Jerry From LA wrote: This engine derived originally from the Triumph Stag V-8 and was cut in half for the Dolomite and later the TR-7.
They cut an engine in half for this guy?
Jerry From LA wrote: This engine derived originally from the Triumph Stag V-8 and was cut in half for the Dolomite and later the TR-7.
They cut an engine in half for this guy?
ignorant wrote: What about the D16A6 that came in the CRX SI? The rest of the world gets a dual cam engine with 20 more horse and we get some M3h machine.
You obviously know not of which you speak.
The D16A6 would probably crack the top 20 motors of all time.
Easily revs to 7800rpms all day long and makes power all the way to that number with a few minor bolt-ons.
On average, will run 250K miles with nothing other than minor maintenance. No oil leaks...nothing. Also, at said mileage, will usually dyno within 5-10% of the HP figure that the engine made when brand new.
Has a very decent flowing intake manifold and head. Responds well to modifications, too.
Even when mated to a somewhat "short" gearbox, it'll still get 40mpg all day long.
Is very light in weight
It is only rated for ~108 hp from the factory, but a dyno will usually result in a stock motor making over 100hp @ the wheels.
There is nothing to hate about this motor. Japan got a DOHC version of the motor, but the SOHC version the US got makes more torque at a better RPM.
This motor is one of the key ingredients of the 89-91 Civic Si's success in Solo II ST classes.
I'm going to continue to believe that iggy posted that up just to berkeley with me, since I <3 the D16A6.
CagleRacing wrote: According to C. Lyle Cummins Jr, in his book "Internal Fire", the cannon is the worst performance internal combustion engine because the piston is thrown away after the first power stroke.
Charlton Heston is spinning in his grave.
The hugely disappointing Vega Cosworth: 2.0l of stillborn pedigree poo poo.
"GM had hoped to introduce the Cosworth Vega by the start of the 1974 model year but, alas, due to the government's newly - revised emissions regulations, this deadline couldn't be met. It wasn't until March 27, 1975 that the production of saleable Cosworth Vegas got underway at the Lordstown, OH, plant. But a lot of things had changed along the way. Way back in 1971 when McWilliams conducted her feasibility study, 185hp was the power figure being quoted; by 1973, however, the figure had dropped to 130hp and, owing to Chevrolet's concern for a smooth, quiet - running engine, the horsepower rating was down to 110 by the time the production version finally made its debut."
http://www.secondchancegarage.com/public/1975-cosworth-vega.cfm
In reply to Shaun: In the early '80s I raced with a guy that had a cosworth vega that ran 12's in the quarter, with just the usual improvements.
pres589 wrote:aussiesmg wrote: [Stag V8 content] Made 180hp, it's only redeeming feature is that is the sweetest sound V8 sound ever.There's a James Bond film with a Stag in it and that indeed sounded the business. But if that's all it has going for it, a 3.5 swap and maybe a good exhaust system w/ an x-pipe seems like an excellent solution.
I am building one as original, just a few reliability mods, the other is looking like a Mopar Big Block, just because i can....who ever heard of a Ratted out Stag
I know that no one is probably going to see this ;but, I believe the worse engine ever is the Pontiac 301!
Siamesed intake ports that were half the size of the older Pontiac engines! Plus, an inch lower deck height. So, you can't put on older heads because the intakes won't fit. Plus, the heads have different coolant ports.
You can't Rev them much over 4k without #7 cylinder leaning out and burning the valves. If you do really over rev them, you could snap the crank shaft in two. The 301 was only produced for four years.
A dead thread that may not be a canoe? Slap my ass and call me Sally. (But if you tickle I'm screaming).
Zombie thread, but not a canoe! That's different!
Hey Sally, watch that ass 'cause I'm gonna slap it.
I started to run down aeronca's assessment of the early SAAB 99 engine (originally a Triumph Dolomite 4) but realized I wrote almost exactly the same post a few pages and 8 years ago.
ddavidv said:Porsche 924. Was it GRM or EC (back when it was actually good) that did a bunch of work to one and put it on the dyno with colossally disappointing results.
This is what I was going to come here to say...the original Audi-sourced 100hp lump in the 924. Probably not as bad as some other "sportscar" engines of that era in reality, but in a Porsche.....meh. Thank God for the 924S :)
Mndsm said:A dead thread that may not be a canoe? Slap my ass and call me Sally. (But if you tickle I'm screaming).
That username (kchays31808) reminds me of the username of the canoe that was copying old threads and posting them as new threads for some reason. In any case, at least his post (if its the same person) this time seems legitimate.
Some of us new guys missed some awesome threads.
irish44j said:ddavidv said:Porsche 924. Was it GRM or EC (back when it was actually good) that did a bunch of work to one and put it on the dyno with colossally disappointing results.
This is what I was going to come here to say...the original Audi-sourced 100hp lump in the 924. Probably not as bad as some other "sportscar" engines of that era in reality, but in a Porsche.....meh. Thank God for the 924S :)
Since it was originally an early 70’s VW project, it made sense and given Porsche’s problems at the time they couldn’t really develop a new engine for that while they were also developing the 928. Sales of the 911 were flagging, so they had to get people in the sales room. If you look at VW/Audi’s engine’s at the time there weren’t a lot of options to choose from.
The ROW version had 125hp verses the 95hp version the US had. In order to get more compression, you have to replace the pistons since the heads had no combustion chambers. Fixing the ports and deshrouding the valve stems is where the power is on the motors. Bolt-ons don’t work without the head work and extra compression. There was an article about Bolt-Ons by EC and they found they did bupkiss until they had a head reworked in the follow up article and then they found some decent gains.
There was a pretty successful race series for the original 2.0L car in the UK and that motor morphed into Audi’s famed 5-cylinder, but it was originally designed by Mercedes for Audi.
Once the turbo came out, it helped quite a bit, but the CIS and lowered compression made them slower than expected and unreliable to those unwilling to learn or pay for a skilled person to work on them.
If Porsche/VW had used the engine family found in the Golf, the performance could have been more easily fixed by all of the GTi/Rabbit parts that came on the market with the GTi along with easier engine swaps and the like. Oh well. The more complex 2.5L was the winner thanks mostly to the better fuel injection system.
Stefan said:irish44j said:ddavidv said:Porsche 924. Was it GRM or EC (back when it was actually good) that did a bunch of work to one and put it on the dyno with colossally disappointing results.
This is what I was going to come here to say...the original Audi-sourced 100hp lump in the 924. Probably not as bad as some other "sportscar" engines of that era in reality, but in a Porsche.....meh. Thank God for the 924S :)
Since it was originally an early 70’s VW project, it made sense and given Porsche’s problems at the time they couldn’t really develop a new engine for that while they were also developing the 928. Sales of the 911 were flagging, so they had to get people in the sales room. If you look at VW/Audi’s engine’s at the time there weren’t a lot of options to choose from.
The ROW version had 125hp verses the 95hp version the US had. In order to get more compression, you have to replace the pistons since the heads had no combustion chambers. Fixing the ports and deshrouding the valve stems is where the power is on the motors. Bolt-ons don’t work without the head work and extra compression. There was an article about Bolt-Ons by EC and they found they did bupkiss until they had a head reworked in the follow up article and then they found some decent gains.
There was a pretty successful race series for the original 2.0L car in the UK and that motor morphed into Audi’s famed 5-cylinder, but it was originally designed by Mercedes for Audi.
Once the turbo came out, it helped quite a bit, but the CIS and lowered compression made them slower than expected and unreliable to those unwilling to learn or pay for a skilled person to work on them.
If Porsche/VW had used the engine family found in the Golf, the performance could have been more easily fixed by all of the GTi/Rabbit parts that came on the market with the GTi along with easier engine swaps and the like. Oh well. The more complex 2.5L was the winner thanks mostly to the better fuel injection system.
Oh yeah, aware of the pedigree and rationale there. I mean, a lot of sportscars in the 70s had some pretty weak engines, all things considered. My main point of comparison is that the Audi lump in the 924 didn't even outperform the tractor-origin straight-6 in my 1970 GT6....which is saying a lot!
From what I read, the Flathead Ford made pathetic power, no matter what you did with it, although it was the LS1 of its day
In reply to loosecannon :
Just came here to say that.
Chevrolet sixes from the same era made more power with less displacement and without overheating.
Mndsm said:
Slap my ass and call me Sally. (But if you tickle I'm screaming).
I am so stealing that.
I read through this entire thread again. Seems some people didn’t read it was for the worst Performance engine.
loosecannon said:From what I read, the Flathead Ford made pathetic power, no matter what you did with it, although it was the LS1 of its day
They sound pretty cool though.
In reply to Mndsm :
I’m up for some tickling. Fingers, a feather, or the whole chicken?
paul said:Chevy Vega... The sleeveless 140ci aluminum-block ones, not the Cosworth version...
end thread! :)
I’m sorry but the Vega was a good fun engine. I bought a Vega GT new in 1972 and can’t recall ever driving it at less than full throttle. I was in the Navy and many times that car went back and forth from San Diego to Wisconsin. 105 mph
Drove it for a year and a half changing oil every 3000 miles and it rarely ever burned any oil between changes. That was the “trick” to getting a Vega to last” the silicon in the aluminum didn’t take to dirt. Wore out the walls quickly if not changed when needed.
Sold it with 48,000 miles for $300 less than I paid for it to new. To the first person who responded to my add.
Helps that it was at the peak of the fuel shortage.
With regard getting stuck in reverse. It was the first Chevy with reverse gear lock out. You were supposed to lift up the collar to get it in or out of reverse. Some people butchered up the lock out because they couldn’t remember to lift it up.
Feedyurhed said:Just jumped in here and I haven't read the whole thread.......so it's probably already been mentioned but my vote is for the Chevy Vega. The worst car with the worst motor ever conceived. Aluminun block with iron sleeves....liked to crack open at about 40K miles just for fun. Rust ate the body up as you watched. Just awful. Guess that explains why you don't see many Vegas driving around anymore. Also helps explain why Chevy is in bankruptcy.
Aluminum block yes Iron sleeves ? No!
That was an aftermarket fix for guys who ran dirty oil too long and tore up the Silicone
loosecannon said:From what I read, the Flathead Ford made pathetic power, no matter what you did with it, although it was the LS1 of its day
In 1932 the Ford Flathead was king and reigned as such through the early 1950’s until the Overhead valves engines of the post war period started to be developed.
The famed Chevy Small block really was overlooked until the late 50’s since Oldsmobile had the J3 Buick had its nail head and Cadillac was approaching 300+ horsepower
Shaun said:The hugely disappointing Vega Cosworth: 2.0l of stillborn pedigree poo poo.
"GM had hoped to introduce the Cosworth Vega by the start of the 1974 model year but, alas, due to the government's newly - revised emissions regulations, this deadline couldn't be met. It wasn't until March 27, 1975 that the production of saleable Cosworth Vegas got underway at the Lordstown, OH, plant. But a lot of things had changed along the way. Way back in 1971 when McWilliams conducted her feasibility study, 185hp was the power figure being quoted; by 1973, however, the figure had dropped to 130hp and, owing to Chevrolet's concern for a smooth, quiet - running engine, the horsepower rating was down to 110 by the time the production version finally made its debut."
http://www.secondchancegarage.com/public/1975-cosworth-vega.cfm
You need to look up how those engines were rated. One was gross, no alternator no water pump correction number to drive the oil pump no air filter etc etc.
the other was net as installed with air filters smog equipment etc etc etc.
You'll need to log in to post.
