most hated "under the hood"

most hated?

  • 2.6 mitsibushi (general public)

    Votes: 13 43.3%

  • 3.7 (Jeeps)

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • 2.2/2.5 (head gaskets and timing belts gave these a bad rep in public)

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • 318 (340/360 lovers would rather not acknowledge)

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • 4.7 (oh, my!)

    Votes: 8 26.7%

  • other.......... name it in your post

    Votes: 5 16.7%
  • Total voters
    30
-
318willrun

318willrun

Utube channel 318willrun
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
21,656
Reaction score
28,105
Location
I'm here
in the last 50 years, what is the most hated motor that the factory installed in a Dodge, Plymouth or Chrysler??
 
2.7 DOHC V-6 had oiling system issues in early versions partially to blame on poor maintenance that would cause bearing failures.
 
1990 to 1992 Dodge Monaco Eagle Premier 3.0 v6. Dishonorable Mention would be 3.8 v6 in Jeep Wrangler.
 
other...small block LA 360
I replaced the stock 225 with a junkyard 360
put in a bigger cam, double roller, cleaned her up real nice
I installed it with one of those milodon oil pans which would not clear the Kmember and it cut the pan
so I pulled the pan and welded it up
repainted it and reinstalled it
I could NOT get the darn thing to stop leaking
ended up bringing her into a shop to have it done and paid dearly for it
maybe two weeks later it started to knock...threw a rod bearing

if that engine hadn't reincarnated as a 408 I would have shot it ;)
 
4.7 in a dodge ram....

Has to keep downshifting to keep up ( constant downshifting) and in the mean time fuel economy goes to crap.

Going up a colorado mountain pass is like a punishment and you look out the window to see a 60's vw bus passing you.

The 4.7 is way too under powered for a good sized truck especially one pulling a car hauler trailer with a 71 dart on the trailer.
 
4.7L V8 the torque-less wonder.
This was intended as a replacement for the 5.2L AND 5.9L V8 Magnum engine, luckily it was usually mated to a better trans than the Magnums. Unfortunately I went from a 5.2L Magum with a 5 speed manual to the exact same vehicle with a 4. 7L which had worse everything! Luckily it was a lease so I got rid of it.
Replaced it with a 3.7L V6 Jeep and wasn't too impressed with that ones.
Instead of making those two engines they would have been better off doing nothing!
 
mguner said:
2.7 DOHC V-6 had oiling system issues in early versions partially to blame on poor maintenance that would cause bearing failures.
Click to expand...
The 2.7 should have been on the list...... My bad :realcrazy:
 
At lot of people say that the 4.7 are bad but I have one in my 1500 quad cab. It really reliable and uses no oil between changes.
I pulled an open car trailer with a car on it from Nashville for about 500 miles home last year. I had to use the tow button on the grades but when it leveled out I put it in overdrive and got 19 mpg.
I would've like to have seen that engine develop like Ford And Chevy did with their small blocks.
 
I have been a Chrysler mechanic for 20 plus years. 2.7 is not that bad. 4.7 downshifting issues sucked but far from being the worst engines in a Chrysler. 2.6 Mitsubishi was bad. Rattles and no power .
 
225 in a 81 D 150 4-speed, gutless wonder, got passed by a 18 wheeler while flat towing my my Jeep CJ on a two lane road.
Old truck was reliable.
 
I hate the 4.7L.. JUNK - like above ^ 225 in a half or 3/4 truck is a pig.. can't get out of it's own way... never shoulda been offered in a truck..
 
None I've never really had problems with any Chrysler engines or drive train. Other than replacing the spider gears in one of my
7 1/4. And I'm not very good with keeping up my maintenance.
 
My cousin has a theory that Chrysler last too long that's why they get a bad name, most cars die off long before they get to the P.O.S. stage, dodge cars don't know when to give up.

There was an article a few years ago about the most popular cars stolen up here and sundance and shadows were in the top 3. shows how many were still on the road even though cavilers and civics of the same age were all but extinct even though they out sold Chrysler by 20:1.
 
Instead of answers to the question, I see responses to "what's the worst engine size to weight ratio". You just know that 2000 pounds per liter is gonna be a dog. At 1200 pounds per liter, the driving experience still mostly sucks. by 800 things are looking a lil brighter.And by 600 or so Shazzam! I cant speak to less than 600 pounds per liter, but I imagine it would be pretty impressive.
What I mean to say is;just cuz your car is underpowered, does that make your engine a candidate for worst engine of the past 50 years?
Take the venerable 225. This is probably one of the best gutless wonders (in terms of reliability) Chrysler ever brought to market. It just should never have found it's way into heavyweights.

But most-hated motor? IDK. But I'm learning.....
 
Last edited:
Rainy Day Auto said:
4.7 in a dodge ram....

Has to keep downshifting to keep up ( constant downshifting) and in the mean time fuel economy goes to crap.

Going up a colorado mountain pass is like a punishment and you look out the window to see a 60's vw bus passing you.

The 4.7 is way too under powered for a good sized truck especially one pulling a car hauler trailer with a 71 dart on the trailer.
Click to expand...

Downshifting constantly. My Jeep did this albeit 4.0L but it had a faulty TPS that dealer didn't diagnose. I replaced it and it was a lot lot better. Please dont think I am making excuses for the 4.7. I still think they are very very ordinary.
 
moparspares said:
Downshifting constantly. My Jeep did this albeit 4.0L but it had a faulty TPS that dealer didn't diagnose. I replaced it and it was a lot lot better. Please dont think I am making excuses for the 4.7. I still think they are very very ordinary.
Click to expand...
I may have been a bit brutal on it....I am talking about a Colorado mountain pass that is just over 10,000 feet in elevation with some mega steep twists and turns. There is hardly any oxygen up here, and it is rough on tow rigs.

The 4.7 failed here bad, I replaced it with a ford truck with a 460 and that handles the terrain a lot better and of course any diesel would probably do the trick but the 4.7 Ram was a chore to get up the grades with a load.

mountain.jpg
 
VW 1.6L in the omni horizon twins with the spoon in oatmeal 4 speed manual shifter.

Any chrysler 2.2 with the holley feedback carb.
 
The 70s Dodge trucks with the Perkins diesel. lol
 
the issue with the 2.7 and poor maintenance was put out so to disclaim liability on failure as I understand it. The problem was corrected by Mopar when they opened up the oil return holes in the casting. This issue is address by rebuilder of said block. The problem would never be if and when speeds were at normal. Failure seemed to be when owners drove at a much higher than posted speed limit and in some areas of the country you get run over if you did not go with the flow. The oil would not have time to flow to the pan for recycle. I do not think we have oils today such as in the past where a paraffin based product would leave deposits as in the past that would cause a waxy build up necessary to restrict a proper sized return holes. One slips through once in awhile....they did change this but did not retract their poor maintenance statement...slam to their owners
 
The 2.7 on paper was an awesome engine. It had aluminium block and heads,6 bolt mains, dual overhead cams, cracked rod caps,Hemi heads with coil on plug. It made almost 200 horse power.
I just put a water pump/ timing chain on a transverse 2.7. The water pump gasket is steel with rubber embossed and it failed. When this happens the coolant ends up in the crankcase.
Mopar fixed all the issues with the 2.7 latter on, but then it was out of date anyway.
 
The 2.4L after ~2005. It was a great DOHC 16-valve 4 cyl used in high-end Neon, PT Cruiser, and base minivans, starting ~1996. Some were even turbo. But around 2005, they re-designed the block to a smaller thrust bearing that prematurely wears. Owners see the crankshaft moving in and out axially, even before 200K miles, leaking oil. What genius screwed up an excellent motor to save 5 cents? On the same note, the timing belt tensioner had about 4 different designs, and no way to know what you have without looking. Some early ones had ball-bearing failures (mine, twice). Little excuse for that since timing belt loads are very predictable. Also, the early head gaskets leaked oil until they changed to an MLS gasket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top