When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Just a note on my last post. The 302 in its final year of production was tweaked somewhat and got better mileage than the earlier 302s. Powerwise they were a little more to.
The plastic intake on the GM 3.8 was terrible, I don't know how many of them I have had to replace.
If we want to talk about completely worthless engines, let's talk about the Ford 2.9 FI V6. Those things are good for almost 1,000 miles in between rebuilds! I have had 5 of them, and only one of them ran. Maybe it's because that truck couldn't keep a transmission in it long enough to blow an engine. It's in league with the Chevy 2.8 V6.
Originally posted by 150ford Just a note on my last post. The 302 in its final year of production was tweaked somewhat and got better mileage than the earlier 302s. Powerwise they were a little more to.
I have heard that before. I noticed that it had a better rating than earlier years when I looked at a Consumer's Report once. Also, the MAF system, which was used from 1994-96 was slightly better than the earlier system.
Not to get off topic, I can deal with most auto engines, but the worst engines by far are Tecumsehs. I just don't see how they can continue to make such junk. The last good engine from them was the HH100. Everything else from them that I have worked on is pure crap. They are very simple in design, just their design does not work at all and doesn't hold up well.
Finding parts for old Wisconsins is near impossible. I think the easiest engines to work on and the best overall engines are Briggs and Strattons.
Hondas may be more reliable, but for the money, Briggs are the way to go.
Kohler make some good engines too, I have a K-321 in my '69 JD 140, and its all original, still runs like new. Again the only problem is price of parts.
I have put many hours on Briggs engines, at least 2,000 on a 12 hp Briggs I/C in a Craftsman rider. My '99 JD GT-235 has a Briggs Vanguard 18hp V-twin, I've put about 8 or 900 hours on it with no trouble either. I have a White LT-12 that was given to me free, it has a Briggs I/C 12hp, it still runs great even though the tractor around it is falling apart, it probably has at least 1200 hours on it. I also have countless 3.5hp Briggs pushmowers that have been through heck, and have kept going. I have had a couple of Tec. powered 3.5's that ran ok when they actually ran.
There are a few Briggs & Stratton motors around the place that power various things. They have been pretty reliable. We also have a Kohler in a JD garden tiller, and it has had virtually no problems. The most reliable little motor that we have is probably the Honda, which is on a grain auger. It sits outside all of the time and still easily starts.
I know this one's off in left field but the small motor that impresses me is the opposed 4 that I have in my dune buggy out of a 1971 SuperBeetle. I thrash on that thing on the dunes all day, I take it through the woods, still drive it on the street and it hasn't died yet. It had 77,000mi on it when I took it out of the car, put my dual carb kit on it and it's held up to abuse I know it wasn't designed for, for a year now. I know this one's a carry over from the diesel discussion but another useless motor is the GM 5.7 through 6.5 Diesel engines. Where to begin? The 5.7 well that was better left as a gas, the 6.2 where was the power? The 6.5 maybe the cast crank, the lack of an intercooler, the faulty bosch injection system coupled to the indirect injection, the compression that was too high, along with the fact that it was over square (bore larger than the stroke) and the lack of power (carryover from the 6.2)
We have a Spray Coupe with a Volkswagen and it was pretty good until the tranny or clutch went on it. I am not a fan of the pre-Dmax GM diesel engines either.
Originally posted by FordLariat It was the Fuel Injected version of the 2.8 V6, with f.i. it became the 2.9. My Rangers were 88 models, and they all had the stock 2.9 V6.
Is the 2.8 similar to 2.9 or are they different in design? I was wondering what I could replace the 2.8 in my 1984 Ranger 2.8 with, love to have 302 but too much to change to get it in there. I would like to stay away from computer controlled engine systems such as the 2.9 , so if I could find a motor/transmission from a non compter vehicle I would like it better. I don`t know of a 2.9 that had a carb, I take it that 2.9 were all f/i, am I rite?
If the ford 2.9's aren't burning oil there's something wrong with them....... Most of the people I know don't have good luck with them. We have an 86 bronco with the 2.9 Not much power. Another friend has had to replace his heads. I've heard it said there isn't a single one on the road without a cracked head? And if they don't it's because it was replaced... is this true?
Many of the above mentioned engines people have been bashing I've seen perform very well. Especially the GM 305. My dad had one in his work van.... drove it daily, finally the oil pan rusted through at about 450k. That's when we parked it. The body was SHOT. But the engine never let him down. Went through about 5 trannies though. lol Anyway that's my 2cents about some personal experiences.