Hmm. I'd have to vote for the Chrysler 2.7 V6. If you ever see one make it past 90000 miles, you've just witnessed a miracle, considering the cats run directly beside the block/oil pan. I'd say my second vote would go to the Cadillac 4.1/4.5/4.9. If you ever pull the heads off, don't expect to get them back on, as most of the head bolt threads are going to come with the bolts.

There's nothing wrong with the Ford 2.3T, that is as long as it was a fuel-injected version. I flat out slaughtered a guy in a Chevelle one night light to light back when I had one in a 'stang. Now for the worst engine to ever hit the beaches of the east coast. Back in the early 70's, British Leland was suffering hard times and decided to take a chance by putting a new V-8 into their brand new model, the Stag. It boasted dual Strombergs, singe overhead cam, and an optional 6spd OD trans. Pretty cutting edge back in the day, and cost nearly as much as a Merc SL. It was all great for about the first 20k miles, then they started throwing t-chains, overheating, and or blowing head gaskets or cracking heads. Pretty neat! To top it all off, they used studs to bolt the, you guessed it, aluminum heads. They conveniently machined a slot in the tops of the studs which was great to install them, but promptly break off when an attempt to remove them is carried out. Eventually, all the bugs were worked out on this engine, but the damage to its reputation was done. Even better, the worst Triumph ever made, the TR7, came with 1/2 of this motor. I believe it was the whole right bank. Wadda ya expect from the Limies. Who am I kidding, I own 2 of the #$%$# things!

I vote Chevy 2.8 as all time worst motor- though I can't say that I hate them- I was out of work right after getting out of the army and I was able to make a small industry out of rebuilding them- and there was 1000s of them LOL

I don't understand the 2.2 thing at all- I had several and never had a problem with them.

I wrenched in Anchorage for years and seldom joined in the mechanics banter when it consisted of slamming or griping. It was the crappy cars that put the beans on my table. The AMC Eagles, the Chevy Citations, For Escorts.
Part of the bad rap alot of cars/engines got is because of who owned them. Most of the small cheap cars were sold to people who couldn't afford them so they never got any maintenance. If you ever saw an Escort that was taken care of they weren't a bad car but most of them died a premature death at the hands of some white trash chain smoking single mom with a herd of nose pickers.
The 2.2 Chrysler was basically a fairly decent little engine but suffered from a total POS carburator and again the white trash thing. The choke stat would go out and they would drive the dam thing with the choke half closed until the crankcase was full of gas and then badmouth the engine for loosing a cam lobe or follower. Chrysler even succeeded in making the little 1.7 VW engine into an annoying POS by putting their carb system on it. The FI version in the Rabbit did just fine.

Hehehe, that's pretty funny. I'll agree with you on the neglect/owner issue. I do remember being a kid back in the 80's and working for a Jeep dealership. The first time I drove a Cherokee with a 2.8L in it I promptly took it back to the service manager because I thought there was something wrong with it. That's when I found out that that was the way it was suppose to be. Never was a big fan, but I never owned one. I always thought it was pretty sad that the smaller motor offered to a model was the better deal.(the 2.5)

Yeah, the 2.8 Chevy AND Ford engines are both at the top of my list. But once again many of the problems were the over complicated carburation systems that weren't reliable long term. Now the 2.8 Chevy just plain had a weak bottom end but once Ford updated their sorry little carburated 2.8 to a fuel injected 2.9 it really wasn't a bd engine. I remember the first 2.8 Bronco 2 I drove. It was a noisey underpowered ill handleing (and ugly) pile. It was also an automatic and they must have thought the passenger was going to do the shifting because they put the shifter on the passenger side so you had to strain against the shoulder harness to reach it. It had acceleration times that you had to measure with a sundial. I still can't believe people bought those little junk heaps. I was doing emissions testing back then and there was no way to get an 84-85 2.8 Ford to pass the tailpipe test. I read about the TSB and recall for the fix but it was over as year before I could get Cal Worthington to acknowledge it. I used to PO the dealerships on a regular basis because most consumers didn't know the dealerships were required by law to warranty the emissions systems for 50,000 reguardless of any other warranty or how many times ownership of the vehicle had changed. CW Ford was the worst because they didn't even have a license to do emissions testing (or have a 4 gas analyzer, or anyone who knew how to use one). So they would do some half-assed blundering around and send the thing back and it would fail again.
OOPS!, Sorry I got off track. I guess the point is that the American auto industry was in the toilet all through the late 70s-mid 80s. Their engine management systems were clunky and overcomplicated as they tried to keep ancient carburator designs alive on an iron lung. Also the quality control was almost none existant then. If the government hadn't bailed Chrysler out (then given them the contract to build the M1 tank so they could pay the loan back) they wouldn't even be around today. The big GM luxery cars suffered greatly from poor quality and ugly ill concieved design. Cadillac would have never made it through without being part of a corporate giant that kept them afloat. The HT4100 engine just about nailed the coffin shut for them.

Yep, the Chrysler 2.7 is a pile.
The Vega 2.3 wasn't much better.
The 2.3/2.5 HSC Fords had throw-away heads.
Anything KIA I wouldn't buy.
The 350 Olds diesels were a mess.
The HT4100 Caddy. Yuch.


I'm sure there are LOTS of others. Can't think of one I would call the worst, though.

tom

__________________
Ya cain't fix stoopid, but ya kin TAX it!

I'll nominate the Ford 2.3L that came in my '78 Pinto. What a disaster!

Chickie.

The 2.3 Ford had a lot of potential but once again, clunky engine management systems made many of the carburated ones seem like junk.
It is kind of the small block chevy of four bangers as most 4 banger stock cars run them( or Toyotas)

I'm a diehard bowtie fanatic, but I gotta admit, the 2.8 was a big pile of junk.
Usually around 80k(or sooner) you could expect it to shell #4 rod. The service manager at the GM dealer here, told me that there was a design flaw on #4 oil journal, that began starving out, when the engine began to drop oil pressure.

The one in my 86 Camaro was notorious for overheating, which eventually led to a cracked head that blew a quarter sized hole in #4 piston. (coincidence, I think)

I'm going to argue on behalf of the 2.2 4-banger, though. I bought a 95 S-10, with 195,000 miles on it, and flogged the crap out of it, until my fiances Dad bought it. It has 237,000 miles on it, and just now came out of the shop, after surviving a cracked head. Damned aluminum junk.

I saw someone refer to the 2.2 as an "Iron Duke". The 2.5 was the "Iron Duke", and they were darned near indestructible. When I was on the lube rack, at the same GM dealer mentioned above, I saw one with 260,000 miles, in an 84 Century. It had never been touched, but was a noisy mother. It never gave a bit of trouble, until it was used to push start a deer out on the highway.

I was told, by a dirt circle burner, that if you took a late 350 Olds, and put 403 heads, and intake on, it made an awesome budget race motor. I'm thinking he was full of baloney, but what do I know.

As best I can tell he was talking about an engine with a factory roller cam setup, which I'm sure didn't come out, until near the end.
I can't seem to find much in-depth info on the Olds diesel. I guess that's to be expected though, since it appears to have been such a grievous error.

I've know several people that had big Buick and Olds sedans, with diesels. They were more than happy with them, but they were using them for transportation, not performance.

I asked about the Olds on a diesel bbs, recently, and received no replies, at all. I guess even the diesel folks would rather they were forgotten.

How about the caddy 4.6.8 engine.That thing is a leganday Piece of crap. And the OHC GM 1.8 and 1.9 Brazilian junk oil leaking pile.

If you want to know anything about Olds engines, contact Joe Mondello . The early 350 heads will out flow the 403 heads. Get the ones without the "smog" bump in the exhaust port. Actually the 68-69 350 heads are all OK. Also dived the center exhaust ports. These heads will supposedly outflow chevy 350 heads of the same period.

I'll vouch for the 2.8 Chev being a P.O.S. I bought my '86 Firebird cheap with a dead one under the hood. It would spin over like crazy but wouldn't run. The crank was broken in two, right between the 3rd and 4th throws. I see there are lots of new replacements available from Scat/Eagle etc.

Now the 283 that went in to replace the cheese-crank 2.8, well that's a different story...

diesels aren't that bad, my dad and i use mostly diesels to do things on the farm such as haul round bales ( i haven't seen a gas truck pull 8 round bales at once yet) they are more reliable than gas whenever you get them warmed up too, i have one word for you people with diesels in cold places blockheater

The Olds diesel was bad deal. A guy I used to work with had one and when it got down to 0 or below 0, he would just let it run all day. It realy didn't get hot as diesels don't make much heat idling. I drove a motor pool one for a while and it wouldn't go over 55. We always just let them run as they could be tough to get started. No turbo on them .

My Dodge Cummins diesel, now that's a different story. It runs great gets 20 mpg in a 7500 lbs truck, make a heck of a lot of noise, and smokes plenty on demand. ( for hosing ricers) and will pull the hitchoff most trailers.