Worst Ford engine ever, bar-none:

2.9L V6.

Those suckers, they ALL develop lifter tick. Cylinder heads crack. I had a thrust bearing go out in mine. The computers stop working and leave you stranded. Loads o' sludge. The only good thing about it was I got 23mpg consistantly with my old Bronco 2, even with lifter tick.

Amazingly, they fixed all but the head cracking issue with the 4.0L.

 

If the 2.6l V6 was the engine in the small '80s Ranger PU. They developed lifter tick because they didn't have hydraulic lifters, they had tappets. Adjust the valves and guess what? Quiet valve train. But, who would have thought an engine built after 1950 would have tappets??? The electronics in the distributor on those left me stranded twice. It ran along fine and then just quit with no hope of restarting.

 

I can't complain too much about the one Chrysler engine I own. '96 3.8L V6 in a Grand Caravan. 166hp and plenty of go for a 4000 lb grocery getter, and going strong at 137k miles, with virtually no repairs (EGR valve was the biggest).

Jason

 

The worst Ford engine I ever had was in my 62 Fairlane 500. I think it was the 272, not sure. My mother bought it new and it had to have rings early, like 20k. I got it at 60k in 1969. It burned quite a bit of oil at that time, so it probably needed rebuilt again.

 

The worst engine I ever had came in a 79 Mustang, I made the major mistake of buying a 4 banger Stang, another attempt at fuel savings which only hurt Ford. The engine was a 2.3L 140 HP, and I think it was a Ford engine, I don't remember it being Japanese, but it could have been. The engine wasn't bad, it survived a timing belt breakage at sixty MPH and just needed re-timing and a new belt. However, I will not be restoring any late 70's Stang's with a 2.3 Liter anytime soon.

 

WHAT???

They had 2.8L V6's through '85 in bronco 2's and rangers, when they went to the fuel injected 2.9L V6. I think the 2.8L had the solid lifters. In those, yes, you adjust the valves. Works very nicely, and a fairly decent motor IMO. The 2.9L definately had hydraulic, and they were a nightmare. I took one apart. It was 2.9L, as indicated on top of the intake, in the owners manual, and per the vin code. Notice I only made comment about the 2.9L. I also noted the hydraulic lifters, 3 of which were bad. Solid lifters dont have a plunger that compresses when pushed on with a pushrod, do they?

The 2.6L was never used in ANY ranger / truck!!!

 

Funny nobody mentions the 462 from the 60's.My grandfather had a couple Lincolns with them.Major problem with them was they carried way to much compression which caused them to blow headgaskets on a regular basis.My Grandfathers experience in stock car racing including the early days of Nascar and as a shine driver in the northern parts of Georgia tought him how correct that flaw,double up the headgaskets thus lowering the compression.The 351M/400 would have to be the worst though.They have so many problems that it is easier to say what was good rather than try to list everything that was bad so the 1 thing good I have to say about them?? Plenty of power.Next up is the 3.8 V6.There is a popular misconception about this little bugger.The H.P rating stock is only 140 but the torque is somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 or 260.I have a hopped up 3.8 in the wifes stationwagon and prior to all the upgrades,completely stock it would fry the front tires and I don't mean just one,it fried both,stock.I have some photos posted in my profile if you'd like to see it.The down side to them is the bad headgasket problem but if you replace the headgaskets you have a great little engine.

 

the dm thing could'nt compete with a Briggs&Stratton...

 

is that 3.8 a itzybishi motor?

 

the 2.9 is a throw back to the '70's capri, the 4.0 is all Mazda and probably the only good part of a '92 Exploder...

 

Ford really never had bad engines....just bad engineers!!!

 

I had to put sumthin up before you put any more replies in a row lol.

 

o-man do i agree! my 79 stang had one, if you could get one to run they would fry the cast pistons fast esp. if you tweeked the boost. lifter knock on cold or restart all the time. head gaskets . just a bad motor that did finally get fixed for the super bird
i had mine before we had a lemon aid law, so in 1 year it had 3 short blocks and 4 turbos. all in 18000 miles. went back and got another pick up

 

Nope, the 3.3, 3.8, and 2.4 were all chrysler built motors. The 3.0l SOHC motor was the only mitsubishi motor that got into their minivans.

 

I've had really bad luck with 360's seizing up.

The early 80's 4.2 V8 high on the list of bad engines. It might be great in a light car, but as a truck engine it was horrible.