The worst engine ever?

[45acp]

IIRC, GM had a ubiquitous 2.8L V6 that wasn't so hot, but I guess I wouldn't call it the Worst Engine Ever.

I'll throw my vote with the 5.7L diesel. Oh, and that rotary in the Suzuki motorcycle wasn't a great idea, either. It combined fairly lousy power delivery with horrible fuel economy.

GM's 2.8 V6 has to be top 5. If you made it to 40k before the rod knock started you were lucky.

Also add in GM 6.5 turbo diesel. Not built very stout, then add a turbo with way too much engine compression and no intercooler.

 

[Catbuster]

The marriage of Ford pickups and the 7.3 Powerstroke was a bad idea?

How do you feel about an L10 Cummins ?

The early 7.3 non turbo, not hydraulically injected? Hell yes. From 1995 on, boy oh boy were they good. But the early ones were underpowered tractor engines.

I've got no experience with the L10 cummins. It has similar displacement to the 3208, but simply has to be better. It has to.

 

[DerHoggz]

Whatever in-line 4.0 V6

A V6 cannot be in-line. Straight 6s are fantastic.

 

[Stinsok]

I didn't see the GM 6.2L Diesel listed.

 

[David Jayne]

Ford Granada, any year. We used to call it the 'Grenade.' Blew rockers and lifters and other fun stuff.

Early Ford Explorer ('Exploder').

Early Hyundia cars. Very bad things.

 

[InsaneBassninja]

chevy 4 bangers that was in the corsica. slways blowing b gaskets. - a felloew bassist That is not on the foum yet.

 

[buzzbass]

This would be my vote as well.

You could always tell when one of those heaps pulled into the service drive because all the techs would scatter like they were giving free money away at the other end of the shop. Nobody wanted to get stuck working on one of them.

I was the designated tech in my shop at the time. They did send me to detroit for training though, so it wasn't all bad

 

[carl h.]

My brother has 400,000+ on a 6.2 and never done more than plugs.

 

[Mike N]

I was the designated tech in my shop at the time. They did send me to detroit for training though, so it wasn't all bad

No wonder you're a Mopar guy now.

 

[buzzbass]

No wonder you're a Mopar guy now.

LOL, I was a Ford guy at the time. Had a 70 Torino Cobra Jet and a 53 f-100 with a 351 Cleveland at the time.

 

[hover]

Whatever in-line 4.0 V6 and V8 that Jeep was putting in Cherokee SUV for over a decade has to be right up there.

The only 6 they offered in the Cherokee was the i6, not a v-6, and that motor is bulletproof. It was the later i6's that had an inferior head casting that was prone to cracking, but that motor, on the whole, was simply a fantastic design. My 2nd cherokee was a 96 bought with 40,212 miles on it, I drove it right up to 278,000 and never did anything to it but a radiator, two water pumps, and oil changes. Never burned oil. Started right up every time. Drove it to the junk yard still purring like a kitten, with huge holes in the rear quarter. Damn shame.

And the 3.8 Buick is a fantastic motor as well.

 

[blastoff99]

The only 6 they offered in the Cherokee was the i6, not a v-6, and that motor is bulletproof....

I'm pretty sure that awful 2.8L V6 was available for at least a couple of years. I swear I've seen badging to that effect on older Cherokees.

 

[carl h.]

Til' 86 the 2.8 was an option in the cherokee. The 4.0 that replaced it was based on the 2.5 that was designed for the Cherokee, and not an update of the old 4.2.

 

[hover]

Ah, you gents are correct, I had forgotten. Thank God it only lasted 2 years on that platform.

 

[lundborg]

<snip>

Let's talk about the engines that were turds from the outset or made by people who should have known better.

I'll start with the Triumph V-8 engine.

Now this is an engine that came from a manufacturer that should have known better.
<snip>

Half of this engine (1.7l straight four) was used in the first Saab 99:s in the early 70's - they were notorious for cylinder head failure. We had one of those in '72, the injection system was leaking fuel all the time... The V8 I suppose would be double trouble.

The problems didn't stop until a few years later when SAAB started their own production of an improved engine in Sweden. Which BTW later on was used for the first widely available turbocharged car.

 

[45acp]

Early Ford Explorer ('Exploder').

The engines were bulletproof... it was the transmissions that were absolute garbage.

 

[Solarmist]

I haven't seen the old 1200cc 40 horse VW engines mentioned yet - they wouldn't have been so gutless if they had a larger intake manifold/carb. They literally will starve themselves out long before they'll blow up from over revving.

I built one from a 1600cc case dual port with 1835cc over sized cylinder barrels, 1:1.1 roller rockers, and twin Webber carbs ... that thing sailed for the day! I took several V8's from light to light back then.



Great thread idea.

 

[tastybasslines]

A V6 cannot be in-line. Straight 6s are fantastic.

My old friend could do anything with cars. He changed an 1978 Nissan King Cab from automatic to a stick in 10 hours. It had a really light body, and put he put a Buick straight 6 in it. It was insane fast.

EDIT: It was a racing engine, and now I am second guessing myself as to whether it really was a straight 6. I want to say it is but can really remember for sure now that I think about it.

 

[SamTheButcher]

Any engine ever put into a Saturn...

 

[fdeck]

Any engine ever put into a Saturn...

+1. Designed to fail. Everybody I knew with a Saturn needed engine work. Except me. My engine disintegrated before I could get it repaired. Timing chain skipped a tooth at 67k miles. Engine stalled numerous times, including once in a Chicago toll booth at rush hour, due to all of the oil residue fouling the entire emission control system.

Saturn could have gotten a subsidy by designating motor oil as an alternative fuel.