|
|
Post by gm4ever on Nov 22, 2011 9:40:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gm4ever on Nov 22, 2011 9:54:30 GMT -5
The list is missing the most recent winner for horrible engines, the Chrysler 2.7 V6. I had a buddy with an Intrepid and the engine went south at 60K miles. The car design itself was pretty, but he said the power window motors failed like mad, he had constant electrical issues, and then when the engine went, Chrysler would take no resposibility. He sent me a link years ago about the lawsuits, and you can still read about these online. The amazing thing is until just recently the 2.7 was still the base engine on many Chrysler cars.... www.dontbuydodgechryslervehicles.com/dodge_chrysler_engine_problems.htmwww.allpar.com/mopar/V6/27.html |
|
|
|
Post by gm4ever on Nov 22, 2011 9:58:39 GMT -5
Another famous Chrysler bomb was the late 80's 3.0 V6, designed by Mitsubishi and used as the upgrade engine from the 2.2 4cyl in everything from minivans to Daytonas. It was a smooth running engine with good power for it's day, but after 50-60K miles they were known to burn oil and smoke. For years you could point out a 3.0 Chrysler going down the road by the blue smoke trail behind it. You don't see them on the roads much now....most likely because rather than fix them most went to the salvage yard. The funny thing is they would run...smoking....for years, and until emissions regs kicked in, many people just kept dumping oil in their old Chryco-Mitsu oil burners.
|
|
|
|
Post by gm4ever on Nov 22, 2011 10:11:28 GMT -5
I'm also surprised the Saturn engines are not mentioned. When the original Saturn came out, it was a good looking car hampered by an engine that sounded like a snow blower. I actually really wanted a Saturn Coupe when they came out....until I test drove it. I actually thought there was something wrong with the car when I drove it, the engine was SO LOUD, and not in a good way.
If you get a chance, look at one of these in the salvage yard. The engine was formed by "Lost foam casting", where the actual casting block burns away when the metal is poured into the form. It makes it look like the engine is made of styrefoam. Ha!
Saturn engines, in addition to being noisey, were known to use astounding amounts of oil when they got some miles on them. Amazingly, they didn't really smoke...so where did all the oil go....oooh spooky, ha!
It's sad, because I clearly remember when the first Saturns came out, and they were nice looking cars with a good promise...trying to beat the Japanese back with cars made in Tennessee. They won awards for dealer service and also for no-haggle pricing, which worked great until the word got out the cars were not all that good, and the rush to buy them lagged.
It's just too bad the execution didn't live up to the hype...
-Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by gm4ever on Nov 22, 2011 10:54:17 GMT -5
Almost forgot one I knew personally, Hahaha, the "Twin Dual Cam V6" Even the name was stupid.... Yep, had that in my Mom's '93 Cutlass ragtop. Lots of power and smooth, until the timing belt broke. Also the heads were so large that engine was terribly wide and made doing any kind of service on it in the small engine bay a nightmare (the rear three spark plugs were under both the intake and firewall. In addition, you had to UNBOLT AND LOWER THE SUBFRAME to change the alternator, which was mounted low on the block. The best part was the cams and crank had no timing marks on them. At the factory, the marks were written on with a pen, which of course faded off quickly, leaving the poor tech in charge of changing the timing belt to guess when it was correctly lined up.....fun when dealing with four cams and having no room to work! Techs HATED these engines.     |
|
|
|
Post by 96pushrodford on Nov 22, 2011 13:43:36 GMT -5
He missed the Ford 3.8L ;l)
CADILLAC V8-6-4 were those in the old 80's coop deville's ?
|
|
|
|
Post by 63cdv on Nov 22, 2011 15:14:46 GMT -5
He missed the Ford 3.8L ;l) CADILLAC V8-6-4 were those in the old 80's coop deville's ? Cadillac V8-6-4 was an '81 only engine (except for Limos & commercial chassis which went up to '84). It was actually mechanically solid and may have needed some electronics tweaking. With the cylinder deactivation disabled they were bullet-proof. Now the the follow-on engine, HT-4100, totally sucked and should have never seen the light of day. More info: www.mcsmk8.com/8-6-4/8-6-4.HTM |
|
|
|
Post by gm4ever on Nov 22, 2011 16:29:02 GMT -5
He missed the Ford 3.8L ;l) CADILLAC V8-6-4 were those in the old 80's coop deville's ? Cadillac V8-6-4 was an '81 only engine (except for Limos & commercial chassis which went up to '84). It was actually mechanically solid and may have needed some electronics tweaking. With the cylinder deactivation disabled they were bullet-proof. Now the the follow-on engine, HT-4100, totally sucked and should have never seen the light of day. More info: www.mcsmk8.com/8-6-4/8-6-4.HTMYep I remember that as well. Disable the cylinder deactivation and it was a normal 6.0 Caddy engine. The early 80's were a dark time at Caddy. Without dwelling on a 1.8-litre '82 Cimmaron (shivers), a nightmare in itself, you can't forget in addition to the V8-6-4 and HT4100, there was also Caddy's running Olds 350 diesel engines and even a V6 option, which is laughable in a car as large as a RWD DeVille/Fleetwood. And even in the mid-80's GM moved the HT4100 to FWD and replaced that engine in the RWD cars with the Olds 307, another gutless wonder of an engine. It was not until the late 80's when they updated the HT4100 to the 4.5 and 4.9 that the little Caddy V8 was fixed. The 4.5 and 4.9 versions were not bad motors. Also in the late 80's GM began offering a 5.7 350 Chevy engine in the big RWD Caddy, which is the engine that big car should have had all along. We had just moved from Denver to New Jersey in 1985, and I remember going and looking at the new downsized DeVille, Seville, and Eldo with my Dad. He HATED them. He said those cars, especially the little '86 Seville and Eldo, would be the death of Cadillac. I think he was nearly right. -Mike |
|
|
|
Post by agshelby on Nov 22, 2011 20:20:32 GMT -5
I would take a 32 ford V8 over any new car. It was revolutionary at the time and evolved up until '54. A pretty good run.
Remember the 4 cylinders from the early 80s? Way underpowered. I had an 81 mustang that didn't have the hp o run the a/c when driving up hills or at red lights.
Cars have improved dramatically in the last 30 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by LukeWarm on Nov 22, 2011 23:05:02 GMT -5
I got a chuckle from the Chevy Vega section. Back in the late 70s, a friend of mine stuffed a very stout (400+ hp) small block Chevy, 4 speed and narrowed Olds rear with 411s into a Vega. It was like an overgrown go-cart. It's a wonder we didn't kill ourselves in that thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Man on Nov 24, 2011 17:34:08 GMT -5
One engine that was so, well I won't say bad, I'll say useless is the Ford 255cid V/8 used in cars back in 80-82'.
Technical Specs
The base Mustang used the V-8 255 cubic-inch engine with a two-barrel carburetor. The fuel and air mixture had a 8.8-to-1 compression ratio at ignition. The engine produced 119 horsepower and 194 foot-pounds of torque, or pulling power.
Performance
The Mustang with this engine had a top speed rating of 108 miles per hour. Its standing-to-60 mph time was an anemic 13 seconds, and its quarter-mile time was 20 seconds, which was 75 miles per hour. Even with reduced power, its fuel economy was not great, at 10 mpg in the city and 14 mpg on the highway.
A co-worker of mine had this in her 80' Cobra....it was truely a "Girlie" car.
|
|
