Engine type most often blown up, of all time?

[finnbow]

The 3.8 L V6 Essex engine in 1995 Ford Windstar was virtually guaranteed to have head gasket failure at about 60k miles. Worst POS engine I have ever encountered. FWIW, its AX4S transaxle wasn't much better.

 

[nj pheonix]

I hadn't had a chance to watch videos before. Some of the failures were spectacular (I think Gordon was going for that.
The OP video car blew up engine and still won race by a car length. I'm thinking you have to change your nomex shorts when this happens. Even if the possibility is in the front of your mind, you have to be shocked. Luck of the draw that a piston or connecting rod or even a piece of a blower impeller doesn't redecorate you.

 

[stish]

I'd go with the same notion, just not limited to those specific cubic inches. I'd say Cheverolet smallblock engines (283, 302, 327, 350) and Ford smallblock engines (289, 302)

Just by sheer numbers produced, and many hot rodded/raced, I'd say more of these have goon "boom" than anything else.

This.

 

[exhippy]

Personally, I'm amazed when a top fuel dragster or funny car makes a pass and doesn't have an engine failure. Guys, let's be real here - 60 pounds of boost, 60 degrees of lead, and nitromethane create some incredible cylinder pressure. Keep in mind, such an engine is fed with a fuel pump that can empty a 55gal drum of fuel in less than a minute.

Also, let's not forget that performance engines make the greatest power right on the edge of catastrophe. 34 degrees and all is good. 34.5 degrees and boom.

If we're talking OEM engines, the Olds 350ci diesel would have to be a consideration if based on failure percentages. Ford 4.6L modular engines have numerous design flaws that contribute to poor reliability - best you can do is replace the parts when they fail.

Personally, I'm amazed when a top fuel dragster or funny car makes a pass and doesn't have an engine failure. Guys, let's be real here - 60 pounds of boost, 60 degrees of lead, and nitromethane create some incredible cylinder pressure. Keep in mind, such an engine is fed with a fuel pump that can empty a 55gal drum of fuel in less than a minute.

Also, let's not forget that performance engines make the greatest power right on the edge of catastrophe. 34 degrees and all is good. 34.5 degrees and boom.

If we're talking OEM engines, the Olds 350ci diesel would have to be a consideration if based on failure percentages. Ford 4.6L modular engines have numerous design flaws that contribute to poor reliability - best you can do is replace the parts when they fail.

"poor reliability" "numerous design flaws" not my stock heads and bottom end 4.6
12 years of ownership, one alternator replacement. Replaced stock pullies and ported stock blower, giving me 520rwhp and with many 1320 passes rowing the gears (I refuse to go auto as long as it's street legal.) and giving me a best of 10.4
...and I never spit a plug. In fact I pull them after every run to check.





.

 

[damacman]

"poor reliability" "numerous design flaws" not my stock heads and bottom end 4.6
12 years of ownership, one alternator replacement. Replaced stock pullies and ported stock blower, giving me 520rwhp and with many 1320 passes rowing the gears (I refuse to go auto as long as it's street legal.) and giving me a best of 10.4
...and I never spit a plug. In fact I pull them after every run to check.

View attachment 958191

View attachment 958193 View attachment 958199 View attachment 958201

.

The 4.6L terminator DOHC engines did in fact have an issue with valve seats / guides in the #7 cylinder causing oil consumption. Ford did address this for later '03 and '04 production vehicles.

 

[gadget73]

The Ford Essex 3.8 didn't eat head gaskets near as bad if you serviced the coolant regularly. Not sure how much was the additives failing and how much was simply keeping the radiator clean so it cooled effectively but it did help. Otherwise you'd usually pop them about every 60K.

Ever see the disaster that is the overhead cam 4.0? Ford took the old pushrod motor, made one OHC head casting, and ran one chain on the front and one on the back. That one is most definitely not an upgrade in reliability, though it does make more power before dies.

Ford 4.6L modular engines

Glad I'm not the only one that isn't fond of them. When they work its fine, but when they break they do it in a big way.

 

[restorer-john]

This thread is awesome, guys. There's so much knowledge rattling around up those those heads of yours...

 

[savatage1973]

I'll throw another "odd" one onto the pile--Mazda rotary engines--when they run right, they run hard and produce more hp per cc than most, but when they wear, they drink oil like an old drunk with a bottle of cheap gin--and when they go--THEY GO--the casing explodes like an old Muncie tranny in a drag car.

 

[arts]

This thread is awesome, guys. There's so much knowledge rattling around up those those heads of yours...

That's not knowledge you hear rattling,that's just the sound of a ''biological thought engine'' about to throw a rod

 

[usedto]

Probably not in the true spirit of the thread, but if the true numbers be known, this would probably win the prize:

 

[freQ(*)Oddio]

Anyone remember the GM Quad 4 engines?--they ate head gaskets for lunch on a weekly (maybe monthly) basis. So on a % basis, I think they would rank pretty high on the list since there weren't too many of them out there, and they basically ALL failed at some point.

yes my vote also, the first quad 4 incarnation ran hi rpms and run like a 2 stroke engine, in the late 80s early 90s baretta, achieva, grand am, skylark, i used to drive them all at my dealership then, they would turn about 8k rpms, and chew themselves to pieces, also coil packs ,and intake, head gasket problems constantly. i remember a line of them sitting behind the dealership waiting for new engines.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

I was in the automotive engine rebuilding business for 25 years . The engines that paid the bills were the Buick 231 for spun rod bearings . The ford 3.8 V-6 for blown head gaskets & the Chrysler 2.2 for dropping valve seats .

Yes, agreed highly. These engines liked to be failure prone at high rates. Only owned the Buick 231 in a Pontiac LeMans Wagon (My first car). Also add to this the Ford 4.6 V8 engine (they like intake manifolds and gaskets a lot)

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Being someone who builds the Hemi (modern gen) on a regular basis as part of my business, I feel the Hemi does have that reputation. Although it depends mostly on application. Nitro engines (of which I have built zero) are often tore down and refreshed after every single run. And at over $12,000USD per run, you can see why I don't touch that application with a 10 foot pole! It is also important to note the reason why that design was chosen for Nitro. Back in the 60's and 70's. There was a machinist and engine builder by the name of Keith Black. Keith Black (in my opinion) was a genius. He designed 426 blocks that could handle a few Nitro runs when most other engines could not even make it one run....including factory made hemi's. The engine was completely redesigned and reinforced and methods he invented are still in use today in all makes of and manufacturers. For an independent privately owned shop to produce its own heads, blocks and other internal parts with no other financial support or engineering input is pretty dam special. Even so, his engines also failed, but usually could handle much more than other engines. There really is no comparison between a nitro engine and other race engines. Nitro engines have no cooling system, the blocks and heads have no coolant passages or water jackets. This "solid" alloy structure makes them much stronger, but allows for only very quick duty cycles of a minute or two.

Today, the engines I build have very little in common with a nitro engine or early gen Hemi's for that matter. My engines are designed to be reliable street engines that pass emissions and still make very high power since I specialize in street legal engines in the 1000+ HP range. The modern Hemi including the 5.7L, the 6.2L and the 6.4L 392 cubic inch engines were the first generation of push rod engines with variable valve timing. Which is great for fuel economy and moderate horsepower improvements. That being said, the method being used can cause inherent weaknesses. So when I build a 1000 horsepower hemi engine, there is very little original parts remaining in it. Other than the block and external accessories, it is a different engine. In mine, the connecting rods and pistons are different, the crank and cam are different. The heads are different, the fuel system is modified, the variable valve timing is limited to half of its stock range and the list goes on and on. I would not even think of running a stock 392 with my nitrous systems, it would not be long before major failures happened. Also, there are certain engineering flaws in the latest gen Hemi's that make them unsuitable for horsepower mods over 250 HP without pretty much starting from the beginning.

If you compare the modern 392 Hemi engines with other manufacturers in stock form, it can more than hold its own against other unmodified manufacturers internal combustion engines. Only when a supercharger is added do they have a chance against a modern 392 with an experienced driver. So if you look at the Hell Cat (completely different 6.2L engine) and its output with its massive 2.5L supercharger, other manufacturers had to scramble to build something to compete (which they did, and did well). I find it interesting that we seem to be in a horsepower battle similar to the one that took place in the 60's and early 70's with the only difference being better technology. We can do so much more now with so much less than they had back then due to technology, and lessons learned from brilliant men like Keith Black.

The reason why I chose Hemi's is supply and demand. Not many 392's are out there compared to other muscle manufacturers. I think for every 10 Hemi's made, there is only one 392, even though they share the base platform. The Hell Cat does not count, it has its own special design that does not share the same platform as the 5.7, 6.2 and 6.4L. I can't make any judgements or statements about the new Demon, I know nothing of it.
So, according to my business model, not many performance parts are being made for the 392 just like back in the muscle era. The myth of the big hemi has followed this modern design with half of its appeal being the reputation for power, rather than numbers on a dyno.

By the way, this is not a "pro" Mopar post. I think all modern American made muscle cars are true wonders of efficiency, power, speed, and public road handling.

On the latter paragraph, the first 3 applied, only MoPar had anything for "Public Road Handling" whatsoever. Most American Classic Muscle cars were designed for two things, GO FAST, and in a STRAIGHT LINE. Chrysler had much better brakes and much better suspension on their muscle cars than the rudimentary brakes and suspension of GM and of Ford. Both had to be beefed up a lot on all muscle cars pushed to their limits. Chrysler was very ahead on handling of the USA Big 3.

 

[savatage1973]

On the latter paragraph, the first 3 applied, only MoPar had anything for "Public Road Handling" whatsoever. Most American Classic Muscle cars were designed for two things, GO FAST, and in a STRAIGHT LINE. Chrysler had much better brakes and much better suspension on their muscle cars than the rudimentary brakes and suspension of GM and of Ford. Both had to be beefed up a lot on all muscle cars pushed to their limits. Chrysler was very ahead on handling of the USA Big 3.

I don't know if I can agree with this. I own one of the new generation Chrysler muscle cars--a HellCat Challenger, and it does two things--goes fast, and straight line. It is a pig weight-wise and does not handle like a new Mustang or Camaro--yes, I'm leaving the Vette out of this for a reason--totally different class of car. I used to have a 1970 Camaro, and my buddy still has a SuperBird, and my Camaro could out-handle him any day of the week. Still looking for my "ultimate score" car--I know it will be a bit of a disappointment, but I want a 73-74 TransAm SD 455 totally stock--maybe if I can find one in the low to mid 5 figure range, it will be in my garage.

 

[freQ(*)Oddio]

I don't know if I can agree with this. I own one of the new generation Chrysler muscle cars--a HellCat Challenger, and it does two things--goes fast, and straight line. It is a pig weight-wise and does not handle like a new Mustang or Camaro--yes, I'm leaving the Vette out of this for a reason--totally different class of car. I used to have a 1970 Camaro, and my buddy still has a SuperBird, and my Camaro could out-handle him any day of the week. Still looking for my "ultimate score" car--I know it will be a bit of a disappointment, but I want a 73-74 TransAm SD 455 totally stock--maybe if I can find one in the low to mid 5 figure range, it will be in my garage.

yes the 1970 camaro /firebird chassis was a great handler for that era, so good gm kept that platform until 1981, i know the 78- 81 Z28s handled great even for 81, the camaro was way ahead of the rest , it could corner excellent, you even see that chassis on road courses today, my chevelle was good against them until they started out cornering me, ,better than the mono leaf problematic vette also.

 

[freQ(*)Oddio]

I don't know if I can agree with this. I own one of the new generation Chrysler muscle cars--a HellCat Challenger, and it does two things--goes fast, and straight line. It is a pig weight-wise and does not handle like a new Mustang or Camaro--yes, I'm leaving the Vette out of this for a reason--totally different class of car. I used to have a 1970 Camaro, and my buddy still has a SuperBird, and my Camaro could out-handle him any day of the week. Still looking for my "ultimate score" car--I know it will be a bit of a disappointment, but I want a 73-74 TransAm SD 455 totally stock--maybe if I can find one in the low to mid 5 figure range, it will be in my garage.

a friend of mine a few years ago traded his 1 owner purchased new 74 superduty, red with white inside, 23000 miles, original paint, he always wanted a gto, a pontiac collector wanted his SD and traded a rare 69 gto convertible with factory drag gears, even swap, its a dark brown color. I get a new collector car calendar every year, and the new one had his old Super Duty on the cover, i almost cried when i read the new owners description, sorry i could not have traded that stunning car, you dont see them, they are hard to clone also so it always looks unique in the crowd, there is a million 69 lemans gto clones that look like his now.

 

[stoN_Cold]

For me, the best:

http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines/ls7

http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines/ls3

 

[KentTeffeteller]

I don't know if I can agree with this. I own one of the new generation Chrysler muscle cars--a HellCat Challenger, and it does two things--goes fast, and straight line. It is a pig weight-wise and does not handle like a new Mustang or Camaro--yes, I'm leaving the Vette out of this for a reason--totally different class of car. I used to have a 1970 Camaro, and my buddy still has a SuperBird, and my Camaro could out-handle him any day of the week. Still looking for my "ultimate score" car--I know it will be a bit of a disappointment, but I want a 73-74 TransAm SD 455 totally stock--maybe if I can find one in the low to mid 5 figure range, it will be in my garage.

I was discussing the vintage muscle cars. The new ones are many times better on handling, cornering, and braking. And can hang with the vintage classics or beat them. Big difference in era. Was your Camaro stock? Or major modified. Stock the vintage Chryslers handled better. Modified got you the edge.

 

[gadget73]

Ford suspension was pretty bad until they cloned the GM B-body in 1979. GM's double A arm at least didn't change the alignment when you stood on the brakes due to component flex. Strut rods, phooey.

 

[Lavane]

The best engine I ever had was a rebuilt Ford 289. Back in '77 I bought an early model 1968 GrandTornino GT fastback from the original owner. Perfect interior, paint and body. Being an early '68 sold in late '67 it had a 289. when I bought it had just a few hundred miles on the rebuilt 289 and a rebuilt C-3 trany. Whoever built the engine knew his stuff. I put over 300,000 miles on it in six years before I totalled it falling asleep at the wheel. It was still running fine when it was wrecked.