worst motors of all time

-
66plyValiant said:
nothing wrong with the 2000+ neon, I have one now with over 300,000 on it, works perfect
Click to expand...

Yeah, but on the early 2.0's they had a head gasket problem.... 70% would fail by 50k.


We all know that the "Lean Burn" engines were crap in 77 & 78...


The GM 3.8 L in the late 70's and early 80's had a problem with the oil pump where when they were cold the pressure relief valve would stick. GM had a TSB out for these. I worked at an oil express, they would make the housings of the oil filter "Blow up/swell". The worst case we say one that spun the filter 1/2" off the filter base and lost all it's oil----> Kaboom!

The 77 - 79 Chevy 305/307 with the cam lobe rounding problem. My friend's dad's car had 3 camshafts by 80K....

We used to see DeLoreans being towed that were less than 2 years old...

The Chrysler 2.2L was notorious for warping the aluminum heads...
 
As an owner of 3 Neons, There is no way they belong on this list. 96 DOHC starts and runs like new with 250K on the odometer, 1 head gasket at 100K. 98 SOHC needs a clutch at 170K, still starts and runs like a clock. 95 SOHC met with a telephone pole and both died, luckily my daughter was OK, ran like a top and used no oil. Head gasket problem was 2.0 95-97 only. Once replaced with MLS head gasket you were good to go. Quick, great mpg, great handling, bullet proof. SCCA basically outlawed the 2.0 DOHC since it made everything else uncompetitive, they had it racing against V6's and V8's.

2.2 Chrysler was also a good motor. Always ran 100K easily.

British Leyland motors were OK, not as reliable as a Mopar, but not anywhere near the incompetence level as an aluminum block Vega or deleted oil feed Pinto engine.

Another truly bad engine was the 400 SBC, besides the round cam lobes, the lack of cylinder cooling from the siamesed bores made for a quick street death.
 
The lea burn years. It wasn't a crap year engine, it was crap ignition.
While quality control sucked back in the day, the engine itself is the tried and true design that lasted many years, unlike the lean burn ignition set up.
Now that was garbage!
 
rumblefish360 said:
The lea burn years. It wasn't a crap year engine, it was crap ignition.
While quality control sucked back in the day, the engine itself is the tried and true design that lasted many years, unlike the lean burn ignition set up.
Now that was garbage!
Click to expand...

Yes. I was referring to the lean burn system.
 
66fs said:
2.2 Chrysler was also a good motor. Always ran 100K easily.
Click to expand...

I worked in the engine plant that made the 2.2 L. There was a 'stash' of heads that was hidden for years in case anyone needed one for a "home job" that they were working on. They were saved from getting scrapped after the lines were taken out and converted over because of the warping issue.
 
We had 4 K cars, 3 with 2.2 and one with 2.5. All ran forever. Not one head failure. Guess you guys were better than you thought...
 
My 1983 2.2L Plymouth Horizon ran pretty good after I swapped over to an old Holley without the solenoid and filled a rubber-made trash can with all the emissions crap. That was a lot of displacement for such a tiny car.
 
Chevy's 3.8 V6, absolute worse engine for reliability. Had 1 in an S10, cracked intake, cracked block, new block and intake under warranty lasted a whopping 25,000 miles and happened again.. Fuel pump went out 4 times, broken valve spring on number 4 cylinder at 65,000 miles. it was a turd.
 
pishta said:
How bout anything from British Leyland? Lucas had to be the worst electrical manufacturer...
British%20Leyland.jpg
Click to expand...

You are very close on this one, but there IS one worst and it's ...........Italian

I can never pull it out of my memory. "Marrieli" or some such. Used on.................Fiats..............

which is part of the reason I hate them so.
 
OK I SEE we left a couple off the list and don't throw stones at me.the late dodge 70's /80 challenger with 2.6 mitsub eng with the spun balance shaft bearings. I put 3 used engines in one car and never got it off the lot .they just towed it to the junk yard after the last engine. but I got paid each time. now do you want to talk about engine failures from plastic intake gaskets GM 5.0/5.7/3.1/4.3 ect,ect,ect! I'm sure there must be more.
 
teringer said:
OK I SEE we left a couple off the list and don't throw stones at me.the late dodge 70's /80 challenger with 2.6 mitsub eng with the spun balance shaft bearings. I put 3 used engines in one car and never got it off the lot .they just towed it to the junk yard after the last engine. but I got paid each time. now do you want to talk about engine failures from plastic intake gaskets GM 5.0/5.7/3.1/4.3 ect,ect,ect! I'm sure there must be more.
Click to expand...

yes you for got the gm 3.4 lol. I have to change out the intake gaskets on her car this week.
 
norton said:
How about the late 80s Honda Civic, 4 cylinder. What a pile of crap.
Click to expand...

Tell me about these, I have a 1986 Civic AWD wagon with a 1500/1.5 engine in it. It does not run (well I have had it running and seems to run OK), I believe it needs a head gasket or has a cracked head because it has A/F in the oil. Is it worth putting a head on it????
 
mopar65 said:
yes you for got the gm 3.4 lol. I have to change out the intake gaskets on her car this week.
Click to expand...

I have 1 of those in an 03 Monte. Did have to change the gasket out at about 80,000. Only real problem I've had with it. Turned over 190,000 this week, and still going strong
 
66fs said:
As an owner of 3 Neons, There is no way they belong on this list. 96 DOHC starts and runs like new with 250K on the odometer, 1 head gasket at 100K. 98 SOHC needs a clutch at 170K, still starts and runs like a clock. 95 SOHC met with a telephone pole and both died, luckily my daughter was OK, ran like a top and used no oil. Head gasket problem was 2.0 95-97 only. Once replaced with MLS head gasket you were good to go. Quick, great mpg, great handling, bullet proof. SCCA basically outlawed the 2.0 DOHC since it made everything else uncompetitive, they had it racing against V6's and V8's.

2.2 Chrysler was also a good motor. Always ran 100K easily.

British Leyland motors were OK, not as reliable as a Mopar, but not anywhere near the incompetence level as an aluminum block Vega or deleted oil feed Pinto engine.
Click to expand...

PABLUM! The Pinto 2300cc 4-banger was a great design...in fact, it ran until 2000 (in stroked 2.5 form) in Rangers! The Lima is a 300,000+ miler with even spotty maintenance.

Another truly bad engine was the 400 SBC, besides the round cam lobes, the lack of cylinder cooling from the siamesed bores made for a quick street death.
Click to expand...

PABLUM! A 400 will run 100,000+ miles easily. The problem was usually 100% operator error: using the wrong head gaskets will make them overheat. Siamesed bores work just fine.
 
'73red-duster said:
I have 1 of those in an 03 Monte. Did have to change the gasket out at about 80,000. Only real problem I've had with it. Turned over 190,000 this week, and still going strong
Click to expand...

Sorry i was kind of joking.lol my girlfriends car is a 2000 Oldsmobile alero. hers has over 200,000 on it. back when i worked at gm i changed a lot of 3.4 intake gaskets and replaced a lot of heads on the old quad 4 engines.
 
66fs said:
As an owner of 3 Neons, There is no way they belong on this list. 96 DOHC starts and runs like new with 250K on the odometer, 1 head gasket at 100K. 98 SOHC needs a clutch at 170K, still starts and runs like a clock. 95 SOHC met with a telephone pole and both died, luckily my daughter was OK, ran like a top and used no oil. Head gasket problem was 2.0 95-97 only. Once replaced with MLS head gasket you were good to go. Quick, great mpg, great handling, bullet proof. SCCA basically outlawed the 2.0 DOHC since it made everything else uncompetitive, they had it racing against V6's and V8's.

2.2 Chrysler was also a good motor. Always ran 100K easily.

British Leyland motors were OK, not as reliable as a Mopar, but not anywhere near the incompetence level as an aluminum block Vega or deleted oil feed Pinto engine.

Another truly bad engine was the 400 SBC, besides the round cam lobes, the lack of cylinder cooling from the siamesed bores made for a quick street death.
Click to expand...

Funny, the '99 sohc neon my brother inlaw had was one of the shittiest cars I ever wrenched on. Never could get the brake parts to align correctly. I was so happy to scrap it after the water pump took out the timing belt and ruined the engine. And before you ask the water pump and belt was only replaced 20k miles ago.
 
/6 Matt said:
Funny, the '99 sohc neon my brother inlaw had was one of the shittiest cars I ever wrenched on. Never could get the brake parts to align correctly. I was so happy to scrap it after the water pump took out the timing belt and ruined the engine. And before you ask the water pump and belt was only replaced 20k miles ago.
Click to expand...

How many miles on the car before the water pump went? I replaced the first set of front brake pads at 100K The second at 200K along with the rear pads. I also replaced the rotors all the way around at 200K, just because. There as nothing wrong with them. Never did anything but routine maintenance to any of them other than the original head gasket. A water pump only lasted 20K? Sounds like Chinese or cheapo rebuild. When replacing a timing belt, I always bought a new premium water pump. Never had a problem there. All of My Neons were 5 speeds, Mopar Performance ECU, suspensions upgraded to ACR specs, Premium gas and run hard.
 
Jarlaxle said:
PABLUM! The Pinto 2300cc 4-banger was a great design...in fact, it ran until 2000 (in stroked 2.5 form) in Rangers! The Lima is a 300,000+ miler with even spotty maintenance.



PABLUM! A 400 will run 100,000+ miles easily. The problem was usually 100% operator error: using the wrong head gaskets will make them overheat. Siamesed bores work just fine.
Click to expand...

If you knew what you were talking about, or do some research, you would find there was indeed a period of pinto engine failures due to a deletion of an oil passage to the valve train. This was a known shortcoming. and as for a 400 SBC I used to replace those junk engines around 50K - 60K because on the street the bores would go oval and cook rings from the uneven cooling. These were factory engines. No one had touched them. They might be fine in a race car that runs 18 seconds max, but a street car idling with steam holes for cooling between cylinders, what a stupid design!!! In the 70's you would be lucky to have any SBC run 100K. They would only make 70K in a pickup due to timing chain failure. I had so many 4 bolt main high nickel blocks with forged cranks, I would give them away.
 
What about the old 409 Chevy with the short pistons and cylinder wall wear issues?
 
Magneti Marelli (sp) was FIATS Lucas.....but guess what was on a Mopar boxed part I just bought? Yup, M/M..here we go again.....Fiats were like fighter jets: one hour of fun driving requires 2 hours of maintenance..
magmarlogo1.JPG
 
ok i'm not sure what engine it was exactly. but when i first got married someone gave us a '66 ford falcon with a six cylinder. that car was such a pos. it could get up to 55mph sometimes even 60mph going DOWN HILL. fresh tune up and all. i was actually glad the day that car died LOL.

next car we got was for $150 i got a '68 four door dodge dart with a 4 on the floor and a 318, had 150k miles on it already. that was the beginning of my love of mopars.
 
moparlover said:
ok i'm not sure what engine it was exactly. but when i first got married someone gave us a '66 ford falcon with a six cylinder. that car was such a pos. it could get up to 55mph sometimes even 60mph going DOWN HILL. fresh tune up and all. i was actually glad the day that car died LOL.

next car we got was for $150 i got a '68 four door dodge dart with a 4 on the floor and a 318, had 150k miles on it already. that was the beginning of my love of mopars.
Click to expand...

170 Special, We had one in a 64 Falcon. Ours was Automatic, and I do not remember ours being that bad. Our first Kid car was a 64 VW Beetle. 36 HP. Still loved that one though.
 
the vw vans always toasted their engines..i learned to wrench on the bug engines..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top