Mazda MPV 3.0L V6 piston wrist pin slapper.....sounded like a 2cycle chain saw...consumed a quart of oil every 1500 miles with 10,000 on the clock....traded after 23000 miles of agony...lost thousands of $$$...but it was worth getting rid of that pig.
Worst Engines
- Thread starter gedcruise
- Start date
- Status
"
How about the Mitsubishi 3.0L V6 that was put in almost every Chrysler vehicle made from the mid 80's to the early 90's. I think just about all of them blow oil smoke after 6 or 7 years. My mom's old van had the valve guides replaced after 5 years due to the ridiculous amount of blue smoke every startup. My buddy's Raider (Montero in disguise) did the same thing, as well as my sister's Labaron. I'm sure anyone who pays attention while driving can recently recall being behind a Caravan and getting a lungful of burnt oil. "
I don't think this deserves the title of a bad engine. I have one with 207,000 miles on it that burns about a quart every 1500 miles. My latest UOA said the engine's in great shape and has plenty of life left in it. It's been well maintained and has never let me down. I would still trust it on a road trip of any length. They are rugged, dependable engines. FWIW, Chrysler addressed this issue a couple of times and the later versions of this motor don't blow smoke as badly as the 80's and early 90's versions did.
How about the Mitsubishi 3.0L V6 that was put in almost every Chrysler vehicle made from the mid 80's to the early 90's. I think just about all of them blow oil smoke after 6 or 7 years. My mom's old van had the valve guides replaced after 5 years due to the ridiculous amount of blue smoke every startup. My buddy's Raider (Montero in disguise) did the same thing, as well as my sister's Labaron. I'm sure anyone who pays attention while driving can recently recall being behind a Caravan and getting a lungful of burnt oil. "
I don't think this deserves the title of a bad engine. I have one with 207,000 miles on it that burns about a quart every 1500 miles. My latest UOA said the engine's in great shape and has plenty of life left in it. It's been well maintained and has never let me down. I would still trust it on a road trip of any length. They are rugged, dependable engines. FWIW, Chrysler addressed this issue a couple of times and the later versions of this motor don't blow smoke as badly as the 80's and early 90's versions did.
I had an svt contour that pampered with synthetic oil, relatively short OCI's no more than 7500 miles, kept up maintenance and the engine seized up on the highway at 114 k miles. I talked with different mechanics who discussed flaw in oil pump design, which killed these engines. It is unfortunate that such a fun car to drive was generally unreliable as I had other issues...power steering pump, 45 or so recalls, and many other money pit issues.
I know two people who have well over 150K on their 1990 Plymouth Acclaim and Dodge Caravan with the Mitsu 3.0 that doesn't smoke. When I dumped my '90 Spirit that had 115K on it it didn't burn oil or smoke either.
The non-SVT engines didn't have so many problems. Odd, isn't it? I know of two that have 172K and 142K on them, respectively.
Makes me glad that I didn't buy that Contour SVT the local dealer had several years back (it was already sold when I called asking about it, and I found a used '96 SE for about $10K less, which needed an alternator, motor mounts, and a waterpump in the 70K miles I had it---the alternator was killed by a defective Duralast battery and a defective previous owner who, instead of replacing the ****ed battery, just kept jump-starting it)
Last edited:
The svt contour was an excellent car to drive, but had more problems than my parents Ford Pinto and American Hornet. I would make the opposite analogy to a car like the toyota yaris...reliable car, awful to drive as the svt was a fun car to drive that was imminently unreliable.
Never drove an SVT, but I was quite happy with my 1996 SE (2.5L V6, 5-speed) Finally decided I wanted something newer and gave the 1996 SE to my brother who is also quite happy with it. I think the SVT was more of a victim of Jac the Knife's cost cutting than anything else.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
The worst engine we ever had in my family was that of our Leyland Austin Allegro. It was a BMC-made 1.5 liter I4 with 60 hp. That engine huffed, puffed, rattled and leaked relentlessly all fluids. Rust began blooming after the first winter. Rust on the engine, on the body, possibly on the driver also. Ack!
I owned a 99 SVT and had relatively few problems and almost no mechanical issues. An informed owner had to take matters into their own hands and replace a potentially troubsome water pump and add a baffled oil pan. For extra insurance run about .5L of oil extra. These simple proactive measures allowed me to get over 140k kms before I sold it. Fun little car, still miss it. Most SVT's got the #@$%! driven out of them so engine failures etc crop up more.
I always put a full 6 quarts into my 1996 SE when I changed the oil. I don't know if that helped anything but it certainly did not hurt. Interestingly, the waterpump on my 1996 SE just started leaking one day--I had expected the impeller to fail instead as they usually do. (It seems the later Ford Motorcraft waterpumps fixed the impeller problem, since that's what it was replaced it and it's had no problems in the 65K since).
"The worst engine we ever had in my family was that of our Leyland Austin Allegro. It was a BMC-made 1.5 liter I4 with 60 hp. That engine huffed, puffed, rattled and leaked relentlessly all fluids. Rust began blooming after the first winter. Rust on the engine, on the body, possibly on the driver also. Ack!"
If I am not mistaken, this was the same engine as the 1.8l BMC b-series used in the MGB and the 1500 and 1600 used in the MGAs. In MGBs, these engines ran well (with minimal power) even when US emisssions legal. I have a black bumper B, and she runs great, with good fuel economy, although I did have to replace the factory Lucas electronic ignition when the car was still quite young.
If I am not mistaken, this was the same engine as the 1.8l BMC b-series used in the MGB and the 1500 and 1600 used in the MGAs. In MGBs, these engines ran well (with minimal power) even when US emisssions legal. I have a black bumper B, and she runs great, with good fuel economy, although I did have to replace the factory Lucas electronic ignition when the car was still quite young.
I had a 3.8L in a an LTD. Went bad after ??? miles, got a used one: bad; another: bad; last one went for a year before it died. As a Ford owner/lover of many tears, the 3.8 was a BAD engine. HOWEVER, THE 3.0L is the best I have ever seen. I had four Tauruses (TAURI?), clocked well over a million miles between them, but each was totalled at well over 150k in each case. NEVER A WRENCH TO THE ENGINES - NEVER TOUCHED. Can't sing their praises loud enough. 3.0L: GREAT engine. So impressed, I have a Focus ZXW and a Mustang convertible - keeping the faith and loving it.
Wow first post you drag up a 3 1/2 year old thread, lol. I'm sure there's been one of these more recently than this, but.... I can't think of any engines to add to this, since we haven't had an engine failure in any of our vehicles (yet, knock on wood)
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: greglarsen56
I can tell you why the Vega engines were so bad. They had an incorect amount of silicon added to the aluminum casting. Chevrolet was supposed alloy the raw aluminum they received from Reynolds Aluminum. Both of these companies operated plants in Massena, New York in the early seventies.
Reynolds proscribed the alloy to GM but it was not executed correctly in the Chevrolet plant. Thereby, the Vega blocks were much to soft.
I heard that if you would let a Vega engine idle too long,it would seize up?
I can tell you why the Vega engines were so bad. They had an incorect amount of silicon added to the aluminum casting. Chevrolet was supposed alloy the raw aluminum they received from Reynolds Aluminum. Both of these companies operated plants in Massena, New York in the early seventies.
Reynolds proscribed the alloy to GM but it was not executed correctly in the Chevrolet plant. Thereby, the Vega blocks were much to soft.
I heard that if you would let a Vega engine idle too long,it would seize up?
Originally Posted By: dbvettez06
remember the CADILLAC 8 6 4 ...........
Yep,I remember those. They simply didnt have the electronics to run those properly back then. When I worked for a Pontiac dealer a few years ago,I saw they brought back a different form of that again.
remember the CADILLAC 8 6 4 ...........
Yep,I remember those. They simply didnt have the electronics to run those properly back then. When I worked for a Pontiac dealer a few years ago,I saw they brought back a different form of that again.
Worst engine ever was the 170 Slant 6 Mopar.
Started leaking oil at the oil plug boots (Through Valve Cover) almost immediately so you had to add a quart every 500-1000 miles.
No power, no refinement, no fuel mileage (not as good as a 318).
So since it was leaking oil constantly you stopped bothering to change it and starting changing the filter every year or two when you thought of it.
Then you waited for it to die... and waited.... and waited.... and waited....
4 generations and 480,000 miles later we finally gave up and sold the miserable piece of excrement... after a nuclear war the only survivors will be Cockroaches and Slant 6's!
Started leaking oil at the oil plug boots (Through Valve Cover) almost immediately so you had to add a quart every 500-1000 miles.
No power, no refinement, no fuel mileage (not as good as a 318).
So since it was leaking oil constantly you stopped bothering to change it and starting changing the filter every year or two when you thought of it.
Then you waited for it to die... and waited.... and waited.... and waited....
4 generations and 480,000 miles later we finally gave up and sold the miserable piece of excrement... after a nuclear war the only survivors will be Cockroaches and Slant 6's!
the gm 2.6? v6 that went into the s10 and jeep cherokee in the mid 80,s rear main seal could not hold up . seen them fail at 20k
Originally Posted By: Gene K
Worst engine ever was the 170 Slant 6 Mopar.
Started leaking oil at the oil plug boots (Through Valve Cover) almost immediately so you had to add a quart every 500-1000 miles.
No power, no refinement, no fuel mileage (not as good as a 318).
So since it was leaking oil constantly you stopped bothering to change it and starting changing the filter every year or two when you thought of it.
Then you waited for it to die... and waited.... and waited.... and waited....
4 generations and 480,000 miles later we finally gave up and sold the miserable piece of excrement... after a nuclear war the only survivors will be Cockroaches and Slant 6's!
480K and it's bad?
Worst engine ever was the 170 Slant 6 Mopar.
Started leaking oil at the oil plug boots (Through Valve Cover) almost immediately so you had to add a quart every 500-1000 miles.
No power, no refinement, no fuel mileage (not as good as a 318).
So since it was leaking oil constantly you stopped bothering to change it and starting changing the filter every year or two when you thought of it.
Then you waited for it to die... and waited.... and waited.... and waited....
4 generations and 480,000 miles later we finally gave up and sold the miserable piece of excrement... after a nuclear war the only survivors will be Cockroaches and Slant 6's!
480K and it's bad?
Originally Posted By: super20dan
the gm 2.6? v6 that went into the s10 and jeep cherokee in the mid 80,s rear main seal could not hold up . seen them fail at 20k
I would not argue with that!
the gm 2.6? v6 that went into the s10 and jeep cherokee in the mid 80,s rear main seal could not hold up . seen them fail at 20k
I would not argue with that!
- Status
