Best & Worst Engines Ever Made ?!?!
#781
Originally Posted by mrxlh
It was originally 1 bank of a V-12 chrysler designed to use in a tank, it lost to the diesel, and chrysler went out on a limb and decided to use half of it. It was a hell of a motor in its day.
#782
Agreed....
Originally Posted by Louisville Joe
That story isn't true. The Slant 6 was designed from the start to be a small 6 cylinder for compact cars, the reason for the slant was to allow more room for a 'long branch' intake manifold and give the car a lower hood line and lower center of gravity. Besides, if it really was 1/2 a tank engine, it would have to be one VERY small and light tank. 2 225's would only be 450 cubic inch. The old M-60 had a 1,790 cubic inch diesel.
As Joe says, the slant gave more hood clearance, and also allowed the water pump and accessories to be mounted aside the block, to reduce length.
#783
Originally Posted by SMIGGS
I will also second the 2.2 Chrysler motor as terrible. ( espically in the hotrod K Car ) Turn on the air conditioner in one of these bad boys and instantly lose 1/2 of the power these mills made. To the point where it was almost dangerous to have to try and pass another vehicle on the highway.
I remember seeing riding lawn mowers passing those junks...
#785
#786
#787
I like my 360!
I have a 1970 F350 dually with a 360 4 speed manual combination.
Its got a 12 foot grain box and will cruise all day at 70 mph and still get close to 12 MPG.
Yet anytime I get asked what type of motor I got, I get a look of pity and the remark "to bad its not a 390"
Why is the 360 considered the poor cousin to the 390?
I also like my 240 I6 in my 66 Mercury 100. It seems to have more power than the 300 in my 83 F100.
The crappiest engine no doubt was the 350 diesel my buddy once owned. It felt like I should get out and push sometimes!
Its got a 12 foot grain box and will cruise all day at 70 mph and still get close to 12 MPG.
Yet anytime I get asked what type of motor I got, I get a look of pity and the remark "to bad its not a 390"
Why is the 360 considered the poor cousin to the 390?
I also like my 240 I6 in my 66 Mercury 100. It seems to have more power than the 300 in my 83 F100.
The crappiest engine no doubt was the 350 diesel my buddy once owned. It felt like I should get out and push sometimes!
#789
Originally Posted by YoGeorge
The Chevy Vega four....aluminum block without liners, iron head. Overheat it once and the head gasket was toast.
#790
Originally Posted by jerny66
Everyone seems to agree that the chevy 305 is one of the worst engines ever. Being a Ford 390 fan, I don't know a thing about the 305. I purchased a 2000 Jetcraft river boat afew years ago and it has a Kodiak jet drive with a kodiak marine engine, Edelbrock marine carb and manifold,hotter cam,etc. It is a Chevy 305 and I have 120 hours on it without any problems, and it seems to be a good running little engine. What would make this engine so terrible, and what problems should I look for in the near future?
#791
Agreed...
Originally Posted by Genesis
I had the 305 in an 84 camaro(stock-not Z28) and it just wasn't a very strong engine. It was also the year before FI which didn't help. Yours is a beefed up marine version so it's not even the same animal that everyone is trashing. Maintain it well and you might be pleasantly surprised. Mine treated me well despite it's lack of HP.
In a Camaro, especially by today's standards, it would have been a much better workhorse engine, and a more modern version with FI and etronics would probably have a lot more power, get much better mileage.
Although I still remember when mine blew up--with my then-2.5 year old son crying as the tow truck took our van away. I'm sure the timing chain thing was a fluke (not like the old Pontiac engines--I remember changing the timing chain in my late dad's old 400 '69 Catalina about 1975), but my personal experience wasn't that great...
George
#792
Originally Posted by YoGeorge
I had a carbureted 305 in an '86 GMC 2500 camper conversion van and it was a complete dog, in part due to the 2.75(!) axle ratio that GM put in to make the EPA numbers nice. Turbo 350 with a lockup converter. It ran *OK* when I put a 3.42 posi rear axle in it--would actually get up a hill in 3rd, but I bought the van with like 13k miles on it, and at 42k, on the freeway, the timing chain broke and took out the whole top end (and hurt the bottom end)--partially due to lost oil pressure I suppose. Got it towed to a GMC truck dealer (250 miles from home) who negotiated with GM to get me half off on a new Targetmaster long block, and that one ran fine till I sold the van with about 110k miles on it. But it just wasn't an inspring engine--a 350 would have probably gotten BETTER gas mileage. (As it was, the axle change didn't hurt the mileage one bit because it was pushing a huge box thru the wind.)
In a Camaro, especially by today's standards, it would have been a much better workhorse engine, and a more modern version with FI and etronics would probably have a lot more power, get much better mileage.
Although I still remember when mine blew up--with my then-2.5 year old son crying as the tow truck took our van away. I'm sure the timing chain thing was a fluke (not like the old Pontiac engines--I remember changing the timing chain in my late dad's old 400 '69 Catalina about 1975), but my personal experience wasn't that great...
George
In a Camaro, especially by today's standards, it would have been a much better workhorse engine, and a more modern version with FI and etronics would probably have a lot more power, get much better mileage.
Although I still remember when mine blew up--with my then-2.5 year old son crying as the tow truck took our van away. I'm sure the timing chain thing was a fluke (not like the old Pontiac engines--I remember changing the timing chain in my late dad's old 400 '69 Catalina about 1975), but my personal experience wasn't that great...
George
#793
Originally Posted by Genesis
I hear ya, that conversion van was grossly underpowered. I think my 84 was rated at 140 HP. As you said that 2500 van needed the 350.
#794
One more "best" that I forgot...
...and an awesome motor. Jaguar came out with their 3.4, later becoming a 3.8 and 4.2, in 1948. This was an aluminum head TWINCAM straight six, and they used it until 1987 in the XJ6, a 40-year production run rivaling the small block Chevy engine from 1955. In 1948, we still had freakin' flathead sixes in the US.
It was a gorgeous engine with polished aluminum head and valve covers--I built an XKE model car in 1962 (I was ten), right after the XKE came out in 1961, and the engine looked so cool and exotic, and remained that way until it went away.
Here's to a beautiful engine!
George
It was a gorgeous engine with polished aluminum head and valve covers--I built an XKE model car in 1962 (I was ten), right after the XKE came out in 1961, and the engine looked so cool and exotic, and remained that way until it went away.
Here's to a beautiful engine!
George
#795
Originally Posted by 92f150I6
Talking underpowered, A friend's parents had an 88 Buick estate wagon with the olds 307 and 4bbl carb, when we were in high school. Car was SLOW, but took one heck of a beating.
Of course, my '02 E150 has a 4.6--which is only 281 cubes--and I am quite amazed at how decent that engine is compared to the old 305 GMC.
George