Worst Domestic Engines - Page 2 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > General Discussion> Hotrodders' Lounge
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2012, 08:12 PM
Dimwit
 

Last journal entry: S10 fabrication (cont'd)
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Friendswood, TX
Posts: 103
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 12
Thanked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneMoreTime View Post
The 4cyl Vega was really bad..not even a good grocery getter..

Sam
I had a 4 cyl Vega. I got it from my mother. My step-father would drive it past when the check oil light would come on during a turn, past when it would come on during acceleration, to the point when the light was on all of the time. At this point, it needed 3 quarts of oil to bring it to full. The crankcase only held 4 quarts.

That car consistently got 25 mpg when the average v8 got 16. That Vega was the best mileage car I've ever driven, even to this day.

The engine was fine as long as you kept oil in it. We sold it to some "friend of a friend". I later heard he drove it for three days before it blew up. He should have checked the oil.

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2012, 08:35 PM
Project89's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: utah
Posts: 950
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 12
Thanked 30 Times in 27 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoGear View Post
2.8L V6s in the S10 Blazers

the 2.8 motor is actually a very good and stout platform to build on.

the only 2.8 i would call terrible would be the carbed versions, these had smaller journals on the cranks that were prone to breaking and spinning bearings.
the heads on the carbed motors were also very bad with small valves and horrible ports.

once these engines went with fuel injection either mpfi or tbi the heads got redone with larger valves and better ports.

and they also made the cranks alot stronger with larger journals

gm rates the factory fi 2.8's for 400hp and 7k rpms, we routinely take these engines well past those marks today with stock stuff
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2012, 09:16 PM
Member
 
Last wiki edit: Ford axle ratio codes
Last journal entry: Rear Suspension
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Prattsville
Posts: 6,360
Wiki Edits: 31

Thanks: 2
Thanked 54 Times in 50 Posts
Plenty of 2.8's with spun bearings because of an oiling issue. You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2012, 09:24 PM
Valkyrie5.7's Avatar
www.generationhighoutput. com
 
Last wiki edit: Painting chrome wheels
Last journal entry: Stopping my journal entries here
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Phoenix
Age: 27
Posts: 897
Wiki Edits: 15

Thanks: 147
Thanked 71 Times in 62 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoGear View Post
3L mistu V6
2.4 Chrysler V6 (oiling issues)
403 'pontiac' (olds)
267 chev
2.8L V6s in the S10 Blazers
never liked the 390 Ford or 360 mopar
LT1 OEM optispark unit

307 chevs were okay if you don't expect it to be a DZ302; although they did apparently have a run of camshafts that were prone to going flat

Im equally underwhelmed by the 4.6L in my dads F150 as well. Just not enough low end for a pick up truck. The 300 I6 in the previous truck was way better
Although I agree with many of your picks (especially the 4.6L, an engine that should have stayed in the lincoln line up) I don't understand the dislike for the 403 olds. Obviously it couldn't fill the shoes of the 455 it replaced (being 52 cubes short, you can't blame it) but given the right parts, these engines can really come alive. The windowed mains aren't the end of the world unless you're trying to spin it to 7k.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2012, 11:21 PM
Project89's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: utah
Posts: 950
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 12
Thanked 30 Times in 27 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt167 View Post
Plenty of 2.8's with spun bearings because of an oiling issue. You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd.
2.8's do not have oiling issues , what they have is owners who abuse them and dont change the oil and maintain the engine like they should

like i said we have these engines pushing 350-450hp reliably for years with stock oil pumps and factory longblocks

i personally have one that turns dam near 9,000 rpms on the drag strip that i dailly drive its nearing 60,000 miles on it and never had an isue
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2012, 10:49 AM
lt1silverhawk's Avatar
"But how do it know?"
 
Last wiki edit: How to rebuild a Rochester Quadrajet 4MV carbureto... Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lakewood, CA
Posts: 2,287
Wiki Edits: 132

Thanks: 101
Thanked 24 Times in 17 Posts
Some very interesting stuff you guys have posted! I had to look up the Chrysler 350.


My experience with the 2.8 was in an '89 S10 that I bought with about 229,000 miles. That thing was very low on power but did tow a Camaro shell and was dead reliable and required very minimal maintenance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2012, 11:28 AM
RWENUTS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Age: 62
Posts: 1,909
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 50
Thanked 202 Times in 191 Posts
Now you can look up the tall deck 383 chrysler. LOL!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2012, 09:36 AM
Banned User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: May 2011
Location: N.E.
Posts: 385
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 9
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
i would not consider the 305, 307 small blocks to be "worst domestic engines" because they are durable and reliable, AND as far as performance:

a) i would remind that the monte carlo SS with 305 could cut 15.5 1/4 mile times all day. How many STOCK 350 equipped cars can do that?

b) Here we go again: This is a new 305 crate from gm powertrain:
http://gmpowertrain.com/Libraries/Ma...rine.sflb.ashx

Now, if 253 hp and 302 tq out of a 305 is not good enough for you, then you need to get yourself an H-bomb.

c) i am not debating wether a 305 is better than a 350 economics or performance wise---is isn't. What i am trying to point out is that the 305 is not as disadvantaged as we may think. Not the least.


2) I would think if anything the original olds 350 diesel might fit under the category of "worst domestic engines" due to it's reliability issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2012, 10:56 AM
78novaman's Avatar
The AMC, FORD, & CHEVY Guy??!!
 
Last wiki edit: Improving fuel economy
Last journal entry: Finally on the road
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Central Ohio
Age: 31
Posts: 299
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
If any of you have had the misfortune of driving one, the Olds 307 in the last of the box caprice wagons in the late 80's was terrible (learned to drive in my mom's). Only 130hp with a quadrajet, parts were more expensive and not compatible with the Chevy (our parts shop in town always had to order in replacement parts), and they held oil about as well as a sieve.

Chevy 305's in half ton pickups tended to flatten camshaft lobes. The 305 in my dad's caprice sedan lasted 280,000mi and four demo derbies so what was the difference???

Another candidate for worst domestic engine would be GM's 3400 series. Camshaft snapping, coolant leaking, head gasket blowing, valve burning piece of junk. Guy at work bought a 2002 Buick SUV with that motor and it snapped the cam out of the blue driving home from work at 120,000mi.

I strongly disagree with the 4.6L poster. The small mod motor has to be the best engine Ford has ever produced. Runs forever (as long as the spark plugs are torqued correctly!) and has adequate smooth power. Took my wife's '97 Cougar on vacation through Kentucky and cruising at 75mph on the Bluegrass Parkway was getting 28mpg! At 136,000mi it still doesn't leak or burn a drop of oil either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2012, 01:08 PM
Valkyrie5.7's Avatar
www.generationhighoutput. com
 
Last wiki edit: Painting chrome wheels
Last journal entry: Stopping my journal entries here
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Phoenix
Age: 27
Posts: 897
Wiki Edits: 15

Thanks: 147
Thanked 71 Times in 62 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 78novaman View Post
If any of you have had the misfortune of driving one, the Olds 307 in the last of the box caprice wagons in the late 80's was terrible (learned to drive in my mom's). Only 130hp with a quadrajet, parts were more expensive and not compatible with the Chevy (our parts shop in town always had to order in replacement parts), and they held oil about as well as a sieve.

Chevy 305's in half ton pickups tended to flatten camshaft lobes. The 305 in my dad's caprice sedan lasted 280,000mi and four demo derbies so what was the difference???

Another candidate for worst domestic engine would be GM's 3400 series. Camshaft snapping, coolant leaking, head gasket blowing, valve burning piece of junk. Guy at work bought a 2002 Buick SUV with that motor and it snapped the cam out of the blue driving home from work at 120,000mi.

I strongly disagree with the 4.6L poster. The small mod motor has to be the best engine Ford has ever produced. Runs forever (as long as the spark plugs are torqued correctly!) and has adequate smooth power. Took my wife's '97 Cougar on vacation through Kentucky and cruising at 75mph on the Bluegrass Parkway was getting 28mpg! At 136,000mi it still doesn't leak or burn a drop of oil either.
The chevy 305 in the same caprice only made 140hp from a quadrajet, what do you expect? It was the 80s and the caprice was no sportscar. Nothing wrong with the 307 olds compared to the 305 chevy. The HO 307 in the Cutlass was very comparable with the HO 305 in the camaro z28. The olds 307 only had a 4 barrel, so naturally went chevy started using multiport fuel injection and more intelligent computer control, it will make more power. The 307 was a durable torquey motor. Now the 260, that's a scrap olds mill.

AFA the 4.6L ford goes, I've owned and worked on a few of them, and although they're durable (what modern fuel injected v8 isn't?) They were never designed to be a sporty car or torquey truck engine. They were perfect cruisers in lincolns and the luxury t-bird/cougar twins, but the little 281 cubic inch ford mill is not a performer in SOHC form. You have to cam and gear the piss out of it and the aftermarket is rather bare and expensive. The NPI single cammer mustangs could barely hold a candle to the 3.8L Series II f-bodies performance wise, and the 5.0L vortec and 5.2L magnum walk all over the 4.6L in the ford as a pulling motor.

Nowadays with the 4v 5.0L and 6.2L modular mills, ford has made some mod motors that perform amazingly; they're world-class engines. The 3v 4.6L was a decent engine in the mustang for it's time (still way behind it's LS1 based f-body competition, considering the f-body was 3 years OUT OF PRODUCTION by the time ford made a decent engine to compete with the LS1 that wasn't stuffed in a cobra) The 5.4L 4v mill was great as well, but wasn't put in many vehicles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2012, 03:47 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
worst motor

I vote for the Olds based V/8 diesel motor.Worst ever. Never a good idea to make a gas motor into a diesel!!!! As for the 4.6l Ford motor I really love it in my wifes Lincoln but hate it in my P/U. It has never given any running problems but will barely get out of its own way. My sons 4cyl Toyota will run away from my P/U on the freeway hills. It has not enough torque for a P/U. Ter409
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2012, 09:39 PM
Graham M's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Age: 31
Posts: 51
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Probably the new LS series 5.3L Vortec. Just about all people I've ever talked to complain about that engines religious oil consumption. Its pretty bad. Even at best, it still uses oil since its practically new.

That and the Harley Davidson Evo engine. I remember when MIT (or which prestigious engineering school) basically dissected it, and they found 46 serious design flaws. On a 1.3L aircooled pushrod V-twin, thats a LOT.
One thing that just blew me away was the fact that that engine burns oil since the day its new. Harley knew this, so rather then spend money and fix the problem, they just fitted all their bikes made with that engine: with an oil tank so it can just drink oil as it needs to. That way riders would just have to periodically fill up the tank, rather then top off the oil each time they get on that thing.
To me that blew my mind, as its like..... "guys, fix the ****ing problem, dont beat around it by installing an oil tank, WTF?". Another thing was the vicious shake that it has, due to an improperly designed counter-weighted crankshaft. A 45 degree V-twin (by design) needs a big heavy counterbalance to offset the the sharp cylinder angles, but rather then do it properly and use the appropriate crank, they used one that wasn't designed properly at all, so now you have that typical harley shake, that just rattles the bike apart.
Its like, wow good one guys, and people stupidly pay HOW MUCH to own a harley?
I'll never understand that one, ever.
That made that engine from 1984 till quite recently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Tags
chrysler corp, engine families, engines, ford motor company, general motors

Recent Hotrodders' Lounge posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Domestic Diesels: Best options when buying a used truck lt1silverhawk Hotrodders' Lounge 45 07-05-2012 03:35 AM
Domestic Bearing Assembly VS. Import 1ownerT Hotrodders' Lounge 1 06-08-2010 06:06 AM
I know it isn't a domestic but..... Cruiseomatic Hotrodders' Lounge 13 12-19-2005 05:06 PM
The Worst Automobile Engines of All Time fourbyfourblazer Hotrodders' Lounge 75 12-15-2004 07:41 PM
What's the worst job you ever had? MoparReligion Hotrodders' Lounge 31 08-21-2004 01:44 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.