Your top 5 worst engines.

Rroff said:
I don't know much about it but the MPS engines have some issues of their own - the reliability can be much improved with swapping out for some 3rd party parts apparently.
Click to expand...

The MPS engine isn't too bad. Mazda made a bit of a mistake with the timing chain, which they revised in later models. You basically treat it like a cam belt and if you hear it slapping on start up its time for a change. There are a few that have done over 140k on the original chain. K04 turbos eventually eat their own oil seals, but I don't think this is specific to the engine itself!

The main stigma is the engine throwing a rod. But this can be down to 2 things, poor aftermarket map, which cranks up the torque below ~3k RPM and if people go WOT in high gears at low RPM. Again forcing the engine to go dump torque low down. Basically if you can use the gear stick properly and have some form of mechanical sympathy they are an extremely effective engine!
 
Some of the VW/Audi engines are like that with their chains. I dont think its too big of an issue as long as you sort it quickly, unless its the V8 used in the old S4 lol (bend over, thats why they depreciated so quick).
 
Whatever V8 engine Ford put in the Mustang in the early 2000s. Had one as a hire car in California and while it made a good noise it was utterly gutless. Could barely muster enough power for a doughnut let alone get some decent acceleration
 
1- m96 3.4 flat 6
2- m96 3.4 flat 6
3- m96 3.4 flat 6
4- m96 3.4 flat 6
5- m96 3.4 flat 6

Glorious when working, made of cheese.
 
kind of a hard one really.

i hated the 1.3 in the mazda 323 but that was less the engine's fault as it was the whole car for being too heavy, i'm sure that engine in a car half the weight wouldn't have had a drink problem, as it was 458 owners could laugh at the fuel economy......

the 1.9pd i quite liked, but the newer replacements (i'm thinking specifically the 1.4 3 pot) worry me because they've taken a "56mpg no matter how you drive it" engine and replaced it with a "80mpg in a lab, 30 in the real world, 2 if you're enthusiastic" engine with turbo lag.

the 325 was a mixed one, absolutely beautiful smooth runner with a lovely sound but it was the only car ever left me stranded because computer says no.

the (peugeot i think?) engine in the grand vitara i can't really comment on, you don't buy a car like that and expect any level of refinement, fuel economy or not feeling like a tractor with extra seats.

currently can't really say much about me volvo, not had it that long and not really developed any particular feelings about it, only real point is it doesn't have the low end grunt you'd expect from a diesel but i don't think it's the engine not being torquey more just the stupid tall gearing it's paired with.
 
Nasher said:
The K series was just badly machined and put together by Rover. But the concept was good. It does have a very straight power curve. The Chinese bought Rover and still make them lol. Not sure I'd feel safe with a Chinese built K series though. That sounds like a cocktail of problems.

Ironically one of the best 4 cylinders ever made is also called the K series, but made by Honda :p
Click to expand...

There was nothing wrong with the K-series when it was used as it was initially designed in 1.1 and 1.4ltr versions. It was around 15 years later before another manufacturer built an engine that was usefully lighter.

It was the stretch to 1.8 and then putting it in the Freelander that really caused the problems. Though it was also Land Rover that fixed most of the issues (pressure relief thermostat and the strengthened oil rail) as they were fed up with the number of warranty claims. The Chinese head gasket for the T-series (turboed K) is also a useful fix.
 
ahar said:
Whatever V8 engine Ford put in the Mustang in the early 2000s. Had one as a hire car in California and while it made a good noise it was utterly gutless. Could barely muster enough power for a doughnut let alone get some decent acceleration
Click to expand...

The engines like that in US cars make me laugh a bit albeit they are designed for smoothness primarily - silly litre numbers, OK torque but no HP while drinking fuel.
 
Rroff said:
The engines like that in US cars make me laugh a bit albeit they are designed for smoothness primarily - silly litre numbers, OK torque but no HP while drinking fuel.
Click to expand...

i always thought the low specific output was a sacrifice made in the name of mechanical reliability.

bit of a moot point now that electrics are generally the first thing to die.
 
Doobedoo said:
Did they make more than one version that went into the RX8?

I remember racing one when I had a mk2 Golf. Let’s just say the owner of the the RX8 was not a happy chappy.
Click to expand...
By race do you mean 0-60 at a set of traffic lights.
It's not what it's designed for it has almost no power low down.
RX8 is one of my all time favourite cars such a perfect handling car.
 
robj20 said:
By race do you mean 0-60 at a set of traffic lights.
It's not what it's designed for it has almost no power low down.
RX8 is one of my all time favourite cars such a perfect handling car.
Click to expand...
No we had a spirited drive for a few miles. To be clear I had a 16 valver and the car weighed a little over a ton. Assuming he had a 190 version we were similarly matched but I was definitely the happier when we pulled side by side.
 
Doobedoo said:
No we had a spirited drive for a few miles. To be clear I had a 16 valver and the car weighed a little over a ton. Assuming he had a 190 version we were similarly matched but I was definitely the happier when we pulled side by side.
Click to expand...
Easy way to tell them apart is the 230 had xenon lights so had the washers. 190 didn't, different sound at about 6000rpm when the second ports open up on the 230 as well.
Really miss mine. I wanted to turbo it. I'd have another if I had space for it.
 
Doobedoo said:
No we had a spirited drive for a few miles. To be clear I had a 16 valver and the car weighed a little over a ton. Assuming he had a 190 version we were similarly matched but I was definitely the happier when we pulled side by side.
Click to expand...

That is hardly indicative of performance. Just indicative who can be more of a bell end on the road.
 
Doobedoo said:
C’mon theirs no need to be grumpy we’ve all done silly things when we were young and fearless. But yeah I know what happened.
Click to expand...

I was just merely pointing out that a cars performance on a public road is down to how much a driver is willing to risk their life and licence rather than the actual car itself. A hatchback could be faster than most supercars on normal British b roads.
 
adam cool dude said:
I was just merely pointing out that a cars performance on a public road is down to how much a driver is willing to risk their life and licence rather than the actual car itself. A hatchback could be faster than most supercars on normal British b roads.
Click to expand...
Point taken but we’re not talking about a super car it’s just an RX8 that when all’s said and done would’ve had a similar power to weight ratio. He was gunning it and i was stuck to his rear end. Anyhoo that was a different time in my life I’m much more responsible these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom