Worst Performance Engine of All TIme

Second gen SHO motor, the 3.4 v8. Love to spin the cam sprocket on one of its four cams and take out a few valves with it. Worse is the ridiculous cost of replacement parts.

Second would be the supercharged v8 in the mid-nineties XJRs. Cylinder sleeves coated in Nikilite (sp?) that reacted to the cast pistons and liked to seize the motor.

The California only 305 in the Corvette with 180 HP?

The 2.8 in the Camaro?

There are a few...

tuna55 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: I disagree. SBC parts are getting more expensive and the vehicles they came in are either trucks, crappy, or collectable. 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.

Do you know Drew from somewhere?

I don't think so ...

You guys should have your Moms bring you to a playdate or something - you'd get along well.

Thanks for the random hostility. Sure is a good thing we could get rid of the fun goofiness in here.

93celicaGT2 wrote: I already know i get along well with Drew... i've known him for years. Don't think i know this guy, though.

You don't. Unless you live in Nevada, land of the dead racetracks and homeless SCCA branches.

tuna55 wrote: The 2.8 in the Camaro?

In the Camaro? Yes. In my future Chevette project? Perfect

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...

Forgot all about the ford 255 and the Pontiac 301. Even with a Turbo the 301 was a turd.. And the 255 is best left forgotten.

There's a 267 cubic inch version of the LT1 out there as well. GM put it in some Caprices, If a person isn't careful, it can be mistaken for an LT1 at the junkyards..

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: http://www.301garage.com/forum/index.php?topic=314.0

http://www.301garage.com/forum/index.php?topic=3025.0

http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/events/hppp_0911_the_11th_annual_pontiac_heaven/index.html

Shawn

I bet a mercedes m116 380 engine might be on the list. 160hp from a 3.8l V8, my 280 makes around 180hp from 2.8l which is pretty good for a 31 year old car. Not to mention the single row timing chain issues with the m116. The only redeeming part of the engine it it will give you the best mileage of almost any r107 except the euro 300sl with the m103 engine. Too bad they didn't put the m104 24v r129 300sl engine into the 107 body. I think they made around 220hp.

I wouldn't dis the 22r/e engines they aren't performance engines, but may embarrass some performance cars if used correctly.

I've got pictures of an old FED running an alky burning 20R around here somewhere.

Shawn

mndsm wrote: I nominate.... the b16 from anything Honda. Sure, it's got epic aftermarket support. Sure it's the go to swap for any Honda enthusiast. However- it cost Honda people as much as I paid for my entire DSM in 2001, to make it as slow.

Cost shouldnt really be considered... You are spot on though. Full dropout costs are a complete and utter JOKE. Heck, even I paid too much for mine... Performance parts also cost waaaaaay to much. I thought when the K swaps started coming around prices would fall out. Not so much.

BUT, I personally think its hard to find other motors with the willingness to rev once a lightweigth flywheel is added, even though they arent bad stock. My only experience is my own and my friends, mine with an 8 pound flywheel, the other is 7. Ive driven various stock Si's while i worked at honda but i didnt think it was right to beat on customer cars... Torque? NOPE. Horsepower? EH... a dainty 170hp (flywheel) if you buy the right year... but it loves to revved, beaten on, and driven hard. And it takes it like a champ.

How about the Ford 3.8L V6 used in the tbirds and low end stangs? I owned a Tbird SuperCoupe, and after throwing $$ after $$ after $$ at this block of garbage I could barely muster 300HP and then my head gaskets blew...

The Eaton SC was a nice touch, but the block just couldn't handle the boost if it was barely cranked up.

What's really sad about the Pontiac Turbo 301 was that it could have been a great motor if GM let it live. While the regular 301 was atrociously bad, the turbo 301 was supposed to be the future powerplant of the 80's for the Firebird and Trans Am line.

Pontiac planned on giving this engine EFI, better breathing heads, a better, stronger bottom end, and a host of other upgrades. It was supposed to be a technological tour-de-force, much like the turbo 3.8 Buick ended up turning into midway through the 1980's. Pontiac, in anticipation for the turbo 301's continuation, designed the early 3rd Gen Trans Am with a similar "turbo" hood, much like the 1980-81 Turbo Trans Ams had.

Since upper management at GM decided to share engines across the different divisions, Pontiac got left out in the cold as far as performance engines went. None of their in-house designs, save for the previously mentioned and reviled Iron Duke 4-banger. The rare race-only Iron Duke was good for its time, but was scarce and didn't find much of a following. The high performance turbo 301 program was scrapped.

It's really too bad that the 301 wasn't given a chance to develop. Remember, the turbo 3.8 Buick V6 that later became famous in the Grand Nationals, TTA's, and T-Types was just as much of a turd back then, and look at how it ended up!

benzbaron wrote: I wouldn't dis the 22r/e engines they aren't performance engines, but may embarrass some performance cars if used correctly.

Which is exactly the problem: They are truck engines, shoved into Sporting Cars.

It takes quite a bit of work to get them near the potential of other engines of similar vintage.

Add to that the fact that they are heavy bloody blocks, it really kills their potential.

Most people will agree, that a 2T-G is better than an 18R-G, simply because you can make very similar power, but shave some poundage due to the lighter block.

In the end, the 22R is a great truck engine, people mover engine, fork lift engine, or van engine. But it is far from being anywhere near being a decent perfomance engine.

The 4AC in the AE86 Corolla. A brilliant car with the revvy 4AGE, but not so much with the wheezy, carb'd 4AC.

Just jumped in here and I haven't read the whole thread.......so it's probably already been mentioned but my vote is for the Chevy Vega. The worst car with the worst motor ever conceived. Aluminun block with iron sleeves....liked to crack open at about 40K miles just for fun. Rust ate the body up as you watched. Just awful. Guess that explains why you don't see many Vegas driving around anymore. Also helps explain why Chevy is in bankruptcy.

Feedyurhed wrote: Just jumped in here and I haven't read the whole thread.......so it's probably already been mentioned but my vote is for the Chevy Vega. The worst car with the worst motor ever conceived. Aluminun block with iron sleeves....liked to crack open at about 40K miles just for fun. Rust ate the body up as you watched. Just awful. Guess that explains why you don't see many Vegas driving around anymore. Also helps explain why Chevy is in bankruptcy.

The Vega engine did not have iron sleeves. If it had, it may have been a better engine. It had the silicon coating or whatever, like Mercedes and Porsche used. Even they had problems in some of their cars.

Yes this was the epitome of GMs stupidity.

EDIT

A little research revealed that GM offered a replacement block that in fact had steel sleeves. They also went to the DuraBuilt 140 in 1976. Not sure if it had sleeves or not. The Vega never got the Iron Duke. The Pontiac Astre got the Iron Duke and the Vega was dropped.

You need to check your Wikipedia about the Vega. It had a lot of innovative stuff surroundiong production. The car was shipped by rail standing on its nose! One of the first cars to use robotic welding. Union unrest resulted in deliberate sabotage of the cars after GM took over the factory. Basically, the engine was a new design using new technology rushed into production too early.

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...

They do? Tell me more....

93celicaGT2 wrote:

P71 wrote: 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...

They do? Tell me more....

Yeah, the only 200+ hp 2.0 from Hyundai that I'm aware of is the turbo motor in the Genesis Coupe.

And I thought the Ford 2.3 SOHC motors were all the same block, at least.

I vote for vega. Went to General Motors Institute in the 70's and the design failures were discussed in many classes. Poor manufacturing processes and bad design killed that car before one hit the showroom. Mine had the wonderful habit of locking into reverse at random. It would go into reverse but wouldn't come out. Had to pick my parking spaces VERY carefully. Sold it with less than 20K miles, just before the engine went.

Note on the 924. They were very tough engines, but had the weirdest combustion chamber design around. Head was dead flat, chamber was in the piston. To increase compression you had to change pistons or mill the block. Getting horsepower out of one with the stock CR was a waste of time. I tried webers, cams, headers and nothing really worked.

In reply to porschenut:

That's really weird. Was it like a Powerstroke cc?

http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2009/08/aluminum-cylinder-head-630.jpg

The vw 1100 from a split window Beetle. It has around 15hp at the wheels (almost 24hp at the flywheel). The compression ration is 5.8:1 and it has a redline of 3,000rpm. It could bring a Beetle up to 60mph downhill.

The Ford Fiesta's Kent engine had the weird flat head/dished piston design like the 924's. Only the Fiesta motor went quite well.

I saw a pic of a Vega engine block which was used in a cicle track app which BROKE APART! while running. The bottom of the block separated from the top. Damndest thing I have ever seen. According to the article, the guy said it started hammering and running bad but he was able to drive it back to the pits.

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