Take the Ford Flathead V-8 off your list it is a great engine and there is nothing as smooth as a Flathead V-8! FORD FLATHEADS V-8 FOREVER there is nothing else like it!
Depends, there is an old style and a new style. The old style mostly never cracked, the new style mostly all cracked the block . The way to tell is the water spigot to the heads. The old style it was in the middle of the head . The new style the water spigot was at the front of the head and these blocks cracked in middle .
@@johna7661 You are so correct the 8BA is the 239 flathead V-8 most would use in their stock or built up card or trucks. Thank you so much for giving me comments because the flathead is the engine I like to work on, old school all the way!
Because you could get a lean burn 440 from 1976-1978.. Lean Burn Computer and Spark control Computer was easily changed changed as you change the distributor,ecu and non smog carb you gained power and reliability..
I had an 86' Iroc Z-28 with the TPI 305, it never gave me any problems, easy and cheap to mod also......I race the same Iroc as mentioned with my 81' Turbo T/A...The T/A would beat it in the quarter by about 5 lengths. All I did was take the muffler off the T/A, the cat on it made it quiet enough not to be too loud, and still pass emissions.
@@shanemitchell477 I offered my 283 to swap with that engine in a '82 TA. Actually a 4" bore and 3" stroke. High lift, low overlap cam. 1.98 valves. But 9.5 to 1 compression. So not quite as HP out. But a bit more torque. Oh and meets '82 AQMD and CARB. But fails with the open the hood eyeball check. In Californey. Most of the external plumbing would be missing. Yep you can tune for HP and Eemotions. Well you could not buy pump gas in the 80s to run at 68 spec compression. 9.5 compression no problem. My next go faster was a Lincoln LSC. Was close. But not '67-69 302 Chevy close. Then along came the 256 cubic inch Alas 6 in 2006. That moves a T-Blazer smoothly and quietly with only 290HP and two less cylinders with no puffer. There have been sub 10 second '54 Chevy and Studebaker versions with that engine. Of course they were turbo charged. The is a 10 second Fairlane with the Atlas I-6 that gets driven to the track.
@@warrenpuckett4203 283's run good, but no torque. Also, you can run 10.5:1 easily on 92 octane. What are emissions? We never had such tom-foolery in Kansas...ever.
@@shanemitchell477 Well you can not count on premium being premium. Also 1968 1.98 heads. 2.02s make more horse power. If you can find those that are not cracked. It had the torque. It smoked the tires in a suburban. Sacrificed a few ponies for more torque in the cam choice. Also the intake and exhaust changes things too. Oh and don't forget the rear axle ratio and the top speed you want. Kinda important if you tow a trailer. Or just don't care about gas milage. 9 MPG is acceptable with 48 gallons of onboard gas tanks
Yes, Chrysler's lean burn system was dreadful, but the engines themselves were excellent. Those engines when equipped or retrofitted with Chrysler's older traditional electronic ignition were all excellent. My parents had a pre-Lean Burn Cordoba that never saw a mechanic's wrench, except for basic maintenance.
Lean Burn Computer also known form 1980-1989 as Spark Control Computer was easily changed in 15 minutes.. Add a new distributor and ecu(or go back to pre 1971 with points ignition) and the engines were the most reliable engines ever made in history of the automobile..With lean burn/spark control computer you should put a pre smog carburetor to gain up to 75 hp! You really notice the swap even on 318's as the bbd carb is a power robbing pos. Slant 6,318,360,400 and 440 would run 300,000 miles all the time..Hell old Muscle cars have 260,000 miles on average and they were beat on..
I’m halfway through the video and I’ve yet to see a truly bad engine. All are reliable, albeit low power. My definition of bad is unreliable with serious issues
Yeah it’s a bad name for the list, there were some real turds that didn’t make the list. It should have been called the most disappointing engines or something like that.
@@milesmahan Vega engine was garbage. 5.7 Olds diesel was bad, although with a simple water separator, it may have been okay. Iron duke wasn’t great. 3.3 Chrysler was awful. 4 litre ford was bad. New 6.2 Chevy seems to have an issue breaking cranks…… that’s bad. I’m sure there’s more, but that’ll do for starters
4.6 and 5.4 fords shooting spark plugs through the hood is bad, not to mention the cam phaser issue. 5.7 hemi is chewing up there variable camshafts….. that’s bad
This AI lacks a depth of understanding. I’d liken the way the video was researched to Igor being tasked to find a brain for Frankenstein’s monster. The only V-8 in this video that was truly terrible was the Olds 5.7 diesel. The Chrysler Lean Burn wasn’t spectacular but it was the electronics, not the V-8. Some of the others may have had runs with bad substandard components but seems like the manufacturers fixed those types of issues. Lack of horsepower compared to previous years or the smog era doesn’t necessarily make for a terrible engine for grocery getter and commuter cars.
Lean Burn Computer also known form 1980-1989 as Spark Control Computer was easily changed in 15 minutes.. Add a new distributor and ecu(or go back to pre 1971 with points ignition) and the engines were the most reliable engines ever made in history of the automobile..Swap the carburetor with a pre lean burn carb and pre smog you gained 75 plus hp even the the 318 2bbl would gain huge power,you really noticed it.
An engine being configured with a two-barrel carb has nothing to do with being able to run on cheap fuel, as I've found over my years of driving 4-barrel engines. Running a ridiculously low compression ratio, without any form of forced induction, however.... BTW: Chrysler's reason for going with the hemispherical combustion chamber in the first place was to be able to extract the maximum power possible from low-octane fuel. How low of octane typically was available in the early-50's, I cant say. But I do recall seeing (without audio) a commercial for Speedway 79 gasoline... so there's that.
Remember that Phillips 66 was a big deal in the days of 50 octane gasoline. Prior to the late-50s and 60s horsepower race, people liked smooth, quiet, economical engines. Low compression ratio delivers that.
Plus with the Hemi it had 140 hp the Ford V8 had 106-110 hp and the Chevy had 115 so the Dodge was a rocket! Chrysler Hemi had more power because Chrysler was top of the line so bigger engine,more power..Desoto was second in line so bigger engine and more power than Dodge...Plymouth never had a Hemi in the 1950's as it was the companies entry level brand and the competitor to Ford and Chevy,so their 6 cyl was in line with those brands.
Where is the Cadillac HT4100? It was truly a bad V8. It overheated, consumed oil, and often stalled. Most of the other engines on this list aren’t bad engines, they’re just underpowered. But the HT4100 was actually a bad engine; terribly underpowered AND unreliable.
I guess I'm the only guy on the planet with a reliable 41 year old HT 4100. My dad bought a beautiful 83 Eldorado new. Has the optional cadillac aluminum wheels, Bose stereo, all digital dash. Silver with 2 tone silver and cream interior. Dad loved it always took good care of his cars. As do I. He passed away in 2013 at 97. I got the Eldorado then. It had 178.000 miles on it..Southern California car so still in great shape. Since then it's now at 192000. Original engine, still running fine..I continued his routine of 3000 mile oil changes, using Castrol GTX 10 40 . of course putting about 1000 miles a year on it I change it once a year, and every other year a coolant service and put THE COOLANT TABS IN IT. This regimen since new seems to work well. It still rides and drives beautifully. I also have the 58 Cadillac he bought in 1960. Mom gave it to me in 1982. It's still on the road too.
@@johnfranklin5277 At least it wasn't the modified Buick 4.1 liter engine. Oil filter adapters were required just to fit them, but all-in-all, they were just Buick 4.1 liter engines, trying to lug around a HUGE Cadillac.
@@stevencovington4715 they had about the same power to be honest. And they had the same displacement. Both were 4 1 L. Not a lot of difference in performance. The 4100 was just smoother running because it was a V8. The 4.1 Buick wasn't the best . But for reliability I'd take it over the 4100. As long as you kept an eye on the oil pump/ pressure, you'd be ok. The rest of the engine was decent. I just checked. Both had the same hp (125) . But the Buick V6 actually had slightly more torque
Some of the later 4.8s had poor head castings, a supplier issue. Porosity would allow coolant into the oil. By removing a valve cover the vendor casting mark would pretty much give away why your oil looked like tar. Sister's truck had a one like that. We just put in a crate engine vs try to fix it.
Agreed. I had one in the bulbous 1992 Caprice. I was lacking in power but was fairly trouble free. I had an odd failure of an edge card contact on the engine control module (located inside the panel by the front passenger's feet) that was repaired with contact cleaner and needle-nose pliers. It was a tribute to the factory service manual that enabled me to debug down to that level. With its redundant injector throttle body fuel injection, I was not stranded by the failure.
Clueless indeed. But it wasn't trendy in the 1970's to "ask someone about their pronouns." Clearly she should have asked, "why are THEY letting this happen to us?"
Chevrolets 1955 V-8 wasn't a 262 it was a 265 and it was one of the best engine ever. You guys have fabricated a collection of lies like I have ever heard. You know nothing about engines.
The 262 they are referring to, did nor exist in 1955, lol. They didn't make production until, 1975, and could be found under the hood of Nova's and Monza's, and was gone by, 1977. Totally different engine than the original,1955, model 265 in small blocks.
The 307 was also in some Chevy's as well. A friend of mine had a 307 Nova. They also had horribly made camshafts like the 305 did. They would flatten because they were not made of hard enough steel.
There were different design 307 engines. There was the Chevrolet 307 small block, and the Oldsmobile 307 Totally different animals. Much like the Chevy 350, Buick 350, Oldsmobile 350, and Pontiac 350 4 different design engines. NOTHING interchanged.
The siamesed cyl heads were the 305''s big problem. The exhaust valves of the 2nd and 3rd cylinders were reversed causing a major loss of power. Other small block gm v-8's like the 301, etc also had the same problem. The couldn't be hot rodded.
The Chrysler ELB system was first used in Australia on CL model Valiants with the 318 in 1977. The CM Valiants had ELB on the Hemi sixes as well. Economy improved on both. As for rubber hoses, if you don't maintain your car it'll go to shit in a few years like anything else. Chrysler Australia was first here with electronic ignition in 1973 and it was most of ten years before ford or holden went electronic.
Funny thing: When GM figured out how to make a splayed-journal crankshaft by the late-70's, it made the Buick 3.8L V-6--and any other V-6 GM developed from an existing V-8 design (Chevy 4.3L) obviously a better engine than a extremely-small displacement V-8... especially when the latter were running such ridiculously low compression ratios. BTW: The Olds 260 was discontinued after the '80-m/y by the 307... not '82.
My parents bought new an Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan (Based on the G-body platform) that had the Oldsmobile equivalent of the Chevy 262: The 260. And it too only produced 110-hp. The worst part: My dad bought it partially because it's torque curve, as we'd be towing a single-axle camper trailer with it. Sadly, the V-6 model had a better one... but the dealer was trying to get this brand-new model, which was already a year old at the time, off the showroom floor. And my dad being how he always was over cheaply priced things....😒
Unfortunately most people rate engine's by horsepower, I rate on how many times it will bring me from point A too point B, my Cadillac is the only 375 hp engine that didn't leave me walking ,and believe me I had to remove the oil wet spark plugs on my Mercury's 400ci. to start it Every time and it would quit at most redlights!!!😂😂😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Great video---it's rare that I see one that's this well-researched and accurate. I had both the Chevy 267 and the Olds 260. At the time, GM released press saying these engines had "the fuel economy of a 6 with the performance of an 8"----no, it was exactly the opposite, the worst of both worlds
Definitely take the chevy 305 off the list. Ny 84 El camino has well over 250k and no cam problems and that electronic quadrajet is the most reliable carb ive ever had!!
Given that the flathead V8 basically put the automobile on the map let alone the Ford product. Also given the fact that these Flathead engines are still being reproduced today for Hot rod applications particularly a small for roadster cars. If they were so terrible why are they still being desired today. They're actually one of the simplest and best motors ever built. And of course they're not going to meet today's standards of reliability and mileage those motors were built different back then it was a different time for the time those were the best ever built.. and technically today less moving parts less maintenance low cost. Did those motors have their problems yes they did all engines do especially when they are newly introduced. And of course just because it didn't make that much power also does not mean it's a terrible engine. The biggest one ever was barely over 5 liters. Smallest one was about 130 cubic inches. And the crazy thing is is right at the end of the run of the flathead V8 it had already improved vastly. The only reason why the Flathead cease to exist as a mainstream engine was because it was so outdated by the time innovations came along for the newer V8S coming out. The only conversion that could have made the Flathead a formidable contender with the newer style engines with overhead valves is the Arden overhead valve version on the flatheads. And sadly those heads are almost impossible to find to this day. Had those heads been mass produced the Flathead may have survived a lot longer than it did. Overall I'm just glad to see them still around and being used for their into the purposes in honor of the tradition of the original V8.
About the smaller Ford V-8s (255- & 302-ci.) of the 80's: I find it ironic that by the '85-y/o, they were able to produce a turbocharged 4-cyl. that made more horsepower than a V-8 of more than twice it's displacement at the time, only to de-tune the former the following year... for seemingly no explanation that even I can figure of than Ford just wanting it's V-8s to look good. Had they continued development of the SVO 2.3L (As it's known by) it probably could've produced 250-300hp by the early-90's, making the V-8's redundant except in applications seeing high-load demands (full-size trucks & vans, namely) and Police specialty models. But no... the carbureted Turbo 2.3L of '79, when placed in the Fairmont, gave & left with people a bad taste in their mouths. And the very malaise era of performance of the 70's left them longing for high-power V-8s as well. And since people [on average] are too stupid to comprehend complex things....🙄
They do, but Mazda makes it now.....the 2.3 Mazda engine is based off the SVO 2.3. It makes 263 hp last I checked. The only problem is we now have many 24 valve V-6 in cars that make the same as the turbo 2.3 Mazda. It's in the Mazdaspeed 3.
Ah, the '79 Ford Fairmont, worst Ford I've ever driven (as a Govt car, 1983, one of the worst cars ever made by Ford. With its horrible low torque or power, a mismatched 'buzz-bomb' auto transmission: engine slowly wound up to high revs in a low gear, --trying to get out of its own way, then "Clunk" shifted bog down to the next gear, no... Shocks were completely worn out from jouncing on clay roads on the rural Navajo Res... 'Supremely' dull styling. Bad rear drive traction in snow... Luckily, as a shared Librarian I often had the use of an old-style (large) Jeep Cherokee 4wheel drive the 18 mile dusty or muddy backway between schools.
Why? COSTS. Turbochargers are expensive. Displacement is cheap. That applies to manufacturing and to sales. Give a guy a choice between a naturally aspirated V8 that makes reliable, cheap, low-maintenance power, or a high-tech, expensive hair-dried four banger... yeah. Also, turbos are warranty headaches - a lot of people don't know how to drive them properly. A guy I worked with would park his car, rev the engine up, and then kill the ignition so that he could hear that turbine spin down..... NOT HEALTHY. When I cautioned him that the turbo spinning without oil pressure would kill it... he shrugged. "It's under warranty..." Akso remember that in athe mid 1980s gas prices fell sharply here in the US. After years of $1.50-something a gallon, prices fell to below $1 a gallon, Thirsty V8s were back in style... and Americans, as a general rule, don't f__king LEARN.
I worked at a company that had a fleet of Olds diesel cars (8) , the salesmen hated them and the head mechanic didn't like them either and told the salesmen to abuse them and blow them up to get a new gas model ! It seems they did better and kept going with cold start and high revving , but did get approx 20-23 MPG !
I noticed that a few of these motors on this list were from the 70s to the early 80s when the auto industry was facing an oil shortage and higher priced gas as well as new restrictions coming from the EPA. It is important to know that during this time period, a lot of manufacturers did not do their due diligence in reference to research and development in order to try and rush new and more fuel efficient products to the market and this resulted in a slew of horrible motors coming from all of the big 3 automakers. Most of these products looked good on paper but failed on the road as you see that a lot of these motors did not stay in production for long.
Studebaker had the same problem with its V8. Started out with 232 CID putting out 120 hp in 1951. At the end in 1963 it was opened up to 305 and 330 hp with supercharging.
Narrative derides all these engines for low power, but the pictures generally are of high performance engines with multiple carbs and other performance features. He also should have noted the way horse power rating changed to deduct the power lost on accessories and in the drive train. Net horse power at the wheels is substantially lower than the old method. However it is true that all car makers had to struggle to comply with unreasonable fuel efficiency standards.
Years ago when I was about 20 I was looking for a 1932 ford to restore. I told a retired farmer and he said why I had one of those and it was the biggest lemon I ever had. That thing was a LEMON!! After talking to him I found out it was about the very first one that was made and had lots of engine problems. Also when I would research the first 32s over the years was the first V8s were the hardest to find and today bring the highest price!
I think that the ‘32 flathead was maligned a little. For one thing , the fuel pump position caused vapor lock? Apparently Ford didn’t think so, it remained in the same place until the end of production in ‘53. Water pumps were the same until ‘36. He never really addressed the real reason they ran hot, which was the exhaust passages in the water jackets.
Those Imperials really were a work of art. I myself had a 1981 Cordoba, the platform the Imperial was based on. Technically, the Imperial did not have Lean Burn-it had something EVEN MORE problematic: a special and weird Electronic Fuel Injection system that was unique only to the 1981-1983 Imperial. The system was so horrible, Chrysler agreed to retrofit the cars with traditional 4 BBL carburetors. It was an insanely expensive retrofit, and Chrysler lost tons of money on this car!
It's funny that the relative problems that put engines on this list are nearly all present in a single v8 you called a "legend" in the last video of yours I watched. The Rover v8... Continuity seems to be a major problem here. Especially since most of the engines listed here are significantly more reliable than the rover v8s.
My 70 caddie convertible with 472 big block has 375 horse power stock. Every year after EPA choked more & more ponies. I periodically launch it & modern cars struggle to keep up...(till the next gas station) 😅
I had a 1970 Cadillac 2 door hardtop. I loved that car, it was BIG but handled well, the steering and brakes were great. Great luxury, great ride, that car went exactly 100 MPH for me, I only did that once, it took quite a while to get it to 100MPH but I believe it could have kept going 100MPH all day...except as you mentioned(till the next gas station) = city driving 8 miles per gallon, freeway driving 10 miles per gallon. That was it's 1 bad drawback. You could actually work on that car, me, not a mechanic could change the oil filter, replace the starter, the water pump, the fan belt, my uncle and I replaced the radiator. These "modern" cars...you can't do much with them anymore.
@@JTA1961 Ha! You reminded me of my first car, a 4 year old 1965 Ford Thunderbird. I took it out on the brandnew freeway, no cars in sight and opened it up, it ran reallly smooth and went 95 MPH. I thought the car was better for more than that; it had 390 V8 with 300 HP. I told my dad, who B-T-W was a great mechanic, we changed the sparkplugs, did nothing else. I went back to the freeway, this time 115MPH!!! Ha! 7 plugs were easily accessible, the 8th could only be reached by removing some framework situated around the motor. That was a fine car! It was not perfect, but I think that was one of the best FoMoCo ever produced.
The Olds 260 Diesel was even a bigger dog than the gasoline version. I ferried many of those GM Diesels from Southern Indiana to Florida during those unfortunate Diesel years.
Should have done your homework. Hemi was Chrysler's design for an engine that wasn't octane sensitive, lot of 6 or 7 to 1 efforts, good gas to run your tank in Euorpe was Pipe Dream, Gov. didn't buy it (whole different story). Just my 2 cents, Ole Guy
I've had a couple of GM 305 carburetor cars, never one of the bad camshaft models. The best thing I can say about the 305 was it was easy as could be to decomputerize. A non- computer Holley carb & Intake, Acell ignition & a vacuum control for the transmission & you had a reliable car or truck. A weekend's work & they still got good mileage.
I put one in an S10, with a 700R4 auto, all out of an early 80s Malibu... it was a right proper little terror. sure, the 350s were quicker, but I felt the 305 had more than enough power for my needs, and you can't argue with 20-ish mpg.
The Chevy 305 was later a good engine, produced til 1995. The Olds 260, slow but reliable and almost impossible to overheat. The Cadillac 8-6-4, the system itself was bad, unplug it and you had the same reliable 368 from 1980. The Cadillac HT (hook and tow) 4100 should be on your list instead.
The 350 ci i believe it was back in the late 70" or early 80"s GM tried to convert it into a diesel engine was a heap , We had one in a pick-up truck and wouldnt get out of its own way literally !
Heh. The cool thing about a pickup with the Olds diesel is you can swap in a 455 easy. And they were easy and cheap to find in the yards. Engine, trans, and all - it bolts in like the factory intended it that way.
Hi Just Cars! I am 64 year old retired ASE Automotive Service Technician, and I was also a state emissions inspector/technician. In the mid 1970s to the early 1980s, "The Big Three" automaker(s) performed a very poor job in regards to engine drivability and automobile performance. The big three automaker(s) could of performed a much better job, if they wanted to and hear is why. If you bought let's say a 1975 to 1981 Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am, with an SAE net rated horsepower, (1972 and after) or a gross rated horsepower (1971 and before) the rated horsepower was really not too bad, coming from a big 4 barrel carbureted emission controlled V8 engine. The main issue, was that the air/fuel mixture(s) where and still are set up to run very lean. Not all emission control(s) effect horsepower, and by the way, most emission control(s) actually cancel and/or stop working, in regards to wide open or near wide open throttle, this often include(s) the air pump, EGR valve, and last but not least, the catalytic converter(s)! But in the mean time, the car would be equipped with a very unprecedented 2:50 to 1 rear end gear (differential) axle ratio, which is not at all performance ratio. If you own a mid 1970s to early 1980s emission controlled performance automobile, I suggest that you, lower the rear axle ratio first before removing any emission controls, and you will be in for a real treat! I had an all stock 1977 Corvette with a factory 350 L-82 engine, factory Turbo 400 transmission and a factory 3:55 to 1 Positraction rear and it performed 14.8 @ 119 MPH in the 1/4 mile with no modifications and all emission control(s) present. You notice that I capitalized the word Positraction, that is because Positraction is a trademark of Chevrolet Motor Division of GM, meaning closed differential. Please tell me what you think! Dave...
I know with Chrysler the net hp engines were different than the gross ratings in more ways than just going from net to gross.. Chrysler engines all had lower compression~reduced horsepower and torque. Chrysler engines had different camshafts,crankshafts,heads,carburetors and exhaust systems all killed power..They were a lot weaker than the older engines rated in gross.. Example I had a stock 1971 Charger RT 440 Magnum,727 auto and 3.23 gears also had a 1972 Charger rallye 440 4 barrel,727 auto and 3.23 gears the 71 would struggle like crazy for traction and when I had better tires etc it ran high 12's in the 1/4 mile stock..The 1972 also could smoke the 14 inch bias ply tires easily(even noted in original road tests) but could hook up better if you know how,it was over 1 second slower in the 1/4 mile all the time.That is over 100 net hp to make a car gain that much more performance in the 1/4 mile. Both cars were stock and this was 1976.My father bought them both new and kept them for decades,I own the 71 today.Uncle owned a Chrysler dealer from the 50's -90's.
Ah yes, the Malaise Era. Folks didn't drive the awful ones long. They broke down, were parked in weeds for chickens or stray dogs to enjoy, and/or gratefully rusted out.
There's a reason for that. They were garbage and cars equipped with them had very poor resale. The cars, regarded with little value, were poorly maintained and ended up in the boneyards much faster than their larger-engined contemporaries.
I will admit, the GM diesels of '80-'85 are worthy candidates for worst engine honors. Running a close second would be the Cadillac 4.1 liter V8 from '82-'87. These engines were severely underpowered and unreliable. The aluminum/cast iron mating surface between the intake manifold and the block created an expansion rate imbalance that inevitably caused gasket failure. The coolant found its way to the oil, washing out main bearings, and causing catastrophic wear of the cam lobes. These things were a nightmare. (By the way- the engine pictures in this video do not always match the engine being discussed.)
Goes to show that US built engines in this time period were no match for Japanese and European car engines built in the same period. Some say the US built ones were reliable. They do not understand these engines were supposed to be the answer to the fuel crisis in the 70’s. I’ve got a 4 cylinder car that puts out more power than most of them in the video.
Where is the Ford (Ferd! 😆) Y-Block with a plague of oiling issues for the top end (rocker arms/shafts) due to a very bad design of the oil galleries, that was also used in one of their inline 6’s with equal identical issues? And to compound the oiling issues, the Y block V8’s had that stupid cross over exhaust pipe across the front of the engine that dumped heat over the engine that caused them to run hot (and the flat head V8 sometimes used the same stupid set up!) and also dumped so much hot gases through the passenger side exhaust manifold that it pretty much glowed red, compounding the poor oiling issue by coking the oil in the exhaust valves on the passenger side causing sticking of them sometimes and overheating them, causing warping and burning? Also, the Y block had, for some unlocked reasoning, an odd, different firing order that made these Y blocks sound like they had a misfire when they did not, especially when fitted with single exhaust with that dumb cross over “knuckle burner” pipe! And the true cause of overheating in the Ford flat heads was NOT the 2 water pumps, but rather, the exhaust passages in the block being too long to the ports where the 3 branch exhaust manifolds attach to the block, and run through the water jackets where the high heat dumped into the coolant and overwhelmed the cooling system, often generating steam bubbles that caused pockets that blocked coolant flow to the radiator. Henry Ford wasn’t that bright. He saw this design as good in winter for fast warm-up and cabin heat, not ever considering severe overheating in the SUMMER!! Duurr! 🤪 This issue is why other flat head V8’s like Cadillac had a “hot V” design with intake and exhaust manifolds in the valley up top to keep exhaust heat out of the cooling system, even insulating the manifolds and down pipes in asbestos to prevent radiant heat from being van issue! Engineers Ford never had and still don’t Every engine they ever made literally belongs on this list! All were a fail in one way or another! 🙄😬 Cheers! 👍🏻😊
I don't understand why Oldsmobile didn't use the Series 92 Detroit Diesel engines in the cars. They were reliable engines and came in V6 and V8 configuration. After all GM owned Detroit at the time.
Add the Plymouth 318 ci engine. I had a 1958 Belvedere 2 door (same as Fury) that spun conrod bearings several times. During the time I owned that junk ANYTHING that could fail DID. Engine, auto transmission, rear end, AC system etc etc. Since then I have not owned a Chrysler product and have blocked many fleet purchases.
I had an Olds 260 in a 76 Cutlass Supreme. It was an excellent engine and shouldn't have been on your list. I once had a 442 400 and was familiar with it. But it only got about 70k on it before the body rusted out. The engine was very smooth. And while no hp junkie, it was a standard 350 Olds engine and parts were readily available for it. The Buick 6 was total garbage. And my Cutlass rusted out way before the driveline failed. This car was so bad even the back bumper fell off from rust. And all the GM's of the time did the same thing. A horrible time for GM cars no doubt. But it was a gorgeous car and I loved my Cutlass Supreme all the way to it's accelerated decrepitude end. Today, I won't own a GM. And that's not why. That was a 2006 Impala SS, their most expensive car, that went the other way. It's body didn't rust; BUT EVERYTHING ELSE DID. It was such a junk car, I had to replace the transmission cooling lines twice, and the power steering hoses twice. Everything corroded and failed and when even the trunk seal started leaking, 275 dollars again. That was it, I swore off GM completely and it was GONE. The prettiest piece of garbage on the road. Thank the auto gods Mercedes bought out Chrysler. That gave me some time with Mopar at least and I bought four of them and still have them today. 3 Jeeps and an AWD supercharged Dodge Charger. One will be 20 years old next year and it still running strong and looks great. Then Stelantis came along and Mopar is off the list as well as GM. Does Mopar even exist anymore? I'm not even sure. SRT doesn't, and all the Mercedes are gone. Luckily all of mine are pretty new and I'm the one who's retired. LOL
WOW... These armchair wonders really are something else... The 265-283-327-350 were the hot rodders dream... I know guys who still mess with flatheads...
I believe he specified 'mass produced at a price the average American could afford', or words to that effect. That would make the Ford the first in that category.
Chrysler Lean Burn-Spark Control Computer 1976-1989 were awesome reliable engines.. The Lean Burn-Spark Control was a Computer that could easily be changed in 15 minutes!! You get a new distributor,ecu and boom reliable engine with no regulations and more power if you swapped the carburetor with the deletion of lean burn/spark control computer the cars had huge power gains and reliability!
The Chevy 305 should not be on this list. I have one with over 225,000 miles on it and it runs perfect. It only uses about a pint of oil when changed every 4,000 miles.
My olds 260 was slow in my 75 cutlass but it never used/ leaked oil or broke down and got 25 mpg at 55 mph,it got stolen with an odometer reading over 400k. Best car I EVER had.
262 Chev,, did what it was designed to. The original SBC was 265ci. As did the 255 Ford. The original Windsor was 221 and 260. I dont want either but the Govt did! 305 and 307 are differnt decades ELB on Mopars worked fine when maintained.
Used to work on a 74 cutlass with a preproduction 260 . The only thing was the intake was crap , they would corrode. They were sweet outside of that, and some good heads would have made them happy
How can they talk about the old rough running odd fire Buick 3.8 and then show a picture of a grand national which is clearly a 3.8 sequential injected, even fire V6. Sad excuse for a video all around
Any list that includes a ford 5.4 in their worst of, and excludes Crapillacs HT4100 and the marvel_less vega engines, has lost absolutely all credibility.
This guy does not know what he is talking about, I have worked on every type of engine for over 40 yrs, this guy is an air head. Some of the reasons these engines had problems was nothing he is talking about. Gets his information on social media.
The worst one in my life woukd have to be the original engines in the Chevy Vegas. Everyone I knew who had one, always kept a case of oil in the back!! 11:05 - I had a 1982 Trans Am nearly identical to this one!!
The godawful Chevy 305 remains in my mind as truly sad. A truck engine and a van engine at best. Everything else they put it in was suffering from the very start.
At 12:34 I like the gallons of fuel remaining. That's better than the distance remaining in today's cars. The car doesn't know if you're going to be driving on the highway or city traffic so it can't possibly give you an accurate number.
Everything said about the first generation Hemi in this video is wrong. The original dual rocker shaft engine (Hemi) was never designed for outright power. It was merely designed to perform reasonably on any form of gasoline available at the time.
They offered the 255 in fox bodies, 80 and 81 I think. The 200 straight-six was still better. They ran about the same (the six got slightly better gearing) and the six was easier to maintain. If I found a perfect condition fairmont with the 255 in it, I'd rip it out and put the six in it... that is, if I didn't have access to a 302. Hate hate HATED the 255.
Those lean burn Chrysler engines were HATED by Chrysler fans. All of the manufactures mid 70s to early 80 engines tended to be awful. Chrysler had an addition problem. The company was in a bad situation. This led to the hated "K" cars. Overall the engines that were choked down to meet MPG requirements or just designed as fuel efficient engines seem to be all over this list. This should be noted by GM, Stellantis (idiots IMO) and Ford. Ford, IMO, has done better than anyone in managing their car models to have some performance they can sell and cars whose fuel efficiency is high enough to offset the former models performance. GM had announced, a couple years ago I believe, that they were going to stop all car models. That implementation appears to have drug on much longer than GM wanted. Stellantis promoted Dodge as their performance brand. Now with all the carbon credits they have had to pay to keep it that way, Stellantis is almost universally going to hybrid or some form of high MPG engines. This entire fiasco that many US companies are fighting is INSANE MPG requirements. Why do these exist? Simple - force the fake global warming on humanity. It has been global cooling then global warming then global cooling than global warming and they got tired of selling 180 degree opposite problems all the time. Now it is global "change." Of course it changes - it is called WEATHER. Our temperature and carbon in the air have been perfectly normal. The more carbon is taken away the less green life exists. The less green life that exists the less oxygen exists. The less oxygen is bad for humanity. This is the definition of fascism/Corporatocracy. Ultimately they want to create a feudal society where you are in effect all slaves to serve the "lord" - the elite international corporations. DON'T BELIEVE ME. Read the #1 goal on the GA Guidestones they destroyed. To keep population at less than 500 million for the Earth. That means 7.5 BILLION people have to be eliminated. 2 Read about the UN Agenda 21. 3 Read the UN Agenda 2030. 4 Read about World Economic Fund. There are many more. Educate yourself or practice yes sir lord and giving everything you have, including your life, to your lord of the manor. Do you want to own nothing? Do you want all humanity to live on less than 5-10% of the land? Don't worry, the elites need serfs.
@@Irish_For_Life1842 The lean burn was a dud. I had one in a 77 Chrysler with a 318 and any Long trip we went on we would take the 1969 Oldsmobile Delta 88 with a 455 Rocket cause it was dependable and was better on gas. Chryslers lean burn was junk!
This doesn’t make sense. The pictures don’t match the voice over. And it’s obvious that the narrator doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. Someone needs to find a new pastime!
The very worst engines not on your list were from Cadillac, of all people. The Cadillac 8-6-4 engine, not only didn't work. It would actually start on fire and it was illegal to make them safe. And next is the Cadillac Northstar that was made to replace it. It could go "100k between tune ups" and couldn't keep a head gasket and were terminal when they blew. And don't forget the Cadillac 4.1 all aluminum all time biggest POS ever made. Those completely wore out in only 20,000 miles. Only 2nd to the Chrysler Lean Burn, which was also illegal to fix. Those three Cadillac engines were absolute total garbage and should've bankrupted the company. Our family wrote Cadillacs off completely after those fiascos, and three generations of us were driving them. Four counting my father. What a damned shame. We came from the Caddy 525's, 500's and 425's. Total sweethearts, to being ripped off by that junk.
The Dodge baby hemi in 1954 model was reliable and much quicker than the new Ford overhead valve V8 of the same year. I believe the version of the Hemi in a Dodge that my grandparents owned had a 4 barrel carburetor on top of a silvery sort of high rise intake manifold,the car was a bit sluggish off the line but revved and revved and revved,I think it could have done much more than 100 mph the weakness of the car was the lousy 2 speed automatic transmission,not the engine.
Hi HichaelRoy, one problem the "the big three" had was that the final drive ratio (rear end gear ratio) in most of the cars at that time where geared much too high. Instead of lets say a 3:50 to 1, or an 3:25 to 1 gear ratio, the factory would install a 2:75 to 1 for better fuel economy but the cars would not perform good at all. For an example, the late 1970s Pontiac Trans-Am(s) had big powerful engines, but came with about a 2:50 to 1 gear ratio! SICK! Please reply. Dave...
@@daveridgeway2639 Thumbs up, dude! Axle ratios were a big part of the problem - also, torque converters had lower stall speeds, and automatic trtansmissions were set up to shift sooner than their 1960s counterparts.
@@shanemitchell477 Yes, but you're talking about ONE very specific example that was essentially built like musclecars from the 1960s. Definitely NOT the norm... 2.75s and 2.79s were very common in American cars; Ford even had a 2.47 ratio by 1974. Even Z/28s were maxing at like 3.23, and that was an extra cost option. Most had 270-something. Manufacturers were being fined if their aggregate production didn't average a certain figure, and the spec was getting more stringent every year.
@@xaenon You are correct. If you bought let's say a 1975 to 1981 Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am, SAE net rated horsepower (1972 and after) or gross rated horsepower (1971 and before) was not too bad coming from a big 4 barrel emission controlled engine, (not all emission controls rob power), but in the mean time, the car would be equipped with an 2:50 to 1 rear axle ratio, which is not a performance ratio at all. If you own a mid 1970s to early 1980s emission controlled performance automobile, I would say, lower the rear axle ratio first before removing any emission controls, and you will be in for a real treat! I had an all stock 1977 Corvette with a factory 350 L-82 engine, factory Turbo 400 transmission and a factory 3:55 to 1 Positraction rear and it performed 14.8 @ 119 MPH in the 1/4 mile with no modifications and all emission control(s) present. You notice that I capitalized Positraction, that is because Positraction is a trademark of Chevrolet Motor Division of GM, meaning closed differential. Please tell me what you think! Dave...
The 'land down unduh' does things differently. Ford of Australia made stuff that I WISH was brought to the states. They made a six that was based on the American Falcon/Maverick mill, but had a crossflow head. And they made V8s based on the Ford Cleveland that were just beautiful pieces of engineering.
Take the Ford Flathead V-8 off your list it is a great engine and there is nothing as smooth as a Flathead V-8! FORD FLATHEADS V-8 FOREVER there is nothing else like it!
Depends, there is an old style and a new style. The old style mostly never cracked, the new style mostly all cracked the block . The way to tell is the water spigot to the heads. The old style it was in the middle of the head . The new style the water spigot was at the front of the head and these blocks cracked in middle .
@@johna7661 You are so correct the 8BA is the 239 flathead V-8 most would use in their stock or built up card or trucks. Thank you so much for giving me comments because the flathead is the engine I like to work on, old school all the way!
Overheating at higher elevation !
The said the 1932 flathead, not later versions
RIGHT ON!! I lived those!!
Why can't they get pictures of the actual motor they are talking about? 265 pontiac and shows a 389 tri power? Chrysler lean burn and shows a 440?
because they are too lazy to to their due diligence?
That 368 Cadillac, with the generator was spot-on as well.
The 305 Chevy, also with a generator, guess they took off alternators to save fuel?
They couldn't stop reminiscing about the "venerable" HC, CO and NOx (smog) belching engines of the '60s!
Because you could get a lean burn 440 from 1976-1978..
Lean Burn Computer and Spark control Computer was easily changed changed as you change the distributor,ecu and non smog carb you gained power and reliability..
The 305 after the cam problem was a really good engine. I had several with no problems or complaints. This engine didn’t deserve to be on the list.
I had an 86' Iroc Z-28 with the TPI 305, it never gave me any problems, easy and cheap to mod also......I race the same Iroc as mentioned with my 81' Turbo T/A...The T/A would beat it in the quarter by about 5 lengths. All I did was take the muffler off the T/A, the cat on it made it quiet enough not to be too loud, and still pass emissions.
have one in my 79 caprice an a 305 in a 78 chevy truck....never one problem...i sold the 78 an bought a 92k1500 new with a 350...still have it
@@shanemitchell477 I offered my 283 to swap with that engine in a '82 TA.
Actually a 4" bore and 3" stroke. High lift, low overlap cam. 1.98 valves. But 9.5 to 1 compression. So not quite as HP out. But a bit more torque.
Oh and meets '82 AQMD and CARB.
But fails with the open the hood eyeball check. In Californey. Most of the external plumbing would be missing. Yep you can tune for HP and Eemotions.
Well you could not buy pump gas in the 80s to run at 68 spec compression. 9.5 compression no problem.
My next go faster was a Lincoln LSC. Was close. But not '67-69 302 Chevy close.
Then along came the 256 cubic inch Alas 6 in 2006. That moves a T-Blazer smoothly and quietly with only 290HP and two less cylinders with no puffer.
There have been sub 10 second '54 Chevy and Studebaker versions with that engine. Of course they were turbo charged.
The is a 10 second Fairlane with the Atlas I-6 that gets driven to the track.
@@warrenpuckett4203 283's run good, but no torque. Also, you can run 10.5:1 easily on 92 octane. What are emissions? We never had such tom-foolery in Kansas...ever.
@@shanemitchell477 Well you can not count on premium being premium.
Also 1968 1.98 heads.
2.02s make more horse power. If you can find those that are not cracked.
It had the torque. It smoked the tires in a suburban.
Sacrificed a few ponies for more torque in the cam choice. Also the intake and exhaust changes things too.
Oh and don't forget the rear axle ratio and the top speed you want.
Kinda important if you tow a trailer. Or just don't care about gas milage. 9 MPG is acceptable with 48 gallons of onboard gas tanks
Yes, Chrysler's lean burn system was dreadful, but the engines themselves were excellent. Those engines when equipped or retrofitted with Chrysler's older traditional electronic ignition were all excellent. My parents had a pre-Lean Burn Cordoba that never saw a mechanic's wrench, except for basic maintenance.
Lean Burn Computer also known form 1980-1989 as Spark Control Computer was easily changed in 15 minutes..
Add a new distributor and ecu(or go back to pre 1971 with points ignition) and the engines were the most reliable engines ever made in history of the automobile..With lean burn/spark control computer you should put a pre smog carburetor to gain up to 75 hp! You really notice the swap even on 318's as the bbd carb is a power robbing pos.
Slant 6,318,360,400 and 440 would run 300,000 miles all the time..Hell old Muscle cars have 260,000 miles on average and they were beat on..
I’m halfway through the video and I’ve yet to see a truly bad engine. All are reliable, albeit low power. My definition of bad is unreliable with serious issues
Yeah it’s a bad name for the list, there were some real turds that didn’t make the list. It should have been called the most disappointing engines or something like that.
That Olds deisle was a turd.
So what qualifies?
@@milesmahan Vega engine was garbage. 5.7 Olds diesel was bad, although with a simple water separator, it may have been okay. Iron duke wasn’t great. 3.3 Chrysler was awful. 4 litre ford was bad. New 6.2 Chevy seems to have an issue breaking cranks…… that’s bad. I’m sure there’s more, but that’ll do for starters
4.6 and 5.4 fords shooting spark plugs through the hood is bad, not to mention the cam phaser issue. 5.7 hemi is chewing up there variable camshafts….. that’s bad
This AI lacks a depth of understanding. I’d liken the way the video was researched to Igor being tasked to find a brain for Frankenstein’s monster. The only V-8 in this video that was truly terrible was the Olds 5.7 diesel. The Chrysler Lean Burn wasn’t spectacular but it was the electronics, not the V-8. Some of the others may have had runs with bad substandard components but seems like the manufacturers fixed those types of issues. Lack of horsepower compared to previous years or the smog era doesn’t necessarily make for a terrible engine for grocery getter and commuter cars.
My friend got a job at the Oldsmobile dealer rebuilding the 5.7 diesels! That was all he did, all day!!!
What brain did you get?
I dunno, Abby something...
Abby who?
Abby normal...
Lean Burn Computer also known form 1980-1989 as Spark Control Computer was easily changed in 15 minutes..
Add a new distributor and ecu(or go back to pre 1971 with points ignition) and the engines were the most reliable engines ever made in history of the automobile..Swap the carburetor with a pre lean burn carb and pre smog you gained 75 plus hp even the the 318 2bbl would gain huge power,you really noticed it.
You can put the worst car engine in a car and sell the car to Mr and Mrs average and they won't knew any better
Yep...my dad bought a ued 6.4 powerstroke deisel. Thinks he got a great truck.
|This video is full of crap,lots of wrong information.
An engine being configured with a two-barrel carb has nothing to do with being able to run on cheap fuel, as I've found over my years of driving 4-barrel engines. Running a ridiculously low compression ratio, without any form of forced induction, however....
BTW: Chrysler's reason for going with the hemispherical combustion chamber in the first place was to be able to extract the maximum power possible from low-octane fuel. How low of octane typically was available in the early-50's, I cant say. But I do recall seeing (without audio) a commercial for Speedway 79 gasoline... so there's that.
Remember that Phillips 66 was a big deal in the days of 50 octane gasoline.
Prior to the late-50s and 60s horsepower race, people liked smooth, quiet, economical engines. Low compression ratio delivers that.
Plus with the Hemi it had 140 hp the Ford V8 had 106-110 hp and the Chevy had 115 so the Dodge was a rocket!
Chrysler Hemi had more power because Chrysler was top of the line so bigger engine,more power..Desoto was second in line so bigger engine and more power than Dodge...Plymouth never had a Hemi in the 1950's as it was the companies entry level brand and the competitor to Ford and Chevy,so their 6 cyl was in line with those brands.
Where is the Cadillac HT4100? It was truly a bad V8. It overheated, consumed oil, and often stalled. Most of the other engines on this list aren’t bad engines, they’re just underpowered. But the HT4100 was actually a bad engine; terribly underpowered AND unreliable.
I guess I'm the only guy on the planet with a reliable 41 year old HT 4100. My dad bought a beautiful 83 Eldorado new. Has the optional cadillac aluminum wheels, Bose stereo, all digital dash. Silver with 2 tone silver and cream interior. Dad loved it always took good care of his cars. As do I. He passed away in 2013 at 97. I got the Eldorado then. It had 178.000 miles on it..Southern California car so still in great shape. Since then it's now at 192000. Original engine, still running fine..I continued his routine of 3000 mile oil changes, using Castrol GTX 10 40 . of course putting about 1000 miles a year on it I change it once a year, and every other year a coolant service and put THE COOLANT TABS IN IT. This regimen since new seems to work well. It still rides and drives beautifully. I also have the 58 Cadillac he bought in 1960. Mom gave it to me in 1982. It's still on the road too.
@@johnfranklin5277 At least it wasn't the modified Buick 4.1 liter engine. Oil filter adapters were required just to fit them, but all-in-all, they were just Buick 4.1 liter engines, trying to lug around a HUGE Cadillac.
HT 4100 parts weren't easy to come by.
@@stevencovington4715 they had about the same power to be honest. And they had the same displacement. Both were 4 1 L. Not a lot of difference in performance. The 4100 was just smoother running because it was a V8. The 4.1 Buick wasn't the best . But for reliability I'd take it over the 4100. As long as you kept an eye on the oil pump/ pressure, you'd be ok. The rest of the engine was decent. I just checked. Both had the same hp (125) . But the Buick V6 actually had slightly more torque
the 305 chevy wasn't bad
Some of the later 4.8s had poor head castings, a supplier issue. Porosity would allow coolant into the oil. By removing a valve cover the vendor casting mark would pretty much give away why your oil looked like tar. Sister's truck had a one like that. We just put in a crate engine vs try to fix it.
Agreed. I had one in the bulbous 1992 Caprice. I was lacking in power but was fairly trouble free. I had an odd failure of an edge card contact on the engine control module (located inside the panel by the front passenger's feet) that was repaired with contact cleaner and needle-nose pliers. It was a tribute to the factory service manual that enabled me to debug down to that level.
With its redundant injector throttle body fuel injection, I was not stranded by the failure.
"Why doesn't someone contact the president?...why is he letting this happen to us?
Clueless.
We shall realize what can be, unburdened by what has been.
@@jimmyday9536 And we will continue to do what we have always done and will do...or something with that.
Clueless indeed. But it wasn't trendy in the 1970's to "ask someone about their pronouns." Clearly she should have asked, "why are THEY letting this happen to us?"
Chevrolets 1955 V-8 wasn't a 262 it was a 265 and it was one of the best engine ever. You guys have fabricated a collection of lies like I have ever heard. You know nothing about engines.
No, I would say the 327 was.
The 262 they are referring to, did nor exist in 1955, lol. They didn't make production until, 1975, and could be found under the hood of Nova's and Monza's, and was gone by, 1977. Totally different engine than the original,1955, model 265 in small blocks.
@@scottbryant7377 Correct and they didn't even have spin on oil filters a first.
Some 55s cracked pistons. Fixed in 1966.
@@shanemitchell477 Heaven forbid if you want parts for a 327. The guy at the parts store has to look in the room at the back of the back area etc.
Early Ford flathead was an awesome engine. I am old enough to have had them in the family, they ran great!!
The 307 was also in some Chevy's as well. A friend of mine had a 307 Nova. They also had horribly made camshafts like the 305 did. They would flatten because they were not made of hard enough steel.
ALL SBC flatten cam lobes. Hydraulic roller the exception.
There were different design 307 engines. There was the Chevrolet 307 small block, and the Oldsmobile 307 Totally different animals. Much like the Chevy 350, Buick 350, Oldsmobile 350, and Pontiac 350 4 different design engines. NOTHING interchanged.
The 305 wasn't that bad pur out over 200,000 miles on a 1979 impla I owned.
The siamesed cyl heads were the 305''s big problem. The exhaust valves of the 2nd and 3rd cylinders were reversed causing a major loss of power. Other small block gm v-8's like the 301, etc also had the same problem. The couldn't be hot rodded.
The Chrysler ELB system was first used in Australia on CL model Valiants with the 318 in 1977. The CM Valiants had ELB on the Hemi sixes as well. Economy improved on both. As for rubber hoses, if you don't maintain your car it'll go to shit in a few years like anything else. Chrysler Australia was first here with electronic ignition in 1973 and it was most of ten years before ford or holden went electronic.
Funny thing: When GM figured out how to make a splayed-journal crankshaft by the late-70's, it made the Buick 3.8L V-6--and any other V-6 GM developed from an existing V-8 design (Chevy 4.3L) obviously a better engine than a extremely-small displacement V-8... especially when the latter were running such ridiculously low compression ratios.
BTW: The Olds 260 was discontinued after the '80-m/y by the 307... not '82.
@@pancudowny general motors Holden put same 3,8 litre in the Holden Commodore was a money pit another good car engine for Mr and Mrs average
Chev V6 and Buick V6 are two entirely different engine.
My parents bought new an Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan (Based on the G-body platform) that had the Oldsmobile equivalent of the Chevy 262: The 260. And it too only produced 110-hp. The worst part: My dad bought it partially because it's torque curve, as we'd be towing a single-axle camper trailer with it. Sadly, the V-6 model had a better one... but the dealer was trying to get this brand-new model, which was already a year old at the time, off the showroom floor. And my dad being how he always was over cheaply priced things....😒
Unfortunately most people rate engine's by horsepower, I rate on how many times it will bring me from point A too point B, my Cadillac is the only 375 hp engine that didn't leave me walking ,and believe me I had to remove the oil wet spark plugs on my Mercury's 400ci. to start it Every time and it would quit at most redlights!!!😂😂😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Great video---it's rare that I see one that's this well-researched and accurate. I had both the Chevy 267 and the Olds 260. At the time, GM released press saying these engines had "the fuel economy of a 6 with the performance of an 8"----no, it was exactly the opposite, the worst of both worlds
Definitely take the chevy 305 off the list. Ny 84 El camino has well over 250k and no cam problems and that electronic quadrajet is the most reliable carb ive ever had!!
To be fair, he said their reputation was tarnished. But agree that it actually can be a great small block chevy if modded right.
@extremedrivr thanks! Your right!
They were talking about a Chevrolet car and show a Dodge, Aspen
Given that the flathead V8 basically put the automobile on the map let alone the Ford product. Also given the fact that these Flathead engines are still being reproduced today for Hot rod applications particularly a small for roadster cars. If they were so terrible why are they still being desired today. They're actually one of the simplest and best motors ever built. And of course they're not going to meet today's standards of reliability and mileage those motors were built different back then it was a different time for the time those were the best ever built.. and technically today less moving parts less maintenance low cost. Did those motors have their problems yes they did all engines do especially when they are newly introduced. And of course just because it didn't make that much power also does not mean it's a terrible engine. The biggest one ever was barely over 5 liters. Smallest one was about 130 cubic inches. And the crazy thing is is right at the end of the run of the flathead V8 it had already improved vastly. The only reason why the Flathead cease to exist as a mainstream engine was because it was so outdated by the time innovations came along for the newer V8S coming out. The only conversion that could have made the Flathead a formidable contender with the newer style engines with overhead valves is the Arden overhead valve version on the flatheads. And sadly those heads are almost impossible to find to this day. Had those heads been mass produced the Flathead may have survived a lot longer than it did. Overall I'm just glad to see them still around and being used for their into the purposes in honor of the tradition of the original V8.
I gotta admit that hopped up ones do sound good.
those olds diesel was horrible
Fact
it was horrible, they used a gasoline engine block to make there "diesel"
The blocks are good to build a good 383 out of. The blocks are actually beefier than regular 350 ones.
The 262 needed a cam and better heads to boost hp to 200ish. ❤
I eng. swapped a 260 into a diesel 82 Delta 88 and is was quite peppy.❤
11:30 Amazing! They turned a 1980 Cadiddle-yak V8 into a 1948 Cadiddle-yak V8
that 8-6-4 was bad
About the smaller Ford V-8s (255- & 302-ci.) of the 80's: I find it ironic that by the '85-y/o, they were able to produce a turbocharged 4-cyl. that made more horsepower than a V-8 of more than twice it's displacement at the time, only to de-tune the former the following year... for seemingly no explanation that even I can figure of than Ford just wanting it's V-8s to look good. Had they continued development of the SVO 2.3L (As it's known by) it probably could've produced 250-300hp by the early-90's, making the V-8's redundant except in applications seeing high-load demands (full-size trucks & vans, namely) and Police specialty models. But no... the carbureted Turbo 2.3L of '79, when placed in the Fairmont, gave & left with people a bad taste in their mouths. And the very malaise era of performance of the 70's left them longing for high-power V-8s as well. And since people [on average] are too stupid to comprehend complex things....🙄
They do, but Mazda makes it now.....the 2.3 Mazda engine is based off the SVO 2.3. It makes 263 hp last I checked. The only problem is we now have many 24 valve V-6 in cars that make the same as the turbo 2.3 Mazda. It's in the Mazdaspeed 3.
Ah, the '79 Ford Fairmont, worst Ford I've ever driven (as a Govt car, 1983, one of the worst cars ever made by Ford. With its horrible low torque or power, a mismatched 'buzz-bomb' auto transmission: engine slowly wound up to high revs in a low gear, --trying to get out of its own way, then "Clunk" shifted bog down to the next gear, no... Shocks were completely worn out from jouncing on clay roads on the rural Navajo Res... 'Supremely' dull styling. Bad rear drive traction in snow... Luckily, as a shared Librarian I often had the use of an old-style (large) Jeep Cherokee 4wheel drive the 18 mile dusty or muddy backway between schools.
Why? COSTS. Turbochargers are expensive. Displacement is cheap. That applies to manufacturing and to sales. Give a guy a choice between a naturally aspirated V8 that makes reliable, cheap, low-maintenance power, or a high-tech, expensive hair-dried four banger... yeah. Also, turbos are warranty headaches - a lot of people don't know how to drive them properly. A guy I worked with would park his car, rev the engine up, and then kill the ignition so that he could hear that turbine spin down..... NOT HEALTHY. When I cautioned him that the turbo spinning without oil pressure would kill it... he shrugged. "It's under warranty..."
Akso remember that in athe mid 1980s gas prices fell sharply here in the US. After years of $1.50-something a gallon, prices fell to below $1 a gallon, Thirsty V8s were back in style... and Americans, as a general rule, don't f__king LEARN.
the computer tech wasn't there
Pontiac 301 boat anchor
I worked at a company that had a fleet of Olds diesel cars (8) , the salesmen hated them and the head mechanic didn't like them either and told the salesmen to abuse them and blow them up to get a new gas model !
It seems they did better and kept going with cold start and high revving , but did get approx 20-23 MPG !
I noticed that a few of these motors on this list were from the 70s to the early 80s when the auto industry was facing an oil shortage and higher priced gas as well as new restrictions coming from the EPA. It is important to know that during this time period, a lot of manufacturers did not do their due diligence in reference to research and development in order to try and rush new and more fuel efficient products to the market and this resulted in a slew of horrible motors coming from all of the big 3 automakers. Most of these products looked good on paper but failed on the road as you see that a lot of these motors did not stay in production for long.
Studebaker had the same problem with its V8. Started out with 232 CID putting out 120 hp in 1951. At the end in 1963 it was opened up to 305 and 330 hp with supercharging.
Narrative derides all these engines for low power, but the pictures generally are of high performance engines with multiple carbs and other performance features. He also should have noted the way horse power rating changed to deduct the power lost on accessories and in the drive train. Net horse power at the wheels is substantially lower than the old method. However it is true that all car makers had to struggle to comply with unreasonable fuel efficiency standards.
Years ago when I was about 20 I was looking for a 1932 ford to restore. I told a retired farmer and he said why I had one of those and it was the biggest lemon I ever had. That thing was a LEMON!! After talking to him I found out it was about the very first one that was made and had lots of engine problems. Also when I would research the first 32s over the years was the first V8s were the hardest to find and today bring the highest price!
I think that the ‘32 flathead was maligned a little. For one thing , the fuel pump position caused vapor lock? Apparently Ford didn’t think so, it remained in the same place until the end of production in ‘53. Water pumps were the same until ‘36. He never really addressed the real reason they ran hot, which was the exhaust passages in the water jackets.
The imperial would have done well in my opinion had it not had the lean burn to begin with. I think those 2 door imperials are gorgeous
Those Imperials really were a work of art. I myself had a 1981 Cordoba, the platform the Imperial was based on. Technically, the Imperial did not have Lean Burn-it had something EVEN MORE problematic: a special and weird Electronic Fuel Injection system that was unique only to the 1981-1983 Imperial. The system was so horrible, Chrysler agreed to retrofit the cars with traditional 4 BBL carburetors. It was an insanely expensive retrofit, and Chrysler lost tons of money on this car!
Agreed, very good looking cars
It's funny that the relative problems that put engines on this list are nearly all present in a single v8 you called a "legend" in the last video of yours I watched. The Rover v8... Continuity seems to be a major problem here. Especially since most of the engines listed here are significantly more reliable than the rover v8s.
My 70 caddie convertible with 472 big block has 375 horse power stock. Every year after EPA choked more & more ponies. I periodically launch it & modern cars struggle to keep up...(till the next gas station) 😅
I had a 1970 Cadillac 2 door hardtop. I loved that car, it was BIG but handled well, the steering and brakes were great. Great luxury, great ride, that car went exactly 100 MPH for me, I only did that once, it took quite a while to get it to 100MPH but I believe it could have kept going 100MPH all day...except as you mentioned(till the next gas station) = city driving 8 miles per gallon, freeway driving 10 miles per gallon. That was it's 1 bad drawback. You could actually work on that car, me, not a mechanic could change the oil filter, replace the starter, the water pump, the fan belt, my uncle and I replaced the radiator. These "modern" cars...you can't do much with them anymore.
@@jeffgreen7499 replaced plugs & was amazed at how accessible they ALL were
@@JTA1961 Ha! You reminded me of my first car, a 4 year old 1965 Ford Thunderbird. I took it out on the brandnew freeway, no cars in sight and opened it up, it ran reallly smooth and went 95 MPH. I thought the car was better for more than that; it had 390 V8 with 300 HP. I told my dad, who B-T-W was a great mechanic, we changed the sparkplugs, did nothing else. I went back to the freeway, this time 115MPH!!! Ha! 7 plugs were easily accessible, the 8th could only be reached by removing some framework situated around the motor. That was a fine car! It was not perfect, but I think that was one of the best FoMoCo ever produced.
The Olds 260 Diesel was even a bigger dog than the gasoline version. I ferried many of those GM Diesels from Southern Indiana to Florida during those unfortunate Diesel years.
Should have done your homework. Hemi was Chrysler's design for an engine that wasn't octane sensitive, lot of 6 or 7 to 1 efforts, good gas to run your tank in Euorpe was Pipe Dream, Gov. didn't buy it (whole different story). Just my 2 cents, Ole Guy
The fuel pump was new to Ford in "32, but not the water pump. The Model A had a water pump.
The 305 is a great engine and it only went into California corvettes the 305 ho l69 and the lb9 tuned port 305’s are fantastic engines
I've had a couple of GM 305 carburetor cars, never one of the bad camshaft models. The best thing I can say about the 305 was it was easy as could be to decomputerize. A non- computer Holley carb & Intake, Acell ignition & a vacuum control for the transmission & you had a reliable car or truck. A weekend's work & they still got good mileage.
I put one in an S10, with a 700R4 auto, all out of an early 80s Malibu... it was a right proper little terror. sure, the 350s were quicker, but I felt the 305 had more than enough power for my needs, and you can't argue with 20-ish mpg.
The best thing about the Olds 260 was that it could be ordered with a five-speed manual transmission up through 1979.
The Chevy 305 was later a good engine, produced til 1995. The Olds 260, slow but reliable and almost impossible to overheat. The Cadillac 8-6-4, the system itself was bad, unplug it and you had the same reliable 368 from 1980. The Cadillac HT (hook and tow) 4100 should be on your list instead.
The 350 ci i believe it was back in the late 70" or early 80"s GM tried to convert it into a diesel engine was a heap , We had one in a pick-up truck and wouldnt get out of its own way literally !
It was covered here.
Until the crankshaft broke. Then a tow truck got it out of the way.
Heh. The cool thing about a pickup with the Olds diesel is you can swap in a 455 easy. And they were easy and cheap to find in the yards. Engine, trans, and all - it bolts in like the factory intended it that way.
My 4-cylinder car today has more horsepower than most of these V8's.
Hi Just Cars! I am 64 year old retired ASE Automotive Service Technician, and I was also a state emissions inspector/technician. In the mid 1970s to the early 1980s, "The Big Three" automaker(s) performed a very poor job in regards to engine drivability and automobile performance. The big three automaker(s) could of performed a much better job, if they wanted to and hear is why. If you bought let's say a 1975 to 1981 Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am, with an SAE net rated horsepower, (1972 and after) or a gross rated horsepower (1971 and before) the rated horsepower was really not too bad, coming from a big 4 barrel carbureted emission controlled V8 engine. The main issue, was that the air/fuel mixture(s) where and still are set up to run very lean. Not all emission control(s) effect horsepower, and by the way, most emission control(s) actually cancel and/or stop working, in regards to wide open or near wide open throttle, this often include(s) the air pump, EGR valve, and last but not least, the catalytic converter(s)! But in the mean time, the car would be equipped with a very unprecedented 2:50 to 1 rear end gear (differential) axle ratio, which is not at all performance ratio. If you own a mid 1970s to early 1980s emission controlled performance automobile, I suggest that you, lower the rear axle ratio first before removing any emission controls, and you will be in for a real treat! I had an all stock 1977 Corvette with a factory 350 L-82 engine, factory Turbo 400 transmission and a factory 3:55 to 1 Positraction rear and it performed 14.8 @ 119 MPH in the 1/4 mile with no modifications and all emission control(s) present. You notice that I capitalized the word Positraction, that is because Positraction is a trademark of Chevrolet Motor Division of GM, meaning closed differential. Please tell me what you think! Dave...
I know with Chrysler the net hp engines were different than the gross ratings in more ways than just going from net to gross..
Chrysler engines all had lower compression~reduced horsepower and torque.
Chrysler engines had different camshafts,crankshafts,heads,carburetors and exhaust systems all killed power..They were a lot weaker than the older engines rated in gross..
Example I had a stock 1971 Charger RT 440 Magnum,727 auto and 3.23 gears also had a 1972 Charger rallye 440 4 barrel,727 auto and 3.23 gears the 71 would struggle like crazy for traction and when I had better tires etc it ran high 12's in the 1/4 mile stock..The 1972 also could smoke the 14 inch bias ply tires easily(even noted in original road tests) but could hook up better if you know how,it was over 1 second slower in the 1/4 mile all the time.That is over 100 net hp to make a car gain that much more performance in the 1/4 mile.
Both cars were stock and this was 1976.My father bought them both new and kept them for decades,I own the 71 today.Uncle owned a Chrysler dealer from the 50's -90's.
As a mechanic, I have never seen some of these smaller V8 displacement engines from Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Ford.
Ah yes, the Malaise Era. Folks didn't drive the awful ones long. They broke down, were parked in weeds for chickens or stray dogs to enjoy, and/or gratefully rusted out.
There's a reason for that. They were garbage and cars equipped with them had very poor resale. The cars, regarded with little value, were poorly maintained and ended up in the boneyards much faster than their larger-engined contemporaries.
Need a list for the worst 4 cylinder engines, Japan made, there are alot
lean burn was on the 318 into the early 1980's
Put older carb and electronics on it and you had a car without a catalytic converter.
I will admit, the GM diesels of '80-'85 are worthy candidates for worst engine honors. Running a close second would be the Cadillac 4.1 liter V8 from '82-'87. These engines were severely underpowered and unreliable. The aluminum/cast iron mating surface between the intake manifold and the block created an expansion rate imbalance that inevitably caused gasket failure. The coolant found its way to the oil, washing out main bearings, and causing catastrophic wear of the cam lobes. These things were a nightmare. (By the way- the engine pictures in this video do not always match the engine being discussed.)
Goes to show that US built engines in this time period were no match for Japanese and European car engines built in the same period. Some say the US built ones were reliable. They do not understand these engines were supposed to be the answer to the fuel crisis in the 70’s. I’ve got a 4 cylinder car that puts out more power than most of them in the video.
Where is the Ford (Ferd! 😆) Y-Block with a plague of oiling issues for the top end (rocker arms/shafts) due to a very bad design of the oil galleries, that was also used in one of their inline 6’s with equal identical issues? And to compound the oiling issues, the Y block V8’s had that stupid cross over exhaust pipe across the front of the engine that dumped heat over the engine that caused them to run hot (and the flat head V8 sometimes used the same stupid set up!) and also dumped so much hot gases through the passenger side exhaust manifold that it pretty much glowed red, compounding the poor oiling issue by coking the oil in the exhaust valves on the passenger side causing sticking of them sometimes and overheating them, causing warping and burning? Also, the Y block had, for some unlocked reasoning, an odd, different firing order that made these Y blocks sound like they had a misfire when they did not, especially when fitted with single exhaust with that dumb cross over “knuckle burner” pipe! And the true cause of overheating in the Ford flat heads was NOT the 2 water pumps, but rather, the exhaust passages in the block being too long to the ports where the 3 branch exhaust manifolds attach to the block, and run through the water jackets where the high heat dumped into the coolant and overwhelmed the cooling system, often generating steam bubbles that caused pockets that blocked coolant flow to the radiator. Henry Ford wasn’t that bright. He saw this design as good in winter for fast warm-up and cabin heat, not ever considering severe overheating in the SUMMER!! Duurr! 🤪 This issue is why other flat head V8’s like Cadillac had a “hot V” design with intake and exhaust manifolds in the valley up top to keep exhaust heat out of the cooling system, even insulating the manifolds and down pipes in asbestos to prevent radiant heat from being van issue! Engineers Ford never had and still don’t Every engine they ever made literally belongs on this list! All were a fail in one way or another! 🙄😬 Cheers! 👍🏻😊
Thank you for posting your ignorance, bigotry and racism for all to see.
i had a 77 3.8 V6 oh so sad for power in a 77 firebird 3 speed
In a '77? I thought they were still using straight-sixes in those things.
I don't understand why Oldsmobile didn't use the Series 92 Detroit Diesel engines in the cars. They were reliable engines and came in V6 and V8 configuration. After all GM owned Detroit at the time.
Add the Plymouth 318 ci engine. I had a 1958 Belvedere 2 door (same as Fury) that spun conrod bearings several times. During the time I owned that junk ANYTHING that could fail DID. Engine, auto transmission, rear end, AC system etc etc. Since then I have not owned a Chrysler product and have blocked many fleet purchases.
You bought the 58 Belvedere new??
You'd be the only person who had problems with them.
Hmm. The poly head 318 was generally fine, and the LA version from 1964 was just about bulletproof in decades of service.
@@PeopleAlreadyDidThis 67
@@johnfranklin5277 Nope, one year old, someone had already been blessed and got rid of it.
I had an Olds 260 in a 76 Cutlass Supreme. It was an excellent engine and shouldn't have been on your list. I once had a 442 400 and was familiar with it. But it only got about 70k on it before the body rusted out. The engine was very smooth. And while no hp junkie, it was a standard 350 Olds engine and parts were readily available for it. The Buick 6 was total garbage. And my Cutlass rusted out way before the driveline failed. This car was so bad even the back bumper fell off from rust. And all the GM's of the time did the same thing. A horrible time for GM cars no doubt. But it was a gorgeous car and I loved my Cutlass Supreme all the way to it's accelerated decrepitude end. Today, I won't own a GM. And that's not why. That was a 2006 Impala SS, their most expensive car, that went the other way. It's body didn't rust; BUT EVERYTHING ELSE DID. It was such a junk car, I had to replace the transmission cooling lines twice, and the power steering hoses twice. Everything corroded and failed and when even the trunk seal started leaking, 275 dollars again. That was it, I swore off GM completely and it was GONE. The prettiest piece of garbage on the road. Thank the auto gods Mercedes bought out Chrysler. That gave me some time with Mopar at least and I bought four of them and still have them today. 3 Jeeps and an AWD supercharged Dodge Charger. One will be 20 years old next year and it still running strong and looks great. Then Stelantis came along and Mopar is off the list as well as GM. Does Mopar even exist anymore? I'm not even sure. SRT doesn't, and all the Mercedes are gone. Luckily all of mine are pretty new and I'm the one who's retired. LOL
Reducing fuel consumption is actually increasing performance.
i miss the days when you opened the hood on a car and all you saw was an engine. lol. i find it funny ford only has a couple of motors on this list.
Sitting here with calc converting to litres to make sense of this
This guy knows nothing about the small block chevy engine.
WOW... These armchair wonders really are something else... The 265-283-327-350 were the hot rodders dream... I know guys who still mess with flatheads...
110 years v8 = cadillac 1914 september 1st v8 in america production !
I believe he specified 'mass produced at a price the average American could afford', or words to that effect. That would make the Ford the first in that category.
Photos don''t line up. Also, hire humans Stop taking jobs from People!
It's not easy finding people who speak proper English as a native language, and are able to conjugate verbs and use grammar correctly.
Chrysler Lean Burn-Spark Control Computer 1976-1989 were awesome reliable engines..
The Lean Burn-Spark Control was a Computer that could easily be changed in 15 minutes!!
You get a new distributor,ecu and boom reliable engine with no regulations and more power if you swapped the carburetor with the deletion of lean burn/spark control computer the cars had huge power gains and reliability!
I happen to agree with the video- if an engine doesn't have enough power to climb a hill- it's a bad engine.
The Chevy 305 should not be on this list. I have one with over 225,000 miles on it and it runs perfect. It only uses about a pint of oil when changed every 4,000 miles.
My olds 260 was slow in my 75 cutlass but it never used/ leaked oil or broke down and got 25 mpg at 55 mph,it got stolen with an odometer reading over 400k. Best car I EVER had.
My new 1974. 350 had no power they messed with the camshaft .And affected the compression ratio.
Most of the failures, can be attributed to Jimmie Carter and the government controls on the fuel mileage I remember the fuel lines so ever so well.
262 Chev,, did what it was designed to. The original SBC was 265ci. As did the 255 Ford. The original Windsor was 221 and 260. I dont want either but the Govt did!
305 and 307 are differnt decades
ELB on Mopars worked fine when maintained.
Used to work on a 74 cutlass with a preproduction 260 . The only thing was the intake was crap , they would corrode. They were sweet outside of that, and some good heads would have made them happy
I’m also old enough to remember the Y block the question we kept asking was Y ! Y. ! Y! Why no answers just more questions
How can they talk about the old rough running odd fire Buick 3.8 and then show a picture of a grand national which is clearly a 3.8 sequential injected, even fire V6. Sad excuse for a video all around
Any list that includes a ford 5.4 in their worst of, and excludes Crapillacs HT4100 and the marvel_less vega engines, has lost absolutely all credibility.
This guy does not know what he is talking about, I have worked on every type of engine for over 40 yrs, this guy is an air head. Some of the reasons these engines had problems was nothing he is talking about. Gets his information on social media.
It's not a guy, LOL, it's a robot voice.
@@jimmyday9536 OK, so it's a Robot getting its info from social or anti-social media.
The worst one in my life woukd have to be the original engines in the Chevy Vegas. Everyone I knew who had one, always kept a case of oil in the back!!
11:05 - I had a 1982 Trans Am nearly identical to this one!!
Judging by all the comments
This doco should not be taken seriously
The godawful Chevy 305 remains in my mind as truly sad. A truck engine and a van engine at best. Everything else they put it in was suffering from the very start.
The worst gas guzzler of all gm small blocks was
Was the 350 v6
At 12:34 I like the gallons of fuel remaining. That's better than the distance remaining in today's cars. The car doesn't know if you're going to be driving on the highway or city traffic so it can't possibly give you an accurate number.
Everything said about the first generation Hemi in this video is wrong. The original dual rocker shaft engine (Hemi) was never designed for outright power. It was merely designed to perform reasonably on any form of gasoline available at the time.
Add the Toyota SR2 2 litre with the pollution control on it.
I had a Dodge Dart with a 225 6 cylinder that would over heat at a Traffic lite
10:22 That isn't a 1980-'81 Pontiac 265. Tri-power and single circuit master cylinder puts this one in the early sixties.
The 255 Ford V8 would've been so much better than the 3.3 L in-line 6 in the Fox bodies that they would've seemed competent.
They offered the 255 in fox bodies, 80 and 81 I think. The 200 straight-six was still better. They ran about the same (the six got slightly better gearing) and the six was easier to maintain. If I found a perfect condition fairmont with the 255 in it, I'd rip it out and put the six in it... that is, if I didn't have access to a 302. Hate hate HATED the 255.
@xaenon I had the 200 in-line 6; it was the most gutless engine I've ever experienced . Surely the 255 V8 had to be better.
vibration heat and dirt frigin lean burn
Those lean burn Chrysler engines were HATED by Chrysler fans. All of the manufactures mid 70s to early 80 engines tended to be awful. Chrysler had an addition problem. The company was in a bad situation. This led to the hated "K" cars.
Overall the engines that were choked down to meet MPG requirements or just designed as fuel efficient engines seem to be all over this list. This should be noted by GM, Stellantis (idiots IMO) and Ford. Ford, IMO, has done better than anyone in managing their car models to have some performance they can sell and cars whose fuel efficiency is high enough to offset the former models performance. GM had announced, a couple years ago I believe, that they were going to stop all car models. That implementation appears to have drug on much longer than GM wanted. Stellantis promoted Dodge as their performance brand. Now with all the carbon credits they have had to pay to keep it that way, Stellantis is almost universally going to hybrid or some form of high MPG engines.
This entire fiasco that many US companies are fighting is INSANE MPG requirements. Why do these exist? Simple - force the fake global warming on humanity. It has been global cooling then global warming then global cooling than global warming and they got tired of selling 180 degree opposite problems all the time. Now it is global "change." Of course it changes - it is called WEATHER. Our temperature and carbon in the air have been perfectly normal. The more carbon is taken away the less green life exists. The less green life that exists the less oxygen exists. The less oxygen is bad for humanity. This is the definition of fascism/Corporatocracy. Ultimately they want to create a feudal society where you are in effect all slaves to serve the "lord" - the elite international corporations.
DON'T BELIEVE ME. Read the #1 goal on the GA Guidestones they destroyed. To keep population at less than 500 million for the Earth. That means 7.5 BILLION people have to be eliminated.
2 Read about the UN Agenda 21. 3 Read the UN Agenda 2030. 4 Read about World Economic Fund. There are many more. Educate yourself or practice yes sir lord and giving everything you have, including your life, to your lord of the manor.
Do you want to own nothing? Do you want all humanity to live on less than 5-10% of the land? Don't worry, the elites need serfs.
@@Irish_For_Life1842 The lean burn was a dud. I had one in a 77 Chrysler with a 318 and any Long trip we went on we would take the 1969 Oldsmobile Delta 88 with a 455 Rocket cause it was dependable and was better on gas. Chryslers lean burn was junk!
This doesn’t make sense. The pictures don’t match the voice over. And it’s obvious that the narrator doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. Someone needs to find a new pastime!
The very worst engines not on your list were from Cadillac, of all people. The Cadillac 8-6-4 engine, not only didn't work. It would actually start on fire and it was illegal to make them safe. And next is the Cadillac Northstar that was made to replace it. It could go "100k between tune ups" and couldn't keep a head gasket and were terminal when they blew. And don't forget the Cadillac 4.1 all aluminum all time biggest POS ever made. Those completely wore out in only 20,000 miles. Only 2nd to the Chrysler Lean Burn, which was also illegal to fix. Those three Cadillac engines were absolute total garbage and should've bankrupted the company. Our family wrote Cadillacs off completely after those fiascos, and three generations of us were driving them. Four counting my father. What a damned shame. We came from the Caddy 525's, 500's and 425's. Total sweethearts, to being ripped off by that junk.
The Dodge baby hemi in 1954 model was reliable and much quicker than the new Ford overhead valve V8 of the same year. I believe the version of the Hemi in a Dodge that my grandparents owned had a 4 barrel carburetor on top of a silvery sort of high rise intake manifold,the car was a bit sluggish off the line but revved and revved and revved,I think it could have done much more than 100 mph
the weakness of the car was the lousy 2 speed automatic transmission,not the engine.
As soon as i heard the AI voice you know its pure bull shit. Just another Tesla lover that knows nothing of cars.
You're absolutely f******correct!!
You're using cubic inches incorrectly. A '4.00 cubic inch" engine is small even for a lawn mower.
The 5.7 olds diesel block make great high boost capable gas engines because of the extra webbing in the block
Caddy 8-6-4, so bad its in part 1 and 2
You could've said any American V-8 between 1974 to 1985.
Hi HichaelRoy, one problem the "the big three" had was that the final drive ratio (rear end gear ratio) in most of the cars at that time where geared much too high. Instead of lets say a 3:50 to 1, or an 3:25 to 1 gear ratio, the factory would install a 2:75 to 1 for better fuel economy but the cars would not perform good at all. For an example, the late 1970s Pontiac Trans-Am(s) had big powerful engines, but came with about a 2:50 to 1 gear ratio! SICK! Please reply. Dave...
@@daveridgeway2639 Sir...The 1973 T/A SD455 had a 3.42:1 and no not ALL cars had the high gear ratios.
@@daveridgeway2639 Thumbs up, dude! Axle ratios were a big part of the problem - also, torque converters had lower stall speeds, and automatic trtansmissions were set up to shift sooner than their 1960s counterparts.
@@shanemitchell477 Yes, but you're talking about ONE very specific example that was essentially built like musclecars from the 1960s. Definitely NOT the norm... 2.75s and 2.79s were very common in American cars; Ford even had a 2.47 ratio by 1974. Even Z/28s were maxing at like 3.23, and that was an extra cost option. Most had 270-something. Manufacturers were being fined if their aggregate production didn't average a certain figure, and the spec was getting more stringent every year.
@@xaenon You are correct. If you bought let's say a 1975 to 1981 Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am, SAE net rated horsepower (1972 and after) or gross rated horsepower (1971 and before) was not too bad coming from a big 4 barrel emission controlled engine, (not all emission controls rob power), but in the mean time, the car would be equipped with an 2:50 to 1 rear axle ratio, which is not a performance ratio at all. If you own a mid 1970s to early 1980s emission controlled performance automobile, I would say, lower the rear axle ratio first before removing any emission controls, and you will be in for a real treat! I had an all stock 1977 Corvette with a factory 350 L-82 engine, factory Turbo 400 transmission and a factory 3:55 to 1 Positraction rear and it performed 14.8 @ 119 MPH in the 1/4 mile with no modifications and all emission control(s) present. You notice that I capitalized Positraction, that is because Positraction is a trademark of Chevrolet Motor Division of GM, meaning closed differential. Please tell me what you think! Dave...
Chrysler 4.7. Junkyards will not buy them if they have more than 80,000 miles on them.
Even GMs Holden 253 managed 185Hp.
The 'land down unduh' does things differently. Ford of Australia made stuff that I WISH was brought to the states. They made a six that was based on the American Falcon/Maverick mill, but had a crossflow head. And they made V8s based on the Ford Cleveland that were just beautiful pieces of engineering.