Are you a Star Wars fan? If so, do you recall the excitement that came with the announcement that the original trilogy would be appended with three spankin’ new prequals, all guided by series creator George Lucas? Do you then remember how, about half-way through the first of those three new movies, you became crestfallen and a bit horrified at how bad it was? Let’s take that emotion and think about what automotive engine has created the same societal schism.
Usually we don’t get much pre-launch hype about an engine. Most often it’s upon the debut that the story unfolds. That’s not always the case, a most recent example being Ford’s Ecoboost 2.3 that was slated for the new and improved Mustang. Everybody knew it was coming, and the early stats Ford provided were tantalizing, but how would it really perform?
I can say from experience, pretty well. I happen to love the Ecoboost Mustang, and it would be my choice over the GT as a primary ride. I’d pick the GT however if someone else was paying for my premium at the pump. That – at least for me – is an engine that lived up to its hype, but what about those that didn’t? Can you think of some that showed great promise, and then failed to keep those promises? What engine do you think least met its pre-launch expectations?
Image: DieselPowerMag
Hooniverse Asks: What Production Engine Most Failed to Live up to Expectation?
About
52 responses to “Hooniverse Asks: What Production Engine Most Failed to Live up to Expectation?”
-
A lot of potential, but Chevy scraped huge numbers of engines when the cars missed sales expectations.
http://www.classic-car-history.com/classic%20chevy%20cars/1975-1976-chevy-cosworth-vega-pictures/chevy-cosworth-vega-ad-6.jpg-
Well, that’s not the engines’ fault, now is it?
-
Yes, it pretty much is, the whole thing was planned around a 170HP Four, they delivered a 110HP Four. The base Vega had 75 HP in 1974, it was supposed to be 95 more horsepower, it ended up being 32 more HP over the base ’75 Vega (78HP) and only 23 HP over the 2bbl SOHC version. Torqe was LESS than the base version. Not worth twice the price to very many people.
-
The Cosworth was delayed for a year (it was supposed to launch for 1974) when a burnt exhaust valve on a test engine caused it to fail the EPA emissions system durability test.
It’s too bad they scrapped all those engines; without emissions controls and the right tuning, they could have been useful in some kind of sports car racing.-
Cosworth built CV racing engines when the engine was designed (that’s why the Cos Veg is 2 liters instead of the standard Vega 2.3). The racing engines were duds.
-
-
I get to use this image again!
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2001/9869/original.jpg
Who would have thought “One Vega for the price of two” would be a terrible tagline?
-
-
-
A few from history: The Chevy Copper Cooled 4 (Eliminate the radiator and all the water issues!) and the Vega Cosworth 4 (170HP quoted in pre-production, 110HP in production), the Olds Diesel. In more modern times, the Atlas I-6, a really good engine that never really when anywhere. Nearly 300HP out of a all aluminum 4.2L DOHC straight six, that’s the exact kind of engine that BMW and Jaguar made their reputations on. GM put it in a truck!
-
I’d argue that the 4.2 Atlas was the opposite of what is being asked. That was a great engine that no one had any expectations of.
-
I know it made decent power and torque, and was a smooth runner, but was it not plagued with longevity issues? I swear that’s the reason Trailblazers are so cheap these days.
-
I have 155k miles on one right now. I’ve replaced one water pump, a couple of fan clutches, and one cracked gas tank (mysteriously mine fell outside the recall range for cracked gas tanks). I think the fact that Trailblazers are so cheap has more to do with the fact that they are old school body on frame SUVs (and seen as dated) and most don’t have a V-8, plus GM made a ton of them. Old GM SUVs in general are cheap, old (1990s-early 2000s) Suburbans can be had for about half the price of a comparable pick-up truck. Full size Ford and GM trucks and SUVs will go forever now days. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/02/23/long-lasting-200000-miles/5704783/
-
The early 5 cylinders that the Colorado/Canyon received were widely known for head issues, but I don’t know of widespread problems with the 6.
-
I haven’t heard anything good about the Atlas 5 cylinder.
-
Power of a 4, fuel economy of a 6!
-
-
-
-
-
The original L52 3.5L 5-cyl (Vortec 3500) was (I believe) the only one with the significant head problems. The 3.7L LLR fixed those and was actually a fairly robust motor. I don’t know quite how durable the fours and sixes were in comparison.
-
GM ended recalling all of the Copper Cooled cars. They discovered it wasn’t a good idea to draw cooling air (and dust and grit) over exposed valvetrain components.
-
The Pioneer Auto Museum in Murdo, SD, has a rather forlorn example (a condition which, regrettably, is shared in common with the bulk of their otherwise outstanding collection):
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5184/5741578302_597727e2d7_z.jpg -
Didn’t they wind up throwing them all in a lake? I swear I read that somewhere.
-
I wasn’t alive at the time when it was advertised, so I’m not sure how much it was hyped, but the Caddy V8-6-4 comes to mind. It isn’t that it wasn’t a good idea, seeing that cylinder deactivation has become relatively commonplace, but it was too much idea for the technology of its time.
-
The 8-6-4 engines are solid and are more or less interchangable with the 368 (which it was) -425-472-500 V8 of prior years. The electronics for cylinder deactivation were not up to prime time, and squandered much of Cadillac’s reputation. Today a lot of people bypass the cylinder deactivation computer in favor of a series of toggle switches and report the same reliability as those larger displacement predecessors.
In other words, though I agree it fits today’s question, I think the blame is misplaced. HT4100 is a much bigger disappointment, in my eyes.-
So, what you’re saying is the mechanicals were fine, but the electrics were not there? That’s more/less what I was getting at.
-
Yes. In varying displacement, the same mechanicals were used reliably for more than a decade before 8-6-4 debuted. It was engine management, not engine, that was faulty.
-
-
What were the expectations when PRV V6 was launched?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRV_engine
-
Also my first thought. It was supposed to be Volvo’s prime engine, and history judged it inferior to the all-Swedish fourbangers. How sad! The engine is acknowledged as DeLorean’s achilles heel. Don’t know how it turned out for the P and R-part of PRV, but I guess clicking on your link os a first step…
Reading about the other suggestions here though, I don’t think it is as much of a desaster, really.-
That’s not to say that it didn’t meet expectations though…every Volvo engine before was much more reliable so the PRV already failed in that respect, and as you said, who knows what Peugeot and Renault expected from it…
-
It is an interesting story, maybe Vavon can chime in on this one? After all, almost a million engines were produced, with significant modifications at least at Peugeot. Different expectations of the customer base can also be reflected by this single line:
“Volvo began to withdraw from the PRV consortium in the late 1980s, shifting its powerplant reliance onto in-house inline engines. Peugeot, Renault and Citroën continued using the PRV until 1997.”
About time the PRV consortium offers a picture, too:
http://www.aero-master.com/photos/2013/10/10/PRV%20V6%20engine.jpg
-
-
-
Exactly what I thought of as well…
The Crosley Cobra! Reliability was so bad it hurt the whole company. Seriously, would you want your car powered by an engine made out of sheet metal? One nicknamed the “Mighty Tin”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosley#Crosley_CoBra_.281946.E2.80.931949.29
-
Yes, I would.
I started to read a bit into the Crossfire engine of the 80ies… Called unreliable then, as maintenance of a rather complex, digital FI was a bit too much for the untrained wrench.
-
Is that just a beauty cover? I would put in a more modern, more straightforward injection system but somehow keep the wackadaddy appearance.
so hyped, so many teething problems, not all ever suitably addressed
-
Pretty much all rotary engines failed to live up to the hype. Mazda stuck with them for years, but few would call them a reliable engine.
-
I meant the first year renesis in particular though, it was hyped strongly by the standards of how these things get promoted and then was pretty horrible.
-
The rotary engine in the NSU Ro80 sunk the company a bit, as cool as it was in theory.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/NSU_Ro_80_engine_TCE.jpg/550px-NSU_Ro_80_engine_TCE.jpg
I’m tempted to include the British Leyland R-Series engine, a two-year run of a “half-developed power unit which cost the company dearly—R-Series equipped Maestros soon gained a reputation for hot starting problems, cylinder head gasket failures (endemic to the E-Series also), and premature crankshaft failure” but really, I have a hard time claiming this doesn’t perfectly meet its pre-launch expectations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_R-Series_engine
http://www.classic-car-magazine.co.uk/image_gallery/austin_images/austin_meastro_images/austin_meastro_engine_view.JPG
-
Believe it or not, I actually saw one yesterday at the All British and European Car Show http://www.kipmotor.com/abcd.htm held at White Rock Lake in Dallas. I talked to the owner and he claims to have the original V-8 in his car. He insisted (rather impatiently) that – the engines are fine when “properly maintained ” – and as the owner of an Italian Car who am I to laugh in his face and call him a liar when he talks about reliability?
It certainly was beautiful in a dark metallic brown with tan leather interior, and I did see it arrive and depart under its own power, so there’s that. I even have pictures to prove it but DISCUS refuses to let me post it.
Now the car I have never, in my 60 years on the planet seen move under its own power is a Fiat 850 racer.
That’s a unicorn for you.-
Did you mean to reply instead to the Stag comment below? I’m pretty sure I’ve got the only example of an R-Series engine in North America.
-
The Triumph Stag V-8
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/TriumphStagV8.jpg/280px-TriumphStagV8.jpg
I have yet to see a running Triumph Stag for sale with the original V-8 still in place. It could have taken its place beside the Rover V-8 as England’s go to V-8 for a quick power upgrade. It might have even gone in Saabs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_V8#Issues
The Mercedes-Benz OM603 inline-six turbodiesel. Most people assumed it would be just as apocalypse-proof as the I-4s and I-5s that preceded it, but it turned out to be one of the most problematic engines in the company’s history: Crack-prone cylinder heads, fragile head gaskets, defective connecting rods and (admittedly not engine-related per se) rudimentary soot traps that clogged sullied the brand’s reputation in the eyes of customers and cost the firm untold millions in warranty and recall costs.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-jOJUkFUFCs/maxresdefault.jpg
Ford 6.8 L V-10 … so much potential and then…. what?
http://www.giantrvonline.com/11images/ford-a-chassis-v10-2.gif
-
How was it a disappointment, though? Are they any less reliable than the V8 mod motors that share architecture? I mean, when it comes to the demands placed on large gas engines, diesels make more sense for most applications, but is that the fault of the engine itself?
I rented a V10-equipped Penske box van to move halfway across the country, and it was fully loaded and pulling a midsized sedan on a dolly. It struggled on steeps hills a bit, dropping down to around 55-60mph top speed, but overall it did just fine. For the most part, it was able to stay pegged at its 75mph gov limited speed on the open highway.-
I get your point but, in that application, I wonder if it was superior to the old 460 V-8 that it replaced. A friend had one in his tow rig and was bitterly disappointed. Ford ended up buying it back from him.
Compared to the Chrysler V-10, both developed about the same time, it went nowhere. A 30 valve, OHC motor was left undeveloped while Chrysler grew their pushrod V-10 to 8 liters, had variable valve timing (on a pushrod motor) and had a lot of success. Ford left their V-10 as an afterthought. I wonder what they could do if they did the “Coyote” treatment to the V-10? I guess my biggest disappointment is that they didn’t turn it into a beast like Chrysler did with their V-10 !-
I’m not sure the architecture of the first generation mod motor really enabled it to go higher than the 6.8L it displaced without re-engineering.
And it wasn’t left alone and undeveloped. It started out at 310/425 hp/tq in the original 2-valve iteration version to 360/460 hp/tq in the final 3-valve version. That’s as much power and torque as GM’s contemporary Vortec 8100.
And Ford did dabble with high-po versions, though none ever made it to production.
-
-
They are only a disappointment if you have a spark plug come flying out of the aluminum head. However it seems that this is a common problem on all Triton engines, so perhaps it’s unfair to pick on the V-10
http://www.fordproblems.com/trends/triton-engine/spark-plug-ejection.shtml
-
I’d have to say Navistar’s EGR (as opposed to SCR) engines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navistar_International#2001-Present:_Failed_engine_strategy.2C_layoffs.2C_consolidation_and_turnaround
Toyota 1MZ-FE. Named one of Ward’s 10 Best Engines in ’96, it was a good engine if you changed the oil every 5K and got it out on the highway often. Around town especially in cold weather they’d sludge up and burn oil.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w292/brianlarose/ToyotaAvalon/DSC_0125.jpg
-
Unexpected to find an ALL HAIL THE Toyota engine in this list. It was in production for 10 years, according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_MZ_engine
Here in Norway, every gas burning four cylinder Toyota engine is expected to also become an oil burning engine within ca 130-150000km. It is the one downside that is commonly accepted with Toyota (looking away from their disappointing diesels). But they do burn, consistently, over a long time. It’s not mechanics that kills Toyotas, it’s the rust.
got yuns beat this time … NORTHSTAR …two decades of disposable cars. these can not be rebuilt. crapola
-
Well, you *can* rebuild them, but it requires you to drill out and helicoil all the head stud holes, and a few other threaded holes in the block.
-
As Jerry Seinfeld’s parents said when he asked dad Morty and his Mom if they liked the Cadillac he bought them and delivered to Del Boca Vista, they said: “No”.
“You don’t like it? It has the Northstar System?”
Jerry’s Mom: “We never use it”.
I don’t think many non-car fans got that line twenty years ago.
How about the Madza Miller-Cycle engine in the Millenia? There was huge hype over Miller engines as the future of the internal combustion engine, but after being used in just one car model, they just faded away. I don’t think they were BAD per se, but they certainly qualify as a ‘disappointment’
Leave a Reply