Grassroots Motorsports

Register Log in to GRM
- Community

Birthdays
Recently on the Classic Motorsports forums

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Grassroots Motorsports » Worst Performance Engine of All TIme

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec. 31, 2009 1:14 a.m. junkbuggie New Reader

P71 wrote:

junkbuggie wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

My choice for worst engine: Ford's 2.3L OHC dual plug engine in the rangers.

the 2.3 is a beast they don't break ever plus the mustang svo, merkur xr4ti and thunderbird turbo coupe all had over 200hp

Bwahhahahahaaaaa!!!! Drink that Kool-Aid before we remind you the single plug Turbo version and dual-plug N/A are not the same motors...

BTW, the SVO was 200-210, the XR4Ti, 83-86 TC, & 84-85 XR7 were 175, the 87-88 TC was 190, and the GT Turbo's with EFI were 165. Now even Hyundai has a 2.0L N/A 4-cylinder with 200+ HP in an economy car...

you are right only the svo had more than 200hp. sorry I was under the impression it was all the same. however the blocks on all lima 2.3l are the same the only difference is a place to put a oil line for the turbo and it is a stupid tough motor. yes the head is different but this is about suck ass engines not heads. maybe I am just a little touchy cus I love my dual plug ranger
Dec. 31, 2009 1:23 a.m. junkbuggie New Reader

leigerreign wrote:

I vote for any pre 90s rotary...i know there is much love for them....but how many times can an engine blow up.

I had a 82 rx-7 with a12A that was badly wore out it still spun as far as the tach would read (I think that was 8000rpm but it was a long time ago) and would not blow up and I tried.
Dec. 31, 2009 1:23 a.m. xci_ed6 HalfDork

what about the k-cars i-4. I don't know much about it, other than the turbo/shelby could make good power and that it was heavy, and very difficult to work on. What fun is working on something where all of the accessories must be removed to get the timing belt cover off.
Dec. 31, 2009 2:09 a.m. kurtz New Reader

No one mentioned the Renesis in the RX8, sure its smooth but it is thirsty and less reliable then the older rotories.
Dec. 31, 2009 9:24 a.m. Jay_W HalfDork

I drove a very well kept Delorean once. I'd call that "engine" a dog but that would be a huge insult to dogs everywhere. But my vote would have to be the aforementioned SS 454. I mean, really....
Dec. 31, 2009 9:31 a.m. John Brown MegaDork

junkbuggie wrote: all lima 2.3l are ... stupid

Edited so I could agree... And remember my weapon of choice for a long time was an XR4Ti
Dec. 31, 2009 9:33 a.m. 93celicaGT2 SuperDork

confuZion3 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

If you want power for cheap, I just saw a 91 Talon TSI AWD in good shape for $1800. You can run 12's with that thing by gutting the interior and purchasing, get ready for the long list of mods, a cone filter and a boost controller.

Yup. That'll run 12s. Once or twice. Then the crank will move a fraction of an inch in the wrong direction at 5,000 RPMs and bam! It's all over. They blew up all the time didn't they? Isn't that called "crank walk"?

You've got the wrong motor there, skippy. A 91 DSM will have a 6-bolt. Not the 7-bolt.
Dec. 31, 2009 11:36 a.m. turboswede UltraDork

xci_ed6 wrote:

what about the k-cars i-4. I don't know much about it, other than the turbo/shelby could make good power and that it was heavy, and very difficult to work on. What fun is working on something where all of the accessories must be removed to get the timing belt cover off.

Luckily the timing belt doesn't need to be changed very often, and you only have to remove the A/C compressor, alternator, bracket and belts to get to it. All of it is available from the top of the car aside from the front pulley. The later cars used a better power steering pump belt tensioner solution that made it easier to set the tension one-handed.

Otherwise, the engines are damned tough and will produce a lot of power fairly cheaply. In some ways better than the Ford 2.3 Turbo's (aluminum cylinder head, water cooled turbo the most obvious) and you can get them in RWD form.

All of that said, I would look at newer 4-cylinder motors before buying into a T-D project these days. The aftermarket just isn't there (was it ever really?) and newer motors are lighter, more efficient and able to provide better power to weight ratios. For those of us who like to tinker, they are pretty fun to monkey with and I would like to see more of them at the $2K GRM events.
Dec. 31, 2009 6:25 p.m. digdug18 Reader

try http://www.v8archie.com/v8Archie/home.htm

the v8 fiero swaps seem to add some fun, although, with all that weight in the rear i'm sure they are squirrelly at best on the track.

Andrew
Dec. 31, 2009 7:38 p.m. ignorant PowerDork

Jay_W wrote:

I But my vote would have to be the aforementioned SS 454. I mean, really....

Keep it going.. Those engines were poo.
Dec. 31, 2009 8:00 p.m. Trans_Maro HalfDork

digdug18 wrote:

try http://www.v8archie.com/v8Archie/home.htm

the v8 fiero swaps seem to add some fun, although, with all that weight in the rear i'm sure they are squirrelly at best on the track.

Andrew

With aluminum heads and intake they're only a bit more than the stock engine.

Shawn
Dec. 31, 2009 11:24 p.m. HappyAndy HalfDork

ignorant wrote:

IIRC the 18r-22r toyota engines were originally designed for large industrial forklifts.....

Um, no. As a forklift mechanic I am quite sure that that serries of toyota motor was not designed for industrial use, it was a pick up truck motor adapted for use in lift trucks, and it is a fairly uncommon one too. Most toyota powered forklifts use a 4P or 4Y, the one in this image is not an industrial version because it doesn't have the pto/pump drive on the front

edit: I forgot to add that the GM iron duke sucks as an industrial engine too.
Jan. 2, 2010 10:54 a.m. MostExaltedPotentate Reader

aussiesmg wrote:

spitfirebill wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Triumph Stag 2.5L V8, utter total POS rushed into production to compete with the Rover (ex-Buick) V8.

What would you expect from two TR7 engines siamezed together (in theory anyway)?

Although the engine is a 3.0 ( 2 x 1.5 4 cylinder blocks) I have two and I have to heartily agree, but much of the problem was in the timing when Triumph was going under and the staff didn't care a lick about what went out the door.

which raises a good question: Why didn't they use the Rover 3.5? That seems nutty...

I wonder if that was as popular a swap abroad as the SBC was here.
Jan. 2, 2010 12:30 p.m. erohslc Reader

Politics, and ISTR that both the engine and the Stag project was started before Triumph was part of the Big Happy BLMC family.
Jan. 2, 2010 6:49 p.m. SlickDizzy UltraDork

Pontiac 3.1 turbo. Boost + failure prone intake manifold gaskets = fail.
Jan. 2, 2010 6:55 p.m. spitfirebill Dork

aussiesmg wrote:

spitfirebill wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Triumph Stag 2.5L V8, utter total POS rushed into production to compete with the Rover (ex-Buick) V8.

What would you expect from two TR7 engines siamezed together (in theory anyway)?

Although the engine is a 3.0 ( 2 x 1.5 4 cylinder blocks) I have two and I have to heartily agree, but much of the problem was in the timing when Triumph was going under and the staff didn't care a lick about what went out the door.

And the Stag's problem was also a lot to do with not keeping fresh coolant in it.
Jan. 2, 2010 7:02 p.m. SlickDizzy UltraDork

3400 DOHC motor in the Z34 monte, and the early 90's GTP. Ever tried doing an alternator in one?
Jan. 2, 2010 7:38 p.m. xci_ed6 HalfDork

haha, I forgot about the 3800, how about the lobeless 5th camshaft, so they could retain the chain drive (plus the added timing belt) and the cam position sensor where the distributor used to be.
Jan. 2, 2010 8:22 p.m. Raze Reader

I guess because it never came in a true "performance" application, but the DOHC Northstar V8 is as much of a Titanic as any of the aforementioned, and it had performance, combine a transverse layout with typical GM packaging plus porous die cast blocks with finely pitched threads for the head bolts tapped directly into said porous block and you have a recipe for stripped head bolts, lifted heads and the need to drop the whole front cradle to drill out and repair all the holes because you can't get a drill to the rear head bolts in the car, also, flat tappet lifters on pre 2000s tend to wear and even break leading to all sorts of fun head/cam damage. Also, pre 2000s half case seal basically falls apart after 10 years and it's only a matter of time before you're puking oil everywhere, oh and don't forget, you have to remove the engine for the repair, plus remove it from the trans which makes it so much more fun...

I MISS MY CADILLAC BUT I DO NOT MISS THAT ENGINE
Jan. 2, 2010 8:49 p.m. xci_ed6 HalfDork

In reply to Raze:

the northstar...the only engine I can think of with full helicoil kits available.
Jan. 2, 2010 9:24 p.m. aussiesmg SuperDork

Seriously guys if the engine ran at 100K it was better than the Stag V8, most failed before 50K, very few made it past 75K.

I have 4, the lowest mileage is 27K the highest 64K, they are all 73 models and none has run in many years.

Made 180hp, it's only redeeming feature is that is the sweetest sound V8 sound ever.

The SS454 had no power but they are still running, puts it way ahead of the pitiful Triumph effort at a V8, it was so bad they dumped it and used the aforementioned 3.5 in the TR8.
Jan. 2, 2010 9:39 p.m. bamalama Reader

SlickDizzy wrote:

3400 DOHC motor in the Z34 monte, and the early 90's GTP. Ever tried doing an alternator in one?

I put six on the same car (Lumina Z34) for a friend of mine. I'd rather walk than have one of those berkeleyin' things.
Jan. 2, 2010 10:16 p.m. mapper New Reader

Trans_Maro wrote:

06HHR wrote:

Pontiac 301. Even with a Turbo the 301 was a turd..

Yeah, they suck.

Too bad one of my customers is setting records in NHRA stock eliminator with one:

Shawn

Why? I am honestly asking. There are so many great GM small block options. Why the 301?
Jan. 3, 2010 12:24 a.m. Trans_Maro HalfDork

mapper wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote:

06HHR wrote:

Pontiac 301. Even with a Turbo the 301 was a turd..

Yeah, they suck.

Too bad one of my customers is setting records in NHRA stock eliminator with one:

Shawn

Why? I am honestly asking. There are so many great GM small block options. Why the 301?

What part of "Stock Eliminator" escapes you?

Besides, it's a Pontiac. If you want a Camaro, buy a Camaro.

Shawn
Jan. 3, 2010 8:55 a.m. confuZion3 SuperDork

93celicaGT2 wrote:

confuZion3 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

If you want power for cheap, I just saw a 91 Talon TSI AWD in good shape for $1800. You can run 12's with that thing by gutting the interior and purchasing, get ready for the long list of mods, a cone filter and a boost controller.

Yup. That'll run 12s. Once or twice. Then the crank will move a fraction of an inch in the wrong direction at 5,000 RPMs and bam! It's all over. They blew up all the time didn't they? Isn't that called "crank walk"?

You've got the wrong motor there, skippy. A 91 DSM will have a 6-bolt. Not the 7-bolt.

Yes, yes, I concede. Wrong motor. I move my vote to the 7-bolt engine. They sure could go fast, but they had a serious flaw that everyone seems to know about.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You'll need to log in to post.