You pretty much nailed it. I’m an auto tech by trade,and I’ve experienced all the problems you’ve talked about here,junk every one of them,except for the ford 1.0 pos.a wet belt?really?whoever designed that was an assclown.
i find the wet belt thing funny. You immediately see who knows his stuff and does it right and who not. Almost every brand uses wet belts. Every brand has the same problems when maintained wrong. Volkswagen TDI Engines have wet belts, Honda use wet belts, the complete stellantis company uses wet belts. All of them clogg the oilpump and snap when using the wrong oil or ignoring cycles. And all of them do 250.000 Km+ when you actually care about your car. You just can not be that farmer technician saying "yea, we take the good ol 40W 60". Yea, you actively destroy the engine. "Oilchange every 20k Km? Nooo, that is bs, every 50k is enough". Yea, this just filters out the people knowing their shit and those who dont. Pretty descend in my oppinion. Makes many things easier.
Many, many of your pictures are totally out of sync with the story line. Example: you're slamming the Olds 5.7 diesel, yet showing images of a 1972 Old Cutlass predated the diesel engine by what, 10 years? You talk about the 3.7 Chrysler engines issue but show mostly vehicles that did not use this engine, and even one image of an early 1960 426 Hemi engine which doesn't ever use the same paint as the 3.7. You seriously need to match the images to your AI narrative.
Not until the owner tried to use Pennzoil in it --- then the rings chattered and scraped the silicon-glaze off the cylinder walls and it was a short trip to a blown engine then. Pennzoil has killed more engines than most people will ever realize.
@@SurferJoe46perhaps penzoil made it worse. But the Vega engine tended to score the cylinder walls at the slightest hint of overheating regardless of the oil used. And overheating was common, especially in the hot regions of the country due to the small radiator . So if they lost just a bit of coolant, it was a wrap. Instant fogger.
@@dmandman9 I built and rebuilt dozens of these engines for customers --- and they all suffered from Pennzoil, Quaker State, Kendal GT, Uni-Royal Purple, Wolf's Head, etc., lubrication failure because those oils somehow created chatter in the rings that scraped the high-pressure silicate surface off the cylinders and that killed compression and burned oil and generally caused a lot of bad ju-ju, blaming GM for a bad engine. I drove a Cogsworth Vega (same block, DOHC head) and a stock GM head in another with Castrol GTX or Valvoline Racing Oil in them for years and never experienced overheating - which was caused by not using Deionized water and Low Phosphorus coolant. The VW Waterboxer engines had the same trouble with tap water --- and they had to use Low Phosphorus coolant too. So --> no ---> the Vega engine wasn't bad - it was misunderstood by a public that was used to Detroit Iron and couldn't figure out the care and feeding of these unique engines.
Gotta add the 1971-1975 Chevrolet Vega 2300 aluminum block 4-cylinder: a) Silicon coating on cylinder walls in place of liners. b) Open-deck engine block design. c) Insufficient coolant passages. Many of the engines would overheat, causing the coated cylinder walls to be scored. The engines had an improved head design, water pump, and revised coolant passages by 1976. It was used in GM's "H" Body vehicles, including the Chevrolet Vega, Chevrolet Monza, Pontiac Astre, and Oldsmobile Starfire.
Click and Clack also claimed the Vega body was made of compressed rust. I owned a '73 Vega in the N. Indiana rust belt. The outer door panels and quarters were completely loose at the bottom of both sides in 3.5 years. Also, went through one warranty engine replacement, dumped it when it needed the next [out of warranty].
It wasn't a coating, it was the silicon content in the high silicon alloy that was brought to the surface during the die cast process, the bores were then machined and etched to expose the silicon. Worked well in small production after prototyping but like many things did not scale up well in full production. Whether that was a problem with the technology or management of the production process is the question. Further, it required a high tech chrome plating of the piston skirts, a further complication. The technology used in this process is extensively documented on the internet. It was very high-tech for the times and too far ahead of its time for production. There were a number of technologies developed at that time to create linerless engines which have several advantages beyond reduced production costs. There is nothing wrong with open deck designs if you get them right. When it came to the crunch, there was just too much new technology to perfect before production and it needed to be perfected, it wasn't, so, the result was inevitable
Try to diagnose a unnecessarily complex and over engineered Bosch auto electrical system compared to a Lucas system. the Lucas system might have simple under engineered components but they are easily diagnosed and replaced, The Bosch system is over engineered with and excess of system components where a simple system could do the job Bosch will over build with so many parts that could shut down a the system should a minor failure occur in any part, diagnosing Bosch systems are mind boggling, then the parts are unreasonable expensive and located in places where 1/2 the car has to be dismantled to replace them, Lucas is child's play, Bosh requires an engineering degree.
3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
Why do Americans call Budweiser _beer?_ Because they don't know any better.
The V864 engine was actually a good engine. Downsized 425, the electronics were the problem, mainly in the six cylinder mode. Disconnect the electronics, if I remember, cutting a blue wire at the trans would disable the system.
I think in the end, it was a decent V8 without all the electronical gremlins and issues, so yeah...cutting off the 864 system would turn this engine into a much more livable engine
Vega and practically every Cadillac engine that followed the V8-6-4 were far worse! Computer speed wasn't the problem, programmers' brains were the problem. The EGR valve they used didn't make sense on a variable displacement engine. Also, the EGR floor jets would choke up with carbon. They put a too-tall final drive ratio in at least the FWD cars, so the engine was overloaded and not using fewer cylinders as often as it could, while also harming performance and probably using MORE gas around town. Finally, this was the first cruise control that they built into the engine computer, yet they didn't change the 8-6-4 programming to accommodate the cruise mindlessly tracking the speed and not carrying how far it pushed the pedal. They couldn't had it hold fewer cylinders longer when the cruise was engaged. BTW, The system wasn't removed, the high-gear-switch wire was simply disconnected from the transmission. I put a toggle switch on the dash for manual control. On flat highway conditions I got 22 MPG with the system on, and 18 MPG locked in eight cylinders...
first gen 5.4 two valves were good engines. it is true though that after the first spark plug change they could spit out spark plugs . there is a very lengthy procedure no one ever follows to get the spark plugs out without damaging the threads in the head so some of the threads are missing when the new plug goes in .
The reputation of the 5.4 is great for me as it scares people away and the prices are great. We also had the 5.4 in our Australian Ford's but not the Triton. We have the 5.4 Barra. Only reason the USA used the Triton I can think of is for emissions. We don't have emission laws to speak of, which is also why USA Kia use the Hyundai 2.0 engine whilst we have the Kia 2.0 engine. I've heard so many horror stories about the Hyundai engine, even in Australia. Kia's are popular as taxi's but I never see a Hyundai taxi.
@@2DogsVlogs it's the mpg. I used to be an extended warranty adjuster... Those 2.0s what's killing them Is people are not checking the oil. These cars are using ultra low friction piston rings to be able to get the miles per gallon to the federal mandate. Well loose piston rings cause oil consumption. When you're advertising synthetic oil having an extremely high mileage of change out and at the same time saying a court per thousand miles is normal engine consumption You can see where a 5 qt oil pan is going to cause a problem. I'm not joking about the one court per thousand miles do a Google search right now on what normal engine consumption is. That Ford Triton I have out there with 200,000 mi on it has an oil consumption of one quart per 5,000 mi I basically just change it whenever it gets down to the little ad mark. As bad as that is There are a few BMWs out there with the turbo where they consider normal oil consumption 1 q in 750 mi. Many times the extended warranties do not cover the engine because in the owner's manual of these vehicles in a tiny little line is a thing that tells you you have to check the oil every time you put gas in the car.
Ford 5.4: Sludge buildup is caused by lack of maintenance. The real problem was in the radiator. Part of it is the transmission fluid cooler and a compromise between that and the engine portion allows transmission fluid mixing with engine coolant. This eventually destroys the engine and transmission. Other brands using the same radiator supplier had the same issue.
All the “sludge” engines are poor maintenance. Believing the recommended interval by the manufacturer is the down fall. 3-4000 max or 1 year no matter the mileage in that year…
Correct...but there are sooo many engines you can actually abuse to 300k Miles...those you can abuse to 75k even..but they last if taken care of..just not as good
Not 100% true --- the Ford baby V8 302 engine in the big Fords had a dual oil pan that never got completely drained by the lube-n-screw centers and then the oil turned into pudding and cost an engine. I replaced a few dozen Ford 302s for that reason.
I've worked at Jags for many years and it's a bit unfair to put the v12 in here. They are technically advanced engines and were designed to be serviced regularly, when so they are fine units, however, when they get older servicing drops off as it is expensive and they begin to suffer problems. Keep your XJ12 well serviced and you should have few problems. At least they don't have wet belts driving their oil pumps.
Agree on the Triumph engine water pump. But like many engineering disasters, people work out how to fix them. Mine has a Ford V6 water pump mounted where the alternator sits, nice and low, the original pump removed and blanked off and an expansion tank up high where they should be, and the alternator repositioned where an AC compressor would fit for US markets. Simple changes that could have saved the engine in early design, but involved politics.
@@bmwman1981 Modern RR engine yes, but back in the day issues with those as well. Many that did swap out the Triumph V8 are changing back as they're worth more original.
Triumph had the chance to use the Rover V8 but turned it down. Huge mistake. A common repower here is to put the Rover V8 in the Stag, apparently works just fine.
That’s no surprise at all. These horrible bad engines were made after the 70s. And actually the Ford triton 5.4 with a good motor until they went to three and four valves per cylinder clearly were over engineered and became less reliable immediately.
On the 2-valve version of the Ford 5.4, it's been claimed frequently that torquing the spark plugs to 25 ft lbs seriously decreases the chance of a plug blowing out.
Yep! I've been driving nothing but Triton engines (4.6, 5.4 and 6.8) for the last 25 years (All 2V- the 3V's suck) and buy high-mile vehicles and keep 'em till at least 300K miles and have NEVER had a problem- Only sell 'em 'cause of rust and paint/clear-coat problems on the bodies. Use only Motorcraft plugs and torque like any other plug. It seems that Ford initially set the torque way too low. (Now I have two 6.8 V-10 2Vs- and they are my favorite engines I have ever owned)
Still think the 2 valve engine is a good one and would recommend it to anyone. Personally, i feel that the plug failure is due to not using a torque wrench to tighten the plugs in combination to 4 thread plugs in an aluminum head. Once you install the steel inserts in the heads for the plugs, it is a rock solid reliable engine. THe 3 valve, on the other hand, is hot garbage to be avoided.
@@fixxerautomotive4917 The problem with spitting the plugs was that Ford initially specified a torque value that was way too low...and torqued the plugs that way from the factory. If the original plugs didn't pop, replacements likely would if the installer used the Ford torque specs. Another problem was using other than Motorcraft plugs. Never use anything but Motorcraft with Triton engines. I've been driving nothing but 2V Tritons for last 25 years, and have never had a problem...typically sell a vehicle when it has over 300K miles on it, and they still are running like a Swiss watch. Currently have two 6.8L V-10's (Just a 5.4 with two more cylinders) each just turned 200K...- Love 'em!
@@bobbylibertini Yeah, the 2V is my first pick in Ford motors- 300 modified/400. is my second favorite. Ive seen many push over 300K. Typically they outlast the transmission and the body.
@@NewEdgeDesigns Had an S10 with a 2.8, rolled over 200K and was still reliable. Even got decent gas mileage. I'll admit, they weren't powerhouses, but they were on the good side of adequate.
12v positive ground, British standard Whitworth bolts, lever shocks, the cost of replacing them was more than I paid for the car. Plywood floor, and on and on, the joys of a MGA. And then was almost stupid enough to buy a Jaguar XKE 2+2.
The Jag V12 certainly wasn't the worst engine design here, but it did rely on one of the worst component manufacturers in Lucas. Whereas your Ford 1l eco boost car is only the tip of the iceberg. Any three cylinder ecoboost 1 l engine fitted to any Ford model especially in Europe, all have wet belt engine systems that are prone to failure by design 😫😭
VW \ Audi 1.4 TSI, especially the methane ( CNG ) powered Ecofuel version, is probably Vws worst engine ever, very fragile and prone to early engine failure. This engine together with the equally bad 7 speed DSG dry clutch transmission had so many failures that taxi companys in Sweden were not allowed to buy them anymore. Opel 2.5 V6 is another timebomb, personally know 2 people who had engine failures with this engine. Audi 3.2 liter 90 degree V6 used in the Audi A4 and A6 in the mid 2000s, was the engine that topped the list of engine failures in Sweden during that era. It was a totally different engine than the solid 3.2 liter narrow angle VR6 used in the VW Golf R32 and Audi TT 3.2. Jaguar 4.0 liter v8, Jaguars first v8 launched for the 98 model year was also very fragile and suffered engine failures because weak camchain tensioners, and often loss of compression due to it's Nicasil cylinder liners wearing away, many buyers guides tells people to stay away from these early v8 Jag fails. Volvo B19 and B200 engines in the very unreliable Dutch made Volvo 360:s, these engines were very stubborn and tricky to start, and despite being upgraded to fuel injection, the problems persisted, they were still a gamble to start. And don't forget Volvos other lemon : The PRV ( Peugeot, Renault, Volvo )V6 engine that was super famous for overheating and failing due to it's very poorly designed cooling and oil system, which restricted flow and caused alot of problems. Bmw 1.8 liter 4 cylinder engine used from the early to late 90:s 318 E36 and 518 E34 were so good at eating cambelts that the interval had to be shortened to 40 000 kms.
@@leonb2637 Belt drive systems are overall pretty reliable, if the belt is at least visually accessible. I've never understood why they enclose timing belts. They're usually dry so why not put them out where they can be inspected. Belt driving an oil pump is absurd. 🙄
But it was dry, not wet. Also, Pontiac tested it for 100,000 miles on dirt roads with no timing cover. Only when they proved that it could stand up under that harsh condition were they given to go-ahead for production.
You have the Cadillac 8-6-4 operation wrong. The solenoids prevented the valves from opening....so the piston would compress the air trapped in the cylinder and then it would push the piston back down like an air spring losing little energy and keeping the cylinder hot. Most of the issues with them was due more to very poor machining than the electronics. I worked on several and had to pull the heads because they were just horrible and couldn't seal the head gaskets. GM's solution was to fill them with 'stop-leak' which just clogged everything up while the dealers all blamed the fuel injection and electronics running the cylinder deactivation. Once we got the engines machined properly they ran really well and it was neat to see a full size Caddy breaking 20 mpg's on the highway.
That Eaton V8-6-4 package that almost ruined Cadillac was originally developed for Ford, and was getting close to production. But Ford pulled out late in the development program because of operational problems that eventually bit Cadillac. I was with Ford Engine Engineering at the time. Eaton had invested a lot of money (theirs and Ford’s) & resources in the program and asked Ford if they could offer the system to other OEMs. Ford said, “Knock yourself out. We aren’t going to put it into production.” The rest is history.
the current GM 3.6 is horrible as well.. Chyrsler/Fiat 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 V6's are turds as well with the 3.5 being the worst of them.. I work in a dealership parts dept and the issues are astounding...
Lucas wiring harness on the Jag, reminds me of the old riddle: Q: Why do the British drink their beer warm? A: Because Lucas makes wiring for refrigerators too!
3 หลายเดือนก่อน
Unfunny and tired old joke. And not even based in any reality which is usually a requirement for the joke to make sense as well as be humorous.
Triump v8 suffered quickly from any poor maintenance . Triump v8 was not siuted to hot weather . Larger alloy radiators were very very common fix .
3 หลายเดือนก่อน
Exactly, poor maintenance. The admittedly narrow water ways in the heads would get further restricted when coolant wasn't kept at the correct concentration and changed regularly.
GM's worst was the 2.8L V6/60 until they fixed it for 1985, because before the fix, it was notorious for breaking crankshafts. The 1985 fix involved major changes to the oiling system, and replacing the cast iron crankshafts with forged steel crankshafts.
I do not like these videos. The photos do not match the story. You start talking about a Cadillac engine and show a photo of Henry Ford with a Ford engine. Olds diesel and a photo of a Ford car. This is just slapped together crap.
The Chrysler 2.7 L was a dual overhead cam v6 with 3 timing chains. And I had a dodge intrepid with one of these self-destruct engines that failed not once but twice. I ended up having to junk the car with 83,000 miles on it. The 3.2 L and 3.5 L were belt driven V6 and actually had a pretty decent service life as long as you took care of them.
While i have had experience on many of the engine failures that you mentioned in your video, one always really stuck out to me and tops my list as the worst engine ever produced. The Ford 6.0 Powerstroke diesel. Failed head bolts causing head gasket failure, high pressure oil system failures, early injector failure, FICM failures, ECM failure, VGT turbo failures, up pipe failures, EGR cooler failures, oil cooler failures, failures with the fuel system that allows water to get into the injectors, expensive oil leaks, engine repairs are often done by removing the cab of the truck. I have never seen an engine with so many problems and failures in my career. Also, the cost to make these repairs can be staggering.
Ford's 4.1 should be an honourable mention. Only because they were good engines up until 1978. Then they brought in the alloy head. Ever since they chewed through camshafts (usually within 120,000kms or 75,000 miles. To fix the problem the camshaft needs to be replaced with a modified (warm) cam. Reason Ford did this is because they wanted a smooth running engine. The correct cam makes the idle rough and the car lurches in traffic even with brakes applied.
Me too! I was an automotive tech for 55 years. Owned my own garage for the last 40 years and 8 months. By the end of my career I no longer felt like I was repairing anything, just replacing and programming modules.
@@reallysanta7653 I miss the days diagnosing with the giant sun performer tester. Doing real tune ups, plugs, points&condensor, valve adjustment, carburetor overhauls etc. Back in the day when cars had real maintenance and made more money.
Without a doubt, the original engine used in the Chevy Vega stands out as the worst ever installed in an American car. They typically failed at least once while still within the new vehicle warranty. Many Vegas had multiple engine swaps under warranty. In their day, it was common to see a stack of the scrapped engines behind the dealers' service buildings, often stacked all the way up the wall and many rows deep. Pontiac developed its own all-cast-iron 4 cylinder engine to use instead in its Astre model, but GM had taken such a black eye with their aluminum-block Vega engine that almost nobody wanted to take a chance on it.
I have a Holden with the 3.6 V6 and I'm very pleased with it, although mine is an ex-cop vehicle and has been chipped. High mileage now - 309,000km - but due to the excellent maintenance by the police mechanics I've had no real problems. Barring major accidents, I plan on keeping this car as long as I can keep my licence. (I'm 74 now).
The Triumph TR-8 used the Rover 3.5 V-8. Though it was rated at something like 125 hp with a couple upgrades and aftermarket exhausts it sounded good and had that torquey pull we all love
A good number of these bad GM and other engine designs are what happens when car makers are strong armed by the government to design and build something overnight to suit unrealistically rigid "get it built now" mileage and emissions standards. The older Cadillac 472" and 500" (really a 502") were excellent, designed by Cadillac with no outside interference, their only shortcoming was low mpg - also the Oldsmobile GAS V8's were also some of the best ever designed, them and the Cadillacs were very smooth and reliable. Many GM govt. forced engines after this er were hastily/badly designed and built out of forced necessity and many GM engines that came after this era were horrobly unreliable and low powered.
I did some work for Lucas in my days in the UK. The people I worked with told me why it's called Lucas the Prince of darkness. They said do you know why English people drink warm beer? Answer: they have Lucas refrigerators!
Ford Eco Boost as used in the Focus here in the UK. Regretfully, we bought one of these on the back of claims it was far more powerful and torquey than it really was, and nor did it achieve any sort of fuel economy. I knew it was a mistake the day I drove the car home and sold the pile of junk literally weeks later. Not been back to Ford ever since!
Chevy 2.3 L /Monza engine. Multiple failures due to Aluminum being used in the cylinder walls. Later models were sleeved with steel. Chevy 350 from the 80’s had oiling problems which caused oil starvation at the number 7 rod journal. This was caused by soft camshafts and severe com lobe wear. Chevy 250 integral head six cylinder engines. These heads cracked constantly. Both one and two barrel heads were prone to engine failure because of cracks in the cylinder head allowing coolant to enter the crankcase. Pontiac/Chevy Iron duke 2.5 l engines also had cracking issues in their cylinder heads. Pontiac offered a thicker casting for racing engines. They could be used as a replacement, but were very expensive. Ford engines from the mid to late 70’s into the 80’s. Fords engine control modules were prone to failure. Heat caused them to fail, often at the worst possible times. When things got too hot the control modules would shut down. Sorensen, an aftermarket parts supplier made upgraded modules that were very reliable. It was an easy repair, but failures could power the engine down while being driven. After cooling off they would run again, but time was lost and the failure could prove dangerous. Chevy 2.8 V6 used in cars in the 80’s. These engines were built using aluminum oil pumps which were very soft and would gall easily. This could destroy an engine or cause it to need rebuilding or replacement. Melting made iron replacements which were as reliable when used.
My Grandfather had good luck with his.oldsmobile. Drove it cross country twice. He owned the oldest CASE tractor dealership in the US. Other family members had nothing but problems.
When you were talking about the Ford 1.0 litre ecoboost timing belt fragments blocking oil galleries the camera picked up a component that had Silastic sealant squeezed out the side of two surfaces, if as much Silastic was squeezed inside the engine that also can block oil galleries. Use this type of product as instructed don't trowel it on.
I drive a 2003 honda hatch si, with a 2.2 liter, 215hp four cylinder 😂😂😂. A great engine. I also have a 1965 galaxie 500, w/ 428….also a nice engine. And a 1966 merc comet w 351 mc….almost a bulletproof engine. My advice is to find a ride that has an engine that’s been in production for a long time w/ a proven track record.
The Stag (a beautiful designed car), should have went with the 215 c.i. American sorced Buick V8, like Rover did. They could have been licenced to build their own and sourced GM's overflow very, very cheaply, probably.
Let's see, we show Henry Ford and his Flathead V-8 when discussing Cadillac, then lee-mon laws and top it off with Ford F-One-hundred-fifty pick up trucks. What a crappy video. I can't believe I sat through the whole thing. You really should have somebody that knows just a little bit about cars review things before you hit the "Submit" button.
It just shows how little people know about the Stag V8 ,idiots building them and design faults caused most of the problems of which most have now been overcome ,cleanliness and lubricantion is paramount during the build in ,the 90s I did 27000 miles in 18 months in a stag which I owned and built the engine properly , hard driving on motorways it performed perfectly it was just ignorance with the engine and knowledge about the design but it made it famous or infamous as the case maybe ,but what a beautiful car …
Nice job saying Olds Diesels are loud and then playing an audio clip from a Cutlass with what is clearly a GAS engine. I guess you’ve never been around anything built before, so loud must mean Diesel in your world. Also, learn how to use text to speech software! Listen to the project once finished and go back and modify the spelling to get it to say words correctly. For example, the video says what sounds like “leeman law”. If you spelled it correctly and it still did it, alter the spelling and test. It doesn’t matter how it looks in the text as we don’t see that. I have to do it all the time in my company’s phone system. You should see how bad I have to spell foreign names to get them to sound correct when it says them!
Same here. We obsoleted internal timing chain driven water pumps in the early 30s, but the Japanese brought them back. I don't know why people accepted that outdated concept.
@@stephenvelden295 I know, they are clueless. That's why there are now cars with no transmission dipstick, and, I here now with no engine oil dipstick either.
@@schizy I refuse to buy a car like that. The later Chrysler and Ford products don't have one, but they DO have a dipstick tube, so you can put one in, but cars with no dipstick tube? Count me out.
Triumph's management didn't just 'choose' to not fit the aluminium V8 Buick engine that BMC by then was using in the Range Rover & other vehicles! The real problem was that under the licencing-agreement BMC/Leyland wasn't permitted to fit the Buick V8 into any vehicles that were to be sold in the USA (or anywhere in the Americas), but they really needed to export cars for all those American-sales to stay afloat financially!
Interesting, Rover sold the SD1 fitted with that engine in the USA from 1980. Was there a change to the licencing agreement, i did not think it changed but I could be wrong. There have been a number of reasons suggested as to why the Rover engine was not used. One of the more favoured ones is that Rover did not have the capacity to supply Triumph's requirements as well as their own. I owned a P5B Coupe and i can tell you that the early Rover V8s were not without their issues, the lifters, cams and rocker gear was not up to snuff and wore quickly, the lifters and rocker gear were standard GM and easily ugraded. The rings broke as well, damaging the pistons The majority of he engine was okay, the casings were better and more substantial than the original Buick ones but Rover had not bedded down the engine at that stage.
Greetings from the UK. Magnificent as it is when working, the Jaguar V12 certainly requires a lot of patience and love lol. Yes, and Triumph stringing two of their engines together for the Stag, when Rover, part of the same company, had a well tested V8, is a legendary fail that, as to why, everyone to this day struggles to understand. As for the Eco- boost, it really has proven to be a nightmare for Ford's reputation in Europe.
Patience, not my experience, careful and properly applied maintenance and servicing were what was required. The major design flaw was the way the oil cooler was connected, not a probelm unless the car was getting long in the tooth or the oil was not changed or was the wrong grade.
Perhaps they were too long ago to be remembered, but the Chevrolet Vega aluminum block 4 cylinder engine was pretty bad. They did not sleeve the cylinders with steel sleeves, but instead counted on a silicon impregnation of the aluminum inside the cylinders to make them resist the wear from the pistons and rings. Trouble was that if the engines ever overheated, and sometimes even in regular use, the silicon would migrate out of the cylinder walls leaving them soft enough so that the piston rings soon scored them and the engine was ruined.
@@reallysanta7653 That's why I am puzzled about people who don't like the Pontiac "Iron Duke" 4 cylinder. That engine was SUPERB compared to that Vega disaster.
the worst thing about that Jag v12 isnt the reliability. Its the fact that with twice as man cyl as the I6, it only made an extra 40-45hp.... At the cost of all that weight over the front, poor economy, and difficult to work on
I agree with your assessment although the aluminum blocked V12 was almost the same weight as the venerable cast straight 6! The core of the Jag V12 is actually a very good engine - I was involved in a project where we supercharged one and got over 900hp without any changes to engine internals except pistons. We could have got more out of it but the rest of the drivetrain limited what we could do. It never had any cooling issues and it was dead smooth. The Lucas Optronic system was definitely the achilles issue. All V12s are a rich man's game.
There was one engine that had a horrible reputation and didn't make the list; the (1977) Chevy Vega all aluminum 4 cyl. They would overheat and seize up if stuck in traffic and cooling system wasn't in tip top shape. The Pontiac Astre engine was identical displacement and fit but cast iron so wss a repair possibility. GM trying to get better mileage. They finally succeeded with the Atlas series all aluminum engine in 2003.
2:04 Triumph had been designing their V8 for YEARS by the time Rover/British Layland bought the "Rover 3500" from GM. Car was too far into the design cycle to change it. They DID use the 3500 later, in the TR8.
Daily drive a 2001 Ranger with this engine... I just say a prayer each morning while I start it. Then I intently listen to the bag of bolts sounds for any anomaly and go on my way. I sprinkle in liberal amounts of oil changes just in case prayer isn't enough. 23 years later and it's been remarkabyle reliable.
3:06 The Cadillac or General Motors V8/6/4 engine was such a flop. The thing that blows my mind is the fact that GM is still doing it to this day with very unreliable results. It’s called DOD or displacement on demand. Basically, it’s cylinder deactivation, and it is so unreliable that most owners just have it deleted. Otherwise it will definitely ultimately destroy your engine.
Another motor for the list Nissan A series engines (A12 to A15) used in the f10, b210, 210, and sentra thru 89. Bearing defect on the crankshaft caused em to fail from 50,000 to 85,000 miles.
You never mentioned Kaisers....which empolyed anemic flat head six cylinder engines, often used in fork lifts and occasionally, vacuum cleaners! (Of which, I owned four)
Some interesting content here for sure. Although as far as Ford goes, I definitely would have included the 6.0/6.4 Powerstroke debacle ahead of the 5.4 Triton.
The North Star has the starter in the intake valley. Whom ever designed that needs a kick to the croatch! And the Sebring is total shit! My mom had one and it spent more time in the shop than driving.
You forgot the GM 1.4 and 1.5 ecotec turbos they chew through turbos and pistons, Navistar maxxforce 11 and 13 engines which plagued many International Semi tractors, the 6.0 powerstroke, and 6.4 powerstroke.
I would offer the Audi range of V6's & V8's and Jaguar Land Rover V6's and Igneuim engines as expensively good engines, ...that are designed to fail quickly when nearing their next service intervals, and often require engine out to a cess anything more serious than the oil filter. This helps their dealerships stay funded via costly repair times to fix simple things, but that's assuming the owner/user regularly looks after oilchanges and has some mechanical sympathy to notice minor issues before they degrade! and that they allow the engines to warm up correctly before spirited usage.
You pretty much nailed it. I’m an auto tech by trade,and I’ve experienced all the problems you’ve talked about here,junk every one of them,except for the ford 1.0 pos.a wet belt?really?whoever designed that was an assclown.
Even the dry belts from older DOHC and SOHC engines are much better
i find the wet belt thing funny.
You immediately see who knows his stuff and does it right and who not.
Almost every brand uses wet belts. Every brand has the same problems when maintained wrong.
Volkswagen TDI Engines have wet belts, Honda use wet belts, the complete stellantis company uses wet belts.
All of them clogg the oilpump and snap when using the wrong oil or ignoring cycles.
And all of them do 250.000 Km+ when you actually care about your car.
You just can not be that farmer technician saying "yea, we take the good ol 40W 60". Yea, you actively destroy the engine.
"Oilchange every 20k Km? Nooo, that is bs, every 50k is enough".
Yea, this just filters out the people knowing their shit and those who dont. Pretty descend in my oppinion. Makes many things easier.
😊
@@peterphillips1493 the 2 speed toy O glidee is the best gear box and strong
@@dom3827 Almost every brand uses wet belts? You don't know what you are talking about!😆
*LOSE THE ROBO-NOUNCER!!*
I hear you, dude. I guess they can't find a human that can read aloud.😢
It's all AI nonsense
Does the guy that used to narrate ''The World's Wildest Police Videos'' ... (John Bunnell) know his voice was stolen by AI?
He sounds like chuck schumah.
@jerrynorton1080 at least the AI program did not lie every 30 seconds throughout the entire video....
The Chevrolet Vega is happy it was bumped from this list! 😂
Many, many of your pictures are totally out of sync with the story line. Example: you're slamming the Olds 5.7 diesel, yet showing images of a 1972 Old Cutlass predated the diesel engine by what, 10 years? You talk about the 3.7 Chrysler engines issue but show mostly vehicles that did not use this engine, and even one image of an early 1960 426 Hemi engine which doesn't ever use the same paint as the 3.7. You seriously need to match the images to your AI narrative.
these videos are often just made with AI tools - I notice the narrator said 'leemon' instead of 'lemon', so it's an AI voice also.
You offering to help?
I see that kind of mistake with these Internet nerds all the time. They only know about Datsuns and Toyotas.
Also, talking about Cadillac pioneering the V8 engine while showing Henry Ford posing with his flathead V8 of 1832. Stupidity
.
Sorry, that should be 1932. My bad
Twp others I would note: 1970's GM/Chevy Vega I-4. 1st Generation and other Mazda rotary engines.
1971 Chevrolet Vega aluminum block ohc 4 was probably the worst disaster of them all...
I had one. GT 1972. All it needed was a sleeved engine like my old tractor. Otherwise it was an ass kicking little fun car😮😢
Not until the owner tried to use Pennzoil in it --- then the rings chattered and scraped the silicon-glaze off the cylinder walls and it was a short trip to a blown engine then. Pennzoil has killed more engines than most people will ever realize.
@@SurferJoe46perhaps penzoil made it worse. But the Vega engine tended to score the cylinder walls at the slightest hint of overheating regardless of the oil used. And overheating was common, especially in the hot regions of the country due to the small radiator . So if they lost just a bit of coolant, it was a wrap. Instant fogger.
@@dmandman9 I built and rebuilt dozens of these engines for customers --- and they all suffered from Pennzoil, Quaker State, Kendal GT, Uni-Royal Purple, Wolf's Head, etc., lubrication failure because those oils somehow created chatter in the rings that scraped the high-pressure silicate surface off the cylinders and that killed compression and burned oil and generally caused a lot of bad ju-ju, blaming GM for a bad engine.
I drove a Cogsworth Vega (same block, DOHC head) and a stock GM head in another with Castrol GTX or Valvoline Racing Oil in them for years and never experienced overheating - which was caused by not using Deionized water and Low Phosphorus coolant. The VW Waterboxer engines had the same trouble with tap water --- and they had to use Low Phosphorus coolant too.
So --> no ---> the Vega engine wasn't bad - it was misunderstood by a public that was used to Detroit Iron and couldn't figure out the care and feeding of these unique engines.
Gotta add the 1971-1975 Chevrolet Vega 2300 aluminum block 4-cylinder:
a) Silicon coating on cylinder walls in place of liners.
b) Open-deck engine block design.
c) Insufficient coolant passages.
Many of the engines would overheat, causing the coated cylinder walls to be scored. The engines had an improved head design, water pump, and revised coolant passages by 1976.
It was used in GM's "H" Body vehicles, including the Chevrolet Vega, Chevrolet Monza, Pontiac Astre, and Oldsmobile Starfire.
Click and Clack also claimed the Vega body was made of compressed rust. I owned a '73 Vega in the N. Indiana rust belt. The outer door panels and quarters were completely loose at the bottom of both sides in 3.5 years. Also, went through one warranty engine replacement, dumped it when it needed the next [out of warranty].
It wasn't a coating, it was the silicon content in the high silicon alloy that was brought to the surface during the die cast process, the bores were then machined and etched to expose the silicon. Worked well in small production after prototyping but like many things did not scale up well in full production. Whether that was a problem with the technology or management of the production process is the question. Further, it required a high tech chrome plating of the piston skirts, a further complication.
The technology used in this process is extensively documented on the internet. It was very high-tech for the times and too far ahead of its time for production. There were a number of technologies developed at that time to create linerless engines which have several advantages beyond reduced production costs. There is nothing wrong with open deck designs if you get them right.
When it came to the crunch, there was just too much new technology to perfect before production and it needed to be perfected, it wasn't, so, the result was inevitable
What is a "leemon" law😂😂😂
Shitty AI narration!
Is this an AI voice?
I caught that too. Makes me laugh.
Q: Why do the British drink warm beer ?
A: They have Lucas refrigerators.
We used to refer to Joe Lucas as "The Prince of Darkness." You could get stuck in the middle of nowhere when your electrics suddenly quit.
I've never known anyone over here, in the past 40 years at least, to have a Lucas Fridge
That's an old myth which you should give up on. Same as the teeth one.
Try to diagnose a unnecessarily complex and over engineered Bosch auto electrical system compared to a Lucas system. the Lucas system might have simple under engineered components but they are easily diagnosed and replaced, The Bosch system is over engineered with and excess of system components where a simple system could do the job Bosch will over build with so many parts that could shut down a the system should a minor failure occur in any part, diagnosing Bosch systems are mind boggling, then the parts are unreasonable expensive and located in places where 1/2 the car has to be dismantled to replace them, Lucas is child's play, Bosh requires an engineering degree.
Why do Americans call Budweiser _beer?_ Because they don't know any better.
The V864 engine was actually a good engine. Downsized 425, the electronics were the problem, mainly in the six cylinder mode. Disconnect the electronics, if I remember, cutting a blue wire at the trans would disable the system.
I think in the end, it was a decent V8 without all the electronical gremlins and issues, so yeah...cutting off the 864 system would turn this engine into a much more livable engine
Vega and practically every Cadillac engine that followed the V8-6-4 were far worse!
Computer speed wasn't the problem, programmers' brains were the problem. The EGR valve they used didn't make sense on a variable displacement engine. Also, the EGR floor jets would choke up with carbon. They put a too-tall final drive ratio in at least the FWD cars, so the engine was overloaded and not using fewer cylinders as often as it could, while also harming performance and probably using MORE gas around town. Finally, this was the first cruise control that they built into the engine computer, yet they didn't change the 8-6-4 programming to accommodate the cruise mindlessly tracking the speed and not carrying how far it pushed the pedal. They couldn't had it hold fewer cylinders longer when the cruise was engaged.
BTW, The system wasn't removed, the high-gear-switch wire was simply disconnected from the transmission. I put a toggle switch on the dash for manual control. On flat highway conditions I got 22 MPG with the system on, and 18 MPG locked in eight cylinders...
first gen 5.4 two valves were good engines. it is true though that after the first spark plug change they could spit out spark plugs . there is a very lengthy procedure no one ever follows to get the spark plugs out without damaging the threads in the head so some of the threads are missing when the new plug goes in .
The reputation of the 5.4 is great for me as it scares people away and the prices are great. We also had the 5.4 in our Australian Ford's but not the Triton. We have the 5.4 Barra. Only reason the USA used the Triton I can think of is for emissions. We don't have emission laws to speak of, which is also why USA Kia use the Hyundai 2.0 engine whilst we have the Kia 2.0 engine. I've heard so many horror stories about the Hyundai engine, even in Australia. Kia's are popular as taxi's but I never see a Hyundai taxi.
@@2DogsVlogs it's the mpg. I used to be an extended warranty adjuster... Those 2.0s what's killing them Is people are not checking the oil. These cars are using ultra low friction piston rings to be able to get the miles per gallon to the federal mandate. Well loose piston rings cause oil consumption. When you're advertising synthetic oil having an extremely high mileage of change out and at the same time saying a court per thousand miles is normal engine consumption You can see where a 5 qt oil pan is going to cause a problem. I'm not joking about the one court per thousand miles do a Google search right now on what normal engine consumption is. That Ford Triton I have out there with 200,000 mi on it has an oil consumption of one quart per 5,000 mi I basically just change it whenever it gets down to the little ad mark. As bad as that is There are a few BMWs out there with the turbo where they consider normal oil consumption 1 q in 750 mi. Many times the extended warranties do not cover the engine because in the owner's manual of these vehicles in a tiny little line is a thing that tells you you have to check the oil every time you put gas in the car.
Got to love those Leeemon laws.
What's a Leman law. Hire a real person to read the scripts.
Nothing taste better than an ice cold glass of leemen aide on a hot summer day?
Lemon Law was an AI typo😊
Discussing Cadillac engines but showing ol Henry Ford and his flathead! 😂
Isn't that just like a dunce?
Ford 5.4: Sludge buildup is caused by lack of maintenance. The real problem was in the radiator. Part of it is the transmission fluid cooler and a compromise between that and the engine portion allows transmission fluid mixing with engine coolant. This eventually destroys the engine and transmission. Other brands using the same radiator supplier had the same issue.
All the “sludge” engines are poor maintenance. Believing the recommended interval by the manufacturer is the down fall. 3-4000 max or 1 year no matter the mileage in that year…
Correct...but there are sooo many engines you can actually abuse to 300k Miles...those you can abuse to 75k even..but they last if taken care of..just not as good
Not 100% true --- the Ford baby V8 302 engine in the big Fords had a dual oil pan that never got completely drained by the lube-n-screw centers and then the oil turned into pudding and cost an engine. I replaced a few dozen Ford 302s for that reason.
I've worked at Jags for many years and it's a bit unfair to put the v12 in here. They are technically advanced engines and were designed to be serviced regularly, when so they are fine units, however, when they get older servicing drops off as it is expensive and they begin to suffer problems. Keep your XJ12 well serviced and you should have few problems. At least they don't have wet belts driving their oil pumps.
Agree on the Triumph engine water pump. But like many engineering disasters, people work out how to fix them. Mine has a Ford V6 water pump mounted where the alternator sits, nice and low, the original pump removed and blanked off and an expansion tank up high where they should be, and the alternator repositioned where an AC compressor would fit for US markets. Simple changes that could have saved the engine in early design, but involved politics.
Better off fitting the Range Rover v8 a much better engine
@@bmwman1981 Modern RR engine yes, but back in the day issues with those as well. Many that did swap out the Triumph V8 are changing back as they're worth more original.
@@royster3345 still rather have the old 3.9 over the triumph engine
I wonder if just drilling and tapping the housing up top for an air bleeder would do
Triumph had the chance to use the Rover V8 but turned it down. Huge mistake. A common repower here is to put the Rover V8 in the Stag, apparently works just fine.
That’s no surprise at all. These horrible bad engines were made after the 70s. And actually the Ford triton 5.4 with a good motor until they went to three and four valves per cylinder clearly were over engineered and became less reliable immediately.
On the 2-valve version of the Ford 5.4, it's been claimed frequently that torquing the spark plugs to 25 ft lbs seriously decreases the chance of a plug blowing out.
I have a 98 Econoline 2 valve , I blew one plug and had them all replaced . It has 261,000 on it , runs good.
Yep! I've been driving nothing but Triton engines (4.6, 5.4 and 6.8) for the last 25 years (All 2V- the 3V's suck) and buy high-mile vehicles and keep 'em till at least 300K miles and have NEVER had a problem- Only sell 'em 'cause of rust and paint/clear-coat problems on the bodies. Use only Motorcraft plugs and torque like any other plug. It seems that Ford initially set the torque way too low. (Now I have two 6.8 V-10 2Vs- and they are my favorite engines I have ever owned)
Still think the 2 valve engine is a good one and would recommend it to anyone. Personally, i feel that the plug failure is due to not using a torque wrench to tighten the plugs in combination to 4 thread plugs in an aluminum head. Once you install the steel inserts in the heads for the plugs, it is a rock solid reliable engine. THe 3 valve, on the other hand, is hot garbage to be avoided.
@@fixxerautomotive4917 The problem with spitting the plugs was that Ford initially specified a torque value that was way too low...and torqued the plugs that way from the factory. If the original plugs didn't pop, replacements likely would if the installer used the Ford torque specs. Another problem was using other than Motorcraft plugs. Never use anything but Motorcraft with Triton engines. I've been driving nothing but 2V Tritons for last 25 years, and have never had a problem...typically sell a vehicle when it has over 300K miles on it, and they still are running like a Swiss watch. Currently have two 6.8L V-10's (Just a 5.4 with two more cylinders) each just turned 200K...- Love 'em!
@@bobbylibertini Yeah, the 2V is my first pick in Ford motors- 300 modified/400. is my second favorite. Ive seen many push over 300K. Typically they outlast the transmission and the body.
6:19 "Leemon Laws" ... pretty sure its called lemon laws ... AI voice-overs suck
14:44 "Ford F-One hundred and fifty" 😀
The two valve 5.4 Triton is a nearly bulletproof engine that goes as much as 450,000-500,000 miles with few problems.
Sure it is champion.
Are you living on another planet???
You guys did a lousy job what the hell is a Leamon law?
If you listened it's a Lemur law, this came from defective Lemur's imported from Madagascar as pets.
Obviously a law named after Lee Munn, the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor football player.
Al voice
GM’s 2.8 V6 was a terrible engine also. A complete slug and horribly underpowered.
That is not what he means. He is talking about reliability issues, not performance.
3.4 GM was the issue, the 2.8 and 3.1 were great engines…
@@NewEdgeDesigns had a grand an with the 3.4. 168k miles when I traded it in and still ran ok. Needed a lot of other things fixed but 3.4 was solid.
@@NewEdgeDesigns Had an S10 with a 2.8, rolled over 200K and was still reliable. Even got decent gas mileage. I'll admit, they weren't powerhouses, but they were on the good side of adequate.
Lucas, the Lord of Darkness. Why do the English drink their beer warm? Lucas makes refrigerators too.
12v positive ground, British standard Whitworth bolts, lever shocks, the cost of replacing them was more than I paid for the car. Plywood floor, and on and on, the joys of a MGA. And then was almost stupid enough to buy a Jaguar XKE 2+2.
The Jag V12 certainly wasn't the worst engine design here, but it did rely on one of the worst component manufacturers in Lucas.
Whereas your Ford 1l eco boost car is only the tip of the iceberg. Any three cylinder ecoboost 1 l engine fitted to any Ford model especially in Europe, all have wet belt engine systems that are prone to failure by design 😫😭
Haha very funny lol
I believe the beer in England is made to drink warm.
Cellar temperature, not warm.
The caddy t4100 is the biggest pile of dung...
I definitely don't know as much as AI, but the exhaust tone is going loud on a Cutlass drag car
Not even a diesel....
VW \ Audi 1.4 TSI, especially the methane ( CNG ) powered Ecofuel version, is probably Vws worst engine ever, very fragile and prone to early engine failure.
This engine together with the equally bad 7 speed DSG dry clutch transmission had so many failures that taxi companys in Sweden were not allowed to buy them anymore.
Opel 2.5 V6 is another timebomb, personally know 2 people who had engine failures with this engine.
Audi 3.2 liter 90 degree V6 used in the Audi A4 and A6 in the mid 2000s, was the engine that topped the list of engine failures in Sweden during that era.
It was a totally different engine than the solid 3.2 liter narrow angle VR6 used in the VW Golf R32 and Audi TT 3.2.
Jaguar 4.0 liter v8, Jaguars first v8 launched for the 98 model year was also very fragile and suffered engine failures because weak camchain tensioners, and often loss of compression due to it's Nicasil cylinder liners wearing away, many buyers guides tells people to stay away from these early v8 Jag fails.
Volvo B19 and B200 engines in the very unreliable Dutch made Volvo 360:s, these engines were very stubborn and tricky to start, and despite being upgraded to fuel injection, the problems persisted, they were still a gamble to start.
And don't forget Volvos other lemon : The PRV ( Peugeot, Renault, Volvo )V6 engine that was super famous for overheating and failing due to it's very poorly designed cooling and oil system, which restricted flow and caused alot of problems.
Bmw 1.8 liter 4 cylinder engine used from the early to late 90:s 318 E36 and 518 E34 were so good at eating cambelts that the interval had to be shortened to 40 000 kms.
How in Gods' name could you omit the HT4100 Cad engine????//
Mopar tech here. The 2.7 was flaming garbage. Sludge buckets even when properly maintained. The water pump was the killer.
Anything to save my 2001 Sebring Convertible from that demise? 69k. Oil changed every 3k with name brand full synthetic and occasionally royal purple.
@@tylerc7037 BG engine flush or other good name engine flush. Every 30k or so. It helps.
Lucas- The Prince of Darkness
My wife (also a motorhead) walked in just as Lucas was being mentioned - and reflexively intoned "Hail Lucas, Prince of Darkness"! LOL
Yes, one reason for the downfall of the British motorcycle industry.
@@brucerogermorgan2388
Complete myth.
Belt driven oil pump? Nice! 😂
Ford is still making engines with the belt drive oil pump in Europe and it is causing some serious problems there.
@@leonb2637 Belt drive systems are overall pretty reliable, if the belt is at least visually accessible. I've never understood why they enclose timing belts. They're usually dry so why not put them out where they can be inspected.
Belt driving an oil pump is absurd. 🙄
Pontiac had a rubber belt driven oil pump in the ohc6 not a problem
The most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.
But it was dry, not wet. Also, Pontiac tested it for 100,000 miles on dirt roads with no timing cover. Only when they proved that it could stand up under that harsh condition were they given to go-ahead for production.
The reason the British have warm beer... Lucas refrigerators. ;-D
Lucas also makes vacuum cleaners. They all suck!
British do not drink warm beer. Just like all Americans are not fat.
You have the Cadillac 8-6-4 operation wrong. The solenoids prevented the valves from opening....so the piston would compress the air trapped in the cylinder and then it would push the piston back down like an air spring losing little energy and keeping the cylinder hot. Most of the issues with them was due more to very poor machining than the electronics. I worked on several and had to pull the heads because they were just horrible and couldn't seal the head gaskets. GM's solution was to fill them with 'stop-leak' which just clogged everything up while the dealers all blamed the fuel injection and electronics running the cylinder deactivation. Once we got the engines machined properly they ran really well and it was neat to see a full size Caddy breaking 20 mpg's on the highway.
That Eaton V8-6-4 package that almost ruined Cadillac was originally developed for Ford, and was getting close to production. But Ford pulled out late in the development program because of operational problems that eventually bit Cadillac. I was with Ford Engine Engineering at the time. Eaton had invested a lot of money (theirs and Ford’s) & resources in the program and asked Ford if they could offer the system to other OEMs. Ford said, “Knock yourself out. We aren’t going to put it into production.”
The rest is history.
4100 was worse.
Never knew that!
Ford and Eaton soon would reunite❤
Everything happens to every motor if you don't fucking service them
You forgot the GM 3.4 DOHC
the current GM 3.6 is horrible as well.. Chyrsler/Fiat 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 V6's are turds as well with the 3.5 being the worst of them.. I work in a dealership parts dept and the issues are astounding...
Lucas wiring harness on the Jag, reminds me of the old riddle:
Q: Why do the British drink their beer warm?
A: Because Lucas makes wiring for refrigerators too!
Unfunny and tired old joke. And not even based in any reality which is usually a requirement for the joke to make sense as well as be humorous.
Dont forget about the 6.0-fixo and the 6.4 powerstroke.
There it is I was wondering if my 6.4 made the comments lol
6.0 Powersmoke is the worst engine ever IMO.
GM also offered the Olds diesel in other brands of cars and pickups.
WOW amazing TY so much ,,Keep up the great work
Triump v8 suffered quickly from any poor maintenance . Triump v8 was not siuted to hot weather . Larger alloy radiators were very very common fix .
Exactly, poor maintenance. The admittedly narrow water ways in the heads would get further restricted when coolant wasn't kept at the correct concentration and changed regularly.
1982 Oldsmobile Diesel ⛽️
My EcoSport came with the 2.0 four cylinder. Good small little car I avoided the 1.0 great video do one on transmissions
GM's worst was the 2.8L V6/60 until they fixed it for 1985, because before the fix, it was notorious for breaking crankshafts. The 1985 fix involved major changes to the oiling system, and replacing the cast iron crankshafts with forged steel crankshafts.
Caddy 4100, had one in my old eldo, garbage.
I do not like these videos. The photos do not match the story. You start talking about a Cadillac engine and show a photo of Henry Ford with a Ford engine. Olds diesel and a photo of a Ford car. This is just slapped together crap.
With AI voice-over. Yuck!
Toyota corolla ke30 engine was a good boat anchor 3kh br waste of money waste of money to rebuild
The Chrysler 2.7 L was a dual overhead cam v6 with 3 timing chains. And I had a dodge intrepid with one of these self-destruct engines that failed not once but twice. I ended up having to junk the car with 83,000 miles on it. The 3.2 L and 3.5 L were belt driven V6 and actually had a pretty decent service life as long as you took care of them.
Cadillac HT4100 engine was also notorious for failure.
While i have had experience on many of the engine failures that you mentioned in your video, one always really stuck out to me and tops my list as the worst engine ever produced. The Ford 6.0 Powerstroke diesel. Failed head bolts causing head gasket failure, high pressure oil system failures, early injector failure, FICM failures, ECM failure, VGT turbo failures, up pipe failures, EGR cooler failures, oil cooler failures, failures with the fuel system that allows water to get into the injectors, expensive oil leaks, engine repairs are often done by removing the cab of the truck. I have never seen an engine with so many problems and failures in my career. Also, the cost to make these repairs can be staggering.
Ford's 4.1 should be an honourable mention. Only because they were good engines up until 1978. Then they brought in the alloy head. Ever since they chewed through camshafts (usually within 120,000kms or 75,000 miles. To fix the problem the camshaft needs to be replaced with a modified (warm) cam. Reason Ford did this is because they wanted a smooth running engine. The correct cam makes the idle rough and the car lurches in traffic even with brakes applied.
I’m glad I’m retired from the automotive repair business !
Me too! I was an automotive tech for 55 years. Owned my own garage for the last 40 years and 8 months. By the end of my career I no longer felt like I was repairing anything, just replacing and programming modules.
@@reallysanta7653 I miss the days diagnosing with the giant sun performer tester. Doing real tune ups, plugs, points&condensor, valve adjustment, carburetor overhauls etc. Back in the day when cars had real maintenance and made more money.
If you’re such a mechanical god,then tell us what motor they are introducing that’s trash? All this hindsight crap is useless.
Without a doubt, the original engine used in the Chevy Vega stands out as the worst ever installed in an American car. They typically failed at least once while still within the new vehicle warranty. Many Vegas had multiple engine swaps under warranty. In their day, it was common to see a stack of the scrapped engines behind the dealers' service buildings, often stacked all the way up the wall and many rows deep. Pontiac developed its own all-cast-iron 4 cylinder engine to use instead in its Astre model, but GM had taken such a black eye with their aluminum-block Vega engine that almost nobody wanted to take a chance on it.
I have a Holden with the 3.6 V6 and I'm very pleased with it, although mine is an ex-cop vehicle and has been chipped. High mileage now - 309,000km - but due to the excellent maintenance by the police mechanics I've had no real problems. Barring major accidents, I plan on keeping this car as long as I can keep my licence. (I'm 74 now).
Some good information here - videos should show the actual engines as they're being discussed.
The Triumph TR-8 used the Rover 3.5 V-8. Though it was rated at something like 125 hp with a couple upgrades and aftermarket exhausts it sounded good and had that torquey pull we all love
The engine they are talking about is not the Rover/GM V8. The one in the vid is the TRIUMPH V8 which was a disaster. I worked on both engines.
I swapped out the Rover V8 (Buick based design) with the Turbo 3.8 Buick V6 in my brothers TR-8.. Now that made it a race car! Real power!
A good number of these bad GM and other engine designs are what happens when car makers are strong armed by the government to design and build something overnight to suit unrealistically rigid "get it built now" mileage and emissions standards. The older Cadillac 472" and 500" (really a 502") were excellent, designed by Cadillac with no outside interference, their only shortcoming was low mpg - also the Oldsmobile GAS V8's were also some of the best ever designed, them and the Cadillacs were very smooth and reliable. Many GM govt. forced engines after this er were hastily/badly designed and built out of forced necessity and many GM engines that came after this era were horrobly unreliable and low powered.
Those were superb engines. They were lifetime engines. After they wore the car out, they could be modified into marine engines.
Totally agree, take Al Gore out of the equation, and most of these failures would never have happened.
I did some work for Lucas in my days in the UK. The people I worked with told me why it's called Lucas the Prince of darkness. They said do you know why English people drink warm beer? Answer: they have Lucas refrigerators!
Yawn.
Ford Eco Boost as used in the Focus here in the UK. Regretfully, we bought one of these on the back of claims it was far more powerful and torquey than it really was, and nor did it achieve any sort of fuel economy. I knew it was a mistake the day I drove the car home and sold the pile of junk literally weeks later. Not been back to Ford ever since!
Chevy 2.3 L /Monza engine. Multiple failures due to Aluminum being used in the cylinder walls. Later models were sleeved with steel. Chevy 350 from the 80’s had oiling problems which caused oil starvation at the number 7 rod journal. This was caused by soft camshafts and severe com lobe wear. Chevy 250 integral head six cylinder engines. These heads cracked constantly. Both one and two barrel heads were prone to engine failure because of cracks in the cylinder head allowing coolant to enter the crankcase. Pontiac/Chevy Iron duke 2.5 l engines also had cracking issues in their cylinder heads. Pontiac offered a thicker casting for racing engines. They could be used as a replacement, but were very expensive. Ford engines from the mid to late 70’s into the 80’s. Fords engine control modules were prone to failure. Heat caused them to fail, often at the worst possible times. When things got too hot the control modules would shut down. Sorensen, an aftermarket parts supplier made upgraded modules that were very reliable. It was an easy repair, but failures could power the engine down while being driven. After cooling off they would run again, but time was lost and the failure could prove dangerous. Chevy 2.8 V6 used in cars in the 80’s. These engines were built using aluminum oil pumps which were very soft and would gall easily. This could destroy an engine or cause it to need rebuilding or replacement. Melting made iron replacements which were as reliable when used.
My Grandfather had good luck with his.oldsmobile. Drove it cross country twice. He owned the oldest CASE tractor dealership in the US. Other family members had nothing but problems.
Original Vega engine
I’m going Yugo because not only it was crap quality it was also crap engineering.
LoL yugo was so short lived didn't even pop up in my memory till you mentioned it 😅
Wow lots of miss information
When you were talking about the Ford 1.0 litre ecoboost timing belt fragments blocking oil galleries the camera picked up a component that had Silastic sealant squeezed out the side of two surfaces, if as much Silastic was squeezed inside the engine that also can block oil galleries. Use this type of product as instructed don't trowel it on.
I drive a 2003 honda hatch si, with a 2.2 liter, 215hp four cylinder 😂😂😂. A great engine.
I also have a 1965 galaxie 500, w/ 428….also a nice engine.
And a 1966 merc comet w 351 mc….almost a bulletproof engine.
My advice is to find a ride that has an engine that’s been in production for a long time w/ a proven track record.
The Stag (a beautiful designed car), should have went with the 215 c.i. American sorced Buick V8, like Rover did.
They could have been licenced to build their own and sourced GM's overflow very, very cheaply, probably.
Let's see, we show Henry Ford and his Flathead V-8 when discussing Cadillac, then lee-mon laws and top it off with Ford F-One-hundred-fifty pick up trucks. What a crappy video. I can't believe I sat through the whole thing. You really should have somebody that knows just a little bit about cars review things before you hit the "Submit" button.
Talk about Chevy V8 with a picture of Henry Ford in front of a Ford flathead V8! Good job.
Glad I am not the only one who noticed.
It just shows how little people know about the Stag V8 ,idiots building them and design faults caused most of the problems of which most have now been overcome ,cleanliness and lubricantion is paramount during the build in ,the 90s I did 27000 miles in 18 months in a stag which I owned and built the engine properly , hard driving on motorways it performed perfectly it was just ignorance with the engine and knowledge about the design but it made it famous or infamous as the case maybe ,but what a beautiful car …
Nice job saying Olds Diesels are loud and then playing an audio clip from a Cutlass with what is clearly a GAS engine. I guess you’ve never been around anything built before, so loud must mean Diesel in your world.
Also, learn how to use text to speech software! Listen to the project once finished and go back and modify the spelling to get it to say words correctly. For example, the video says what sounds like “leeman law”. If you spelled it correctly and it still did it, alter the spelling and test. It doesn’t matter how it looks in the text as we don’t see that. I have to do it all the time in my company’s phone system. You should see how bad I have to spell foreign names to get them to sound correct when it says them!
Alloy diesels have higher engine noise that their cast iron cousins, it has always been a problem with lightweight diesels.
I never buy an engine with a timing belt or a water pump mounted inside the engine!
Same here. We obsoleted internal timing chain driven water pumps in the early 30s, but the Japanese brought them back. I don't know why people accepted that outdated concept.
@@jamesbosworth4191 Most people have no idea about these issues. Most women buy a car because they like the color!
@@stephenvelden295 I know, they are clueless. That's why there are now cars with no transmission dipstick, and, I here now with no engine oil dipstick either.
@@jamesbosworth4191 That's N.S! My wife's '17 KIA Forte we bought new has no trans dipstick. Otherwise a hellofa good car.
@@schizy I refuse to buy a car like that. The later Chrysler and Ford products don't have one, but they DO have a dipstick tube, so you can put one in, but cars with no dipstick tube? Count me out.
Triumph's management didn't just 'choose' to not fit the aluminium V8 Buick engine that BMC by then was using in the Range Rover & other vehicles!
The real problem was that under the licencing-agreement BMC/Leyland wasn't permitted to fit the Buick V8 into any vehicles that were to be sold in the USA (or anywhere in the Americas), but they really needed to export cars for all those American-sales to stay afloat financially!
Interesting, Rover sold the SD1 fitted with that engine in the USA from 1980. Was there a change to the licencing agreement, i did not think it changed but I could be wrong.
There have been a number of reasons suggested as to why the Rover engine was not used. One of the more favoured ones is that Rover did not have the capacity to supply Triumph's requirements as well as their own.
I owned a P5B Coupe and i can tell you that the early Rover V8s were not without their issues, the lifters, cams and rocker gear was not up to snuff and wore quickly, the lifters and rocker gear were standard GM and easily ugraded. The rings broke as well, damaging the pistons The majority of he engine was okay, the casings were better and more substantial than the original Buick ones but Rover had not bedded down the engine at that stage.
VW Waterboxer, Mazda Rotary, NSU-Prinz, Subaru, Audi A4, Hyundai Tucson, anything Renault, anything Fiat, anything Stellantis.
Greetings from the UK. Magnificent as it is when working, the Jaguar V12 certainly requires a lot of patience and love lol. Yes, and Triumph stringing two of their engines together for the Stag, when Rover, part of the same company, had a well tested V8, is a legendary fail that, as to why, everyone to this day struggles to understand. As for the Eco- boost, it really has proven to be a nightmare for Ford's reputation in Europe.
Patience, not my experience, careful and properly applied maintenance and servicing were what was required. The major design flaw was the way the oil cooler was connected, not a probelm unless the car was getting long in the tooth or the oil was not changed or was the wrong grade.
Rover were not allowed to use the Buick V8 in any vehicle sold in the US.
@@simonlee5171 Rover sold the SD1 in the USA for a few years and it used the Rover V8.
Perhaps they were too long ago to be remembered, but the Chevrolet Vega aluminum block 4 cylinder engine was pretty bad. They did not sleeve the cylinders with steel sleeves, but instead counted on a silicon impregnation of the aluminum inside the cylinders to make them resist the wear from the pistons and rings. Trouble was that if the engines ever overheated, and sometimes even in regular use, the silicon would migrate out of the cylinder walls leaving them soft enough so that the piston rings soon scored them and the engine was ruined.
That was one of the all-time worse engines ever, unless you sleeved it and used 4 ring pistons.
Some of the earlier examples of this piece of junk would last up to 20k miles before imploding.
@@reallysanta7653 That's why I am puzzled about people who don't like the Pontiac "Iron Duke" 4 cylinder. That engine was SUPERB compared to that Vega disaster.
the worst thing about that Jag v12 isnt the reliability. Its the fact that with twice as man cyl as the I6, it only made an extra 40-45hp.... At the cost of all that weight over the front, poor economy, and difficult to work on
I agree with your assessment although the aluminum blocked V12 was almost the same weight as the venerable cast straight 6! The core of the Jag V12 is actually a very good engine - I was involved in a project where we supercharged one and got over 900hp without any changes to engine internals except pistons. We could have got more out of it but the rest of the drivetrain limited what we could do. It never had any cooling issues and it was dead smooth. The Lucas Optronic system was definitely the achilles issue. All V12s are a rich man's game.
Don't ever buy a British bike with Lucus ignition! Bad from the start especially in the 60s with their positive grounds!
Imagine year's from now people will say around 2010 every vehicle became disposable and then the evs even worse.
There was one engine that had a horrible reputation and didn't make the list; the (1977) Chevy Vega all aluminum 4 cyl.
They would overheat and seize up if stuck in traffic and cooling system wasn't in tip top shape. The Pontiac Astre engine was identical displacement and fit but cast iron so wss a repair possibility. GM trying to get better mileage. They finally succeeded with the Atlas series all aluminum engine in 2003.
Grew up on GM in the 80s and 90s, but switched to Honda about 8 years ago and don't regret it.
My cousin had an 81 Cadillac with the V8-6-4 disabled, and it was a great car.
2:04
Triumph had been designing their V8 for YEARS by the time Rover/British Layland bought the "Rover 3500" from GM.
Car was too far into the design cycle to change it.
They DID use the 3500 later, in the TR8.
Ford F250 diesels post the 7.3 litre International engines. I.e. 6.0, 6.4 litres.
Lucas.....The Prince of Darkness...
Ford 4.0 sohc v6
Daily drive a 2001 Ranger with this engine... I just say a prayer each morning while I start it. Then I intently listen to the bag of bolts sounds for any anomaly and go on my way. I sprinkle in liberal amounts of oil changes just in case prayer isn't enough. 23 years later and it's been remarkabyle reliable.
3:06 The Cadillac or General Motors V8/6/4 engine was such a flop. The thing that blows my mind is the fact that GM is still doing it to this day with very unreliable results. It’s called DOD or displacement on demand. Basically, it’s cylinder deactivation, and it is so unreliable that most owners just have it deleted. Otherwise it will definitely ultimately destroy your engine.
13:21 lowkey want this gen of the Intrepid but to swap in a supercharged 3800 & a 5 speed manual but as a sleeper 👀
Another motor for the list Nissan A series engines (A12 to A15) used in the f10, b210, 210, and sentra thru 89. Bearing defect on the crankshaft caused em to fail from 50,000 to 85,000 miles.
You would think that after 120 years, they could build a trouble free engine.
You never mentioned Kaisers....which empolyed anemic flat head six cylinder engines, often used in fork lifts and occasionally, vacuum cleaners! (Of which, I owned four)
Some interesting content here for sure. Although as far as Ford goes, I definitely would have included the 6.0/6.4 Powerstroke debacle ahead of the 5.4 Triton.
AI voiceover and irrelevant pictures make this a sucky video.
"LEE-MON" laws ? This narrator's native tongue is English...American English ?
The North Star has the starter in the intake valley. Whom ever designed that needs a kick to the croatch! And the Sebring is total shit! My mom had one and it spent more time in the shop than driving.
You forgot the GM 1.4 and 1.5 ecotec turbos they chew through turbos and pistons, Navistar maxxforce 11 and 13 engines which plagued many International Semi tractors, the 6.0 powerstroke, and 6.4 powerstroke.
I would offer the Audi range of V6's & V8's and Jaguar Land Rover V6's and Igneuim engines as expensively good engines,
...that are designed to fail quickly when nearing their next service intervals, and often require engine out to a cess anything more serious than the oil filter.
This helps their dealerships stay funded via costly repair times to fix simple things, but that's assuming the owner/user regularly looks after oilchanges and has some mechanical sympathy to notice minor issues before they degrade! and that they allow the engines to warm up correctly before spirited usage.
Geo Metro 3 cylinder
Geos are Suzuki. Get the turbo version. Mitsubishi, Isuzu, Mazda and Volkswagen snuck-in with American name tags, but Geo was an importer. Not mfr.