Tell us: “Horrible engines” that really aren’t that horrible

In reply to maschinenbau :

Wasn't it used in Midget Racing for awhile?

Mr_Asa said:

200-250ci Ford I6

Braze/TIG some injector bungs on the integral intake, throw boost at it, grin.

Injector bungs?  Carburetor flanges.

Apparently a set of SUs on stubs brazed to the integral manifold was enough to double the power of a 170.

Mazda's KL series V6. Not so much a bad reputation as no reputation; it's been pretty much forgotten. But they cranked out a respectable 200 hp in KL-ZE trim in the '90s with a Honda-like redline, and I've seen some pretty wicked homebrew turbo setups.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Mr_Asa said:

200-250ci Ford I6

Braze/TIG some injector bungs on the integral intake, throw boost at it, grin.

Injector bungs?  Carburetor flanges.

Apparently a set of SUs on stubs brazed to the integral manifold was enough to double the power of a 170.

Or cut the log off, mill it flat, bolt on an adapter plate and run 6 Mikunis.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. 

Corvair  motors never got any love , 

stupid fan belt setup and bad pushrod tube seals  gave them a bad rep , 

but a 1965  corvair with the 4 carb 140hp motor is a nice ride.

Mr_Asa said:

frenchyd said:

maschinenbau said:

frenchyd said:

     The Jaguar predecessor of the Atlas     

False. Source required for a BS claim like that. 

Also, no one says the 4.2 is a "horrible engine". Trailblazers/Enovys have a pretty decent reputation, other than typical 2000's GM plastics and the 4l60e.

Check your Wikipedia.  Atlas came out in 2002. Jaguar came out in 1980's ( 88 I think)   About the time GM was doing due diligence on buying Jaguar.  However they were beat out by Ford who already had an aluminum in line 6 with 4 valves per cylinder  

  Who said the Atlas  4.2 was Horrible?   I owned an early one And loved it.   If you read what I wrote I also mentioned the Nelson's  getting 824 horsepower from a junkyard one with 165,000 miles on it.  
 

Your argument is the same as saying that I was named after someone born before me, just because my parents knew that person.  There is no evidence that those two things are linked.

Stop putting out your opinions as fact and you'll stop getting a lot of vitriol.

It's an opinion thread if I'm reading the title correctly.  His opinion was also backed by fact.  I don't get all the dislike in this case.

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Please point to anyplace on the internet, except for a frenchy post, where it says that the Atlas motor was designed around the Jag motor?

"Backed by fact" my hairy butt.

Edit: also, the Atlas engine program started in the mid-90s.  Nowhere near when GM was doing anything with Jag.

Frenchy is wrong.

2.4 dodges.

Horrible wrappers, "horrible" wiring/esu's, horribly maintained, ad nauseum...

Way robust architecture with decent flowing heads, can be made boostable to the moon for very little dollar outlay, etc.

Much maligned. Would use in other things provided I had a transmission for it.

wvumtnbkr said:

NickD said:

GM 2.8L/3.1L in FWD applications. Yeah, they weren't very great in RWD applications, like S-10 Blazers, but in a FWD they were a pretty rugged engine. Not powerful or thrilling, but they'd go a long time. My father's '89 Cutlass Ciera cracked off 250k miles with just a set of intake gaskets. Growing up we also had them in a '95 Cutlass Supreme and a '95 Buick Century and several Corsicas, and the engines were always hale and healthy up until the end of the cars.

All of the 60 degree v6 engines.

 

The later ones are not that hard to swap.  They are built like a brick E36 M3house.  They can make decent power with some mods.  I plan to add a Chinese spooly Boi on the one in my rx8.

I have a 3.4L 60 degree V6 in my MGB.  Lots of people crap in this engine, why didn't you do a V8 or a 3800 or some other engine?  But that 3.4 is more than enough power for an MGB and it literally just drops right in.   Like none/zero/zip sheet metal work, stock firewall, stock radiator, etc.   

I believe that one of the companies that make the conversion kits used to do the swap in a day at MG car shows as a demo.   It's still basically an MGB, just with 300% the horsepower (versus a stock rubber bumper B).  

In reply to MadScientistMatt :

And they make a wonderful sound ....

frenchyd said:

The most obvious is the Atlas 4.2    Chevy Trailblaze/ GMC Envoy/Buick ?  Calvin Nelson made 824 horsepower  on a stock bottom end one right  from  the Junkyard. 
    Right from the Junkyard  not opened up at all they handle  20 pounds of boost. ( 30 pounds sent a con rod on vacation out the side of the block)    junkyard price is about $ 4-600

      The Jaguar predecessor of the Atlas is very similar except the con rods  and crankshaft are forged not Sintered Iron like the GM.  But unlike the Atlas engine you don't have to highly modify the oil pan to get it to work in the typical FWD car. 
 junkyard of the Jaguar version is $2-400 

   Anyplace you can put an inline 6 in you can fit Jaguar's V12  in. It's a lot more narrow than  a V8  or 90 degree V6. Plus the spark plugs are on top.  It comes in both carb version and EFI. With and without distributor.  So if you are a Luddite like me you can run one wire to the coil and not have to use anything else. 
     

Jag V12 for the Win

In reply to frenchyd :

You have no facts, you silly silly man.

The Atlas program started in '95

Doing due diligence on a company does not entitle you to rip off the design from the company you are looking at acquiring, that is called theft.

Nothing you have said is a fact.  Deal with it.

I still have love for the Saturn LL0, even though by modern standards its pretty terrible.

Compact, light, cheap, robust.  Will run until the end of time if you keep oil in it.

Ranger50 said:

2.4 dodges.

Horrible wrappers, "horrible" wiring/esu's, horribly maintained, ad nauseum...

Way robust architecture with decent flowing heads, can be made boostable to the moon for very little dollar outlay, etc.

Much maligned. Would use in other things provided I had a transmission for it.

Was that the "world engine" they went in with Hyundai and Mitsu to design? That led to the Theta's, 4B11's and the ChryCo 2.4 Turbo engines. Hyundai and Mitsu both stuck to the 2.0T, but I think they missed the boat on a 2.4T version. The 2.0T made 270-300 in stock form. 

ProDarwin said:

I still have love for the Saturn LL0, even though by modern standards its pretty terrible.

Compact, light, cheap, robust.  Will run until the end of time if you keep oil in it.

 

 

Hit the googles to find that the LL0 is now a 1.2L Turbo engine and was really confused because they came out way after the Saturn brand was gone. Then I realzed GM repurposed the engine code. That was the 1.9 DOHC? Those were fun and durable little engines.

yeah this one:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_I4_engine#DOHC_LL0

wae said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Pretty much any diesel gets a rep worse than it actually is.  That's good for me because it keeps them from being more expensive than they already are.

I will fight to the death to keep the OM642's reputation as low as possible.

Maybe it's only because mine have been the 2v versions, but I hear a lot of dissatisfaction with the Triton motors.  They've been awesome for me, though.

It's a shame the OM606 has a good rep, because it's my favorite.  I'm also a fan (don't laugh) of the Olds 350 diesel.  They got such a terrible street cred because the head bolts were crap, and the TSB told mechanics to just replace the head gasket and re-use the old bolts.  If you ditch the bolts and redrill for 1/2" studs, it was suddenly quite reliable.  A guy I knew had one in an S10 pushing about 25psi into it and making 650 ft-lbs of torque.  Last I heard, it was still running.

I think the latest thread on the Iron Duke was the first time I've ever heard them referred to as horrible. I appreciated mine for what they were. 
 

How about the Quad4? There was a lot of hate for them in the day, and there were shops that wouldn't even touch them. 

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said: I'm also a fan (don't laugh) of the Olds 350 diesel.  They got such a terrible street cred because the head bolts were crap, and the TSB told mechanics to just replace the head gasket and re-use the old bolts.  If you ditch the bolts and redrill for 1/2" studs, it was suddenly quite reliable.  A guy I knew had one in an S10 pushing about 25psi into it and making 650 ft-lbs of torque.  Last I heard, it was still running.

That may win this thread for best build quality to reputation ratio.

Chevy 267 V8.

The horrible, smaller, weaker sbc.

Good because ANYTHING that bolts in place of it is an upgrade.

Run_Away said:

I've always wondered about the Oldmobile Aurora 4.0L V8. Apparently it was used as a basis for an Indy Car engine or something? Related to the Northstar?

Off to google.

 

EDIT: Wiki sez

The Aurora came standard with Oldsmobile's 4.0 L (244 cu in) L47 V8 engine, a DOHC engine based on Cadillac's 4.6 L Northstar V8. The Northstar engine and 4T80-E had been exclusive to Cadillac prior to the Aurora. The L47 put out 250 hp (186 kW) at 5600 rpm and 260 lb⋅ft (353 N⋅m) torque at 4400 rpm.[7] The Aurora used a four-speed automatic transmission with driver selectable "normal" and "power" shift modes. A highly modified 650 hp (485 kW) version of this engine was used by General Motors racing division initially for Indy Racing League and IMSA competition starting in 1995 with the GM-supported Aurora GTS-1 racing program, then was later used in the Cadillac Northstar LMP program in 2000. Both engines retained the 4.0 L capacity, but the Northstar LMP version was twin-turbocharged.[8]

Apparently it was also used in the Shelby Series 1 car.

 

 

I'm assuming it's not easy to adapt to RWD or something. Also plenty of engines that are great in factory form,  but lack aftermarket support or require lots of parts to be turned up much which kills it's popularity before it can get started. If you have an engine that makes 250hp stock, and has the head flow and bottom end to support 600hp but the bean counters gave it pencil thin rods then it's not going to become huge. Or even just saddling the engines with a non-enthusiast platform to begin with. Like the Nelsons and the Atlas engines, overlooked because of it's size/oil pan and Trailblazer surroundings, among others.

Won in both imsa gts and wsc. Won both the Daytona 24 hours and 12 hours of Sebring.

frenchyd said:

This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.

Show/hide post

 

maschinenbau said:

frenchyd said:

     The Jaguar predecessor of the Atlas     

False. Source required for a BS claim like that. 

Also, no one says the 4.2 is a "horrible engine". Trailblazers/Enovys have a pretty decent reputation, other than typical 2000's GM plastics and the 4l60e.

Check your Wikipedia.  Atlas came out in 2002. Jaguar came out in 1980's ( 88 I think)   About the time GM was doing due diligence on buying Jaguar.  However they were beat out by Ford who already had an aluminum in line 6 with 4 valves per cylinder  

  Who said the Atlas  4.2 was Horrible?   I owned an early one And loved it.   If you read what I wrote I also mentioned the Nelson's  getting 824 horsepower from a junkyard one with 165,000 miles on it.  
 

 

Gm wasn't beat by Ford in buying Jag they looked at it and realized there wasn't anything worth buying at Jaguar just a huge money pit.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Back in the days of forums the old 6.2/6.5 GM diesel boards there were guys building reliable D-max power level 350 and 6.2/6.5 TD. ARP studs were the key and for the 350 diesel the later blocks. The early blocks weren't cast well IIRC. But a later block, ARP studs, good gaskets and they'd take 30psi all day. 

We had 3 different 6.2L NA Diesels and they were great. 20mpg in a lifted 'burb with 3.73 or 4.10 1-ton axles and hauled at least 1500lbs of concrete mix in the cargo area. 

MotorsportsGordon said:

frenchyd said:

This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.

Show/hide post

 

maschinenbau said:

frenchyd said:

     The Jaguar predecessor of the Atlas     

False. Source required for a BS claim like that. 

Also, no one says the 4.2 is a "horrible engine". Trailblazers/Enovys have a pretty decent reputation, other than typical 2000's GM plastics and the 4l60e.

Check your Wikipedia.  Atlas came out in 2002. Jaguar came out in 1980's ( 88 I think)   About the time GM was doing due diligence on buying Jaguar.  However they were beat out by Ford who already had an aluminum in line 6 with 4 valves per cylinder  

  Who said the Atlas  4.2 was Horrible?   I owned an early one And loved it.   If you read what I wrote I also mentioned the Nelson's  getting 824 horsepower from a junkyard one with 165,000 miles on it.  
 

 

Gm wasn't beat by Ford in buying Jag they looked at it and realized there wasn't anything worth buying at Jaguar just a huge money pit.

I want to argue this but you're right.