Post your self-destructing engines...

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: Pontual

Abused car? Let's see:

"The lifters started sticking at about 20k." You changed the oil, really?

"The main bearings developed excess clearance with some audible knocking at about 23k." Excess load and rpms do that

"Too many water pumps to count." Excess rpm gives that

Not the engine itself but other parts failed often too.

"Power Steering pumps." Not engine related, just bashing the car

"A couple power steering racks." same here

"Numerous factory Alternators." Redlining all day long gives you that

"The trans was rebuilt at 30k, 65k, and finally at 95k." Full throttle takeoff launches gives that.

"A headgasket finally let go at just over 100k, and I told my Mom it was time to stop throwing good money after bad." Low grade gasoline on abused car gave you that.

About the Camry, let me guess: You weren't driving neither maintaining her cars anymore.




You are completely wrong on all counts.

I didn't drive her Taurus. I was a grown man with my own cars and I was an ASE Master Tech at the time. I was and am more than qualified and capable of performing any repair it or any car might need.

She has never driven a car hard in her life. Certainly not at the age of 60, when she started driving the Taurus.

I performed all of it's basic maintenance while she owned it. I used correct quality fluids, on a schedule that was even stricter than the Severe Service schedule spelled out by Ford. Think oil changes every 3 months or 3k miles.

Any work it needed beyond basic maintenance while under warranty, was performed by the Ford Dealer.

The Camry has been maintained and driven the same. Not one single problem.

The Taurus was a lemon. It was a true POS.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Originally Posted By: CBR.worm
My vote for most destructing engines would be the V8 in the B6 Audi S4. Massive timing chain problems (if I recall correctly there were 5 chains), the chains were up against the firewall and required an engine drop to address.

GERMAN ENGINEERING!


That's just ridiculously over-complicated.

BMW S62:

Mercedes AMG V8:

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Originally Posted By: CBR.worm
My vote for most destructing engines would be the V8 in the B6 Audi S4. Massive timing chain problems (if I recall correctly there were 5 chains), the chains were up against the firewall and required an engine drop to address.

GERMAN ENGINEERING!


To be fair, is that a vehicle/engine designed to be used for years and years by people who can barely change their oil on time?

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: Ethan1
GM's current product lineup.

Whenever I see an Equinox in the service department, it's a safe bet that it's in for a timing chain under warranty. I mean, I really can't overstate how many timing chains are getting replaced on these motors. They also burn oil like crazy. If you follow the IOLM and assume that your brand new Chevrolet won't burn oil (?!), you might have ~1 qt in the sump when it's time for your oil change - we've seen exactly that. And those same 2.4L engines also sometimes lose all their oil in your driveway on really cold nights - you start it up to go to work and the engine blows. At least you get heat really fast...?

+1 The 2.4 is a garbage engine. My sister in law had a 2010 GMC Terrain and it was constantly having problems with the timing chain and oil consumption.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think the Jeep 4.0 is overrated. Cracked piston skirts and bad cylinder heads. My uncle has a 1998 Grand Cherokee (which isn't even one of the problem years) and it threw a rod at 169k miles. It was never abused and always maintained well too.


210k miles on mine, not a hint of blowby, and I drive this thing like it was meant to be driven.

Granted, some years suffered from a bad cylinder head design and shallow piston skirts, but seriously? For the amount of time this engine was out there, it showed very few issues.


We've had probably a dozen Ecotecs in our family and have had zero issues from them. Zero. I had an '06 Solstice and ran that engine hard, with again, no issues. Several family members have gone well past 100k. No leaks, no runs, no oil consumption, no errors.

I've had many GM engines, a number of which are in this thread, a Jeep 2.5, probably 5 GM small block 5.3's, a Toyota 3.4 (the sludging version), and my current fleet--Ford 5.4, Jeep 3.8, Mercedes 4.3, and Ford 3.5 Ecoboost. The problems I can remember are a starter and broken exhaust manifold bolt on the Jeep 2.5, some noise issues and some kind of recall fix on the Toyota 3.4 (So they told me. It ran fine, far as I could tell), a flywheel replacement on a GM 6.0, and oil consumption on my current Jeep 3.8. If there were more problems, I sure don't remember them. The longest lived engine we've had was my Dad's 2.5 Iron Duke in a 1980 Pontiac Phoenix. It was running fine when the car was junked with about 320k miles on it. The body had rusted out horribly, and the car was basically worthless at that point. We never had any real trouble out of that notorious X-car.

I'm knocking on wood, as I think we've been pretty fortunate. The history includes engines with bad reputations such as the GM 2.8/3.1, as well. I think we had 3 of those. No problems. I've really got no engines to add to this. My Jeep 3.8 that's why it bugs me. Hopefully, one day I'll say I had it rebuilt or replaced somewhere past 250k, under the lifetime Powertrain warranty!

 

[jeepman3071]

The excessive oil consumption on newer cars really bothers me. It is a lack of quality control and pride on the part of the manufacturers. Buy a new car that is close to $40k yet it burns oil like an old clunker. The point of buying a new car is so it isn't worn out and you don't have to add 2 quarts of oil every fill up.

What are we as consumers paying for? Certainly not the quality machining and craftsmanship of the engine, probably just all the electronic gadgets. It makes you wonder though, if they can't get the basics right like machining a block and fitting the proper size rings, what else did they screw up? Some manufacturers state right in the manual that 1 quart of oil consumed per 1000 miles is considered normal. What kind of damage will this do to cat converters in the long run? Is this a form of planned obsolescence? Considering most people don't check their oil, is this a way to sell more engines/vehicles by creating engines that self destruct by consuming all of their oil? Even if an engine doesn't consume all the oil and seize, running it with 1 or 2 quarts can still cause damage.

 

[ls1mike]

I don't think it is a lack of quality control as it what type of rings are being used. Stuff is put together with mpg and power in mind.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
I don't think it is a lack of quality control as it what type of rings are being used. Stuff is put together with mpg and power in mind.


I think it also has to due with the transition from hand fit pistons to built fit, which also resulted in the piston slap issue that previously didn't exist.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
I don't think it is a lack of quality control as it what type of rings are being used. Stuff is put together with mpg and power in mind.


I think it also has to due with the transition from hand fit pistons to built fit, which also resulted in the piston slap issue that previously didn't exist.


It sure is. Its hard to teach proper and competent use of micrometers with OTJ training.

 

[OVERKILL]

Forgive my use of the wrong "do" in the above, LOL! I had originally written "I believe it was due to the transition from hand fit pistons" and then changed it and didn't change due to do, LOL!

 

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: Pontual

Abused car? Let's see:

"The lifters started sticking at about 20k." You changed the oil, really?

"The main bearings developed excess clearance with some audible knocking at about 23k." Excess load and rpms do that

"Too many water pumps to count." Excess rpm gives that

Not the engine itself but other parts failed often too.

"Power Steering pumps." Not engine related, just bashing the car

"A couple power steering racks." same here

"Numerous factory Alternators." Redlining all day long gives you that

"The trans was rebuilt at 30k, 65k, and finally at 95k." Full throttle takeoff launches gives that.

"A headgasket finally let go at just over 100k, and I told my Mom it was time to stop throwing good money after bad." Low grade gasoline on abused car gave you that.

About the Camry, let me guess: You weren't driving neither maintaining her cars anymore.




You are completely wrong on all counts.

I didn't drive her Taurus. I was a grown man with my own cars and I was an ASE Master Tech at the time. I was and am more than qualified and capable of performing any repair it or any car might need.

She has never driven a car hard in her life. Certainly not at the age of 60, when she started driving the Taurus.

I performed all of it's basic maintenance while she owned it. I used correct quality fluids, on a schedule that was even stricter than the Severe Service schedule spelled out by Ford. Think oil changes every 3 months or 3k miles.

Any work it needed beyond basic maintenance while under warranty, was performed by the Ford Dealer.

The Camry has been maintained and driven the same. Not one single problem.

The Taurus was a lemon. It was a true POS.


What a Lemon that one, though! All those defects in a perfectly maintained and operated vehicle, by the way, the most sold car in the US in the 90's. You should play the lottery.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
I don't think it is a lack of quality control as it what type of rings are being used. Stuff is put together with mpg and power in mind.



That's fair to say however those low tension rings equate to no bore wear over hundreds of thousands of miles.

My hunch is break in. Most people think babying the engine when new is the correct way to break in the rings when in reality high load is the way to go.
I've never owned an oil burner so I can't really comment.
In my experience the doors fall off before the bore wear causes blowby.

 

[artificialist]

Nissan 2.5L
The engine would burn enough oil to wear out the cat. Next, pieces of it would get sucked back into the engine, causing a vicious cycle of oil burning, and soon the engine needed replacement.

Toyota 3E and 3EE engines
They were found in the Tercel, and many didn't last.

GM 3.1 and 3.4 One of 2 engine families that I regularly need to replace head gaskets

Ford 3.0 OHV the other engine I regularly have to replace head gaskets on.

Mazda turbocharged rotary
They just don't last, even if they were never modified.

Mazda renesis

Chrysler 3.8L
Those engines regularly burn oil. I don't like the car my grandmother has right now, but at least it isn't a Chrysler T&C van.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: Pontual

What a Lemon that one, though! All those defects in a perfectly maintained and operated vehicle, by the way, the most sold car in the US in the 90's. You should play the lottery.


Yeah, it sold well. Lots of people didn't realize what a pile they were, or were gluttons for punishment. I repaired way too many that came in for all kinds of problems. Hey, at least it kept me busy.

Probably the worst part of those cars was the terrible AXOD transmission. It was poorly designed to begin with. Lubrication issues meant it would fail early and often, even with frequent ATF changes to try to help it survive.

The replacements in my Mother's car were factory Ford replacements. All junk.

They did make changes to the later model transmissions that at least improved them to a more acceptable level of reliability.

 

[oldmaninsc]

I have to agree with other posters who said the Vega engine.

Also in the early/mid 80's I lived in the St. Paul area of Minnesota for several years. I did a lot of work on the side for various friends, neighbors and workers. I remember working on a LOT of Ford 2.3L 4 cylinders (Pinto, Mustang).

I rebuilt several but on one occasion a close friend choose to buy a new engine from Ford and had me install it. The rear main seal leaked from day 1. Fortunately the dealership removed the engine and replaced the seal themselves. We weren't out a penny. That impressed me, but Fords QC didn't. The mechanic that did the work told me "unofficially" he had seen this happen very frequently.

 

[Spazdog]

Chrysler 2.7: I'm normally a pretty good Mopar defender. I won't defend that one.

Ford 3.8 Essex: They eventually fixed all the problems but it had a long enough run being junk that it doesn't matter.

Pontiac 151 Low-TechIV: about the time you get all the EGR, MAP sensor, vacuum problems...etc.. solved the thermoplastic cam gear disintegrates. It's just a miserable engine.

Honda B21A1: It doesn't match any other B-series except the B20A5
FRM cylinders wear out the rings prematurely...of course you don't have to rebore the cylinders. Just re-ring. But it is still kinda' a pointless engine.

Tempo HSC 2.3: Ford already has a decent OHC 2.3 so let's make an OHV 2.3 by hacking off two cylinders from an L6 and completely screw up everything.

Chevrolet 1.8/2.0/2.2 OHV: I hate this engine. As much as you hear about how the Neon 2.0 is a piece of gasket scrubbing junk? I have seen so many Cavaliers with a chunk of metal missing between the intake and exhaust valve. And then there is that leaf spring timing chain tensioner. I know from the sound when it has failed. And the cooling system problems! It's also a good thing that the alternator is easy to replace because it is mounted immediately adjacent to the exhaust manifold and will cook the backside of the alternator. Occasionally I see a Cavalier with 200,000 miles....the sun even shines on a dog's rear some days.

Ford CVH: Not really a self-destructing engine. Just an unpleasant one.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Nissan 2.5L
The engine would burn enough oil to wear out the cat. Next, pieces of it would get sucked back into the engine, causing a vicious cycle of oil burning, and soon the engine needed replacement.

Toyota 3E and 3EE engines
They were found in the Tercel, and many didn't last.

GM 3.1 and 3.4 One of 2 engine families that I regularly need to replace head gaskets

Ford 3.0 OHV the other engine I regularly have to replace head gaskets on.

Mazda turbocharged rotary
They just don't last, even if they were never modified.

Mazda renesis

Chrysler 3.8L
Those engines regularly burn oil. I don't like the car my grandmother has right now, but at least it isn't a Chrysler T&C van.


It is your, the 13B-REW was designed to fail, but a turbo rotary that suffered no neglect/abuse would easily cross the 100k mile mark. Trouble is, most people did not understand just how poorly a turbo rotary would react to abuse, and the results spoke for themselves. Detonation kills them in a heartbeat, as does overheating. Add in the idiots in warm climates who figured they "didn't need antifreeze" and ate out their water seals, and the engine developed a reputation for doing nothing good at all. I still got 146k out of my 13BT in my Turbo II, on the original engine, before it got wrecked by a drunk teenager hitting me. But, that's because it was never allowed to exist under conditions where it could die.

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Nissan 2.5L
The engine would burn enough oil to wear out the cat. Next, pieces of it would get sucked back into the engine, causing a vicious cycle of oil burning, and soon the engine needed replacement.

Toyota 3E and 3EE engines
They were found in the Tercel, and many didn't last.

GM 3.1 and 3.4 One of 2 engine families that I regularly need to replace head gaskets

Ford 3.0 OHV the other engine I regularly have to replace head gaskets on.

Mazda turbocharged rotary
They just don't last, even if they were never modified.

Mazda renesis

Chrysler 3.8L
Those engines regularly burn oil. I don't like the car my grandmother has right now, but at least it isn't a Chrysler T&C van.


It is your, the 13B-REW was designed to fail, but a turbo rotary that suffered no neglect/abuse would easily cross the 100k mile mark. Trouble is, most people did not understand just how poorly a turbo rotary would react to abuse, and the results spoke for themselves. Detonation kills them in a heartbeat, as does overheating. Add in the idiots in warm climates who figured they "didn't need antifreeze" and ate out their water seals, and the engine developed a reputation for doing nothing good at all. I still got 146k out of my 13BT in my Turbo II, on the original engine, before it got wrecked by a drunk teenager hitting me. But, that's because it was never allowed to exist under conditions where it could die.

2 friends of mine left their RX-7 turbo models completely stock, and maintained them at their dealer. Both got only 90,000 miles from their engines. they never ran their car on a track, only on the street.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog


Chevrolet 1.8/2.0/2.2 OHV: I hate this engine. As much as you hear about how the Neon 2.0 is a piece of gasket scrubbing junk? I have seen so many Cavaliers with a chunk of metal missing between the intake and exhaust valve. And then there is that leaf spring timing chain tensioner. I know from the sound when it has failed. And the cooling system problems! It's also a good thing that the alternator is easy to replace because it is mounted immediately adjacent to the exhaust manifold and will cook the backside of the alternator. Occasionally I see a Cavalier with 200,000 miles....the sun even shines on a dog's rear some days.

I love the 2.2 version of this motor! I can't tell you how many of these I have had over the years, just picked up a 2001 with 205k on it. As long as you don't overheat them, they run forever. Get them hot and you're putting a new head on...but that's almost as easy as an oil change.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
The point of buying a new car is so it isn't worn out and you don't have to add 2 quarts of oil every fill up.


Not really. The point of buying a new car is that you have a warranty to get things fixed when they go wrong.

New cars have design faults and manufacturing faults. Old cars wear out (because most of the ones with design and manufacturing faults were fixed or are in the scrapyard).

Also, a lot of the engine faults like oil consumption are probably due to the continual push for better fuel economy. Pistons get smaller, piston rings get lower tension, and oil gets thinner. Manufacturers wouldn't be pushing so hard if Obama and co weren't pushing for higher mpg.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Nissan 2.5L
The engine would burn enough oil to wear out the cat. Next, pieces of it would get sucked back into the engine, causing a vicious cycle of oil burning, and soon the engine needed replacement.

Toyota 3E and 3EE engines
They were found in the Tercel, and many didn't last.

GM 3.1 and 3.4 One of 2 engine families that I regularly need to replace head gaskets

Ford 3.0 OHV the other engine I regularly have to replace head gaskets on.

Mazda turbocharged rotary
They just don't last, even if they were never modified.

Mazda renesis

Chrysler 3.8L
Those engines regularly burn oil. I don't like the car my grandmother has right now, but at least it isn't a Chrysler T&C van.


It is your, the 13B-REW was designed to fail, but a turbo rotary that suffered no neglect/abuse would easily cross the 100k mile mark. Trouble is, most people did not understand just how poorly a turbo rotary would react to abuse, and the results spoke for themselves. Detonation kills them in a heartbeat, as does overheating. Add in the idiots in warm climates who figured they "didn't need antifreeze" and ate out their water seals, and the engine developed a reputation for doing nothing good at all. I still got 146k out of my 13BT in my Turbo II, on the original engine, before it got wrecked by a drunk teenager hitting me. But, that's because it was never allowed to exist under conditions where it could die.

2 friends of mine left their RX-7 turbo models completely stock, and maintained them at their dealer. Both got only 90,000 miles from their engines. they never ran their car on a track, only on the street.


Directly from an absolutely RABID RX7 cultist: a turbo 13B is going to be pretty much done by 75,000 miles...might get a bit more if you drive like your grandmother.