Your top 5 worst engines.

Dr Who · 12 Feb 2006 at 10:53

Third Opinion said:
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.

Yeah the fuel injection versions never quite cut it compared to the twin carbed versions, the 1.5ie was 97bhp compared to 107 of the 1.5tc...

Injection took them downhill sadly, and the engine was withdrawn because it couldnt make the emmissions requirements...

The twin spark engine is not a great improvement tho... 1.8 twin spark gives around 140bhp and the flat 4 1.7 16v was easily giving 135bhp with a much nicer sound track...

I think you are being overly harsh on the boxer, whilst not great, it was never really a dog... not like a lot of the others mentioned... but hey, this thread is about opinions and I am not gonna trash yours, merely disagree with it...

And alfa invented the small performance car with the Boxer engined Alfasud... great little car until it turned to cornflakes and the electrics melted

233 · 12 Feb 2006 at 11:22

McHaMmEr said:
The early Vauxhall 2 litre Ecotec engine that replaced the brilliant XE engine in the mid 90's. Not that the Ecotec is terrible but it is prone to far more problems than the XE, costs more to fix and produces less power (as well as being comparitively rubbish for tuning.) I probably wouldn't rate this engine so badly if it wasn't for the fact that it was rubbish compared to the engine it replaced.

spoken with a complete lack of knowledge of the eco.

The ecotec is strangled from the factory a few modifications see it pasting a xe,

mine in a cavalier sri made 161 bhp with just an exhaust and filter with a bit of a port and polish

can make very very good power,

much cheaper than a xe to purchase and repair

atpbx · 12 Feb 2006 at 12:42

Banny said:
I used to race an RGV in 1991, when they first come out, as standard the KR1-s had the edge, but I got hold of the factory suzuki tuning manual from a sponsered rider along with his set of Swift silencers.
Whooaa this transformed the bike into a 155mph rocketship, so much more compeditive. around Pembury could leave the big fourstrokes all day long, in practice.
So this thread shows there are good and bad engines in all types.

Aye, im pretty sure in race trim and rebulit every race, they were as good as any other, or mabye even better than its rivals.
On the road, however, they were awfull.
I got rid of my RGV250 after 2000 miles and bought another 350YPVS purely because the RGV was such a pain in the ass to ride.

Dogbreath · 12 Feb 2006 at 12:50

sormicoft said:
spoken with a complete lack of knowledge of the eco.

The ecotec is strangled from the factory a few modifications see it pasting a xe,

A standard XE maybe, but then apply the same mods to an XE...

sormicoft said:
mine in a cavalier sri made 161 bhp with just an exhaust and filter with a bit of a port and polish

Whereas the original XE would make 155 in absolutely bog standard form, and can deliver over 200bhp on stock cams and no other headwork just with the addition of taper throttle bodies and a properly setup ECU.

sormicoft said:
can make very very good power,

The XE can make more...

sormicoft said:
much cheaper than a xe to purchase and repair

Because it's simply not as good an engine. It was designed with emissions complinace as a primary design criteria, unlike the XE.

Banny · 12 Feb 2006 at 15:00

atpbx said:
Aye, im pretty sure in race trim and rebulit every race, they were as good as any other, or mabye even better than its rivals.
On the road, however, they were awfull.
I got rid of my RGV250 after 2000 miles and bought another 350YPVS purely because the RGV was such a pain in the ass to ride.

never did ride on road, didn't have that many rebuilds if I remember, wish I had it now, because it was stupidly fast.

scoobyrichuk · 12 Feb 2006 at 17:52

sormicoft said:
spoken with a complete lack of knowledge of the eco.

The ecotec is strangled from the factory a few modifications see it pasting a xe,

mine in a cavalier sri made 161 bhp with just an exhaust and filter with a bit of a port and polish

can make very very good power,

much cheaper than a xe to purchase and repair

If you say so m8, you're obviously an expert. That's why I see countless threads on the migweb/cavweb forums daily with people moaning about the ecotec's. The ecotec's are cheaper to buy but definitely not cheaper to fix. I won't argue with you though as I obviously have a 'complete lack of knowledge'

Show me a 200bhp ecotec and I'll change my opinion...

Hesky82 · 13 Feb 2006 at 00:53

McHaMmEr said:
If you say so m8, you're obviously an expert. That's why I see countless threads on the migweb/cavweb forums daily with people moaning about the ecotec's. The ecotec's are cheaper to buy but definitely not cheaper to fix. I won't argue with you though as I obviously have a 'complete lack of knowledge'
Show me a 200bhp ecotec and I'll change my opinion...

the 2L 16V Ecotec or XEV really isnt that bad of an engine, the head was partly redesigned for emission purposes but also to boost low to mid range torque, giving it a wider power band, which makes it an excellent base engine for a lot of motorsport applications. the XEV engine is used to good effect in many single seaters and hillclimb cars. QED produce an off the shelf 250bhp XEV engine which uses the Ecotec head. I myself have seen a methanol burning 280bhp normally aspirated Ecotec engine in a hilclimb car, I was mighty impressed!

cossey3 · 13 Feb 2006 at 09:24

any modern diesel. they are very overated, my mum has a merc e320 cdi and it is just awful. the car is heavy but the engine seems incapable of reasonable acceleration instead you just get deafened. (just open the throttle a tiny bit from normal crusing speed and the noise gets 10x louder) the fuel economy isnt that good (barely 25mpg being driven in a fairly economic way on open roads, very little stop start)

Banny · 13 Feb 2006 at 09:55

Is there something wrong with it then, I have been in a 320 cdi and it pulled like a train and that was an auto

Stonedofmoo · 13 Feb 2006 at 12:11

Yeah sounds like something wrong with that to be honest!

JBeck · 13 Feb 2006 at 12:34

Third Opinion said:
Vauxhaul 1.3/1.6 from the MK 2 Astra ( all my mates owned these and all had major camshaft trouble regularly. GTE engine was over rated so they say).

The earlier 1.8E GTE motor was rock solid, nice torque, revvy as hell, nowhere near overrated. The 1.8SE however as found in the SRI (2.0SE later GTE) was awful, had a habit of throwing broken conrods out through the block among other nasty things. Yep 1.3/1.6 rattly cams, you need to change oil regularly in these babies. Never heard of regular camshaft trouble though, fix it once and they're fine.

Anyway...
1. Dreaded Rover K-Series, takes the number one spot with ease.
2. As above 1.8SE motor.
3. Ford 1.6/1.8 Diesel, escort/orion etc.. cracked heads, broke belts, left right and centre.
4. CVH
5. Opel Manta 1.6/8 OHC

tsj · 30 Sep 2006 at 23:04

Banny said:
Is there something wrong with it then, I have been in a 320 cdi and it pulled like a train and that was an auto

yep agreed and thats coming from someone who owns one

Firestar_3x · 30 Sep 2006 at 23:06

tsj said:
yep agreed and thats coming from someone who owns one

13th Feb 2006, 09:55 - Wow really took you some time to think about agreeing with him.............

Dogbreath · 1 Oct 2006 at 00:53

This thread is like the TARDIS, moving in space and time, ignoring the temporal protests of the cosmos and the SQL server. That and it appears to have been dragged up by someone using the search engine and replying to ancient threads indiscriminately. Probably.

I did like the old Alfa boxer engines though, lovely sounding lump and the Sud was arguably an early ancestor to the hot hatch.

Stonedofmoo · 1 Oct 2006 at 08:32

Dogbreath said:
This thread is like the TARDIS, moving in space and time, ignoring the temporal protests of the cosmos and the SQL server. That and it appears to have been dragged up by someone using the search engine and replying to ancient threads indiscriminately. Probably.

I did like the old Alfa boxer engines though, lovely sounding lump and the Sud was arguably an early ancestor to the hot hatch.

lol!

What a revival

CVH engines for the win!

Matt82 · 1 Oct 2006 at 12:05

one grace that diesels have is that their accessible usable power is never far away.

in a similar sized petrol na engine, when you exit a roundabout and you need a lotta revs before it starts going. in the diesel, the shove is there from 1400rpm upwards and its basically instant, and it'll shove you down the road without needing to down change and get thousands of revs on the tacho.

revs are fun, but not all the time. i suppose its the balance you want between an engine that makes power at high revs or one thats relatively relaxed and will just shove you down the road pretty much regardless of revs

Stonedofmoo · 1 Oct 2006 at 12:18

Assuming it's a turbo diesel. Otherwise the shove NEVER comes. In fact it barely speeds up at all

triggerthat · 1 Oct 2006 at 12:31

My MK1 1.4 Clio. Tappy and drinks (35 mpg on the motorway)

Matt82 · 1 Oct 2006 at 12:36

Stonedofmoo said:
Assuming it's a turbo diesel. Otherwise the shove NEVER comes. In fact it barely speeds up at all

haha that made me actually laugh out loud

rs125 · 1 Oct 2006 at 12:58

Ive not read the whole thread so dont know whats been said but i like the cvh engine..Sooooooo easy to work on and parts are really cheap..I have one in my fiesta track car and i know that if it goes pop i can just call a breaker and id have a new engine (ok might need a rebuild but so what) for £50!.Cant go wrong with that.

gavin.