Your top five favorite engines!

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. 1957-1958 chrysler 392 hemi heavy. to get lots of power you must go with blower, and or nitro. only American modified stock engine to make 1500 hp. usieing stock block,crank, heads
2. dodge/ plymouth slant 6
3. maxi-wedge dodge plymouth 1962-1964
4. mild 440 1966-1978
5 1955 331ci,hemi, chrysler 300, first stock american car with 300 hp.
 
Originally Posted By: morris
1. 1957-1958 chrysler 392 hemi heavy. to get lots of power you must go with blower, and or nitro. only American modified stock engine to make 1500 hp. usieing stock block,crank, heads
2. dodge/ plymouth slant 6
3. maxi-wedge dodge plymouth 1962-1964
4. mild 440 1966-1978
5 1955 331ci,hemi, chrysler 300, first stock american car with 300 hp.


You know if that is SAE gross, I'm pretty sure guys have made that (and possibly more) with the '03/04 Cobra 4.6L which is good for 1000+HP stock (SAE NET).
 
i am talking about a modified engine for race, but the block,heads and crank, are stock, by stock i mean the parts was stock on a mild engine, to be a daily driver. this is in the late 60s and early 70s. of course a later engine can do better. but in the late 60s there was NO other engine that could do what the 393 hemi could do.
 
Originally Posted By: morris
i am talking about a modified engine for race, but the block,heads and crank, are stock, by stock i mean the parts was stock on a mild engine, to be a daily driver. this is in the late 60s and early 70s. of course a later engine can do better. but in the late 60s there was NO other engine that could do what the 393 hemi could do.


Not even the 427 SOHC eh? I know a few of 'em had big 'ol blowers strapped on them. On an engine that was almost 700HP stock....

Now mind you, that wasn't a mild engine to begin with. So I see your point.
 
1. Buick 3.8 Intercooled V6 Turbo 1986/87 because I own an 87 GN and am still amazed at the power and mpg Buick achieved in the 1980's.

2. Chevy 350 in all forms. This doesn't need explaining
smile.gif
I love my LT1 Corvette, btw!

3. Jeep 258 4.2L. I have this engine in a 78 Jeep CJ7 and it is a torque heavy engine and durable as all heck.

4. Jeep 4.0L Right up there with the 258. I miss my 2000 Cherokee with it! Great power and torque and reliability

5. GM 3.6DI. I am loving this engine in my CTS and have not yet come across and fuel dilution or carbon issues so many "claim" here on BITOG. It's smooth, powerful. MPG may not be best in class, but I don't care about mpg anyhow.

***runner ups: Ford 5.0L (mustang 87-91 vintage) for the power and sound! and Duramax Diesel for its power, quiet operation and no smell!
 
Mustang 5.0L V8 - Amazing sound, power and most of all reliable
Mazda F2T 2.2L turbo - Great gas mileage and 145hp to boot
Honda D15B7 - MPG champ and reliable
Saturn LK0 1.9L SOHC - MPG and you cant kill it.
Toyota 22R-E - Toyota's super beast of a 4cyl
 
Last edited:
In no particular order:

1. Ford Modular engine family (4.6, 5.4, 6.8, etc.) - smooth as butter, loads of torque and bulletproof to boot.

2. Mitsubishi 6G72 12-valve - very easy to work on, and again, bulletproof once you resolve the oil burning issue from the valve seals.

3. Toyota 2JZ-GE - capable of handling a lot of mods on the stock bottom end, yet pretty reliable.

4. BMW M62 TUB44 - I admired these engines because they were well ahead of their time, especially with technology like VANOS and throttle by wire. They also produce very decent power with excellent fuel economy.

5. GM L05 (roller block) - bulletproof.
 
I guess I can only comment on engines I've owned or spent a lot of time around - so my choices are going to be a bit limited, but..

the '89 - '95 Taurus SHO V6 - Not super powerful by today's standards, but caught so many people by surprize, and I loved the sound when the secondaries would open

Turbo Chrysler's - Big boost easily attainable in a shoebox. Need I say more? Traction could be a problem!

The Mustang 5.0 (fox) - For all the reasons listed above.

The 2.4L GM "Twin-Cam" - Again, not super powerful, or even really graceful, but it has plenty of pep, loves to rev and did the job in many many cars for many years.

The Supercharged 3.8L in the T-bird SC - Open that puppy up with some exhaust work and a pully, and this torque-monster would put up some numbers! I loved the sound, too. Hated the headgasket!
 
Honda B18C5. All the Honda vtec B-series engines are good. This one is great.

Pontiac SD 455. All V8s should sound this good.

Honda CX500T. In so many ways it was the "anti-Honda" It was an overhead valve V-twin when Hondas were (D)OHC 4 cylinders. It was mounted longitudinally when Hondas were transverse. It was complex when Honda was, "making it simple" and it was turbocharged which it joins just a handful of Hondas (and one Acura) in being. It was like Honda took a MotoGuzzi and fixed all of the problems and made it fast. (fast being relative to a regular CX500)

Small Block Chevy. Unmatched for adaptability and availiability. You can get a SBC to power just about anything you want to power and you can make a lot of power doing it.

Long Stroke SACS GSX-R 750.
Sure the OWO1 Yamaha made more power but you can still buy an air and oil cooled Suzuki...the Yamaha? not so much. And I've never seen a 50,000 mile FZR750. I've seen a bunch of 50K+ Gixxers.

Honorable mention to the Suzuki G13B Swift GTi. It was built by a lunatic. Forged crank, forged and gundrilled cams and then they give it an 87 octane sipping compression ratio and conservative engine management. It was close, but no cigar.
 
VW Type 1 -- Grew up with them, they're fun, easy to work on, etc.

VW VR6 24V -- Lovely sounding motor, great power curve.

Mazda 1.8L BP -- Reliable, fun as [censored] in a Miata.

That's all I got.

robert
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: css9450
GM's Electro-Motive Division 567 and 645 diesel locomotive engines.


No love for the 710 series? :-) I once did a job on a ship powered by two 20-V-710s. Yowza. I also worked on another one powered by a pair of 16-V-645 non-turbo engines. That was cool too.

But I still like the sound of the GE 7FDL locomotive engine better.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: dwcopple

Nissan SR20DE


Cripe, how could I forget! I'd have to say the SR20DE is one of the top 3 4 cylinder engines ever made! Maybe the best. One of my buddies had a 92 SE-R Sentra - that thing was a pocket rocket.


One of the first! A car I've always wanted to own. Right along side an Omni GLH.
 
you can not compare a engine made in the 03-04 to a engine made in the 1950s. my point is a 392 hemi , in its time, was putting out more power, in its modded form, than any other stock engine modded. of course the 03-04 engine puts out lots of power, it was designed from the get go to make lots of power, the 392 was designed to be in a car for grandma to drive. may be you are to young to know what a aa/fd dragster is. in the mid-late 60s there was NO engine parts, block,crank, heads made to be race only. i have nothing against the new engines, but they are NOT a 392 hemi. iam, NOT saying a 392 hemi is better, or the other engine is better, they are just different, each one has it own place in automotive history.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: kkreit01


5. Chrysler 3.0 (early 90s): great power/weight ratio in their smaller cars (had one in Daytona IROC & Sundance Duster).


That's a Mitsubishi engine. It has a wonderful and reliable bottom end, and also a very long-lived timing belt system... but it had horrific top end problems. It was notorious for valve guides coming lose and riding up and down with the valve the head resulting in massive oil consumption, as well as excessive oil consumption past the piston ring pack. They finally did get most of those issues sorted out, but there was a time in the 90s when if you saw blue smoke coming out of a tailpipe in traffic, odds were 100:1 that it was coming from a Mitsubishi 3.0-powered Chrysler vehicle. The version that went in the Dodge Stealth and Mitsubishi 3000GT had different heads and pistons and therefore none of these problems.


It's a good thing I got rid of mine at < 40K miles then
smile.gif
It made for a fun ride in the Duster and Daytona (probably not-so-much in a Caravan or Spirit).
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: morris
i am talking about a modified engine for race, but the block,heads and crank, are stock, by stock i mean the parts was stock on a mild engine, to be a daily driver. this is in the late 60s and early 70s. of course a later engine can do better. but in the late 60s there was NO other engine that could do what the 393 hemi could do.


Not even the 427 SOHC eh? I know a few of 'em had big 'ol blowers strapped on them. On an engine that was almost 700HP stock....

Now mind you, that wasn't a mild engine to begin with. So I see your point.


I always found it interesting that the 392 continued to be preferred in fuel dragsters for quite a while after the 426 Hemi came on the scene. Granted, those were custom blocks (usually Donovan) and there was a lot of investment that had to be re-developed to make the 426 similarly capable.

The other thing about the factory 331, 354, and 392 Hemis is something I've now heard from several engine builders: namely that they were some of the best-machined and assembled factory engines that these guys have ever come across. "Practically the same as a custom blueprinted build, but straight from the assembly line.." is what one told me. He was referring to stuff he has to "clean up" in most other blocks, like deck/crank parallelism, lifter bore angles, etc. But then part of the reason that Chrysler dropped the 392 in '59 is because it cost so much to build.
 
Originally Posted By: morris
you can not compare a engine made in the 03-04 to a engine made in the 1950s. my point is a 392 hemi , in its time, was putting out more power, in its modded form, than any other stock engine modded. of course the 03-04 engine puts out lots of power, it was designed from the get go to make lots of power, the 392 was designed to be in a car for grandma to drive. may be you are to young to know what a aa/fd dragster is. in the mid-late 60s there was NO engine parts, block,crank, heads made to be race only. i have nothing against the new engines, but they are NOT a 392 hemi. iam, NOT saying a 392 hemi is better, or the other engine is better, they are just different, each one has it own place in automotive history.


You seem to have missed that I agreed with your point, then brought up the 427 SOHC (mid 1960's) as a "better example" but that it wasn't very "mild" either, so didn't quite fit in with where you were going with what you were saying sir.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

69GTX
  • Locked
Ford 4.6L DOHC oil opinions - it's been discussed
2
Replies
30
Views
18K
Garak
OVERKILL
  • Locked
The story behind the 427 SOHC (Ford's Cammer)
Replies
3
Views
4K
Eddie
Back
Top Bottom