it must have been 1100 at least unless someone had fitted a 999 fire engine in
to be honest an old uno 999 engine against the old ford 999 was chalk and cheese,the fiat was superb
ive never had a problem with fiat engines
bodywork and crumbling bolts yes, engines no :-)
|
|
Worst I ever experienced was an S-reg Mondeo 1.8 TD. The powerband was stupidly narrow but it was also lacking torque so was a pig to drive at anything other than motorway driving. I hated it with a passion but luckily it wasnt mine!
|
ah yes stuart the good ole ford 1800 tractor engine
the most evil diesel engine ever designed
|
I'd prefer to nominate a type of engine - diesel engines which are loosely based on a petrol equivalent - the real stinker IMO being the BL diesel derived from the B series. An awful engine which would grow cracks in the cylinder head, while being a thirsty gutless lump.
Mentions must go to
The Vauxhall 16D engine - 0 to 60 in 18 seconds in a mkI Astra
The Opel diesel engine as fitted to CFs,- the petrol CIH engine was good, its diesel equivalent not so
|
ive only seen that bl b series engine in boats and a marina that was reimported into this country NC
I did a bit of digging a few years ago and officialy it was never sold in this country alledgedly?
that bedford engine yes,i never liked that either,or york diesels
|
It was fitted to Sherpa vans in the 70's.
Nasty horrid thing - to make matters worse it also had an awful DPA pump.
|
|
|
ive only seen that bl b series engine in boats and a marina that was reimported into this country NC
I thought it was sold (in the Marina) but sales weren't very good (!!) - also I think a version of it was fitted to the Farina Cambridge/Oxford?
To be fair it was (is) a good boat engine!
Edited by b308 on 14/08/2009 at 08:38
|
|
|
|
"I'd prefer to nominate a type of engine - diesel engines which are loosely based on a petrol equivalent - the real stinker IMO being the BL diesel derived from the B series"
What about the BMW M21 and M51 diesels? They were based on a petrol engines and were excellent.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M21
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M51
|
|
|
|
|
Erm the 1.1 FIRE was not bad at all (I believe its still used in the FIAT Panda). Apart from a few HG problems I've seen some with well over 100k.
The worst engine I have driven is a 1.0 3 pot Corsa just not enough torque. I have the 1.2 4 pot version of the same engine and it makes a big difference. The 1.0 is also far too stressed.
The 1200cc over head cam engine in my dads Lada was pretty bad. I am not sure about the speed but on average he would get 20mpg less than half what I get on my 1200cc 16V engine.
Possibly the worst engine ever was the Ford side valve fitted to cars as late as 1962 must have been woefully out dated by then.
|
|
|
One of the breakdown clubs I was an agent for had several makers on the books..
Two of them were Lada and Polski.
The Polski made the Lada look good. I don't think the Polish factory knew the principles of making castings or tightening bolts up. I never want to lift a Polski's bonnet again....but then I probably will never be asked to !
Ted
|
i once remember a polski fiat something about 1992 came in for a tracking (car 4 years old) it had so much corrosion in all the link bars it was evil, so i just told the guy when it came back it didnt need tracking.
i remember they imported a polski with a peugot diesel engine for a while with certain dealers,the engine was super as always but the rest of the car was so so dated (1995? ish)
|
|
the vauxhall agilas we had as customer loan cars were not the best. going up hill and loosing speed, change down and all you got was more noise. i think they were 3 pot 1 litre.
|
|
|
|
Yeah I think they stopped importing them in around 98. I think they tended to last longer than the 125ps.
|
|
|
|
Yeah must have been a good ten years since I have seen an FSO. Actually used to see a pick Polenez around until the last few years.
I believe the FSO 125p costs about £3000 new in 1990, compared to £3800 for a Lada 1300 and £9000 for a base spec Escort. The probably was a million times better than the FSO and not that far behind the MK5 Escort.
|
No contest in my mind - In 1990/1991 I had a couple of (non-turbo) Cavalier 1.7 diesels as company cars. Both were dreadful: slow, noisy, stinking, vibrating excuses for engines. It was a shame becase at the time I rather liked the rest of of the car. Economical though, but then so is releasing the handbrake and wiating for the rotation of the Earth to take effect. I think that I was mentally scarred by that experience as to this day I have never chosen another car with diesel engine.
BTW alfatrike, I couldn't disagree more. FIATs may not be perfect, but the small ones have always had gutsy, revvy, smooth engines. Agree with BB - thy're in a different league to Fords of the same period
|
|
|
The Ladas and Polskis were about 3-4K new, but ISTR that the Hyundai Pony and Proton MPI were around the same price.
Now these latter cars were hardly stellar (...) but compared with those old Commie jalopies they were brilliant (reasonably reliable/well built, easy to drive etc). Just who exactly was buying a Lada at this stage?
On the subject of engines, I always thought it was a total joke that Ford continued to sell 1950s lumps as late as the early 2000s when other manufacturers were producing engines with almost double the power for the size, and would cover many more miles reliably. There really was no excuse for it.
|
But the Ford Endura engine is very very tough, ok they burn a bit of oil, have crap MPG but they just go on and on and on and on for ever.
They are brilliantly touch engines for bangers because they can be abused. Don't change coolant for ten years so what with these engines.
I think the Pony was about £5k from my guide so it is about £1k more than Lada.
I have a Which guide to cars 1990 with all the prices on. I will dig it out in a minute to compare some prices. Edit I will save it for another thread, otherwise this will get too off topic.
Edited by Rattle on 14/08/2009 at 02:40
|
I disagree actually.
They have the perception of running forever, but in my experience what actually happens is that after about 80K or so they start to become very rattly and burn oil such that you can smell them coming down the road. There's the thing -- in that state, they'll keep going for another 80K, so people think they are indestructible because of the number of units that drag themselves along seemingly like magic.
Meanwhile, the typical Japanese engine (Nissan, Honda, Toyota, take your pick) just quietly keeps going, unnoticed because it remains as refined as the day it came out of the factory.
The old Ford engines *are* durable, but let's not get carried away.
|
I made a thread a few weeks ago comparing my engine 1.2 16v Vauxhall to my dads 1.3 Endura. Mine dosn't use any oil at all and if you do 10,000 miles a year I worked out mine is £700 a year cheaper to run! Oh and it produced more power (just about).
However when mine goes wrong it is always expensive sensors, with my dads you just get a simple spanner, £20 to the garage problem fixed.
I will admit however that my dads is now burning a rather lot of oil, and occasionaly belches out black smoke but passed the MOT with flying colours.
My engine is now rather noisy but the exhaust is the main reason, it is a bit tappety but its a chain driven engine so I am not too worried.
Now writing this I was thinking of some of the crappy engines my late grandad had (he some how ended up owning some of the worst cars of all time, Ladas, Allegros, Monteogs, Meastros etc) and that reminded me the BL R series.
Surely the R series was one of the worst and most short lived engines?
|
That's where the Japanese come into their own. Everyone knows that no-one can touch them when it comes to electronics -- and they're the items that fail in modern cars.
To be fair to BL you have to look at what the like of the R series was up against -- the old Simca junk that went into later Chrysler/Talbots for example. Rattly as hell.
Fiat engines have always been tough though -- and continue to be. I'd have an Italian petrol engine over a French one any day of the week, regardless of era. If only they could learn to make the rest of the car to the same consistent standard!
|
|
The great thing about the FIRE is there is probably not much in the way of tollerences. Most engines probably come out being exactly equaly. I hear a lot of almost silent ten year old Puntos about. The main thing that put me off the Punto was the steering horror stories.
|
|
I disagree actually. They have the perception of running forever but in my experience what actually happens is that after about 80K or so they start to become very rattly and burn oil such that you can smell them coming down the road. There's the thing -- in that state they'll keep going for another 80K so people think they are indestructible because of the number of units that drag themselves along seemingly like magic.
Couldn't disagree more. My old Mondeo TD had coming up on 150k when I sold it on. The car was starting to fall apart, but the engine itself was perfect. I took the rocker cover off to check the valve clearances which had never been done, and not only were they all still within factory tolerances at 120,000 miles, but there was no visible sign of wear anywhere. The car had had 10,000 mile services only from new, with a patchy history past 80k.
Rough, noisy and with a narrow powerband, yes, but very tough. I never had to put a drop of oil in the thing between services, drove it hard (you had to or it wouldn't move!) and it never gave me less than 42 mpg.
|
Couldn't disagree more. My old Mondeo TD had coming up on 150k when I sold it on.
I was referring to the petrol engines -- specifically the Kent lump that you yourself have said is awful on this thread.
The TD i would say is more like the Di that was fitted to the Nissan Primera in the 1990s. It was a total bag of spanners in terms of refinement, but would run forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worst I ever experienced was an S-reg Mondeo 1.8 TD. The powerband was stupidly narrow but it was also lacking torque so was a pig to drive at anything other than motorway driving. I hated it with a passion but luckily it wasnt mine!
agree with you. luckily 90% of my journeys were on motorway. Mind you the engine would go on and on with no problems.
|
Good thread. Yes those Chrysler/Talbot lumps were simply horrid. Gutless and noisy beyond belief. Whatever 1100 was fitted to the Ford Escort Popular of the mid 80s was a disaster and became rattly.
Also, whatever Diesel lump LDV have been using for the last 1000 years in their vans and minibuses is carp by modern standards. Those vans seems to use 'technology' fresh out of 1983....
|
|
|
Another vote for Polski Fiat (FSO).
The Moskvich copy of the BMW four-cylinder was pretty horrendous as well.
About 13 or 14 years ago I was sometimes forced to drive the office Fiesta. It had an 1100 engine that was absolutely horrible. I don't know anything about Ford engines in general but this one was noisy, gutless and rough at just a year old. It's main user was someone whose great priority in life was to have a company car. I quite literally preferred to catch the bus.
|
|
|
|
I am with Stuart on this one, had one as a hire car in a Mondeo, if you tried to overtake on a 60 mph A road you would drop down to third to accellerate, change up on the rev limiter (literally when the rev limiter cut in) and then you discovered there was nothing in fourth - too highly geared. Nearly killed me on the A68 in Northumberland.
It contemporary - the 1.7 Cavalier was far far better.
|
What engine was in the Bedford HA van in the 70`s?
I drove one to Scotland and back (a single trip) and it had no compression on return. This was at a speed that a much higher mileage 850cc Mini van had done for years without problems.
|
|
Anyone still running a high mileage Wankel?
|
I think the Ford cvh engines were terrible.
I had a H reg Escort with the 1.6l (non injection) engine and got rid of it at 60,000 miles as the big ends were starting to knock.
I had the car from when it was one year old and was serviced at every interval yet by 60,000 miles the engine was on its way out.
Maybe I had a friday afternoon car but it was gutless, had to rev the nuts off it to make any progress and had loads of electircal problems.
my wife had a Fiesta 1.1l (also CVH engine) and this was a course noise bucket ( it could pass as sounding like a diesel) but was very economical.
Are the Ford Endura engines a re-hashed CVH engine ?
|
Are the Ford Endura engines a re-hashed CVH engine ?
No, they're completely different. The Endura DE can trace its roots to a "new from the ground up" 1.6 litre diesel engine developed for the Escort and Orion in the early 80's.
Ah, the CVH. Yes, a truly awful engine. A candidate for the harshest revving engine in history. I remember an uncle's XR3i which went fairly well, but which used to have an engine related vibration and buzz throughout the whole car from about 5000 RPM upwards. The CVH also came with a design fault in the camshaft lubrication system meaning camshafts and followes were scrap within 60-80k. Dreadful engine.
The turbocharged version in the Fiesta and Escort RS models had some real guts though.
|
Vauxhall 1.2 eight valve as was fitted to my wife's Mk 1 Corsa which would have been registered some time around '96 I think.
Scarily gutless.
Ironically you still see them around usually now fitted with recording studios in the boot, ginormous wheels and big exhaust pipes.
We are , I suppose, meant to imagine that this makes them go faster.....
;-)
|
The 1.2 8v VX engine may be gutless and slow, I would not like to drive one however I know people who have done 200k in them. They are one of the toughest small engines ever built.
The Ford endura was a diesel and a petrol they are not related. The petrol Endura is simply a Velencia engine with 5 crankshaft bearings and modern engine management. The Valencia engine was simply a cross flow Kent but mounted travenervely.
The 1.1 Fiesta would have used a Valencia engine.
Also as the Kent is overhead valve the timing chian is tiny, because the block is built entirely of iron head gaskets rarely fail too. You can do 100,000 miles in a Kent based engine easily with frequent oil changes and you the only time you would need take the rocker cover off is to adjust the tappets. A long way from your modern clio needing a new £300 cambelt every 60k.
|
Ghastliest thing I've ever had the displeasure was mother's 1.4 Montego. Utterly gutless. 4 people in the car (not big people) and 65mph was its top speed if the road were otherwise than entirely flat.
|
*Any* 3 cylinder engine - yuk! they always seemed (to me) like a 4 pot with a dodgy plug lead ... reminds me of the time I was working on a P5 V8, I'd got 2 plug leads mixed up, ran sweet enough though, but the fuel consumption was ott :)
PLEASE don't mention 2 cylinder injuns - give us a break!!
|
Must be the two-stroke Trabant engine which, according to this morning's DT, was a massive 37cc unit!
|
|
I agree about the Ford CVH engines - my Dad had a K-reg Escort with a 1.4 litre "lean burn" engine: it was so bad in the lower gears that we nearly had a major accident when entering a roundabout (foot down hard = very little acceleration).
Actually not that fuel efficient as I recall. His previous car, a G-reg Escort 1.3 (previous version) was actually much more spritely. His last two cars, both 1.25 Fiestas, had very good, nippy engines - so not all bad.
The current Ford 1.8 petrol doesn't seem that popular: is that a similar one to the CVHs - not that much power + poor fuel efficency? Everyone seems to buy the 1.6 or 2.0; maybe that's why sister cars like the Mazda 3/Volvo S40 don't offer it.
|
the cvh 1400 in the escort was indeed dangerous in its poor power delivery
best thing to do apart from not buying the things was to disconnect the lambda senser,then they went well
not for long mind
|
|
When my dad decided on an Escort MK7 (1995 - 2000 version) back in 2002 I told him under no circumstances buy the 1.4 (I had never driven one, but everybody I knew who had a CVH had nothing but trouble with them). He bought the 1.6 Zetec version in the end, better MPG, better speed etc. Was a brilliant engine until the wrong oil was put and it causes valve damage. Still at 96k it sounded like a brand new engine barely audiable at tickover.
|
|
|
Anyone still running a high mileage Wankel?
Oh! yes Baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
