Hey everyone what's your opinion on the worst Ford engine ever made? Why? I was trying to think of one...but I think I like them all! My dad seems to think the 352ci. cause they did not hold up well, but I have no experience with them at all.

 

If you are referring to the 352 FE, I've never heard of any reliability problems with it. I'd say the head gasket choice wasn't the greatest for the 3.8L engines in the early 90s. But it was still a nice little engine.

 

The only problem I ever saw with the FE motors (332/352/390) was the exhaust manifolds. They tended to crack, had really small bolts to the heads, and never sealed to the heads properly. Installing gaskets did not help either as they tended to burn thru shortly after installation.
If I had a beef, it was the Y blocks and their rocker arm oil problems. But now I think of it, it really wasn't the engines fault, but the crappy oil we used back then. Probably wouldn't be a problem with a modern detergent oil.
I'll take a hundred worn out Ford engines over 1 new Chrysler engine anyday.
Dialtone

 

My dad had a 292 in a '57 Fairlane that he didn't like. He also had a PI 312 in a '55 Merc that he said was fast. The cylinder heads on the inline sixes suck, especially the small-block sixes in the cars. They should have been crossflow with a seperate intake. My aunt had a Capri with a carbed 2.8L V6. That motor was a pos.

 

Ford once made a tiny 60HP V8 that was a great little engine in the wrong place. In a midget racer it was fine but in a full size car it was a dog.
Dono

 

Dono, wasn't that the 255ci V8 from the early 80s? It was designed to compete with generic motors 267 v8?

 

400 V8 from the late 70's- I remember we always regarded them with suspicion when we took them in trade with miles (75K+) on them. 360 wasn't a favorite of mine either- not a bad motor, just not very powerful, and rotten gas mileage.

 

The 400 wasn't a bad engine, it suffered from the same oiling problems as the 351m and often had bad heads as a result... We had one in a '79 F250 that would pull a house, wasn't the fastest thing on the road but it had torque. It was a square motor....

 

360s were like the 352 not a thing wrong with them just not a lot of power, I had a 360 with over 200k miles, and still didn't burn oil and had never even had the valve covers off.
Worst for engine early 1.9 in the escorts, interference engine with a timing BELT if that belt ever broke best you could hope for was only having bent valves, and the belt also drove the water pump so if your water pump went out say goodbye to the heads at a min.

 

I've had most of the engines above, including the 351M and even currently own a 360 that LOVES gas like Michael Jackson loves little boys, but the worst engine I think Ford ever made was the 2.3 litre Turbo four in the '79 Mustang and I think Thunderbird.
Gutless until you could get enough steam for the turbo to kick in. Then just barely passable. Lucky to get one to last 50,000 miles. Just a POS.

 

I don't know much about the newer, smaller, Ford engines but the 429 in my experience was not very reliable. Cylinder walls so thin that they barrelled if you worked them much. Dad and I swapped a 429 into his 75 highboy and at 21,000 miles it took 5 quarts of oil to bring his trailer from L.A. to Salt Lake. He was so mad, he traded it for a new 4x4 F-250 diesel (in 1987)

The engine had good power but we should have put in a 460 instead. Seen more than 1 bad 429 since then.

 

No, the one I refer to was made from 1937 to 1941. A great little (136 ci) engine, but 60hp was not much for a heavy car. In a midget racer on alcohol they were real screamers. I had one once that I had planned to put in a '49 Anglia I had. I decided it was too small and traded it.

Without a doubt the worst Ford I ever had was a Fairmont. The emmissions system looked like a plumber's nightmare and it ran like one. If you floored it at slow speed it would bog down and almost die, local dealer said they couldn't fix that, it was just the way they were. Low point in Ford quality.
Dono

 

If i remember the base engine in that fairmont was a 200ci I6.... Loads of torque. but no hp.... You're talkin about the early flathead motors on that V8 then... A lot of the guys put the aftermarket OHV heads on them and better carbs...

 

I'd have to agree the 400 was a bad motor, like polarbear said, some suspicion if it had 75k on it, mine went when crank broke off between 1 and 2.

 

Why, without a doubt, the 1930, 40hp four in my Model A sedan. In the winter, you could hardly get that thing started without busting your knuckles on that crank!