2002GGPIS3

I saw this great thread on LS1 tech, http://ls1tech.com/forums/racers-lou...ever-made.html

So I just wanted the Club Lexus view, what is the worst engine ever made ?

FrankReynoldsCPA

6.2 GM Diesel, made from 1982-94ish, and its successor, the 6.5

jimbosr1

any engine in a chevy vaga

Och

iTrader: (3)

Anything with DSM on it.

LeX2K

I'm sure there have been worse engines, but the Chevy Vega engine was a complete piece of crap. It didn't matter how well you took car of it, the engine would fail anyway, most often ending up with a giant hole in the block.

mmarshall

Can't comment on the engines made before I was born or too young to know about, but in my adult lifetime, I'd say that the title of Worst Engine could be split between three well-worthy candidates....and as you can see, I agree with some of the other posters.

1. The aluminum four-cylinder block, with the cast-iron cylinder-liners, used in the early 70s Chevrolet Vega. The aluminum and iron expanded/contracted at different rates during warm-up and cool-down, and anything even close to overheating was likely to warp the block/liners and ruin the engine. GM, in the mid-70s, made some revisions, renamed the engine Dura-Built, also offered it in a Pontiac version of the Vega (Astre) and gave it a 4-year/60,000 warranty.......which was unheard of at the time. But the damage to the car's reputation had been done...the public shunned it even with the super-long warranty, and it was quietly dropped.

2. The awful 350 cubic-inch diesel V8 used by GM in the late 70s/early-80s. Instead of developing a true diesel from the ground up that could withstand the pressures of 20:1 compression-ignition, the bean-counters at the company decided to take the easy way out and try and quickly convert an existing mid-size V8. The result was a disaster. The block simply couldn't withstand the operational pressures, vibration, or resistance to metal-fatigue from the strain. Water in the diesel-fuel tended to corrode and damage fuel-system components because no water-separators were added. Two batteries were standard-equipment, but, even so, it was often difficult to get the glow-plugs firing reliably for initial start-up at below-freezing temperatures. As the engine's reputation quickly spread, used-car values quickly plummeted, and owners were left with unreliable and low-value lemons. Not surprisingly, the trial-lawyers had a field day with this engine.....it was the subject of class-action suits.

3. The Honda CVCC engines of the mid-1970s (Sorry, Honda fans........but there's a reason why I list this one). Yes, it was mechanically reliable (as most of the engines that Honda has done through the years), but the CVCC system was an absolute mess.....and a complete pain in the a** to warm up and drive on a cold start. The CVCC system worked by firing off a small rich air-fuel mixture in a small pre-combustion chamber....and that was supposed to (in theory at least), fire off a super-lean mixture in the adjoining main-cylinder. Honda (and the auto press) made a big deal of the fact that it was the only American-market engine in 1975 that could meet the new emission-laws without a catalytic converter or unleaded gas Unleaded gas, at that time, ran a few cents more than leaded-regular). Fine.....except that the engine didn't run worth s*** until it was fully warmed up. On a cold start, you pulled out the manual-choke cable, gave it a little gas, cranked it over until it caught (which could be anywhere from a couple of seconds to much longer), then slowly pushed the choke back in until it idled relatively smoothly. Problem was, it would (usually) idle, but you couldn't even begin to let the clutch out and drive off...it would stall at even the slightest hint of clutch-engagement. This cat-and-mouse game would go on and on, though with somewhat less-intensity (sometimes mixed with carburator-icing on cold, wet days) as the engine warmed, but, in most cases, you couldn't actually drive off without severe hesitation or stalling until the temperature-gauge had reached virtually normal operating temperature. And forget pulling out into fast-moving traffic with a cold or even part-warm engine...you took your life into your own hands. This engine, though relatively clean-burning and economical for its day, is an absolutely perfect example of why carburators were finally dumped and electronic-fuel-injection adopted in the 1980s....years, IMO, after EFI should have been standard on production-cars.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

plenty of awful engines.

olds "quad 4" was bad.
2 cylinder citreon "deux cv"
most any fiat engine
any e-type jag and jag xjs 6 or 12.

LeX2K

I forgot about those Honda engines, they were indeed a total nightmare to deal with. Honorable mention would be the Chrysler "lean burn" engines starting in the mid 70's. The concept was great, but in practice the computer that controlled everything failed often, and the whole setup was nothing even close to reliable, the engine bay was filled with vacuum lines and controllers.

Fizzboy7

I was going to say the GM diesel for cars, circa 1980's, but Marshall got it. My neighbor had a custard-colored Oldsmobile Cutlass diesel, which they nicknamed gutlass. You could tell by the sound and smoke alone that it had eternal issues.
Another pair of troublesome engines was the GM 4.3 "Vortec" V6 of the 80's and 90's. It had good torque, but Consumer Reports ripped it apart year after year for reliability. I had this engine in a 1997 GMC Jimmy and it had a lovely habit of stalling after coming off the freeway.
The other was the 2.8 V6, before they invented the 4.3. Also had this engine in an earlier Jimmy and it was supremely weak. At least it didn't break down though.
Speaking of gutless, my brother's 1990 4-Runner 4WD four-cylinder had to have been the most underpowered SUV of modern times. It didn't matter how hard you pushed the gas pedal, there was only one level of power. Thing was bulletproof though.

dsp979

I vote the Wankel, it's damn temperamental and loves to blow seals.

That is the 22R (22RE if efi, 22R-TE if turboed), one of Toyota's most reliable engines.

Fizzboy7

[QUOTE That is the 22R (22RE if efi, 22R-TE if turboed), one of Toyota's most reliable engines.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that was it. He NEVER had a problem with that thing. I think he was up to 172k miles when he finally sold it. It just didn't have any power for an SUV.

Aron9000

Yes, that was it. He NEVER had a problem with that thing. I think he was up to 172k miles when he finally sold it. It just didn't have any power for an SUV.[/QUOTE]

Your brother's 4Runner would've been a 22-RE. I have a 93 truck with the 22-RE/5 speed manual combo in it. Its a great engine with a 5 speed behind it, the automatic turns it into a gutless turd. Also the truck weighs about 2600lbs, that SUV was probably 3700-4000lbs. Like I said, great engine in a light truck, a total turd in a heavy SUV loaded down with people/gear.



I am going to nominate the HT4100 Cadillac as the worst engine EVAR. And I'm a diehard Cadillac man. I could write a doctorate theseus about how godawful this engine was and badly it damaged Cadillac's reputation. I'll give you the short story in two points:

1. Due to its aluminum heads/cast iron block, along with a myrid of other poor design choices, it would blow headgaskets, rods, burn holes in the pistons, and have catostrophic engine failures before 100k miles. A LOT of them blew up before 50k miles in the first few years of production. A typical site in the back lot of a Cadillac dealer would be blown 4100 motors stacked 5 high on pallets awaiting shipment to recyclers.

2. This motor was all of 4.1 liters of dispacement, 125hp/190lb-ft torque pushing around 4200lbs of full size, body on frame, chrome bumpered traditional Cadillac. Needless to say this had to be one of the SLOWEST cars for sale at that time. Despite your little 1984 Honda Accord having all of about 70-90hp back then, it weighed about 2100lbs, so it moved out at a decent pace.

Fizzboy7

Your brother's 4Runner would've been a 22-RE. I have a 93 truck with the 22-RE/5 speed manual combo in it. Its a great engine with a 5 speed behind it, the automatic turns it into a gutless turd. Also the truck weighs about 2600lbs, that SUV was probably 3700-4000lbs. Like I said, great engine in a light truck, a total turd in a heavy SUV loaded down with people/gear.



I am going to nominate the HT4100 Cadillac as the worst engine EVAR. And I'm a diehard Cadillac man. I could write a doctorate theseus about how godawful this engine was and badly it damaged Cadillac's reputation. I'll give you the short story in two points:

1. Due to its aluminum heads/cast iron block, along with a myrid of other poor design choices, it would blow headgaskets, rods, burn holes in the pistons, and have catostrophic engine failures before 100k miles. A LOT of them blew up before 50k miles in the first few years of production. A typical site in the back lot of a Cadillac dealer would be blown 4100 motors stacked 5 high on pallets awaiting shipment to recyclers.

2. This motor was all of 4.1 liters of dispacement, 125hp/190lb-ft torque pushing around 4200lbs of full size, body on frame, chrome bumpered traditional Cadillac. Needless to say this had to be one of the SLOWEST cars for sale at that time. Despite your little 1984 Honda Accord having all of about 70-90hp back then, it weighed about 2100lbs, so it moved out at a decent pace.[/QUOTE]

What models were the HT4100's in? What years were these? My grandma always had Fleetwood Broughams during the 80's and early 90's, but I don't recall her having engine problems.

Aron9000

What models were the HT4100's in? What years were these? My grandma always had Fleetwood Broughams during the 80's and early 90's, but I don't recall her having engine problems.[/QUOTE]

The 1980s were a confusing time for Cadillac, and this reflected in VERY similar names for VERY different cars.

Lets just say for simplicity purposes that:

1. Any Eldorado or Seville, 1982-1987
2. Any RWD Cadillac from 1982-1985
3. Any FWD Deville or Fleetwood(note that the Fleetwood name applied to both FWD and RWD cars) from 1985-1987
4. All RWD cars 1986-1989 used the Olds 5.0(307) carburated v8. Very reliable but also slow.

Also note that from 1985-1987 Cadillac used the "Fleetwood" nameplate on the new, small FWD cars. "Fleetwood Brougham" was used to designate the large, RWD cars that had been around with no styling changes since 1980.

For 1988-1992 Cadillac shortened the name from "Fleetwood Brougham" to simply "Brougham" to designate the old, RWD cars.

I'm betting your grandma owned the old, big, boxy Brougham models with the 5.0(307 ci) Olds v8. They later came with TBI 305 and 350 Chevy truck motors for model years 91-92. 1990 was an odd year since the base motor was still the 5.0 Olds, with the 350 Chevy optional. The 305 Chevy became standard in 91-92, with the 350 Chevy optional yet again.

EDIT: Can you tell I owned a 91 Brougham for 4 years??? The 80's were CRAP for Cadillac in terms of reliability and all the downsized models for 1985/86 SUCKED, but IMO they did have some really cool designs with the 1979 Eldorado, 1980 Seville, and 1980 Deville/Fleetwood Brougham.

Fizzboy7

[
I'm betting your grandma owned the old, big, boxy Brougham models with the 5.0(307 ci) Olds v8. They later came with TBI 305 and 350 Chevy truck motors for model years 91-92. 1990 was an odd year since the base motor was still the 5.0 Olds, with the 350 Chevy optional. The 305 Chevy became standard in 91-92, with the 350 Chevy optional yet again.

EDIT: Can you tell I owned a 91 Brougham for 4 years??? The 80's were CRAP for Cadillac in terms of reliability and all the downsized models for 1985/86 SUCKED, but IMO they did have some really cool designs with the 1979 Eldorado, 1980 Seville, and 1980 Deville/Fleetwood Brougham.[/QUOTE]

Dang, you know your Caddys. Yes, you are right. She had the long, boxy, traditional Fleetwoods, which had the word "Brougham" up on the side and back. I do recall the "5.0" logo on there somewhere when I was detailing it, so that makes sense.
In my opinion, those cars were the last of the true Cadillac standouts and we had no problem with here getting a new one every few years. The best was I think a 1990 (?), which got digital gauges, the all one-piece headlight assemblies and the updated taillights. She was stylin, but the gangsters from South Central L.A. learned where she lived and the car kept getting stolen or taken (with her in it sometimes). After that, it was Grand Marquis time.