Worst Engines
- Thread starter gedcruise
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Silk
There was a long stroke 350 version too - I never knew,but drove one a couple of weeks ago.
That was originally an aftermarket solution to Oz rego laws re retrofitting Chevs into emissions controlled Holdens.
I think the Special Vehicles People used Chev Offroad and Marine Engineering (their name, acronymed spread across magazine pages drew audience for sure) parts for the 350s.
You can buy up a 235c.i. 186 in Sydney
There was a long stroke 350 version too - I never knew,but drove one a couple of weeks ago.
That was originally an aftermarket solution to Oz rego laws re retrofitting Chevs into emissions controlled Holdens.
I think the Special Vehicles People used Chev Offroad and Marine Engineering (their name, acronymed spread across magazine pages drew audience for sure) parts for the 350s.
You can buy up a 235c.i. 186 in Sydney
Any votes for the ignition-eating, head gasket blowing, Pontiac Quad 4s?
Originally Posted By: Silk
There was a long stroke 350 version too - I never knew,but drove one a couple of weeks ago.
I didn't like the Vega engine.The cyl head was very much like the Vauxhall/Bedford engine,but one piece.One the Vauxhall engine the cam was held in a seperate alloy housing....removing the cam in the Vega engine required special tool,I had to send it out.
Was the Kiwi Vega the same sorry piece of garbage as the US Vega?
There was a long stroke 350 version too - I never knew,but drove one a couple of weeks ago.
I didn't like the Vega engine.The cyl head was very much like the Vauxhall/Bedford engine,but one piece.One the Vauxhall engine the cam was held in a seperate alloy housing....removing the cam in the Vega engine required special tool,I had to send it out.
Was the Kiwi Vega the same sorry piece of garbage as the US Vega?
General Motors make a engine [in the late 80's I think] called the QUAD 4 engine...I knew several people who had them and they were complete nightmares...Each one said they would they never buy another General Motors car after that.
I was going to mention the early quad-4
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Any American made 4 cyl.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Any American made 4 cyl.
whay about the jeep 2.5, and the newer ecotech gm engines? ford has also had great success with the 4cyl that came in the rangers.
Any American made 4 cyl.
whay about the jeep 2.5, and the newer ecotech gm engines? ford has also had great success with the 4cyl that came in the rangers.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Any American made 4 cyl.
The Model A was good for it's time.
Any American made 4 cyl.
The Model A was good for it's time.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Any American made 4 cyl.
Ten-plus years ago, I would have readily agreed. As for the present, the mid-size DOHC I-4s from both Ford and GM seem to be pretty good engines. The 2.5L Duratec in the Fusion even generates slightly higher output than the 2.5L found in the non-SE trim Camrys. More to it than output, of course, but I think Ford and GM have caught up.
Any American made 4 cyl.
Ten-plus years ago, I would have readily agreed. As for the present, the mid-size DOHC I-4s from both Ford and GM seem to be pretty good engines. The 2.5L Duratec in the Fusion even generates slightly higher output than the 2.5L found in the non-SE trim Camrys. More to it than output, of course, but I think Ford and GM have caught up.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I remember the Pontiac overhead cam 6 cyl engine was a POS, and the Vega Engine. This one I better hide for, but here goes, the Chrysler Slant 6. I had one in a work van and I could predict rain a week before it happened, as soon as it got damp the thing wouldn't start. It lacked power so much it was annoying. My wife had one in a Duster, same problems with damp wet weather as the van. It left her stranded more times in the few years we had that car, than all the cars we've owned together for the 27 years we're married. People touted them as the best engine ever, I thought just the opposite. I better hide now.
No need to hide -- but... While I respect your opinion (and experience with the engine) I have to disagree with you on this. First of all, it sounds like you're judging the engine by the performance standards we've become conditioned to by modern vehicles. The Slant-6 was designed in the late 50s, using now-ancient technology. Virtually ALL engines of the period were incredibly quirky compared to what we're now used to. Today, on a cold morning, you crank the engine, the ECU tells the FI exactly how much gas to add, and the thing just fires right up. Both our Darts required the proper use of the automatic choke. You had to follow the ritual, and starting could be iffy. But that was how almost ALL carb-ed engines were. The biggest annoyance we had was the occasional dieseling on shut down. But OTOH, both our 68 and 73 (198 and 225 respectively) survived abusive lives and were nearly glitch free. Low power? Hey, they're from a different time. A Slant-6 in a van would be like a contemporary I-4 in the same van today. Good solid engines, IMO.
LOL that's why I hid, I figured many loved that engine, I hated both I had experience with. I had Chevy and Ford I6 engines of the same era that blew them away. No argument so please don't take me wrong here, just two totally different opinions. I might have experienced two lemons. Now talk about good engines from Chrysler, the 318 comes to mind, but were talking worst engines!
Fast forward to my 1995 Chevy Caprice, 4.3L V8, not the 4.3 Vortec V6, which was quite good. The 4.3 V8 was a real Gem POS. Put a distributor cap behind the water pump! What a stupid design, and a sad story for a V8. I hated mine! I sold it before I had to replace the cap wires and rotor. Add the cost of a water pump to that tune up, no thanks! A weak, under powered, poorly designed, disappointment. Remember JMO.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I remember the Pontiac overhead cam 6 cyl engine was a POS, and the Vega Engine. This one I better hide for, but here goes, the Chrysler Slant 6. I had one in a work van and I could predict rain a week before it happened, as soon as it got damp the thing wouldn't start. It lacked power so much it was annoying. My wife had one in a Duster, same problems with damp wet weather as the van. It left her stranded more times in the few years we had that car, than all the cars we've owned together for the 27 years we're married. People touted them as the best engine ever, I thought just the opposite. I better hide now.
No need to hide -- but... While I respect your opinion (and experience with the engine) I have to disagree with you on this. First of all, it sounds like you're judging the engine by the performance standards we've become conditioned to by modern vehicles. The Slant-6 was designed in the late 50s, using now-ancient technology. Virtually ALL engines of the period were incredibly quirky compared to what we're now used to. Today, on a cold morning, you crank the engine, the ECU tells the FI exactly how much gas to add, and the thing just fires right up. Both our Darts required the proper use of the automatic choke. You had to follow the ritual, and starting could be iffy. But that was how almost ALL carb-ed engines were. The biggest annoyance we had was the occasional dieseling on shut down. But OTOH, both our 68 and 73 (198 and 225 respectively) survived abusive lives and were nearly glitch free. Low power? Hey, they're from a different time. A Slant-6 in a van would be like a contemporary I-4 in the same van today. Good solid engines, IMO.
LOL that's why I hid, I figured many loved that engine, I hated both I had experience with. I had Chevy and Ford I6 engines of the same era that blew them away. No argument so please don't take me wrong here, just two totally different opinions. I might have experienced two lemons. Now talk about good engines from Chrysler, the 318 comes to mind, but were talking worst engines!
Fast forward to my 1995 Chevy Caprice, 4.3L V8, not the 4.3 Vortec V6, which was quite good. The 4.3 V8 was a real Gem POS. Put a distributor cap behind the water pump! What a stupid design, and a sad story for a V8. I hated mine! I sold it before I had to replace the cap wires and rotor. Add the cost of a water pump to that tune up, no thanks! A weak, under powered, poorly designed, disappointment. Remember JMO.
Though I never owned a Slant 6, they had reputation for durabilty with many back in the day, almost cult like.
But my vote, as previously mentioned on this thread, goes to the GM Diesels of the 70's. If they aren't the worst, they are right there at it!
But my vote, as previously mentioned on this thread, goes to the GM Diesels of the 70's. If they aren't the worst, they are right there at it!
My step-dad had a 1975 Duster slant-6 for a couple of years in the mid-1980's. It ran very poorly in any kind of wet weather, and would die outright going through a puddle at any speed.
Funny thing is, it seized up on the highway on my folks and scattered itself all over the road. For years after that, I assumed slant-6's were garbage, and was mystified why people kept referring to them as one of the best engines ever made.....
Funny thing is, it seized up on the highway on my folks and scattered itself all over the road. For years after that, I assumed slant-6's were garbage, and was mystified why people kept referring to them as one of the best engines ever made.....
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Any American made 4 cyl.
Wow, way to generalize.
As gutless as they were, the 2.0 and 2.2s in the J bodies will run a long time even if they aren't well cared for...
Still see quite a few 1.9 Escorts still on the road...
Any American made 4 cyl.
Wow, way to generalize.
As gutless as they were, the 2.0 and 2.2s in the J bodies will run a long time even if they aren't well cared for...
Still see quite a few 1.9 Escorts still on the road...
It would probably be good if everyone qualified why the engine is 'worst'. That can be interpreted in many ways. Worst power, worst reliability, etc.
Originally Posted By: Scott_Tucker
It would probably be good if everyone qualified why the engine is 'worst'. That can be interpreted in many ways. Worst power, worst reliability, etc.
i'm thinking if i had to pick an engine to be put in a vehicle i was going to drive around the world what would be last on my list.
It would probably be good if everyone qualified why the engine is 'worst'. That can be interpreted in many ways. Worst power, worst reliability, etc.
i'm thinking if i had to pick an engine to be put in a vehicle i was going to drive around the world what would be last on my list.
Iron Duke. The gutless wonder. It was power-less and got terrible gas mileage. Plus it had a disturbing tendency to act up when I needed it the most.
Well, that was back in high school, hauling 7 of my buddies to cross-country practice most school days for 2 years. This was after my folks neglected that car for years before I got it.
Well, that was back in high school, hauling 7 of my buddies to cross-country practice most school days for 2 years. This was after my folks neglected that car for years before I got it.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Iron Duke. The gutless wonder. It was power-less and got terrible gas mileage. Plus it had a disturbing tendency to act up when I needed it the most.
Well, that was back in high school, hauling 7 of my buddies to cross-country practice most school days for 2 years. This was after my folks neglected that car for years before I got it.
Well, yes and no. It's very easy to criticize the Iron Duke and its peers, especially from today's standards. But we should not forget how things were back when this engine was born. Pushrod designs were the order of the day, at least in Detroit. Overhead cams, although in truth dating as far back (further perhaps) than pushrods, had been in disuse, and seemed novel to many back in the 60s and 70s. As a teen, I recall "overhad cam(s)" being advertised heavily as the new thing, and having no idea what they were... Anyway, IMO, smallish I-4s of the time were simply doomed at the outset. Unable to generate serious low end torque (like a pushrod V-6 or V-8), and with little top end potential, they performed their duties at the margin of acceptability, but true enough, if you had some understanding of performance, I can't see how you'd like one.
Iron Duke. The gutless wonder. It was power-less and got terrible gas mileage. Plus it had a disturbing tendency to act up when I needed it the most.
Well, that was back in high school, hauling 7 of my buddies to cross-country practice most school days for 2 years. This was after my folks neglected that car for years before I got it.
Well, yes and no. It's very easy to criticize the Iron Duke and its peers, especially from today's standards. But we should not forget how things were back when this engine was born. Pushrod designs were the order of the day, at least in Detroit. Overhead cams, although in truth dating as far back (further perhaps) than pushrods, had been in disuse, and seemed novel to many back in the 60s and 70s. As a teen, I recall "overhad cam(s)" being advertised heavily as the new thing, and having no idea what they were... Anyway, IMO, smallish I-4s of the time were simply doomed at the outset. Unable to generate serious low end torque (like a pushrod V-6 or V-8), and with little top end potential, they performed their duties at the margin of acceptability, but true enough, if you had some understanding of performance, I can't see how you'd like one.
- Status
