Your top 5 worst engines.
- Thread starter Third Opinion
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 3,864
- Location
- Devon
Stonedofmoo said:The one I mentioned, the Ford HCS. Utterly awful engine
now here is an engine we all can agree on being rather nasty
Seriously now. My 5 worst engines. I'm afraid they are mostly bike engines.
1 - Honda CB250N Superdream air-cooled 250cc twin. A sleeved down CB400N engine with about 20bhp. Chain driven balencer shafts and poorly made plain bearings meant they liked throwing con-rods out of their crank cases.
2 - Honda VF750F oil-cooled 750cc V4. Camshafts and lobes made of chocolate would self destruct after 15,000 miles.
3 - BMW M60 3.0 and 4.0 V8s. Nikasil barrels were eaten by bad petrol. Not good.
4 - Ford 2.3, 2.8 and 2.9 pushrod V6s. Easy to work on but rocker covers used to gum up with swarf causing oil starvation to front right valve assembly which would reselt in them throwing a pushrod.
5 - Yamaha TZR/TDR 250cc two-stroke twin. Storming performance but a pig to work on. THis wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the fact that they had a propensity for eating pistons, rings, barrels, reeds, exhausts, powervalves etc.
1 - Honda CB250N Superdream air-cooled 250cc twin. A sleeved down CB400N engine with about 20bhp. Chain driven balencer shafts and poorly made plain bearings meant they liked throwing con-rods out of their crank cases.
2 - Honda VF750F oil-cooled 750cc V4. Camshafts and lobes made of chocolate would self destruct after 15,000 miles.
3 - BMW M60 3.0 and 4.0 V8s. Nikasil barrels were eaten by bad petrol. Not good.
4 - Ford 2.3, 2.8 and 2.9 pushrod V6s. Easy to work on but rocker covers used to gum up with swarf causing oil starvation to front right valve assembly which would reselt in them throwing a pushrod.
5 - Yamaha TZR/TDR 250cc two-stroke twin. Storming performance but a pig to work on. THis wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the fact that they had a propensity for eating pistons, rings, barrels, reeds, exhausts, powervalves etc.
I'm supprised nobody has mentioned the Rover (or whatever it used to be 
) 'A' (and A+) series engines fitted to various mini/metro incarnations. I recon they had shares in Singer Sewing Machines. The one I had had to be tuned valves/timing etc every 6 months or so or it used to guzzle fuel, considering it was only 998cc my mpg was always load better after I had tinkered with it.
By comparrison my 1.8na ford escort diesel is an engineering marvel...
) 'A' (and A+) series engines fitted to various mini/metro incarnations. I recon they had shares in Singer Sewing Machines. The one I had had to be tuned valves/timing etc every 6 months or so or it used to guzzle fuel, considering it was only 998cc my mpg was always load better after I had tinkered with it.By comparrison my 1.8na ford escort diesel is an engineering marvel...
D4VE said:
How dare you mention the amazing piece of engineering that is the Mazda 13b rotary engine in a 'worst engines' thread
The thing people forget is that the engine is very reliable in non-turbo variety. The N/A regularly goes way beyond 100k without needing a rebuild with no problems atall.
Yes, the boosted variety need tips doing at around 60k (some go longer BTW), but for a 1300cc engine with a physical footprint barely bigger than an A3 piece of paper producing nearly 300bhp from the factory, 60k between rebuilds aint actually that bad
Rilot said:
Try a Scania 16 litre V8 mate, it would astound you! *
Maximum power:
620 hp (456 kW) at 1900 r/min
Maximum torque:
3000 Nm between 1100 and 1400 r/min
Diesel engines as there ment to be utilised, cars need petrol nowt else!
*Granted, its purely a "trucker thing" but, what a piece of engineering, pulls 44tonnes a bit like lesser tractor units go, without their trailers & loads!
DreXeL said:How dare you mention the amazing piece of engineering that is the Mazda 13b rotary engine in a 'worst engines' thread
The thing people forget is that the engine is very reliable in non-turbo variety. The N/A regularly goes way beyond 100k without needing a rebuild with no problems atall.
Yes, the boosted variety need tips doing at around 60k (some go longer BTW), but for a 1300cc engine with a physical footprint barely bigger than an A3 piece of paper producing nearly 300bhp from the factory, 60k between rebuilds aint actually that bad
hehe, I didnt say I thought it was a bad engine and everyone respects it.
I dont know much about it, just what Ive heard about the rotor tips and rebuild at 60k.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Rilot said:
Come on Rilot, you are better than comments like that. I'm not expecting you to announce a love for diesels but over-exagerating doesn't really help your case. You know damn well that modern turbodiesels, especially the BMW and Audi 6/8 cylinder ones, sounds NOTHING like the engine in a bus. The only thing they have in common is that they both use the same fuel.
It's like me saying I'd never have a 4.2 V8 like yours, becuase it sounds like a lawnmower.
Rilot said:
Was waiting for the VF750 to be mentioned, what a pig of a motor. Only thing it was good for was being a drag anchor on a boat.
2 stroke wise, gotta be Kawasaki and the KR1-S. They hadnt a clue about build quality with some cylinders being 10 to 15 thou smaller than the other, meaing the head wouldnt be on square, leading to lots of problems.
Robb
Rilot said:
The most reliable bike I ever owned was a CB250N. It just went on and on, nothing went wrong with it in the several years that I mercilessly thrashed it everyday. It would just about do 90 with a tail wind, and was reasonably economic if you stopped trying to make it go fast. It was very heavy for a 250, but that gave it a very solid feel and was far less vulnerable to side winds. Only bad point was a huge flat spot at about 7k caused no doubt by the 2-1 Micron exhaust.
BTW it was a whole 28bhp
DreXeL said:Yes, the boosted variety need tips doing at around 60k (some go longer BTW), but for a 1300cc engine with a physical footprint barely bigger than an A3 piece of paper producing nearly 300bhp from the factory, 60k between rebuilds aint actually that bad
They are however terribly inefficent engines, and they aren't really 1300cc. After all, you count every cylinder in a normal reciprocating engine. Just because the same combustion chamber is used on the Wankel, you can't ignore the fact that you get one firing cycle per revolution of the crank, just like a two cylinder four stroke.
Rilot said:
Talking of horrible engines.........
The one in the RGV250/RS250
It sucked ass, it was a gutless piece of junk, that, when it wasnt being completly awfull in all departments, was blowing itself up.
Ohhh! look it does 130 mph!!
For all of 8 seconds, then your anus is penetrated by a red hot piece of molten **** from the recently exploded engine.
Mickey_D said:
Is that the one we got in the Granada?
You got a stangled 115bhp version of the 2.8 in the states, where as over here we got a mighty 150bhp in it.
My Granada went on for another 50k after i sold on 122k, before the Auto box blew itself up.
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
I love Alfas don't get me wrong, between me and my wife we always have an Alfa and we love them.
However the Boxer was an extremely dated engine on what had become a 100% improvement on quality for Alfa. Before the 1990's Alfa made great engines and rubbish cars. During the 1990's Alfa were making good cars and rubbish engines unfortunately due to the Boxer. Just look at what a difference the Twin Spark was to the Boxer.
Last edited: