Worst Performance Engine of All TIme

I think it had something to do with block rigidity being incredibly, unbelievably crappy.

93celicaGT2 wrote: I'm pretty sure Drew is kidding....

Impossible!

He knows that the only engines worse are the b-series Hondas, the RB series Nissans, 13b, 4g63, 1/2JZ, and Buick 3.8 Turbos.

Drew speaks the truth!

Toyman01 wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

Drewsifer wrote: Any chevy small block. Horrible nasty engines. You can do anything you want to em, good luck getting more than 200 hp out of one of those pieces of scrap! Seriously what the heck chevy.

Maybe I'm missing the joke?

Yeah those crappy SBCs just suck. http://www.ryanscarpage.50megs.com/combos1.html There are over 100 SBC combos on that site and few of them make less than 300hp. A lot of them are over 400hp and several are over 500hp. All with no boost and (gasp) carbs. The only thing right in the original post is "You can do anything you want to em"

When I first read the original reply on this, I thought it was either a joke or a numbskull that wrote it. Then I thought about the 175hp engine put in the Corvette in the mid 70's. I won't come close to putting the SBC as a series into the worst performance engine category, but I just might put that particular one in it.

I nominate the Oldsmobile 307 "H.O." It has all the terrible qualities of the mid 70's-on 350-403 Olds engines, like the crap heads, windowed main webbing (seriously, WTF GM!!!), etc, but with a smaller displacement. Hampered by the useless electronic Quadrajet carb and hidden under a pile of emissions equipment, it is a completely gutless, useless engine. I know the Popular Hot Rodding Engine Masters Challenge had a 307 entry that made decent power (I think it had almost 400hp) but there are a lot of very expensive custom parts on this engine, and the same mods done to a SBC would net almost double the power.

They have 2 uses: the 83-85 ones had a decent aluminum intake that swaps onto the older small block Olds V8's, and they make great boat anchors.

Chevy Vega... The sleeveless 140ci aluminum-block ones, not the Cosworth version...

end thread! :)

Bobzilla wrote: My choice for worst engine: Ford's 2.3L OHC dual plug engine in the rangers.

the 2.3 is a beast they don't break ever plus the mustang svo, merkur xr4ti and thunderbird turbo coupe all had over 200hp

SilverFleet wrote: I nominate the Oldsmobile 307 "H.O." It has all the terrible qualities of the mid 70's-on 350-403 Olds engines, like the crap heads, windowed main webbing (seriously, WTF GM!!!), etc, but with a smaller displacement. Hampered by the useless electronic Quadrajet carb and hidden under a pile of emissions equipment, it is a completely gutless, useless engine. I know the Popular Hot Rodding Engine Masters Challenge had a 307 entry that made decent power (I think it had almost 400hp) but there are a lot of very expensive custom parts on this engine, and the same mods done to a SBC would net almost double the power. They have 2 uses: the 83-85 ones had a decent aluminum intake that swaps onto the older small block Olds V8's, and they make great boat anchors.

this is just about right.

bravenrace wrote:

Toyman01 wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

Drewsifer wrote: Any chevy small block. Horrible nasty engines. You can do anything you want to em, good luck getting more than 200 hp out of one of those pieces of scrap! Seriously what the heck chevy.

Maybe I'm missing the joke?

Yeah those crappy SBCs just suck. http://www.ryanscarpage.50megs.com/combos1.html There are over 100 SBC combos on that site and few of them make less than 300hp. A lot of them are over 400hp and several are over 500hp. All with no boost and (gasp) carbs. The only thing right in the original post is "You can do anything you want to em"

When I first read the original reply on this, I thought it was either a joke or a numbskull that wrote it. Then I thought about the 175hp engine put in the Corvette in the mid 70's. I won't come close to putting the SBC as a series into the worst performance engine category, but I just might put that particular one in it.

GM absolutely built some junk versions of the engine, but take just about any SBC block and stir in the right bits and presto. Good HP and torque for cheap. I don't think you can build cheaper HP.

Ok.. Try this one..

403 olds. ..

ugh!

junkbuggie wrote: this is just about right.

I was initially going to say the Olds 403, as I had one in my 1979 Trans Am for a while. It was built as a performance engine initially, but GM decided that they needed to hollow out the main webbing, an essential part of any performance engine, for "weight savings and emission purposes". It was a terrible engine. Something was always breaking on it. I dumped a bunch of money on it before I smartened up and built up a proper Pontiac V8 for the car.

Now take that "winning" formula and apply it to an engine nearly 100ci less than that with even more stupid emissions controls, put it in a heavier car than my Trans Am, and viola! you have a recipe for disaster.

A close second in my book is the CrossFire Injection 305 that unfortunately made it into the F-body twins in 1982-83. Also known as Cease Fire Injection, Catch Fire Injection, and my personal favorite, Double Toilet Bowl Injection, it was almost as bad as the 307. At least it had some sort of EFI instead of that crap electronic Q-jet.

I disagree. SBC parts are getting more expensive and the vehicles they came in are either trucks, crappy, or collectable.

If you want power for cheap, I just saw a 91 Talon TSI AWD in good shape for $1800. You can run 12's with that thing by gutting the interior and purchasing, get ready for the long list of mods, a cone filter and a boost controller.

MGB has to rank as one of the low achievers. Adequate for its original purpose, but not in any way meant to put out much power.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but did the brits not tax a car based on HP at one time? This would be the explanation for the long stroke low rev and high torque engines found on some brit cars. Of course, how could the politicians know that the world was going to convert to high rev low torque engines!

If I can make a second nomination, the GM engine put in the Vega has to rank up there with all time engine disasters unleashed on the public. At least the MGB engine Ran most of the time!

84 corvette with cross fire.. I agree..

MrBenjamonkey wrote: I disagree. SBC parts are getting more expensive and the vehicles they came in are either trucks, crappy, or collectable. If you want power for cheap, I just saw a 91 Talon TSI AWD in good shape for $1800. You can run 12's with that thing by gutting the interior and purchasing, get ready for the long list of mods, a cone filter and a boost controller.

Do you know Drew from somewhere?

for fun

http://www.carthrottle.com/the-worst-10-performance-cars-of-2009/

Don't tell Joe Mondello about crappy 403 olds motors, that guy makes his living making Olds motors run hard. At one time IIRC GM based the pro-stock DRCE motors on a highly modfied Olds block. But the Olds 307 was definitely a steaming pile as a performance motor. I have a buddy who managed to blow the iron duke in his 89 Skylark just revving it up in his driveway. Grenaded the balace shaft assembly and windowed the oil pan and the block. And GM in it's infinite wisdom made i think 4 versions of the Iron Duke, only one of which will actually fit in a pre 93 N-Body, i.e. Skylark/Grand Am/Cutlass Ciera etc.. (it's physically shorter than the other 3, don't ask me how I know) So yeah, the Iron Duke kinda sucks..

93celicaGT2 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: I disagree. SBC parts are getting more expensive and the vehicles they came in are either trucks, crappy, or collectable. If you want power for cheap, I just saw a 91 Talon TSI AWD in good shape for $1800. You can run 12's with that thing by gutting the interior and purchasing, get ready for the long list of mods, a cone filter and a boost controller.

Do you know Drew from somewhere?

I don't think so ...

I nominate.... the b16 from anything Honda. Sure, it's got epic aftermarket support. Sure it's the go to swap for any Honda enthusiast. However- it cost Honda people as much as I paid for my entire DSM in 2001, to make it as slow.

06HHR wrote: Don't tell Joe Mondello about crappy 403 olds motors, that guy makes his living making Olds motors run hard. At one time IIRC GM based the pro-stock DRCE motors on a highly modfied Olds block. But the Olds 307 was definitely a steaming pile as a performance motor. I have a buddy who managed to blow the iron duke in his 89 Skylark just revving it up in his driveway. Grenaded the balace shaft assembly and windowed the oil pan and the block. And GM in it's infinite wisdom made i think 4 versions of the Iron Duke, only one of which will actually fit in a pre 93 N-Body, i.e. Skylark/Grand Am/Cutlass Ciera etc.. (it's physically shorter than the other 3, don't ask me how I know) So yeah, the Iron Duke kinda sucks..

There are lots of builders out there like Dick Miller Racing, FCR Performance, etc. that build the 403 to seriously perform, but with the money you could spend on polishing this turd, you could build another, more popular engine to make more power and be much more reliable. Power adders are a no-no on these, even with main girdles, or the crank and rods leave. They also have siamesed bores, so you can't go past .030 on a overbore without running into potential issues. It's really too bad, because if they didn't handicap the block with these design flaws, it could have been one of the best performance engines GM ever made. If I was going to plunk down the $10,000+ to make one of these motors really put out hp to get a car like my 1979 Trans Am in the 12's, then you better believe i'd be spending half as much on a LS motor and going faster!

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: I disagree. SBC parts are getting more expensive and the vehicles they came in are either trucks, crappy, or collectable. If you want power for cheap, I just saw a 91 Talon TSI AWD in good shape for $1800. You can run 12's with that thing by gutting the interior and purchasing, get ready for the long list of mods, a cone filter and a boost controller.

Do you know Drew from somewhere?

I don't think so ...

You guys should have your Moms bring you to a playdate or something - you'd get along well.

I already know i get along well with Drew... i've known him for years.

Don't think i know this guy, though.

In reply to SilverFleet: No doubt about that, and even those guys probably wouldn't touch a 307. The dollar per hp ratio is definitely in favor of an LS motor or just about any other SBC.

turboswede wrote:

M030 wrote: It was EC back when they were good (1996). They eventually got 150hp out of the 924 engine with a hotter cam, ported head and side draft Webers. The intake manifold was the 'bottleneck' and it was the side draft carbs that freed up the hp. All that being said, I agree, the 924 2.0 engine sucked.

Porsche purposely hamstrung the cylinder head design to keep it slower than the 911's of the time. This has been verified by an engineer that worked on the project. A good cylinder head port and polish will wake it right up, improving the intake and exhaust from there helps even more.

Yeah, im going to a no vote on the crappy engine thing. if your only goal is hp, well than maybe, but there are allot of other parameters that i think are important. easy to work on, reliability, power band, to name a few.

the merc via audi/porsche/amc 2.0 bottom is damn near indestructible and capable of over 350 hp without sacrificing reliability. the factory GTR's handled 320+ hp, and the bottom ends weren't blowing out on them very often. when they do go, its oil starvation on long sweepers, accu-sump and a cam scraper are the cure.

As long as you keep the top end in tune, these engines are dead reliable. I have personally really abused quite a few of them, and they keep going and going... even after years of storage, over reving them, cranking up turbos to over 20 psi, putting in the wrong oil, etc, etc... even when they break the usually get you home, and its generally a cis issue that makes em a "ran when parked" back lot special...

but i guess its like everything else, the people who dont understand them, complain about them and over time that becomes the gospel, but its not my gospel...

Jeez, the non-Super Duty Iron Duke was crapola for sure. About the Fiero fires: the deal was that to help squeeze the engine under the Fiero engine cover, the oil pan capacity was cut to about 3 quarts. Yes, I said 3. Combine that with the poor QC on the rods and some oil consumption, then put the exhaust catalyst just below the engine and stand back.

From back in da day: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/24/us/gm-plans-recall-of-244000-fieros-citing-fire-hazard.html?pagewanted=1

I am surprised no one has nominated the Porsche 914 four bangers. The 1.7 was strangled and was nearly impossible to add displacement to because of the cylinder stud placement, the 1.8 could be taken out quite a bit further but due to the less than rigid crankcase had issues at bigger power levels, getting over about 125 truly reliable HP is horribly expensive with either and the 2.0's Porsche designed heads crack if you look at them crosseyed.

How has no one mentioned the Ford 255 V8 or the Pontiac 301 turbo yet?