0 L I4 F20C
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Porsche 2.7 L Flat-6 DOHC (Used in Boxster models)
Toyota 1.5 L I4 1NZ-FXE Toyota Hybrid System
2000
Audi 2.7 L V6 twin turbo
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC
DaimlerChrysler / 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Ford 3.9 L V8 AJ-V8
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 3.5 L V6 DOHC LX5
Honda 2.0 L I4 F20C
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Porsche 3.2 L Flat-6 DOHC
Toyota 4.0 L V8 1UZ-FE DOHC
1999
ALFA 2.0 L T-SPARK TWIN-CAM 16V
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC
General Motors 3.5 L V6 DOHC LX5
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
General Motors 5.7 L V8 LS1
1998
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC
BMW 2.5 L I6 M52
Ford 2.5 L V6 Duratec SVT
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 5.7 L V8 LS1
Mazda 2.3 L V6 KJ-ZEM
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Toyota 4.0 L V8 1UZ-FE DOHC
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo
1997
Audi 1.8 L I4 1.8T, DOHC 5-valve turbo
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 3.8 L V6 3800 Series II
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Mazda 2.3 L V6 Supercharged Miller Cycle
Volkswagen 1.9 L I4 TDI
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC Double-Vanos
BMW 4.4 L V8 DOHC
Ford 4.6 L V8 DOHC
Cadillac 4.6 L V8 Northstar, DOHC
1996
BMW 740IL 4.0 L V8 Quad-Cam 32V M60
BMW 2.8 L I6 M52
Ford 2.5 L V6 Duratec 25
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular DOHC
General Motors 3.8 L V6 3800 Series II
General Motors 4.6 L V8 Northstar
Honda 2.2 L I4 F22
Mazda 2.3 L V6 KJ-ZEM
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Saab 2.3 L I4 LPT B234
Toyota 3.0 L V6 1MZ-FE DOHC
1995
BMW 740IL 4.0 L V8 Quad-Cam 32V M60
BMW 2.8 L I6 M52
Ford 2.5 L V6 Duratec 25
General Motors 3.8 L V6 3800 Series II
General Motors 4.6 L V8 Northstar
Honda 2.2 L I4 F22
Mazda 2.3 L V6 KJ-ZEM
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Saab 2.3 L I4 LPT B234
Volkswagen 2.8 L V6 VR6 ...............................
...........................................................
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward%27s_10_Best_Engines"
Category: Automobile awards......................
This page was last modified 18:23, 31 January 2007.
Ward's 10 Best Engines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ward's 10 Best Engines is an annual list of the ten "best" automobile engines selected by Ward's AutoWorld magazine. The list was started in 1994 and has been drawn every year since then..................................
............................................The Nissan VQ engine is the only engine to have been present on the list every year since the competition’s inception in 1995.
Maker Country Displacement Type Engine
2007
Audi 2.0 L I4 FSI turbocharged DOHC
BMW 3.0 L I6 N52B30
BMW 3.0 L I6 N54B30
DaimlerChrysler / 5.7 L V8 Hemi Magnum
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular
DaimlerChrysler / 3.0 L V6 Bluetec Turbodiesel
Ford 3.5 L V6 Duratec 35
Mazda 2.3 L I4 DISI turbocharged DOHC
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Toyota 3.5 L V6 2GR-FSE
2006
Audi 2 L I4 FSI turbocharged DOHC
Audi 4.2 L V8 DOHC
BMW 3.0 L I6 Model N52B30 Naturally Aspirated, magnesium-aluminium block, Double-VANOS, Valvetronic
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi Magnum
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular SOHC
General Motors 2 L I4 Ecotec LSJ supercharged DOHC
General Motors 2.8 L V6 High-Feature turbocharged DOHC
Mazda 2.3 L I4 MZR DISI turbocharged DOHC
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Toyota 3.5 L V6 DOHC 2GR-FSE
2005
Audi 4.2 L V8 DOHC
Audi 3.2 L V6 DOHC FSI
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L I6 DOHC CDI Turbodiesel
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular SOHC
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda/Acura 3.5 L V6 J35
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30 IMA Hybrid
Mazda 1.3 L Wankel engine RENESIS
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
2004
Audi 4.2 L V8 DOHC
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi
DaimlerChrysler / 5.9 L I6 Cummins turbodiesel
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30
Mazda 1.3 L Wankel engine RENESIS
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Subaru 2.5 L H4 STi
Toyota 1.5 L I4 1NZ-FXE Hybrid Synergy Drive
2003
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi
Ford 6.0 L V8 Power Stroke turbodiesel
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda 2.0 L I4 K20
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30
BMW MINI 1.6 L I4 supercharged
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo
2002 [4]
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
Chrysler 5.0 L V8 SOHC
Ford 5.4 L V8 Modular SOHC
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
General Motors 6.6 L V8 Duramax
Honda 2.0 L I4 K20
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Porsche 2.7 L Flat-6 DOHC
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo
2001 [5]
Audi 1.8 L I4 5-valve turbo
Audi 2.7 L V6 twin-turbo
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
DaimlerChrysler / 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 6.6 L V8 Duramax
Honda 2.0 L I4 F20C
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Porsche 2.7 L Flat-6 DOHC (Used in Boxster models)
Toyota 1.5 L I4 1NZ-FXE Toyota Hybrid System
2000
Audi 2.7 L V6 twin turbo
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC
DaimlerChrysler / 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Ford 3.9 L V8 AJ-V8
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 3.5 L V6 DOHC LX5
Honda 2.0 L I4 F20C
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Porsche 3.2 L Flat-6 DOHC
Toyota 4.0 L V8 1UZ-FE DOHC
1999
ALFA 2.0 L T-SPARK TWIN-CAM 16V
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC
General Motors 3.5 L V6 DOHC LX5
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
General Motors 5.7 L V8 LS1
1998
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC
BMW 2.5 L I6 M52
Ford 2.5 L V6 Duratec SVT
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 5.7 L V8 LS1
Mazda 2.3 L V6 KJ-ZEM
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Toyota 4.0 L V8 1UZ-FE DOHC
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo
1997
Audi 1.8 L I4 1.8T, DOHC 5-valve turbo
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 3.8 L V6 3800 Series II
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Mazda 2.3 L V6 Supercharged Miller Cycle
Volkswagen 1.9 L I4 TDI
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC Double-Vanos
BMW 4.4 L V8 DOHC
Ford 4.6 L V8 DOHC
Cadillac 4.6 L V8 Northstar, DOHC
1996
BMW 740IL 4.0 L V8 Quad-Cam 32V M60
BMW 2.8 L I6 M52
Ford 2.5 L V6 Duratec 25
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular DOHC
General Motors 3.8 L V6 3800 Series II
General Motors 4.6 L V8 Northstar
Honda 2.2 L I4 F22
Mazda 2.3 L V6 KJ-ZEM
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Saab 2.3 L I4 LPT B234
Toyota 3.0 L V6 1MZ-FE DOHC
1995
BMW 740IL 4.0 L V8 Quad-Cam 32V M60
BMW 2.8 L I6 M52
Ford 2.5 L V6 Duratec 25
General Motors 3.8 L V6 3800 Series II
General Motors 4.6 L V8 Northstar
Honda 2.2 L I4 F22
Mazda 2.3 L V6 KJ-ZEM
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Saab 2.3 L I4 LPT B234
Volkswagen 2.8 L V6 VR6 ...............................
...........................................................
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward%27s_10_Best_Engines"
Category: Automobile awards......................
This page was last modified 18:23, 31 January 2007.
Runner up #1 ;
AUDI
4.2L DOHC V-8 (S4)
340 hp/302 lb.-ft.
For: Sinful sounds, intoxicating torque.
Against: Hard on gas. Real hard.
Our take: Like marrying a stripper
To see more on the 23 nominee/runner ups and short takes on the 10 nominee/winners for comparison purposes ( 2007 ) ;
http://wardsauto.com/reports/2007/tenbest/intro/best_engines_nominees/
AUDI
4.2L DOHC V-8 (S4)
340 hp/302 lb.-ft.
For: Sinful sounds, intoxicating torque.
Against: Hard on gas. Real hard.
Our take: Like marrying a stripper
To see more on the 23 nominee/runner ups and short takes on the 10 nominee/winners for comparison purposes ( 2007 ) ;
http://wardsauto.com/reports/2007/tenbest/intro/best_engines_nominees/
Last edited:
For the FORD guys , looks pretty good to me first year out ; reminds me of how the VQ was born . ( See previous post ) This is excerpted from bottom link .
..........................................................
..........................................................
-- Ford Motor Co.: DURATEC 35 3.5L DOHC V-6
It wasn't a secret Ford Motor Co. had some catching-up to do in the matter of high-volume V-6s.
It's longstanding Duratec 3L DOHC unit traces its development lineage to the early 1990s, and its 4L SOHC V-6 built in Cologne, Germany, is equally aged and off the pace.
Compounding the problem, the competition has become fierce. There are mainstream and premium DOHC V-6s in more market segments than we care to count, and in the ongoing quest for torque, most have converged at 3.5L of displacement.
Until now, Ford just didn't play there.
With the all-new Duratec 35, Ford sticks with the established Duratec name — the engine was known internally as Cyclone — but it owes nothing else to the previous Duratec architecture, Tom McCarthy, Ford manager-V-6 engine programs, says.
McCarthy and Bob Fascetti, director-powertrain programs, say development goals were premium performance and drivability, improved fuel economy and decreased emissions.
The Duratec 35 wins its first 10 Best Engines award largely for the versatility those goals suggest: The engine is thrusty and refined and demonstrates decent fuel-economy.
The Duratec 35 is particularly delightful in the mid-range, where it revs viciously with even light throttle applications. In fact, revving all over the place is one of this new engine's strong suits.
“I've never seen a tach needle jump from 1,500 to 5,000 rpm quite like this,” says Senior Editor Tom Murphy. Often, larger-displacement V-6s can be slow to rev with gusto, but the Duratec 35 delivers some of the crispest throttle response we can recall.
Our guess: Exceptionally fine control of the variably timed intake valves helps the Duratec 35 seem more powerful than its brawny 265 hp and 250 lb.-ft. (339 Nm) torque rating suggest.
Along with inspired mid-range snap, the Duratec 35 3.5L DOHC V-6 fronts what we believe to be class-leading refinement.
Vibration, in particular, is bewilderingly absent. All sorts of low-friction detail engineering and big-ticket items, such as the deep-skirt block and weight-optimized DOHC valvetrain, make this one of the silkiest sixes you'll find short of one with all the pistons in a row.
The Duratec 35 is a brilliant performer, convincingly developed in all areas, and it's particularly impressive when one considers it's all done with a 10.3:1 compression ratio on regular unleaded gasoline.
Performance and refinement at this level sets a new standard for V-6s; bridging the gap between those with workaday specs and refinement and the big-dollar, big-power premium V-6s that require, or at least recommend, premium unleaded.
Our reservations are meager: We'd like a little more exhaust expressiveness. The new Duratec 35 is too quiet, at least in the MKX and MKZ Lincoln models we've driven so far.
And the new V-6, for now, is available only with an automatic. However, as automatics go, Ford's new 6F 6-speed is rock solid. This may be solved once the Duratec 35 traverses throughout the Ford empire, eventually powering one in five of all the auto maker's vehicles, likely including the Mustang.
Engine Specs:
Engine type: 3.5L DOHC 60° V-6
Displacement (cc): 3,496
Block/head material: aluminum/aluminum
Bore × stroke (mm): 92.5 × 86.7
Horsepower (SAE net): 265 @ 6,250 rpm
Torque: 250 lb.-ft. (339 Nm) @ 4,500 rpm
Specific output: 72 hp/L
Compression ratio: 10.3:1
Assembly site: Lima, Ohio
Application tested: Lincoln MKX (AWD)MKZ Sedan
EPA fuel economy, city/highway (mpg): 17/24 --..............
Short take under previous link ;
3.5L DOHC V-6 (Lincoln MKX)
265 hp/250 lb.-ft.
For: Cracking midrange, super-crisp throttle.
Against: Fuel economy sets no standards.
Our take: Runs with the best right out of the box .
For detailed description of all the 10 winners goto ( long ) ;
http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_wards_best_engines_12/index.html
..........................................................
..........................................................
-- Ford Motor Co.: DURATEC 35 3.5L DOHC V-6
It wasn't a secret Ford Motor Co. had some catching-up to do in the matter of high-volume V-6s.
It's longstanding Duratec 3L DOHC unit traces its development lineage to the early 1990s, and its 4L SOHC V-6 built in Cologne, Germany, is equally aged and off the pace.
Compounding the problem, the competition has become fierce. There are mainstream and premium DOHC V-6s in more market segments than we care to count, and in the ongoing quest for torque, most have converged at 3.5L of displacement.
Until now, Ford just didn't play there.
With the all-new Duratec 35, Ford sticks with the established Duratec name — the engine was known internally as Cyclone — but it owes nothing else to the previous Duratec architecture, Tom McCarthy, Ford manager-V-6 engine programs, says.
McCarthy and Bob Fascetti, director-powertrain programs, say development goals were premium performance and drivability, improved fuel economy and decreased emissions.
The Duratec 35 wins its first 10 Best Engines award largely for the versatility those goals suggest: The engine is thrusty and refined and demonstrates decent fuel-economy.
The Duratec 35 is particularly delightful in the mid-range, where it revs viciously with even light throttle applications. In fact, revving all over the place is one of this new engine's strong suits.
“I've never seen a tach needle jump from 1,500 to 5,000 rpm quite like this,” says Senior Editor Tom Murphy. Often, larger-displacement V-6s can be slow to rev with gusto, but the Duratec 35 delivers some of the crispest throttle response we can recall.
Our guess: Exceptionally fine control of the variably timed intake valves helps the Duratec 35 seem more powerful than its brawny 265 hp and 250 lb.-ft. (339 Nm) torque rating suggest.
Along with inspired mid-range snap, the Duratec 35 3.5L DOHC V-6 fronts what we believe to be class-leading refinement.
Vibration, in particular, is bewilderingly absent. All sorts of low-friction detail engineering and big-ticket items, such as the deep-skirt block and weight-optimized DOHC valvetrain, make this one of the silkiest sixes you'll find short of one with all the pistons in a row.
The Duratec 35 is a brilliant performer, convincingly developed in all areas, and it's particularly impressive when one considers it's all done with a 10.3:1 compression ratio on regular unleaded gasoline.
Performance and refinement at this level sets a new standard for V-6s; bridging the gap between those with workaday specs and refinement and the big-dollar, big-power premium V-6s that require, or at least recommend, premium unleaded.
Our reservations are meager: We'd like a little more exhaust expressiveness. The new Duratec 35 is too quiet, at least in the MKX and MKZ Lincoln models we've driven so far.
And the new V-6, for now, is available only with an automatic. However, as automatics go, Ford's new 6F 6-speed is rock solid. This may be solved once the Duratec 35 traverses throughout the Ford empire, eventually powering one in five of all the auto maker's vehicles, likely including the Mustang.
Engine Specs:
Engine type: 3.5L DOHC 60° V-6
Displacement (cc): 3,496
Block/head material: aluminum/aluminum
Bore × stroke (mm): 92.5 × 86.7
Horsepower (SAE net): 265 @ 6,250 rpm
Torque: 250 lb.-ft. (339 Nm) @ 4,500 rpm
Specific output: 72 hp/L
Compression ratio: 10.3:1
Assembly site: Lima, Ohio
Application tested: Lincoln MKX (AWD)MKZ Sedan
EPA fuel economy, city/highway (mpg): 17/24 --..............
Short take under previous link ;
3.5L DOHC V-6 (Lincoln MKX)
265 hp/250 lb.-ft.
For: Cracking midrange, super-crisp throttle.
Against: Fuel economy sets no standards.
Our take: Runs with the best right out of the box .
For detailed description of all the 10 winners goto ( long ) ;
http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_wards_best_engines_12/index.html
Last edited:
" Time for the pushrod chevy crowd to say how OHC engines are inferior "
Well , OK , although the Hemis still hanging in there . Maybe more relevant , its getting close to time for the toyota Class Action Lawsuit Sludge Settlement crowd to collect their overdue money . See 1995 list for explanation .
Although there is the other way to beat that ;
6.6L OHV V-8 turbodiesel (Chevrolet Silverado HD)
365 hp/ 660 lb.-ft.
For: When the torque number starts with a 6....
Against: Narrow relevance. ( just like 481 foot lbs is for the tundra ....only better ) .
Our take: The class of this class
Well , OK , although the Hemis still hanging in there . Maybe more relevant , its getting close to time for the toyota Class Action Lawsuit Sludge Settlement crowd to collect their overdue money . See 1995 list for explanation .
Although there is the other way to beat that ;
6.6L OHV V-8 turbodiesel (Chevrolet Silverado HD)
365 hp/ 660 lb.-ft.
For: When the torque number starts with a 6....
Against: Narrow relevance. ( just like 481 foot lbs is for the tundra ....only better ) .
Our take: The class of this class
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked