The worlds worst engine award.

[richardthestag]

(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?

 

Sounds a lot like the 3.9 RV8 in my last Range Rover

 

Thank god I never went for the 4.6 which were more or less guaranteed boat anchors (when fitted to p38's) the wrong side of 100k miles.

 

However my vote for shite engine goes to the ickle 3 pot fitted to smart cars. Mum had one and 3 years later despite service bills representative of something far less humble the lump grenaded itself, Smart / merc answer oh they do that! New engine required at 46k miles. However in it's favour and right up to the point it turned itself inside out it was a nippy little bastard - although with galactic service costs.

 

True Ford shite was the 1340cc 4 pot in Dad's ford classic - new main bearings every 15k miles anyone?

[Futuramic]

The CVH was alright. Mine used to smoke like an East End Landlady but that didn't matter. The power was there and it was a simple fix to replace the valve guides. However it was easier just to chuck a bit of Castrol in there every few months and pollute like it's 1989. It was a willing engine; gruff but revved okay - with proper 8 valve pulling power. I remember it being economical and 100% reliable. Mind you this was a 1.6 Weber carb with a genuine 50,000 on it. I don't know why it's been so heavily criticised. Mine started as reliably as wars between Palestine and Israel - and never broke down.

 

As for over-rated engines I found the original tin-top Zetec to be a horrifically gutless thing. I had a Mondeo with the two litre and it struggled. The car was supposed to have 140 horses - but felt no different to the 1.8 Xantia it replaced. It ran lumpily; provided little acceleration and was bank account rapingly expensive to service. A cambelt change cost loads. I don't understand why they get raved about. I've driven later Duratec (Mazda chain driven) powered Mondeos and they were far better.

 

I followed that with a Mk1 Mondeo again, so the same car, but this one a V6. That engine was sublime. Not many more horses at the top end but lightyears ahead in terms of smoothness, torque and sound.

 

As for TDCis - correct me if I'm wrong but they appear to be a re-hash of the old Endura-E with common rail injectors and a dual mass flywheel. They are horribly peaky; any attempt to make progress in one turns me into a constant gear-changing and heel-toeing imitation of Pentii Arrikkala. I don't understand why the turbo kicks in so violently, and for such short periods. No top end performance either. The Focii I've piloted with such a lump accelerate demonically up to about 90 and then do nothing more. At the top of fifth gear I was being passed by Talbot Solaras and Hyundai Stellars, and anything else that can rev a bit.

[Split_Pin]

I feel I have to defend the old Griffin here. I havent owned enough cars to comment what engine is the worst, but I have owned 4 Vauxhalls, 3 of which I still have. Both the Astra Z18XE and the Vectra X20XEV have been reliable. A few throttle body issues on the Astra and various oil and water leaks on the Vectra, but they always start first time and have given me years of good service. There is certainly far worse out there.

 

Incidentally, you can blame Suzuki for the Corsas X10XE engine, it has nothing to to with Vauxhall other than the plastic cover on top of the sparkplugs! My missus's Corsa 1.0 is pretty thrashy and rough I do agree though. My old 8v Corsa engine was far smoother.

 

I also agree that the Ford 1.8D is tediously slow. I was astonished at this when driving my old work's K-reg Escort van.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Incidentally, you can blame Suzuki for the Corsas X10XE engine, it has nothing to to with Vauxhall other than the plastic cover on top of the sparkplugs!

 

I thought that too, but it is a different engine. The Suzuki 993cc engine has a different bore and stroke, the Vauxhall 993cc is chain driven, the Suzuki belt driven.

It's basically their 1.2 4 pot with a cylinder chopped off.

Baffling.

[Pete-M]

Anything and everything that runs on diesel gets my vote, followed shortly by the Ford V4.

[Station]

The 1.0 12v Suzuki/Vauxhall is comical, look at it:

 

 

It's quite cute and tidy in a way, but engines aren't meant to be cute. The 1.0 produces more bhp than the 1.2 as well!

 

I'm pretty sure this was 'developed' for use in Suzuki's? It's even too little for the Corsa, I've never driven one though. I'd like to see someone transplant this straight into an estate automatic Omega, just for some masochistic fun.

[fiatdaft]

the 1.2 has 20 bhp more than the 1.0.

[Spiny Norman]

Any modern turbo Diseasel. A zillion torques all cooped up in a 2000rpm power band and feck all either side of it. Hateful things to drive.

All the recent BL/Rover steam generators, but particularly the T series and whatever designation they gave to the V6 in the Rover 75. A great car ruined by the most disastrous range of petrol engines ever. It's enough to make me want the Dizzler!

Almost.

[Polystratus]

However my vote for shite engine goes to the ickle 3 pot fitted to smart cars. Mum had one and 3 years later despite service bills representative of something far less humble the lump grenaded itself, Smart / merc answer oh they do that! New engine required at 46k miles. However in it's favour and right up to the point it turned itself inside out it was a nippy little bastard - although with galactic service costs.

 

 

Yes have heard that Smart car engines don't last for long in modern engine life terms and that service costs are on par with MB.

[Negative Creep]

The 2.3 lump in my Volvo 740 was easily the worst, did nothing but drink fuel. Although the 4.1 inline 6 in the Falcon was somewhat similar I forgive it because it sounded tits

[Split_Pin]

Incidentally, you can blame Suzuki for the Corsas X10XE engine, it has nothing to to with Vauxhall other than the plastic cover on top of the sparkplugs!

 

I thought that too, but it is a different engine. The Suzuki 993cc engine has a different bore and stroke, the Vauxhall 993cc is chain driven, the Suzuki belt driven.

It's basically their 1.2 4 pot with a cylinder chopped off.

Baffling.

 

Did not know this! I assume the one in the Mrs is just an earlier version of the same as its 973cc? It does look comically small, and does sound comically shite. It does sound quite thrummy when you rev it, but at that point you are still going fairly slow

[whitevanman]

I'm defending the Pinto as well.......but it is heavy and underpowered, but bloody reliable.

 

CVH? well I've had a few and they have all been shite and the most difficult engine to get running propperly, the current Sierra one was a cow to get smooth, finally got it and it blew it's HG, sorted that and 3 weeeks later the cam belt blows at 13,000 I do however have one sitting in the back of the truck to replace it with.........so hopefully

 

apart from the CVH the next worse engine I've ever had to deal with was a 2.0 in the Mk1 cavalier, worse than a Pinto in every respect and one of the least reliable engines I've ever worked on.

 

as for the the Ford 1.8D NA'd I've had them in Fiestas and Orions and have never found them slow or uneconomical, indeed my first one was a K reg Fiesta, 000,000 miles, had it for 3 months put 47,000 on it and raced lots of cars up and down the byways and motorways, even managed to watch a Mk2 Astra GTE grenade it's engine between junction 34 and 35 on the M6 trying to keep up...'twas quite funny at the time as for the belts blowing thats usually because they havn't had the tensioner pullies changed at the same time as the belts

[Rocket88]

Surprised no-one's mentioned the hateful little diesel that they lobbed in the Daihatsu Hi-Jet . Designed originally as a static engine, it was slow, drank fuel, and blew up with monotonous regualriy.[

[strangehighways]

The 1.8D ford engine has been mentioned quite a few times, but has anyone got experience of the miserable 1.6D found in , I think, the Mk 3 Escort and Orion. Probably none around anymore, but would like to hear from anyone with thoughts on this.

[whitevanman]

The 1.8D ford engine has been mentioned quite a few times, but has anyone got experience of the miserable 1.6D found in , I think, the Mk 3 Escort and Orion. Probably none around anymore, but would like to hear from anyone with thoughts on this.

 

 

Yup, they were a bit slower too, also fitted to Mk2 Fiesta diesels, no different relability wise

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

All the recent BL/Rover steam generators, but particularly the T series and whatever designation they gave to the V6 in the Rover 75. A great car ruined by the most disastrous range of petrol engines ever. It's enough to make me want the Dizzler!

Almost.

 

Did you mean the K series? The T series is their good engine, it was the basis for their indestructible L series diesel.

[aled]

the aixem petrol that sounds like a diesel - sounds as it is about to self distruct, there is an old giffer that passes our house quite regular revving its arse off and passig the house at about 15mph.

[theorganist]

The 1.8D ford engine has been mentioned quite a few times, but has anyone got experience of the miserable 1.6D found in , I think, the Mk 3 Escort and Orion. Probably none around anymore, but would like to hear from anyone with thoughts on this.

 

I had a 1985 Orion with this engine, it was slow and heavy to drive but cruised okay at 70 once you had wound it up. It did sound like a proper diesel though and I would like another (just for the sound!!).

 

The worst engine I have experience of, was the Ford e-max. I had a 1985 Sierra 1.6 with this and the 4 speed gearbox. My dad had a 1983 standard Pinto 1.6 at the same time. His was quieter, quicker and was actually more economical, I swear the gearing on the e-max was lower. It eventually succumbed to a broken valve and I sold it for £60.

 

I also swapped a Fiat Uno 60 with the 1116cc engine for a Punto 55 with the 1108cc Fire Engine. The Uno engine was a hell of a lot better IMHO. The Punto was slower and at 70 it sounded like the engine was going to explode.

[AnthonyG]

 

The worst engine I have experience of, was the Ford e-max. I had a 1985 Sierra 1.6 with this and the 4 speed gearbox. My dad had a 1983 standard Pinto 1.6 at the same time. His was quieter, quicker and was actually more economical, I swear the gearing on the e-max was lower. It eventually succumbed to a broken valve and I sold it for £60.

 

 

Wasn't the Emax more a combination of carbs and gear ratios rather than an engine (pedant mode)? - Just as bad were those 'economy' VV carbs fitted to Escorts and Cortinas circa 1980s, which made cold starting a real bastard.

 

The Rover T series was a good engine, much better overall than the 2/2.5 litre KV6 when you actually factor in reliability.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

I'm struggling to think of an engine that is really, really poor. Even some of the dodgy ones can be fixed and many have a unique character. Not sure about the Triumph Snag though.

 

2300/2600 Rover? When they ran they were pretty good and the bit that causes the trouble (the one way oil retention valve) is easily binned with the head whipped off.

 

Pintos are not exotic, but they're strong. The 1600 is smooth and the 2 litre is pokey.

 

The CVH started off okay as a VV'd 1300/1600 but became gradually worse. The 1800 Sierra version was nasty.

 

Ford I4. Yeah, I'll give you that one. No better than the Pinto once bolted into a Sierra iS and so fragile. What were they thinking?

 

Ford Endura E (Ka). These take endless abuse, but if maintained right they're very good. Both of mine never did less that 40mpg, never used oil. It was important to remove and refit the plugs with copaslip every 6000 miles with an oil and filter change to stop them rusting in.

 

I don't like the Vauxhall Ecotec much. Most are still running but they're not very good compared with the previous 8v Chavalier Family 2 mills.

[pogweasel]

Those Ford I4's are right wierd.

They can go like stink but are very prone to all manner of ignition related oddity, which is frustrating. Shame all the Galaxy's with them usually have a [broken] autobox attached.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

 

The worst engine I have experience of, was the Ford e-max. I had a 1985 Sierra 1.6 with this and the 4 speed gearbox. My dad had a 1983 standard Pinto 1.6 at the same time. His was quieter, quicker and was actually more economical, I swear the gearing on the e-max was lower. It eventually succumbed to a broken valve and I sold it for £60.

 

 

Wasn't the Emax more a combination of carbs and gear ratios rather than an engine (pedant mode)? - Just as bad were those 'economy' VV carbs fitted to Escorts and Cortinas circa 1980s, which made cold starting a real bastard.

 

No, the Emax Pinto was a substantially revised design. Rather than the short stroke big bore design on the original 1600, the EeeMacks used a new taller block (2 litre height) with really small bores siamesed into two pairs. It used a new head to suit with siamesed chambers and small valves and ports.

It used computerised ignition and a nasty twin choke carb with small throats and a vacuum operated second choke. They were quite appalling and nothing like as good as the previous VV equipped 1600's. Honestly, the Emax Sierras wouldn't pull your foreskin back.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

Those Ford I4's are right wierd.

They can go like stink but are very prone to all manner of ignition related oddity, which is frustrating. Shame all the Galaxy's with them usually have a [broken] autobox attached.

 

Aaah, but by the time the Galaxy appeared the I4 was 16v 2000 and a very good 2.3. These 16v mills have virtually all the old harshness/crapness engineered out and pretty much ewrased the timing chain problems. The 2.3 went in the bug eyed Scorchio and wasn't a bad engine at all.

[theorganist]

Honestly, the Emax Sierras wouldn't pull your foreskin back

 

Too true!!

 

They were quite appalling and nothing like as good as the previous VV equipped 1600's.

 

I loved Sierras (well still do), especially my fathers, so was really excited when I bought mine! I turned out to be one of the most disappointing cars I ever owned, it was not just the engine but everything about it seemed worse than my dads. It did have the cool joystick speaker balance control though!!

[Richard]

The 1.8D ford engine has been mentioned quite a few times, but has anyone got experience of the miserable 1.6D found in , I think, the Mk 3 Escort and Orion. Probably none around anymore, but would like to hear from anyone with thoughts on this.

 

 

Yup, they were a bit slower too, also fitted to Mk2 Fiesta diesels, no different relability wise

 

They didn't snap the timing belt so readily because there was only one full width belt instead of two half width ones. A lot of the 1.8s suffered belt failure before the first belt change was due, so it can't be blamed completely on people not doing the job properly.

[warren t claim]

The 1.8D ford engine has been mentioned quite a few times, but has anyone got experience of the miserable 1.6D found in , I think, the Mk 3 Escort and Orion. Probably none around anymore, but would like to hear from anyone with thoughts on this.

 

 

Yup, they were a bit slower too, also fitted to Mk2 Fiesta diesels, no different relability wise

 

They didn't snap the timing belt so readily because there was only one full width belt instead of two half width ones. A lot of the 1.8s suffered belt failure before the first belt change was due, so it can't be blamed completely on people not doing the job properly.

 

I had a Mk4 Scrote fitted with the 1.6D engine and it wasn't that bad really. Very economical.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

Honestly, the Emax Sierras wouldn't pull your foreskin back

 

Too true!!

 

They were quite appalling and nothing like as good as the previous VV equipped 1600's.

 

I loved Sierras (well still do), especially my fathers, so was really excited when I bought mine! I turned out to be one of the most disappointing cars I ever owned, it was not just the engine but everything about it seemed worse than my dads. It did have the cool joystick speaker balance control though!!

 

Almost everything Ford did to the Sierra spoiled it. It was right first time - bold styling and the right engines and gearboxes. The facelift spoiled it and the Sapphire was just dull. They softened up the suspension to improve the ride but buggered the handling and replaced a tough Pinto and T5 and shite CVH and I4 crap plus the awful MTX box. Late Sierras really are miserable bloody things.

[Formula Autos]

The miserable 1.6D found in , I think, the Mk 3 Escort and Orion.

 

Also found in the Mk 2 Fiesta, where it was marginally better as it didn't have to haul as much weight.

[Pete-M]

Those Ford I4's are right wierd.

They can go like stink but are very prone to all manner of ignition related oddity, which is frustrating. Shame all the Galaxy's with them usually have a [broken] autobox attached.

 

Aaah, but by the time the Galaxy appeared the I4 was 16v 2000 and a very good 2.3. These 16v mills have virtually all the old harshness/crapness engineered out and pretty much ewrased the timing chain problems. The 2.3 went in the bug eyed Scorchio and wasn't a bad engine at all.

 

The I-4 16v was originally in the Mk5 Escort RS2000, where it goes rather bloody well. They sound a little bit harsh in the Escort, but they don't vibrate even though they sound like they should. The I-4 8v in the Sierras were ok, my mates 2.0 4x4 CLX Sierra has one and it is bombproof and apparently ace on fuel "7l / 100km" is why he has kept it for years. Some are quick, some aren't. Don't know why that is.

 

The 1-4 2.3 16v in the Bug-eye Scorpio and Sharalhaxy has a balancer shaft, and goes pretty well in manual form, even when hefting a Sharalhaxy about.

[scruff]

Oh, that's really too easy.

 

The Ford Pinto.

 

I hate them. Why so, you ask? Because they're ridiculously heavy for their power output and even after spending £2K you're struggling to see 150 brake from one. And far, far, far too many interesting and rare cars get fucked up by the 'I like what I know and I know what I like' brigade stuffing 'cheap as chips' Pintos into them by means of some half arsed and shit conversion.

 

I'm not overly enamoured with the Cologne \ Essex V6 engine either. Why in god's name will they not rev AT ALL?

 

 

I didn't think Pintos were that bad TBH, an old school engine that does what it says on the tin and is easy to fix. A friend of mine has one and I assure you it isn't a half-arsed, shit conversion - be interesting to compare the performance and workmanship to one of your swaps?