Worst Performance Engine of All TIme

My buddy just exploded the motor in his Fiero. Got me thinking. Is there any worse possible sports car motor than the Iron Duke?

90 hp, all iron, 4500 rpm redline, slow to rev, eager to spit out crankshafts.

Mate that up with an Auto...

In reply to neon4891:

Sadly, he had the four speed stick. Poor guy.

MGB's engine- not too terrible, but it was designed orig as a tractor engine...

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.

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.

I thought the 924 I drove was alright. Peppy enough for a little sports car, anyway.

Cadillac 4-6-8?

Any domestic diesel car in the 80's?

Wasn't one of the 924 engines (block maybe) from AMC?

IIRC the 18r-22r toyota engines were originally designed for large industrial forklifts.....

ignorant wrote: IIRC the 18r-22r toyota engines were originally designed for large industrial forklifts.....

Possibly.... but there's still performance to be had within that family. The 18rgeu is a NICE motor.

From the Toyota family, i nominate the 4ac, the 4afe, and the 5sfe. (Even though the 5sfe with boost is pretty capable.)

JFX001 wrote: Cadillac 4-6-8? Any domestic diesel car in the 80's?

ARP Studs and boost fixed that problem fast.

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

Some of the engines listed here were never meant for "performance". Like a four cylinder engine installed in a Ranger isn't really expected to help make for a fun to drive vehicle.

That said, that same engine was also installed in the Mustang, and I've driven one with an automatic. It was not really a fun drive and I would nominate that combination for this list.

MrBenjamonkey wrote: My buddy just exploded the motor in his Fiero. Got me thinking. Is there any worse possible sports car motor than the Iron Duke? 90 hp, all iron, 4500 rpm redline, slow to rev, eager to spit out crankshafts.

That motor powered an awful lot of mini stock, and mini mod race cars. Nothing wrong with the Iron duke.

the watercooled boxer engine in the VW Vanagon. 90 hp, no revving.. and liked to eat headgaskets every 60,000 (and it had two)

suprf1y wrote: That motor powered an awful lot of mini stock, and mini mod race cars. Nothing wrong with the Iron duke.

and the 1.9L Pushrod OHV Ford motor from the base escort was used in open wheel spec classes for a while too... I still hate both... in overly heavy chassis.

BobOfTheFuture wrote: MGB's engine- not too terrible, but it was designed orig as a tractor engine...

No. The original BMC "B Series" engine was designed for an Austin A40 sedan (it was 1200 cc and eventually punched out to 1800 cc for the MGB). As you say, not a bad engine, especially in later 5 main bearing version.

You're probably thinking of the wet-liner Triumph engine used in TR2, TR3, and TR4s. It was developed from a Vangard (car) engine that was also used (in modified form) in tractors. Lots of us TR3 drivers referred to our cars as "tractors" because of this.

For me one of the worst engines is another Triumph engine: the 1500 cc unit used in later Spitfires and MG Midgets, I know....I've raced one for the last 10 years. Unbelievably fragile bottom end.

Another bad engine in my view is another Triumph engine: The SAAB-Triumph four cylinder used in TR7s.Frequent head gasket problems combined with head that get so stuck to the studs that you almost need a jackhammer to get them off.

pres589 wrote: Some of the engines listed here were never meant for "performance". Like a four cylinder engine installed in a Ranger isn't really expected to help make for a fun to drive vehicle. That said, that same engine was also installed in the Mustang, and I've driven one with an automatic. It was not really a fun drive and I would nominate that combination for this list.

My 2.3 Ranger has 270K on it, does not burn oil and gets 30+/-MPG. It even flat-towed my GTI hillclimb car one season. That said, I wouldn't expect it to be 'fun'...

My nominee would be the not-really Type 4 engine that was used in the old Super Vee series (before water cooled) It was an alleged industrial engine that never saw the light of day in a street car...and you couldn't get parts from a VW dealer.

In reply to aeronca65t: thread Hijack

Merry Xmas ! Hey would you and your class be up for making some parts for the red car? Like say camber plates? let me know I am getting all the ducks in the row for doing the suspension and brake upgrades this spring before the season starts. going to use ZX2 suspension stuff and brakes who knows I will figure it out. Stephen thinks he wants to go PRO......... boy is his pocketbook in for a rude awakening!

C

ignorant wrote: IIRC the 18r-22r toyota engines were originally designed for large industrial forklifts.....

And, ironically, were almost a carbon copy of the 1800 BMC engine as used in the MGB. I was in the local machine shop a while back and he was rebuilding a forklift motor. He asked me if I recognized the head (I bring him a lot of British stuff). Looked exactly like the head off my MGB motor! I could swear it uses the same head gasket...

Although the BMC engine wasn't necessarily originally developed for tractor use, it was used in some tractors, as well. I saw a tractor in England one time that had the 1622 version in it.

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.

Basil Exposition wrote:

ignorant wrote: IIRC the 18r-22r toyota engines were originally designed for large industrial forklifts.....

And, ironically, were almost a carbon copy of the 1800 BMC engine as used in the MGB.

Toyota does that halfway often. The big I6 used in the FJ40s was a copy of the GM stovebolt 6 (I think that's what they're called), and the 4A-GE was a copy of a Cosworth Ford motor.

Back on topic, I'd also have to go with the 20/22R. Sure, you can get performance out of them, but the most you'll ever see is 200hp (without boost), and it'll cost you several thousand dollars to get there. Stock, they are torquey, but they run out of steam way too early, and the piston speed is slower than most diesels. I sold my '77 Celica liftback because of that motor. Had it had a 2T-G, 18R-G, or heck, even a 3T-C, I might still have it, but that 20R just killed that car.

And for what it's worth, I DD'd a 2.3L auto foxbody for a few years, and I STILL say the 20R was worse, even with the 5-speed behind it!

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.

Yeah, stooopid small blox:

http://www.steveschmidtracing.com/engines/dyno-charts/434-pro-sportsman-18deg-dyno.html

• MAX TORQUE 663.8

• MAX HORSEPOWER 797.0

I dunno what MGB head you're talking about, but I've not seen one that looks like a 22R(E).

The 20R is similar but has round intake ports, if I recall. 18RG's are pretty rare and have 2 cams. Is this a MGB BMC engine?

It isn't even cross flow. The 22R can take about 300 HP (boost) without opening the motor. If you want 350 HP, then you need some stronger parts, from what people I used to follow on the Toyota Mods list were doing with them. The hot setup NA was a 20R head on a 22R block, as the 20R head flowed better and the 22R block has bigger displacement. 20R also has an indestructable timing chain arrangement. There's a 1979 Toyota Truck on the local CL for $1200. I think that's a 20R. It has probably never been into.

Triumph Stag 2.5L V8, utter total POS rushed into production to compete with the Rover (ex-Buick) V8.