These Otherwise Good Cars Are Saddled With Terrible Engines

As we’ve previously talked about, there are plenty of bad cars with good engines, but we’ve never really considered the opposite, and that’s why last week I asked you what otherwise good car was saddled with a terrible motor. 

It’s a question that got quite a lot of you riled up, wishing that these cars got the motors they otherwise deserved. We’ve got a wide range of answers here — everything from performance cars with not-so-performance-y engines and motors that are far too complicated for their own good, to motors that are simply unreliable junk and motors that are just worse than the ones they replaced. Basically, what we’ve got here is something for everyone. 

Anyway, that’s enough out of me. Head on down below and check out what cars your fellow Jalops say were saddled with terrible engines. If your car is on the list, I do apologize, but the group has spoken.

Still looks like it’s arrived from the future, turns heads like a Ferrari. And it was the closest modern BMW has ever gotten to building a super car… except for the engine.

And I’m not even complaining about the hybrid drivetrain. Porsche, Ferrari and McLaren have built proper PHEV super cars, with properly powerful gas engines. If the i8 had the M3 or M5 engine with a more powerful EV motor, it would be an almost 1000 HP legend. 

Submitted by: caddak 2.0 turbo

The car looked great, and came with an NA engine that many felt would be an improvement in reliability over the Turbo engines that came before, but the huge rebuild market tells a different story. Those were unreliable and not fast enough for the car they were used on (not even the 231hp variant was enough). And it’s not like Mazda didn’t know any better, because they had a similar story with the RX7 FC NA a gutless engine that pumped out a mere 150hp which was barely enough on a flat surface, let alone going uphill, but at lest that engine was “reliable” by rotary standard.

Submitted by: Tiago Bastos

Going Old School.

Fiero.

I had an 86 2M4. The 86 with the hand-me-down suspension actually had fun handling and was a blast to drive… other than the extremely agricultural engine.

I drove a Fiero where someone had swapped out the Iron Duke for a Quad 4. Shaving off about 100 lbs and doubling the horsepower transformed the car.

But it also transformed the Quad 4. The Quad 4 was a paint mixer engine and wasn’t suited for a typical Oldsmobile driver that wanted to put around at low RPMs where it was not producing power but vibrations and noise. In a sports car (like the Fiero), the NVH problems became character and rasp. And a Quad 4 at high RPMs might be loud, but it’s a fun loud.

GM actually made a variant of the Quad 4 that was supposed to replace the old Iron Duke (nicknamed the Quad 2). It had 30 more horsepower, weighed less, produced less emissions and got better gas mileage than the Iron Duke . GM could have put the Quad 2 in the Fiero 2M4 and let Olds still have the glory of the Quad 4 for a bit. Then offered the 2M4+ with an a hotrod Quad 4 (like the W41 tune) instead of the 2M6 and had 50-60 more horsepower and less weight than the 2M6 with the 2.8.

Submitted by: hoser68

Wasn’t the engine in the Delorean pretty awful? 130 HP in something that should have had 300ish?

Submitted by: Nathan

The basic 140hp 1ZZ-FE Corolla/RAV4 engine in the MR2 Spyder was particularly frustrating. Toyota was already using the more powerful 180hp 2ZZ-GE in the Matrix, Celica and Corolla, which made the decision even more questionable.

Submitted by: Stephen.

The new Mercedes C63. The engine itself was fine and made alot of power, and would have been awesome!…in a new Mitsubishi Evo 11. But paying 80K for basically THE entry level “Real” AMG, and it’s a 4 banger is just heartbreaking, and lack luster sales speaks volumes. I’ve seen more GT/SLs and CLE 53s since their debuts than the C63 ( I think I’ve seen only 1 driving around). All that engineering and technical prowess down the drain.

Submitted by: Agon Targeryan

Jaguar XJ220. I mean the engine was still awesome, but a ttv6 in what should have been an outlandish V12 was wildly disappointing. 

Submitted by: penginsftw

Focus RS for the head gasket debacle. Also Ford stroked out the 2.0 to 2.3, put 23lbs of boost in it, but went from closed to open deck for cooling– which they then botched with the head gasket.

Properly fixed they are awesome cars. I own one and love it. But most people end up getting a closed 2.0 ST block, and building it up to a 2.3 stroker if they need to replace the engine. Or want to tune it up much past 400/400.

Submitted by: Enviro5609

Any Range Rover with the 5.0.

I’ve had about a half dozen Rovers including the NA 4.4, the Jag Supercharged 4.2 and the newer supercharged 3.0, and none have given me any issues aside from some extraneous cooling pipes and an alternator/starter here and there.

When in great shape and maintained well (at a large cost) the 5.0 is a lovely and smooth motor, but when the timing chain clank of death starts rearing it’s ugly head, you’re gonna need 5-6 thousand of your best dollars to rectify the issue.

Other than that, Rover had worked out many of the kinks that non-Rover owners love to bring up as topics whenever they hear you are an owner.

Submitted by: Darwin Brandis

I see a lot of good ones taken already, so let’s go with this:

The F series Super duties with the 6.4l. the design of these trucks was fantastic. They were modern, functional, clearly a ford product, with an EXTREMELY handsome interior. This was supposed to be Ford’s comeback story, erasing the 6.0 nightmare from the minds of the faithful. It was powerful. It sounded damn good. It was smooth. It ran clean. It came with a manual transmission option!

But then very quickly, we all started to realize that it wasn’t the en we wanted. Fuel mileage that rivaled a big block gasser, exhaust regen that started brush fires, insanely conplex under hood, and then the real problems started. We quickly found out that they suffered from what I like to call “Chrysler syndrome”

3 out of 5 of them were perfectly reliable, but the other 2 out of 5 needed a new engine by 200,000 miles. Not a huge deal when you’re talking about a little v6…..but when a new (used) engine out of warranty is a $15,000 proposal on a truck not even 10 years old, well, we all got that feeling that it was time to either switch to a gasser or just go buy a Cummins.

The 6.7l that replaced it, though, is fantastic.

Submitted by: Randy Byron

Definitely 4U-GSE / FA20 in 86 / BRZ / FRS ZN6 1st gen, it’s soyboy weak-ass engine and definitely the weakest link in 86.

Not only they barely manage 100 hp / litre which is much less potent and significantly worse than decade-old S2000 and Integra Type-R DC5 but they refuse to give it a turbo and just give a stupid argument too

Had they put turbo, it will become indirect successor to Nissan Silvia Spec-R S15. Instead they gave us weak argument that by putting turbo will make it unaffordable to the market, unfortunately Ford Mustang Ecoboost S550 6th gen and Chevrolet Camaro 1LS 6th gen prove otherwise

Pleas for better beefier stronger torquier engine for years was finally listened, only for them to add miniscule 5 hp and 5 lbft in the facelift version. Yep you read that right, only 5 !!!

And after they were serious about this, they finally made 86 GRMN which is not only 20 hp and 20 lbft more powerful but also lighter which is what 86 / BRZ / FRS should have been in the first place. But it cost twice the price, like literally TWICE THE PRICE !!!!

Luckily seems Toyota and Subaru realized the mistake and give a proper engine for 2nd gen without too much of price hike. But it’s really decade too late, they should have started the the life of this car with that engine

Submitted by: Derry