• Please note that there are a few updates and clarifications made in the Audiokarma Rules, mostly relating to advertising and the addition of the new "Paying it Forward" & "Giving back" forums in the AudioKarma Audio Marketplace section.

2000-2012...What modern engine would You say is the most Reliable

Cruzah

Cruzah

Super Member
TAKES A LICKIN...KEEPS ON TICKIN!

I'm gonna go on a limb here and say the most reliable engine in the past 30 years would probably be the Chrysler Slant Six.
(there are still quite a few still kickin it Today)
As far as modern 2000-2012 I'd say the Chrysler 3.3 would be the most reliable engine.
What would You say would be the Ironman Engine of the modern times
Remember 2000 to 2012.
CHRYSLER RULZ!
 
Register to hide this ad
Actually, within that time frame, given factory specified maintenance, it may be harder to find an UNreliable engine. Breaking the rule, my '96 Mopar van's 3.8 shows no signs of departure at 238K.
 
4.7 liter Powertech V8 in my dad's Dodge Dakota hasn't had any serious issues and has 270k miles on it. The rear end has been replaced on that truck and so has the clutch. The body is starting to rust away, but the engine is just fine.

Sucks they didn't build their cars as tough (my mom's Stratus was a money pit from day 1, was never a reliable car).
 
gadget73 said:
The Ford 4.0 pushrod motor is pretty tough. The OHC version is pretty much a POC though.
Click to expand...


I'm only going on secondary information, but I've been told the 4.6 Ford modular V8 just keeps going .... and going..... and going.

True ??
 
Last edited:
TVTeufel said:
Actually, within that time frame, given factory specified maintenance, it may be harder to find an UNreliable engine. Breaking the rule, my '96 Mopar van's 3.8 shows no signs of departure at 238K.
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it. Properly-maintained engines that fail early are a rare exception in today's automotive market.

I'd nominate the Ford 3.0-liter DOHC Duratec engine as a reliability champ. The one in my 2000 Sable runs great at 152,000 miles and consumes less than a cup of oil between oil changes. The 3.8-liter pushrod engine in my wife's 2005 Chrysler T&C has also been solid, though it uses a bit more oil than the Mercury's engine.

I beg to differ with gadget73's opinion on the Ford 4.0-liter pushrod engine. I had one in a 1993 Aerostar, and it was junk. It blew a head gasket at 72,000 miles despite meticulous maintenance.
 
Depending on the time frame; assuming the thread means the past decade or so, I say the Toyota 22R series. Basically the same engine since the late 60s, and made through the mid 90s. But dismiss the time frame, and I'll have to say the Studebaker flathead 6. No matter how horrible of condition, or how much oil spews out the exhaust pipe, they always start and run....

Charles
 
The 4.6 in my Mustang's got 210,000+ miles, still runs like a top, not burning any oil either.

Granted, I change the oil every 7500 (now 10,000) miles and ONLY run synthetic in it.

You don't always need the extra protection a synthetic gives you, but when you do, you can't just stop and change the oil right there on the spot.
 
I've had 5 hondas, all with 4 cylinders. Ran 4 of them to close to $200k. Not an engine failure on any of them. Never used oil, never needed anything other than regular maintenance. Same with the transmissions, except for worn clutches.

Now if I could have kept them from rusting!
 
Actually, within that time frame, given factory specified maintenance, it may be harder to find an UNreliable engine. Breaking the rule, my '96 Mopar van's 3.8 shows no signs of departure at 238K.
Click to expand...
Similar experience here with a '96 3.3.:yes:

I've had 5 hondas, all with 4 cylinders. Ran 4 of them to close to $200k....................
Click to expand...
The word "Honda" is synonymous with reliability.

Then again, i haven't seen anything short of a crude oil semi-diesel that can touch the longevity of the 1949 Continental Z-120 in my Ferguson tractor. She turned 63 this year on her original build. Mowed 14 acres 3 times this past season without complaint, hauls firewood, maintains a half mile driveway and several miles of woods roads. What little oil it uses leaks past the rear main seal.
 
kx250rider said:
Depending on the time frame; assuming the thread means the past decade or so, I say the Toyota 22R series.
Click to expand...

We have a winner here. Easily, IMHO.

On the other end of the spectrum is the 3.3 liter engine that Ford put in the 1995 Windstar. I had three factory rebuilds of this engine installed within one tank of gas. One lasted about 2 hours. Really.
 
The 1.6L D16Z6 VTEC motor in 91-95 Honda Civics will run to 200k+ without any major failures, even on minimal maintenance. Seen it twice on two of my friend's cars.

The Mazda B6ZE and it's bored out cousins seem to have very little failures up to 200k+. I can't speak for the rest of the car but at 109k miles mine runs GREAT. The only failure so far with this motor has been the the valve cover gasket. Seems to be a consistent issue across the line and happens at around 100k miles. I dare say a consistent issue across the same motors that can be almost predicted counts towards it's reliability. It's those unforeseen problems that jump out and surprise people. Some folks opinions may differ but if you KNOW something is going to need to be replaced at 100k miles or so I think that counts in the engines favor.

As I said, can't speak for the rest of the car. Have had a few other things that aren't motor related failing on me lately. But the motor itself is doing great.
 
finnbow said:
We have a winner here [in the Toyota 22R 4-banger]. Easily, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Did this engine use a rubber belt to rotate the camshaft? If so, I hope it was a non-interference engine. IMO interference engines that use a rubber band to turn the camshaft shouldn't be considered long-term reliable because they carry the seeds of their own destruction.

finnbow said:
On the other end of the spectrum is the 3.3 liter engine that Ford put in the 1995 Windstar. I had three factory rebuilds of this engine installed within one tank of gas. One lasted about 2 hours. Really.
Click to expand...

I suspect that you're referring to the 3.8-liter Essex V6, which was a 302 Windsor V8 minus two cylinders. This engine loved to chew up head gaskets. Not Dearborn's finest hour.
 
Dr Tinear said:
Did this engine use a rubber belt to rotate the camshaft? If so, I hope it was a non-interference engine. IMO interference engines that use a rubber band to turn the camshaft shouldn't be considered long-term reliable because they carry the seeds of their own destruction.
Click to expand...

I believe it is indeed an interference engine, but it has a timing chain and not a belt. These engines will take a stunning amount of abuse and keep on ticking.

I suspect that you're referring to the 3.8-liter Essex V6, which was a 302 Windsor V8 minus two cylinders. This engine loved to chew up head gaskets. Not Dearborn's finest hour.
Click to expand...

My bad. It was a 3.8, not a 3.3. A truly Gawd-awful powerplant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom