Top 10 engines in unworthy cars

Sorry a jeep is a jeep to me, I'm not privy to their names. I think you named the suspect vehicle though.

We could come up with an equally long, or longer, thread on cars that deserved better engines. I would nominate the 4 cylinder versions Porsche 914 and Pontiac Fiero.

What about the Gremlin X? im not really sure the 304 was all that great an engine but nothing deserves to be sentenced to live its life in a gremlin. They talk about torture at Guantanamo..E36 M3 i think they should give all the inmates gremlins, theyd talk then!!

as for cars that deserved better engines, plymouth prowler. oh what it should have been...

I don't think the guy's a moron at all. Most of those were frickin spot on, except to say that they mentioned the same 2.2 turbo, what was it, three times?

Taurus= pos sports car, SHO engine, Great (and beautiful). Chryco XXX: pos car, 2.2 turbo, pretty damn good

Yada yada yada.

Here's the question though, which great cars have received engines lesser than their chassis? I'd like to start:

-Lotus Elise/Exige: Toyota 2zzge. Not exactly the engine I would put in that chassis. A honda k20 much better (yes I know the politics).

-Ford Ranger: great truck. Why Ford doesn't install a 3-4L turbodiesel is absolutely beyond me.

Help me out here.

Brust wrote: Here's the question though, which great cars have received engines lesser than their chassis? I'd like to start: -Lotus Elise/Exige: Toyota 2zzge. Not exactly the engine I would put in that chassis. A honda k20 much better (yes I know the politics). -Ford Ranger: great truck. Why Ford doesn't install a 3-4L turbodiesel is absolutely beyond me. Help me out here.

One word: DeLorean.

Actually two words, DeLorean, Fiero.

And I would argue the original Elise with the 108 HP Rover lump was a much worse mismatch than anything they built with the Toyota engine.

J

Type Q wrote: We could come up with an equally long, or longer, thread on cars that deserved better engines. I would nominate the 4 cylinder versions Porsche 914 and Pontiac Fiero.

E28 BMW's are underwhelming with anything less than a 2.5. The 518i and 520i, for instance.

I suppose all AW11 MR2's could've come standard with 4AGZE's, as well.

I've found what has to be the all time worst engine / car pairing installed at the factory:

Mazda 13B rotary... in a 26 passenger bus!

If you're not counting road vehicles, the John Deere rotary powered tractor might also count.

Supposedly another misuse of the rotary engine was the Mazda Road Pacer. A very large/heavy 4 door sedan that managed to be slow and VERY fuel IINEFFICIENT. Sort of a 1 and 1/3 scale (UPSIZED) RX-4 looking....thing. Very few sold, partly due to Mazda's springing it onto the market during the 2nd oil crisis of the late '70s.

Ford did put a diesel in the Ranger....almost no one bought it, tho. Might have had something to do with 58 horsepower in a truck that weighed nearly 2800 lbs, UNLOADED.

Brust wrote: Here's the question though, which great cars have received engines lesser than their chassis?

The US E36 M3.... while the S50/S52 is a great motor it needed more power and revs to really push the chassis to anywhere near its limits. They gave the europeans the proper engine for that car.

The Porsche Boxster. The car is awesome and beyond capable. The 3.8L should have been shoehorned in there as a the 'S' model.

TR3only wrote: Supposedly another misuse of the rotary engine was the Mazda Road Pacer. A very large/heavy 4 door sedan that managed to be slow and VERY fuel IINEFFICIENT. Sort of a 1 and 1/3 scale (UPSIZED) RX-4 looking....thing.

That large/heavy 4-door sedan was a Holden Kingswood/Premier. Normally powered by a torquey inline 6 or V8.

RexSeven wrote:

benzbaron wrote: How bout the wrangler with the big v8 hemi in it? Great combo for street stomping. The thing sounds like a tank.

I don't think ChryCo ever put the Hemi in the Wrangler. They did put it into the Grand Cherokee to create the SRT-8. It's as ugly and fast as sin.

ChryCo did not put the HEMI in a Wrangler. But a certain Jeep dealer in Charleston, SC did. Some guy flew out from Cali to buy that thing and drove it home.

Does the Swift GT qualify for the list?

Wow, P71, I know you have Fords, but you have a serious case of hate for 'em.

I really don't know what people's problem with the N/A DOHC mod motors is. Is there another domestic manufacturer that has offered an all-aluminum DOHC V8, much less a mass-produced one? The only other one I can think of is the super-limited DOHC 5.7L in the original ZR-1, but I'm honestly not sure if that was aluminum block.

Like anything that comes from a Mustang (yes, I'm more than aware they were first used in Lincolns), they need some mod-lovin' before they start to shine, but shine they will. As typical for Ford engines, it just takes a little more money than it does when you're talking about a Chevy small-block.

Efficiency may be the war cry of the ricer, but the early b-port equipped cars put out better hp/L than the venerable LS1, and the c-port cars are right there with the LS7 and LS3. Along those lines, my Cobra gets better fuel economy than my Celica, lol.

I will agree that putting it in front of an automatic transmission is a waste of time, though. You really need to rev these motors, and an automatic just won't do that. So much so, that Ford didn't even put a forged crank in the automatic-equipped Mach 1s. The Marauder should've had an optional manual tranny, in my opinion, preferably a 6 speed.

I saw two Taurus SHOs at a local junk yard this past winter. The engines were immaculate. What a gorgeous powerplant! I would have loved one of those. I'll take one in black, please.

I like certain Mod Motors, specifically the 03/04 Mach 1 5-Speed and the 03/04 Cobra S/C versions. The 3V, 2V, and pre-03 4V just don't do it for me. It's a little better now that things like aftermarket heads are available but holy hell are they expensive!

The 4V in the Marauder wasn't bad, but it just wasn't right for such a heavy car with an auto (too high-revving).

I have to interject something:

V8 Northstar packaged in a FWD Cadillac with a 4 speed automatic. DOHC revving out to near 7,000 rpms, all aluminum, 300HP out of 4.6L. Could have been a stunner, instead, just a bygone memory...

I think what people are missing about the 2.2 mopars is that yea, the cars wernt perfect, but they were fast cars for the time, and not just in a straight line. But, the engines are no better than the rest of the car is, they did make alot of power, but they also blew head gaskets, almost every glhs blew the tranny becasue it wasnt made to take the power, they had lots of electrical problems, the starter is mounted right next to the turbo so it gets cooked, etc. I had a shelby charger, and in comparison my milano is as reliable as a camry. lol I actually think there are alot more good cars than good engines, with as was already mentioned the fiero being a perfect example of a good car with a bad engine.

My 86 Charger 2.2 Turbo liked to crack heads. It was fun and sporty compared to the 78 Regal it replaced. It had started ruining it's third head when I traded it for a 92 Sentra XE.

I'm pretty happy to see the quad 4 up there, I've never driven an older n body but that motor is still impressive, especially in HO and w41 trim. I mean it came out the same time as the bmw m3s 2.3L and every time that car is brought up all I hear is how much power that engine made for the time when GM had a motor that made just as much with the same size but it just never found its way into a solid chassis. I mean I think the E30 m3 is a wicked car but I often hear how expensive those engines are to fix where as I don`t hear that with quad 4s.

psteav wrote: The Marauder was a great car searching for an engine. That is the exact opposite of their little list here. The GLHS probably belongs on this list. The Spirit R/T and Taurus SHO were actually decent chassis, if you accept that they were high performance family sedans. And fit and finish and interior design on the R/T are no worse than anything else from 1991.

I dunno, the L Body Mopars vied with the VW Rabbit for the dominant small bore Auto X car in the 80s, The chassis is actually quite good for its day.

Someone also complained about 2.2 heads cracking. The only time a 2.2 head will develop cracks if it has ben severely or chronically overheated. Haven't cracked one in over 20 years of 2.2 ownership.

There are different castings of the 2.2 heads, and some crack more than others. If I remember right 86 and 87 are the worst.

Brust wrote: Here's the question though, which great cars have received engines lesser than their chassis? I'd like to start: Help me out here.

And the answer is always MIata........

zoomx2 wrote:

Brust wrote: Here's the question though, which great cars have received engines lesser than their chassis? I'd like to start: Help me out here.

And the answer is always MIata........

X1/9

The Quad4 comments are spot on. Amazing motor, terrible chassis. My current employer used to race a Calais with the W41 (442 convert basically). One engine produced 230 BHP before a stuck injector roasted a piston.

The chassis however sucked. It would eat the front left tire, especially at Road Atlanta. We couldn't get the weight off that corner to save us weighing in at just a touch above 700 lbs alone. Axles and wheel bearings on that corner were another story as they typically had to be replaced after each session, yeesh).