The V4 was another engine originally planned for the Cardinal project.

Cardinal: Ford planned on introducing this econobox in the US only in the mid 1960's. At the last minute, it was canceled. The design ended up in Europe on some other Ford project.

Cortina...LOL...we spelled C O R T I N A = S H * T B O X !!

Cortina's were sold in the US with two 4 banger engines...one from Ford, then there was the Lotus Cortina...it didn't sell worth a hoot in the US either.

It wasn't a bad car, The US just wasn't ready for it.

Ford mechanics hated the car, which was typically British.

The Brits always used 6 bolts when 2 would suffice...then there was the awful...dreaded Lucas Electrics.

 

One more minor correction......The Temp/Topaz motor was a pushrod rod 2.3 based off the I6.......No relation to the OHC 2.3L Lima Pinto motor... Ford is so bizarre at times when they decide to tool up for a totally different motor with one already sitting in the parts bin.

And we can't forget the 2.3L OHC Pinto motor also saw turbocharged duty in Mustangs and Thunderbirds.......my dad owned an '84 SVO and I had the '86 Turbocoupe Thunderbird.

 

hmm...I don't recall the pushrod 2.3's...but you're prolly correct.

I did mention the 2.3's in Mustangs, but left out the Turbo's and the fact the engine was also used in Turbo Birds.

From the day I retired in 1997, till the day I signed on here (11/06), the only Ford parts catalog I looked at (on occasion) was the 1960/64 Ford Passenger Car Parts Catalog. I've had over 20 '63/64 Galaxies, and still have 2 today.

I hate to say this on a Ford truck site...but...with the exception of 73/79 Ford trucks,...next to nothing Ford made after 1972 interests me. One of the new Bullitt Mustangs would be nice, but I have about the same chance of fitting in one as I do of voting for Hillary!

 

Of little interest I know.....but here's the Tempo 2.3 history.

http://www.tempotopaz.com/main/modul...rtid=35&page=1

 

The ATX trans used in those two cars was another POS...it usually failed days after the warranty ran out. It held up quite well in Escorts, however.

Excepting the C6, every auto trans used since 1980 has been beset by myriad problems. The Taurus/Sable/1988 and later FWD Continental auto trans: Awful.

I can still recall the planet and sun gear part numbers...sold 100's of them a year.

For these and other reasons...the TFI modules for example, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why ppl began buying Honda's and Toyota's by the 1000's.

I was shocked when a Ford fleet manager pal bought a new 1992 Camry for his wife...that is...until drove it.

 

Has anybody mention the 2.8. You talk about a junk motor that is one. we pulled one out of a s10 and it was a pain in the butt just to yank it out. had to lift the body to get to the tranny bolts, pull out the front diff to have the oil pan to make it out. Then i drove one also it was pretty weak in my opinion. The only good thing i have seen from them is good mpg and realiability is decent but not great. thats about it

 

The 2.8 wasn't a great engine but it wasn't terrible either. The problem it had was GM putting it in vehicles that weighed to much. The 4x4 S-10's and camaro's shoulda never had one. I have seen many a spun bearings in those vehicles. But the 2.8 in the celebrity's and such were fine. Of course the 2.8 hauled the fiero around pretty well too.

 

I've owned several s-10's with the 2.8 and have nothing but the best of luck with them. The trick is to NEVER buy a vehicle that has a 2.8 and an auto.

There's a lot of engine that rank pretty close to the top in my book, but for the worst I'm gonna list the 318 Dodge. As thirsty as a big block but runs like a small 6cyl and unreliable to boot, easily the most worthless thing with 8 spark plugs

Almost as bad were those cylinder head busting chrysler 2.2 and 2.5 engines

 

What about the Chrysler 727?

 

What about the Torqshift in the SuperDuty?

A few of them had planetary gear failures (and only a very limited number of them)... but some gentleman are running 1000+ft.lb's of torque to the rear wheels on a mechanically standard transmission
(try doing that with an Allison...)

 

I "think" he means Ford transmissions...........

 

Worst trans ever tremec 3650. Sychros never last, integral bellhousing. broken shift forks. Best move i ever made was to pull the hunk of shiat out of my mach and stick a t-56 in it. I have been thrashing on the t-56 for 1 year now, lots of 1/4 and 1/8's on the odometer. Not a sign of trouble, i change oil in tranny every oil change on motor. You can tell the difference afterwards.



how many +1's for the 3.0 12 vavle v-6? I havent got a ton of wrench time on this motor, but have not heard to many cuss words describing it.

 

Yes, Ford auto transmissions is correct. Dunno about the other makers auto transmissions...unless you wanna go back to the 1950's.

The absolute worst automatic transmission ever: 1955/56 Packard Ultramatic.

Us Packard collectors call them ULCERmatics!

The warranty costs to fix almost everyone of them...several times over...and over, was the major factor of Packard failing in 1956.

The transmisssion was original designed (in house) for the L-head Straight 8's, introduced 1950.

It was relatively trouble free thru 1954.

But when it was put behind the new high compression V8's introduced in 1955...it couldn't handle the torque.

The usual causes: Either the sprag reversed, frying the transmission, or the lock up torque converter failed.

Using bronze bearings and not having a center support was another reason it failed.

Because of the POS trans used 1955/56, and the scarcity of parts, the Packard Club had a kit made up so owners of 1955/56 Packards can convert their cars to use Chrysler's Torque-Flight.

Chrysler modeled their lockup converter automatic after Packards version, even calling it by the same name. It was a terd, too...from what I've heard.

 

My old man had an 82 S-10 with the 2.8 and 5 speed manual and that was a good motor. The truck basically rusted away and the drivetrain still ran strong. ( over 300K miles ) The guy he sold it to actually bought it for the drivetrain.

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 always thought GM's 60 deg. V6 was a decent engine. I have seen a few spin bearing in s-10s, but the ones used in car were good. The 2.8 and the later 3.1 and 3.4 were all good engiens except for the crappy intake gasket problems. The engine usually live after the repair, even if the dump a ton of coolant into the oil.


The chrysler 2.2/2.5 has actually been one of my favorite 4 cylinder engines. I have owned 3 of them 2 turbo, and have had noting but good things to say. Never really notice a lack of power either, but the N/A 2.2 engine I had was in a charger which is a very light car.