I was just reading through the thread having to do with best and worst engines. The thread is pushing forty pages and it just gets into more controversy as it goes along. The thing that is vague is how the various contributors judge an engine so I would like to hear some answers from anyone who's interested in posting their ideas. I'm really interested in your thoughts.

As a cautionary note: So many of these discussions get whacked out because people are not specific as to how they use descriptive terms. I recently butted head in a different thread over the use of the word "efficiency." My position being that an engine could be built efficiently for a specific purpose, where another contributor insisted that efficiency applies in an overall sense. So please be clear in effort to avoid unwarranted argument.

How do you judge an engine?

 

I don't believe I have even seen that thread to this day. People have got to be bored these days.

Anyway, party on.

 

I judge an engine based on how durable it is and how well it does the task it was designed to do.

 

I judge engines in many different categories. Reliability, modibility, etc.

 

judge it by power range,durablity and reliablity. you can make a lot of cheap unreliable power, chevy perfected that with the 350.

 

you can make a lot of cheap unreliable power, chevy perfected that with the 350.[/QUOTE]

that is too funny.

 

I judge by durability and then performance.

Unfortionatly the reality is most people are the other way. This is really proven by the market we live in. Afterall if somebody made a 150hp diesel that lasted 15 years theres prolly not to many people that would choose it over a 300hp diesel that only lasts 5.

 

You are right. As is evidenced by all the people buying crappy chinese products that end up in landfill after a few months of use.

 

I judge an engine by longevity, durability and reliability. I keep my vehicles till they die “usually totaled by wife or a hurricane or something with similar destructive abilities”. My apologies to the gear heads, but I could give a crap about HP. I don’t need to go anywhere that fast. My twins will be here in two weeks and I don’t need to kill them or orphan them. From what I’ve seen you “usually” shorten the life of the engine when you increase the HP past a certain point. Most of the manufactures have been trying to impress us with HP numbers. What I have to say to them “is get back to me in ten or twelve years and let me know if that engine is still running”. If I don’t need to overhaul three times or dump a ton of money into it to get it that far it’s a good engine. I know that this method of judging engines is outdated in today’s disposable society. Most people trade their cars in after five years so who care about longevity, but so be it. As far as durability and reliability, I want something that’s not going to act up or trip a SES light just because I forgot to change the oil, filter, or whatever in it. I want something that can take some abuse and not break down. Efficiency in whatever way you want to define it is useless if the engine isn’t running.

 

How to judge an engine... hmmm

I've owned dozens of vehicles of many makes and repaired thousands of others. I don't recall any one particular engine to be worse or better than any other. Some were more difficult to work on than others. Sometimes that was only because of my lack of experience with it.

You will never catch me with the juvenile attitude that would have me saying, 'Oh, that's a (insert make), they're junk!'

On the other hand, I wouldn't want an Escort engine in a Superduty either. But, that wouldn't mean the engine was junk, just a poor choice.

I have an '89 Celebrity as a winter/spare car that I bought 2 years ago for $75. The previous owner thought the engine was 'junk' because he lacked the experience to diagnose it (electrical problem). It has 181,000 miles on it now.

That, and much more, is how I judge engines.

 

You make some good points. But,

Actually today's engines (last 10-15 years) are the most reliable, efficient, long lifed engines (on average) ever mass produced. As a whole they are also the most powerful.

Afterall, how many V-8's from the 60's, 70's, and early 80's will produce around 300 h.p., close to 20 mpg in a full size pickup, and run for 200k + miles with only regular maintenance and a spark plug change?

 

I don't know of to many engines in production today that have been around for more than 10 or 15 years in their current configuration, so most of the reports of longivity are just estimates on many of them. It is true it's hard to find an engine from the 60's, 70's, or 80s that could give you massive HP and good MPG at the same time. My uncle has a 1970 Challenger with a big Himi that will take your breath away. It's the only car I've ridden in that the gas guage moves as fast as the speedometer. His engine needs very little to keep it going except gas. I know that such engines would not sell today or if they did you need to take out a loan to keep gas in them, but I sure sure miss them.

 

I believe the way to judge an engine is depending on your application. Power, durability, gas mileage, etc...

For my truck, I judge it on horsepower/torque numbers since this beauty is a show/muscle/driver truck.

For my car, I just the motor on durability and gas mileage, since I do not want to have to replace parts every month. Also the mileage is a big factor since I would rather spend money on my truck's parts than the gas to get here and there. Power is a minor factor however, because its always fun to leave some good black marks.

I would say 2 of the most durable motors my family has had have to be the 2.2L Turbo 4 in my dad's 89 Probe GT Turbo(25X,XXX miles) and the 3.8L V6 in my mom's 94 Mustang LX(22X,XXX) and neither one has had a problem.

 

I see that you and I are looking at longevity differently. I was thinking longevity, as in the life (how many miles) of an individual engine.

 

I can see how this will get really confusing. Most of the engines today will no doubt last much longer, get better MPGs, and burn fuel cleaner than engines 20 years ago. This is not due not so much to changes engine design but to the increased use of engine managment systems "computers". What an engines requires to perform at it's peak can change, well with the weather. Older engines were calibrated to perform in average conditions and could not be recalibrated on the fly if suddenly the conditions required something else. In the newer cars the engine managment systems can and prevent the engine from damaging itself there by extending the life of the engine. Unfortunately most of the computers and sensors are placed in environment that's not to friendly to electronic components. How many of you have been stranded or had your car or truck not running right because a bad sensor? This is the compromise we have made engines that last longer, better MPGs, and burn cleaner, but will leave us on the side of the road because a thumb sized piece of metal and plastic goes bad. So when I'm judging an engine I will look at the whole thing not just the hunk of iron in the middle. It's so much more than that now. How many good engines "the hunk of metal part" out there suffer bad reps because they have sensors that go bad at a rate one or two a month. I want to see some miles put on it first. I want to know that the whole package is going to stand up and last.