The worlds worst engine award.

[FredTransit]

 

Ford TDCi engines. Yes, I know I've said this before and yes, I know some of you like them. I've just found them to be peaky, torque-less with turbo lag to frighten an early Audi Quattro.

 

 

Also, can somebody explain to me why Ford, in their infinite wisdom decided to not fit any kind of turbo related gauges to the TDI or TDCI?

[Rusty Pelican]

My vote for worst engine ever goes to the hillman imp. no two ways about it, it was a good idea, but it's an underdeveloped POS thats only virtue is that you can take it out yourself in an hour with only a jack for assistance. And you will get plenty of practice.

Disagree

One of the BEST most underrated engines ever ,Cooling was a big issue as was twatty old mechanics torqueing bolts down sans torque wrench thinking alloy is cast iron . Sort the cooling out and they are fantastic . Way ahead of their time , All alloy , overhead cam in 63 was a revalation , common now though. Voted in Classic cars as one of the 12 best engines ever developed in the UK ( Hemi was top IIRC ) Rev to 7,500 as standard , 10,000 balanced for racing , 998 ones kick out over 100BHP

Ive done well over a quarter of a million miles with these engines

The best

[Richard]

I find the TDCi in my Transit quite a pleasant engine to drive by modern standards, but that's one in van tune.

[Justin Case]

My contenders are:

 

Ford Sidevalve. Thirties technology that needs a rebuild every five minutes, but Ford built them until about 1962 IIRC. No wonder the Anglebox 105E engine felt so good!

 

Runaway winner; 31 bhp from 1172cc and non-adjustable valves leave it unbeatable. On the other hand it does make a reasonably good boat anchor *

 

*As proved by my late father when he sank one to provide a mooring strong enough to hold a 17ft boat on a tidal river

[M'coli]

The BRM v16.

[MrDuke]

I'd probably rate the A-series as fitted in the Mini as being one of the worst - considering the amount of genius that went into the overall design of the car, the stock engine fitment was a serious weak point, what with freezing carbs, ignition components placed for optimum water-logging, etc etc.

The Essex V6 wouldn't be far behind, being heavy, under-powered, and having little scope for modification - IIRC the early Capris and Granadas were sold in S Africa with small-block V8s, with great success, which makes you wonder why they stuck with the Essex/Cologne for so long.

 

I also agree that the K-Series has an unfair rap - the head gasket is such an easy fix that it doesn't really count as a major flaw, although why such an easy fix wasn't picked up and rectified by the factory I don't know...

[pogweasel]

Who suggested a Ford TDCi, well, I would be with you on that, what the chuff is the point in a fast(ish) diesel that is all done with wear and tear at 100,000 miles?

That simply isn't cricket these days, chaps.

That lump came about in what, 2001-ish?

So when looking a few years back for a motor for 'Er Indoors, it was a case of quiet but unreliable 110bhp or clattery old non-fancy mill with 90-brake in a Focus for her, pretty straightforward choice TBH. That rattley old 90bhp Focus is now at 213,000 miles, c/o mother-in-law and still puts a grin on my face when I drive it. That is a powerplant + chassis that deserves restecp.

 

These TDi PD VW units are t'right too, OK, they are not very refined, but boshed to the 6-speed gearbox they make motorways delicious. Mega good on fuel too once you lob it in 6 at a steady 70. Nice.

[wuvvum]

Ford Sidevalve. Thirties technology that needs a rebuild every five minutes, but Ford built them until about 1962 IIRC. No wonder the Anglebox 105E engine felt so good!

 

With you on this one. Utterly gutless, stupid white metal big-end bearings, comically thirsty for its size and power output, and invariably mated to a hopeless three-speed 'box.

 

I'd also nominate the Peugeot suitcase engines, just for being such an absolute bastard to work on.

[oldford]

Forgot about the (CVH?) 1.8 engines as fitted to Sierras. Smoke like a laboratory beagle and only posess enough power to asthmatically wheeze themselves over a speed bump.

 

That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, whilst I can't talk of experience of every single 1.8 CVH produced, I have had experience of a few hundred of them. All except one were in cars less than a year old, the other one is in my car:

 

 

Is really as fast as you want to go, oil consumptiom is fine, nowhere near VWs acceptable limit of 600 miles per litre and if it wasn't, it'll not be alot of work to change the valve stem seals, which can be done without removing the cylinder head and there's only 8 of them. It's not a great engine and it's not a bad engine, it does its job adequately for my needs.

 

The car that they were used in finshed production 18 years ago, so the chances are that you are going to encounter more bad ones than good ones.

[messerschmitt owner]

I'll also defend the K-Series. Over 100bhp from a 1.4 with the later ones. Very zingy, shame they didn't design the head gaskets correctly from the start. My contenders are:

 

I am going to say the smart 600cc and 700cc engines as fitted to fortwos - they all seem to fail at about 45000 miles - lack of compression cylindeer three or burnt out oil rings or knackered turbo

 

Thankfully the one in the roadster seems to fare better - but I can't explain why as the basic engine is the same.

 

Mine is pushing 115bhp from 698cc though - that's not too bad.

[Richard]

Also, can somebody explain to me why Ford, in their infinite wisdom decided to not fit any kind of turbo related gauges to the TDI or TDCI?

 

I've never seen a boost gauge on a diesel engine, does anybody even put them on petrol turbos any more?

[chaseracer]

Though it pains me to say this... PSA 2-litre 8v petrol, as applied to the series 1 XM. I've had two: the first ate its rings at 73k, and the second was going the same way at a similar mileage when I flogged it sharpish...

[Cavcraft]

Forgot about the (CVH?) 1.8 engines as fitted to Sierras. Smoke like a laboratory beagle and only posess enough power to asthmatically wheeze themselves over a speed bump.

 

That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, whilst I can't talk of experience of every single 1.8 CVH produced, I have had experience of a few hundred of them. All except one were in cars less than a year old, the other one is in my car:

 

 

Is really as fast as you want to go, oil consumptiom is fine, nowhere near VWs acceptable limit of 600 miles per litre and if it wasn't, it'll not be alot of work to change the valve stem seals, which can be done without removing the cylinder head and there's only 8 of them. It's not a great engine and it's not a bad engine, it does its job adequately for my needs.

 

The car that they were used in finshed production 18 years ago, so the chances are that you are going to encounter more bad ones than good ones.

 

Hey, you obviously have lots more experience than I do, don't doubt it for a minute chief. I had three iirc, the newest would have been about 6 or 7 years old (sub 60k though and well serviced) and the oldest probably 8 or 9 years old. They were all gutless, smokey, awful things though and comitted Ford owning friends agreed.

[Station]

I drove for a few weeks with a CVH with a completely gone head gasket (I put it in the garage for them to change it, and I don't think they did), there was no water in it as all, it always cut out at any moment, had no power at all, but it got me to work, albeit with white knuckles driving through rush hour Mersey Tunnel traffic. There's something assuring about that clattery top end.

[MK5 Escort]

Oh yes, the K Series with it’s relentless head gasket troubles. They're effectively service items. A shame really because the few I've had brief experiences with were otherwise silky smooth units. Plenty of grunt too.

 

Pogweasel has a good point over Vauxhall's 1.0 12v three cylinder jobbie. I've found most petrol Vauxhall engines over the last 10-12 years to be generally very good and bullet proof from my own experiences. Vastly underrated. The 1.0 engine though really leaves a lot to be desired. It's certainly in the top three 'worst' modern engines I’ve experienced. Dog rough (no, I don't like it’s three cylinder 'thrum'), hissy, not as economical as you'd think and as for performance - well, I have arthritis and I feel confident that I could run faster than it. It even has to have it’s bo**ocks worked off to keep up with traffic around town. It’s a dreadful engine. One that’s largely put me off even wanting to test other modern three cylinder units. Avoid at all costs.

 

Another one already mentioned is the old Ford normally aspirated 1.8D. Easily the slowest engine I've ever experienced to the point I felt it was actually dangerous pulling out at busy junctions. Even with your right foot buried though the floor, it just doesn’t move. To be fair, whilst the TD versions weren't exactly refined, I found them much better - so don't worry pbottomley!

 

Ford TDCi engines are chronically overrated. We had a few dozen or so of the 2.0 115 and 130bhp versions in Mondeo's where I used to work. Few of them ever run correctly. Gruff, alarmingly 'slappy' on start up and low revs, not that economical (low 40’s to the gallon was about the best), most smoked even after servicing and three of them in our depot alone suffered a complete failure of all injectors with less than 100k on the clock, resulting in four figure bills for replacements and labour. No thanks... You may laugh, but I actually much preferred the earlier TDdi’s found in early mk3 Mondeo’s, sold up to around the 02 plate. None of these went wrong and believe me, they didn't lead easy lives with us...

 

I don't know what the fuss is about CVH engines. I've experienced several over the years, a few of which were the 1.8 in the Sierra and only ever had a minor issue with one of them. None of them ever let us down and I find them much better than the massively overrated Pintos. I know of one unit in particular which is now over 300k and still going strong... I'm glad I'm not the only one to generally loathe most Pinto units. I’d put CVH engines (particularly the 1.8 ) to be amongst my favourites, not the worst!

[dieselnutjob]

Indenor 2.3 diseasel as fitted to the earlier Sierra. 'Orrible.

 

I had a 504 with that engine. 23 head bolts and the head still wouldn't clamp down properly. They had to have three iterations of design before they got it right (the later ones with screw in injectors were okay, avoid anything with clamp down injectors). I can't believe that Peugeot got so many years from the Indenor, it came out in 1958 or something and went right through to the 505 turbo diesel into early 90s wasn't it? By then it was complete boat anchor compared with newer competition.

 

Also the 2.2 HDIs are proving to be more complex and not as strong as the 2.0 HDIs. The 2.2s seem to like snapping cam belts and when they go it's bent valves (the 2.0 will just break some rocker arms) and so the head has to come off. To get the head off the inlet manifold/cam carrier has to come off but the injectors have to come out for that in if they are stuck (which they often are) then you are royally screwed.

 

Also the 2.2 HDIs all have particulate filters which ruin the economy and cost much $$ to maintain and replace every 50k miles

[seth]

I'm a little surprised that BMC boast anchors haven't had more nominations? Acceptable when they were modern-ish tech but its quite amazing they kept siamese ports going for so long. Though they do just keep soldering on in my experience which makes them a good engine in my books.

 

No votes yet for the Triumph 1500. So I will add one. A daft extension of the 1300 block probably just so that they could haul along all the extra US spec emissions equipment for as long as it takes for the big ends to rattle. I used to get annoyed when people seemingly slated these for no good reasons but after 3 engines in 4 to 5 years I kinda get the point.

 

I'll also add my voice to the Ford Cologne V4. Any engine that needs extra rotating shafts in it to keep the rest of it in balance is fundamentally not good. Add in a Ford carb that boils the fuel in no time at all and piloting the Saab 95 was not a relaxing experience.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Pogweasel has a good point over Vauxhall's 1.0 12v three cylinder jobbie.One that’s largely put me off even wanting to test other modern three cylinder units.

 

That engine's a wrong'un because it's a chopped down 4 pot rather than being a dedicated 3 cylinder from the start. I don't know why they didn't just use a Suzuki or Subaru 3 pot since both companies were in the GM stable.

 

Indenor 2.3 diseasel as fitted to the earlier Sierra. 'Orrible.

 

I can't believe that Peugeot got so many years from the Indenor, it came out in 1958 or something and went right through to the 505 turbo diesel into early 90s wasn't it? By then it was complete boat anchor compared with newer competition.

 

Also the 2.2 HDIs all have particulate filters which ruin the economy and cost much $$ to maintain and replace every 50k miles

 

TATA are still producing the Indenor diesel in India!

 

Is there no way to bypass the particulate filter?

[Richard]

Doesn't the Indenor date back to the 1940s? I'm sure somebody said that the last time it was discussed.

[scaryoldcortina]

My vote for worst engine ever goes to the hillman imp. no two ways about it, it was a good idea, but it's an underdeveloped POS thats only virtue is that you can take it out yourself in an hour with only a jack for assistance. And you will get plenty of practice.

Disagree

One of the BEST most underrated engines ever ,Cooling was a big issue as was twatty old mechanics torqueing bolts down sans torque wrench thinking alloy is cast iron . Sort the cooling out and they are fantastic . Way ahead of their time , All alloy , overhead cam in 63 was a revalation , common now though. Voted in Classic cars as one of the 12 best engines ever developed in the UK ( Hemi was top IIRC ) Rev to 7,500 as standard , 10,000 balanced for racing , 998 ones kick out over 100BHP

Ive done well over a quarter of a million miles with these engines

The best

 

I don't take any notice of "voted for" top lists and I stand by my comments. The cooling system is probably the worst bit, but the engine, although advanced, is far too fragile. I've had dozens of imps over the years, most of them have had engine trouble, and not just HGF... the liners can sink in the block, or corrode and crack.. the cam wears out and it's bucket and shim so strip and buy parts to fix. the timing chain stretches and rattles, and a million other annoyances. (like as soon as you do get decent power from it, the gearbox can't cope any more) I have here a Practical Motorist magazine from october 1963, on the front is an imp with the bonnet (boot) up and inside is a feature on removing and rebuilding its engine. That probably isn't remarkable until you remember the imp was launched in '63, so they are telling you how to rebuild the engine in a car less than 1 year old?

 

[dieselnutjob]

Doesn't the Indenor date back to the 1940s? I'm sure somebody said that the last time it was discussed.

 

I think it was the peugeot 403 in the late 50s

[dieselnutjob]

Is there no way to bypass the particulate filter?

 

yes

you can swap the engine ECU software for a load that doesn't use the DPF. Then you either replace the DPF with straight pipe or smash the middle out of it.

I already have the replacement software and a way to program it, I'm just looking for a flexible downpipe thing off of a 2.0 HDI 607 that I can couple up with some pipe to replace the DPF. I'd rather keep the DPF so that I can reverse the mod if I ever need to.

[Guest Tony Hayers]

I don't know what the fuss is about CVH engines. I've experienced several over the years, a few of which were the 1.8 in the Sierra and only ever had a minor issue with one of them. None of them ever let us down and I find them much better than the massively overrated Pintos. I know of one unit in particular which is now over 300k and still going strong... I'm glad I'm not the only one to generally loathe most Pinto units. I’d put CVH engines (particularly the 1.8 ) to be amongst my favourites, not the worst!

 

 

I'm one to agree with you there. Ive never had any problem's with the CVH. Ok the 1.4 was a bit shit when it replaced the 1300 (that had a bit more 'pull' in it) but on a whole not to bad in my experience of low mileage looked after units and 150k shagged out lumps. The only downside to it was Ford being the stubborn barstrds they are and insisting on fitting a shit timing belt and the pisspot VV carb & autochoke combo. The rest of the engine was more than durable IME .

 

What about the Renner 5 Turbo unit? The shit cooling system sent a few of them to early graves.

[trigger]

I always liked the CVH lump, I can't see why people moan about it myself, the 1.4 CVH in the Mk 4 Escorts used to pull really well i though (It's been a long time since I've drove one mind), Even the 1.3 CVH in the Mk 3 wasn't bad, and all those XR3i's and XR2's that have been sold over the years can't be wrong?.

[Rusty Pelican]

I don't take any notice of "voted for" top lists and I stand by my comments. The cooling system is probably the worst bit, but the engine, although advanced, is far too fragile. I've had dozens of imps over the years, most of them have had engine trouble, and not just HGF... the liners can sink in the block, or corrode and crack.. the cam wears out and it's bucket and shim so strip and buy parts to fix. the timing chain stretches and rattles, and a million other annoyances. (like as soon as you do get decent power from it, the gearbox can't cope any more) I have here a Practical Motorist magazine from october 1963, on the front is an imp with the bonnet (boot) up and inside is a feature on removing and rebuilding its engine. That probably isn't remarkable until you remember the imp was launched in '63, so they are telling you how to rebuild the engine in a car less than 1 year old?

 

Early engies ie. 63/64 ones were shit , very weak and redesigned and strenghened in 66 ish , coolings not the engines fault just a crap design , liners do sink if cooked ( back to cooling ) H/Gs fail ( back to cooling ) timing chains rattle after 80000 miles or so and so would would you , never known a cam wear out , mine are both 30+ years old and fine

Anyway I fully respect your views , you are deffo not alone on this , more a majority view than mine , I like underdogs anyway , hence why im on here

[ProgRocker]

 

My Mum had a K reg Fiesta 1.8 DLX. I must say I found it OK, but boy, it had absolutely no urgency whatsoever. I used to hate having to overtake stuff on the motorway because between 75 and 80 it was flat out, and would take an age to respond.

 

I concur! In fact, my Escort must be another second or 2 slower to 60 mph than the Fiesta as I have the extra metal behind the rear seats to transport as well.

[j-j]

I'd like to nominate the PSA 'suitcase' or 'lie back and die' engine as fitted to various shite PSA vehicles of the approximately 1.4 persuasion.

 

A terrible, soft, inaccessible, noisy lump with the gearbox sharing the engine oil complete with a whiney transfer box on the end.

 

Wanna check a spark plug? take the afternoon off then. Like leaky rattly big end bearings? this is the lump for you.

 

I'm sure they seemed OK when new though...

[Pillock]

1-litre 3-cylinder thing as utilised in Vauxhall Corsa's.

Horrible.

 

Agree. They rev like a beauty but have the interesting feature of providing zero power across the entire rev range. I used to borrow ex-SWMBO's mother's threepot Corsa and I just used to bounce it off the rev limiter all the time, because there was no resistance.

[Talbotman]

I don't take any notice of "voted for" top lists and I stand by my comments. The cooling system is probably the worst bit, but the engine, although advanced, is far too fragile. I've had dozens of imps over the years, most of them have had engine trouble, and not just HGF... the liners can sink in the block, or corrode and crack.. the cam wears out and it's bucket and shim so strip and buy parts to fix. the timing chain stretches and rattles, and a million other annoyances. (like as soon as you do get decent power from it, the gearbox can't cope any more) I have here a Practical Motorist magazine from october 1963, on the front is an imp with the bonnet (boot) up and inside is a feature on removing and rebuilding its engine. That probably isn't remarkable until you remember the imp was launched in '63, so they are telling you how to rebuild the engine in a car less than 1 year old?

 

Have to agree with the rusty pelican on this one...i have driven imps since having one as my first car in the mid eighties - and over the past near quarter of a century - have hardly had an ounce of trouble engine wise out of any of them...other than fair wair and tear on high milers...i had one head gasket go on me in 1991 and an oil pump gave up the ghost 5 years back and thats it..no sinking liners or worn cams...ive always had good service out of the waterpumps too..although its the cooling system thats the main culpret in the imps folklore of mechanical malady.

[scooters]

triumph 1500 and 1875 are pretty useless - terrible water pump design you need to carry as much chem metal as you do oil!