I gotta say that 8-6-4 engine was a bad thing for it's time. They just could not get the thing to know how many cylinders it needed.


NOTICE********** No Mopar engines on the list********** Bow down to mother Mopar infidels!

We had a turbo sprint at a Buy Here-Pay Here lot I worked at.It was our parts truck,We took a Sawzall and hacked the roof off.I pulled out of the lot one day and a cop hit me up on the roof being removed by cavemen.We junked it after that.

They put the little 2.2 in there just to be equal opportunity, but even then they had to say it was nice in the shelby and daytona.

When ever I was asked for advise on a used or new car my answer was. "Never buy any American car with the following"

1- 4 banger engine
2- Diesel engine
3- Any engine in production less then 2-model years
4- Turbo engine

Always stick with a V6 or V8

In response to the "4banger" statement.
4 cylinder american engines aren't that bad....a woman I work with has a 95 cavalier with over 200,000 on it and it is still running strong.

Granted, there are bad engines but most of it comes down to how they are cared for.

Man that is a stretch.....The GN and T-type are bad ***,The Syclone and Typhon also are,the Trans Am had a turbo 6 in 87 I believe,as an option.First production car to pace the Indy 500 with all factory motor.They are pretty reliable engines in there,You will be hard pressed to run with any of those cars without a little extra grunt under your own hood,and that is not always going to help against a modified Grand National.If I could get one that was not so expensive I would have an 87 GN over most cars out there now.The 2nd Gen Trans Am with the 301 was a slug,that turbo motor is not one that I would want.

humm ....worst engines ever made

Chev: the 2.8 v6
the 2.2 iron duke
267 sb
quad-4(early years anyway)

Chrysler
2.2 4cyl
2.7 aluminum ohc v6


Ford
255

OK, the 307 wasn't all that bad, it was just a dog, but a reliable dog. I think I will replace it with the Ford 2.3 Turbo carbed, rod knocking, oil eating, piece of turd engine.

You really hit the nail on the head with the 2.8 Chevy, the Quad four (real peice of ****) and the 2.7 Chrysler (no torque whatsoever,why didn't they stick with the 3.5?)

LOL!
:MOPAR 2.2L I-4
Launched with the successful K-Car line, the Mopar 2.2 soon became known as a rod-knocker. With multiple failures rolling in, Mother Mopar did the unthinkable and added a turbo to it. This may have been okay if it had remained under the hood of only the specialized Shelby GLHS and Dodge Daytona (quite swoopy FWD cars at the time), but Mopar chose to share the love across the entire product line--from the full-size Chryslers (also FWD) to the insanely-popular minivans. Literally, millions of Turbo 2.2 engines were produced, and while many survived, a good percentage caused headaches for owners and service techs alike. Interestingly, when rebuilt for high performance, the 2.2 has proven to be a solid foundation. However, in stock shape, their ill reputation remained.:

Yeah I agree... the 2.2 in that damn dodge lancer SUCKS! But it still runs, knock on wood.

Ford 255 -- what a terrible idea, take the 302 and choke it down without losing any weight....

the Ford 2.3L HSC was pretty awful too, it was mostly the old 200 cid six with two cylinders chopped off --

but the 2.5L HSC they put in the early Taurus's (Taurii?) was really the pits.

How about the most underrated engine? I vote for the Ford 300 cid 6, what a stump puller, and they last forever....

Lets give the award to Robinson Robin. The GM 2.8 V-6 has got to be on top. The only engine designed to steal just enough anti-freeze to wipe the bottom end out before you ever knew what hit you. On the 12th. oil change you just replaced the entire engine. Bad enough GM had it but they suckered Jeep into using it also.

My Blazer has a 2.8...it has 230,000km on it and I plow in the winter with it.. burns no oil..............what's wrong with that.

It is gutless though.

__________________
Home Handyman Forum I Shade Tree Mechanic Forum

I vote for the Willys-Knight sleeve-valve engine. An engineering marvel that would carbon up, stick the sleeves and smoke like hell. Once they broke, nobody knew how to fix them, so they got shoved in the barn.

Vega engines, well Vegas in general were real crapola.

Any Detroit engine produced in the late 70s or early 80s were generally smogged out, oil leaking junk. The vacuum hoses looked like the head of Medusa. No power, and just ridiculous to work on.


I think the best engines as far as economy, reliability, and overall performance woudl be the 283 Chevrolet, the 318 Chrysler, the 289-302 Ford and the old venerable slant six Chrysler.

Tough engines, manufactured in the hundreds of thousands and beloved by their owners.

early neon engines