Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    The Car Lounge
    Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 172

    Thread: WORST V6 Engines Ever Made.....

    1. 08-10-2012 02:41 AM #1
      Can include low on power or crappy reliability, GIVE ME YOUR EXAMPLES.

      I have to say the Audi 2.8L things drank oil like no tommorow. Engine cover was so bulbous it made it look big as a 6.0 small block. This thing was slow as s*** on the low end of the power band getting the 5 speed manual didnt help that (I can only imagine how painful a C4 100 series with an auto would be).

    2. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 17th, 2008
      Posts
      675
      Vehicles
      3.6 4mo, 9k Aero
      08-10-2012 02:54 AM #2
      I see your terrible V6, and I'll raise you one.


    3. Member mm3's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 10th, 2010
      Location
      Houston née NYC
      Posts
      2,194
      Vehicles
      Please See Signature.
      08-10-2012 03:02 AM #3
      In the late 80's, Nissan offered their Hardbody pickup with the VG30E V6, Ford had the 2.9 V6 and later 4.0 V6 in their Ranger, and GM had the 2.8 V6 and later on the 4.3 V6. Toyota needed a V6 to compete with the other trucks.

      What they came out with was bad, really bad. The 3VZE was a 3.0 liter SOHC V6, the only non-DOHC V6 Toyota has sold, which makes it an oddball. However this motor became notorious for blowing head gaskets (repeatedly), which resulted in multiple recalls, plus the engine was underpowered, lord help you if it was automatic. Plus this engine boasted the fuel economy of a V8 engine, without the power or torque of said V8. Not that it mattered because plenty of these engines blew themselves to pieces. The 3VZE is more then likely Toyota's most hated engine, one that is best avoided.



    4. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Mar 24th, 2001
      Posts
      26,923
      08-10-2012 03:09 AM #4
      Early 1990s 3.8L "Essex" V6 engines in the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable had a reputation for frequent head gasket failures.

    5. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Mar 24th, 2001
      Posts
      26,923
      08-10-2012 03:11 AM #5
      The Peugeot - Renault - Volvo V6 engine was not known for durability. It is why old Volvo 260-series cars are very rare compared to 240-series cars which used the durable "red block" 4 cylinder engines.


    6. Member worth_fixing's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 23rd, 2009
      Location
      Montreal, Qc
      Posts
      4,024
      Vehicles
      2014 Mazda3 Sport GS
      08-10-2012 05:15 AM #6
      Worst ever? I don't know, but this one is rated pretty poorly. Many many of them seize at one of the main bearing for lack of oil. These engines aren't typically pushed very hard, given the vehicles they're put in, yet their failure rate is pretty high. They're also bad with engine sludge (probable source of lack of oil on bearings) and have problems warming up.

      2.7L V6 Sebring. They sound good though.

      http://badges.fuelly.com/images/sig-metric/286588.png
      The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten." -Benjamin Franklin
      Kind regards,
      James

    7. Member Tommi's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 1st, 2005
      Location
      Finland
      Posts
      279
      08-10-2012 05:15 AM #7
      Quote Originally Posted by tjl View Post
      The Peugeot - Renault - Volvo V6 engine was not known for durability. It is why old Volvo 260-series cars are very rare compared to 240-series cars which used the durable "red block" 4 cylinder engines.

      Came to post this.

      However the word "Ever" opens the time scale. I don't have knowledge about any engines before early 80's.

    8. Member MikkiJayne's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 1st, 2007
      Location
      UK
      Posts
      9,861
      Vehicles
      A6 TDI Quattro wagon, A4 TDI Quattro racecar
      08-10-2012 05:40 AM #8
      Quote Originally Posted by Impeccable View Post
      Can include low on power or crappy reliability, GIVE ME YOUR EXAMPLES.

      I have to say the Audi 2.8L things drank oil like no tommorow. Engine cover was so bulbous it made it look big as a 6.0 small block. This thing was slow as s*** on the low end of the power band getting the 5 speed manual didnt help that (I can only imagine how painful a C4 100 series with an auto would be).
      I read the thread title and immediately this POS boat anchor sprung to mind

      However, I take your 174hp of fury and raise you the 2.6L version All the same problems of the 2.8, but making a miserable 150hp on a good day. Its a wonder it could even drag its own weight around

      Do you know they even made a 2.4L version of the 30V? What an utter waste of space

      But even these are eclipsed by possibly the worst VAG engine ever concieved...

      I give you the 2.5 V6 TDI:



      This weighs more than the space shuttle yet makes no more power than the glorious I5 TDI. It has 24 valves, but to cram them in to a vertical arrangement needed by a diesel VAG came up with the most stupid complicated cam follower system possible, and then forgot to harden the camshafts properly. The result is that the cams wear out, then the rockers fall out in to the valvetrain or in to the crank where they get mushed up in to lovely liquid sandpaper. Since there are no rockers on top of the lifters any more they all pop out of the heads and you lose oil pressure. Cascade failure results and its time for a new motor

      Mine was running on 17 out of 24 valves when I pulled it out and put a 1.9 I4 in its place.
      Throw an Audi engineer down a hole with a ladder and he will fashion a shovel from it and tunnel his way out

      Quote Originally Posted by shwak23 View Post
      You could always call your insurance and say that some vandals tried to swap your car to rwd while you weren't looking.

    9. Member ZachSav's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 12th, 2011
      Location
      Downingtown, PA
      Posts
      1,121
      Vehicles
      2004 GTI, 2005 Nissan Xterra
      08-10-2012 05:54 AM #9
      Quote Originally Posted by tjl View Post
      Early 1990s 3.8L "Essex" V6 engines in the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable had a reputation for frequent head gasket failures.
      Same engine, same problems, but in the mustang v6 (94-98)

      Bagged 2004 GTI - Toy -
      2005 Nissan Xterra - Daily Driver -

      Tumblr . Twitter . Instagram - @ZachSav

    10. Member mx5er's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 28th, 2001
      Location
      NY
      Posts
      13,542
      08-10-2012 06:27 AM #10
      Who remembers Chevy's Twin Dual Cam V6?



      Based on the 2.8L OHV V6. Since the engine started life as a OHV design. The cams were driven by a combination of chain and belts. Must be fun changing out the timing belt. And since originally it was a OHV design, a balance shaft resides where the cam used to be within the vee.

      At the time, I understand, the tried and true 3800 V6 was much better. I believe the Twin Dual Cam had a short life. It was supposed to be in the new Oldsmobile Intrigue. But that was canned since the new V6 version of the Northstar V8 was about to be introduced. So initially, the Intrigue was equipped with the 3800.

      One bright spot was, you could get the Twin Dual Cam with a 5 speed manual one some GM W body models.

      Who also remembers the Shortstar V6???



      I believe it was only offered on the 2nd gen. base Aurora and the Intrigue.

    11. Member Egz's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 30th, 2002
      Location
      Virginia
      Posts
      16,830
      Vehicles
      2006 Ford Fusion 2.3 Turbo, 2014 Fiesta SE 1.0T
      08-10-2012 07:04 AM #11
      Quote Originally Posted by worth_fixing View Post
      Worst ever? I don't know, but this one is rated pretty poorly. Many many of them seize at one of the main bearing for lack of oil. These engines aren't typically pushed very hard, given the vehicles they're put in, yet their failure rate is pretty high. They're also bad with engine sludge (probable source of lack of oil on bearings) and have problems warming up.

      2.7L V6 Sebring. They sound good though.

      I'll see your Sebring, and raise you a K-car. The 3.0 Pentastar engine, with the valve guides made out of wax.


    12. Member bificus99's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2nd, 2008
      Location
      SC
      Posts
      1,032
      Vehicles
      1975 280Z/2012 Maxima SV/2012 Chevy Cruze eco
      08-10-2012 07:08 AM #12
      Quote Originally Posted by mx5er View Post
      Who remembers Chevy's Twin Dual Cam V6?



      Based on the 2.8L OHV V6. Since the engine started life as a OHV design. The cams were driven by a combination of chain and belts. Must be fun changing out the timing belt. And since originally it was a OHV design, a balance shaft resides where the cam used to be within the vee.

      At the time, I understand, the tried and true 3800 V6 was much better. I believe the Twin Dual Cam had a short life. It was supposed to be in the new Oldsmobile Intrigue. But that was canned since the new V6 version of the Northstar V8 was about to be introduced. So initially, the Intrigue was equipped with the 3800.

      One bright spot was, you could get the Twin Dual Cam with a 5 speed manual one some GM W body models.

      Who also remembers the Shortstar V6???



      I believe it was only offered on the 2nd gen. base Aurora and the Intrigue.
      A few GM cars had this too, reviews were not kind. "sounds strained under load".
      3800 however was much more durable.

    13. Member atomicalex's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2nd, 2001
      Location
      Detroit and Düsseldorf
      Posts
      14,257
      Vehicles
      dark blue stick shift station wagon, shiny yellow motorbike, dirty green motorbike
      08-10-2012 07:25 AM #13
      Quote Originally Posted by bificus99 View Post
      3800 however was much more durable.
      As long as you didn't stress the intake manifold gasket too much...
      A(u). Klasse A, unbeschrankt, ungedrosselt
      Compared to a British roadster, all Volkswagens are reliable!

      nevAr Lose - DE Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Bankruptcy Controller - IPROfftopikstan, Den Mother - Team Emmett

    14. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 1st, 2010
      Location
      NYC
      Posts
      639
      Vehicles
      2014 Q50. Past: '03 WRX, '93 S4, '93 Saab 9K Aero. Got my first Vortex ban before you could drive.
      08-10-2012 07:43 AM #14
      I've got plenty of miles under my belt behind the wheel of a 2001 Aurora with the Shortstar. Honestly, it's a better motor for that car than the Northstar V8. Decent power (never felt slow) and far better gas mileage than the V8. No real motor problems either, just a little leaky from time to time (valve cover gaskets weren't awesome)

    15. 08-10-2012 08:52 AM #15
      BEHOLD! The Olds 4.3L diesel!

    16. Member CodeMan's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 12th, 2006
      Location
      Denverish
      Posts
      7,834
      Vehicles
      Scirocco 16v, E34 540i
      08-10-2012 08:55 AM #16
      Quote Originally Posted by Impeccable View Post
      Can include low on power or crappy reliability, GIVE ME YOUR EXAMPLES.

      I have to say the Audi 2.8L things drank oil like no tommorow. Engine cover was so bulbous it made it look big as a 6.0 small block. This thing was slow as s*** on the low end of the power band getting the 5 speed manual didnt help that (I can only imagine how painful a C4 100 series with an auto would be).
      First one I thought of.
      The blues ain't nothin' but a good man feelin' bad.

      Tschüß Gilda, Hallo Birgit

    17. Member bikerboy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 23rd, 2005
      Location
      MA/NH
      Posts
      2,744
      Vehicles
      2003 Saab 9-5 Aero Sportwagon-5MT, 1973 MG Midget
      08-10-2012 09:08 AM #17
      Quote Originally Posted by mx5er View Post

      Who also remembers the Shortstar V6???



      I believe it was only offered on the 2nd gen. base Aurora and the Intrigue.
      We had a '99 Intrigue with the "Shortstar" 3.5. Good power, but wow did it drink oil. Doing really any work in the engine bay, including something as simple as replacing the battery was a huge pain because of the angular supports at each forward corner.

    18. Member
      Join Date
      Mar 7th, 2006
      Location
      Nashville, TN
      Posts
      1,032
      Vehicles
      02 GTI, 72 Pontiac Catalina, 03 Elantra
      08-10-2012 09:11 AM #18


      Buick odd fire V6, cousin to the always maligned Rover V8

      introduced in 1961 for the 1962 model year Buick Special with Buick's 198 cu in (3.2 L) engine, the first V6 in an American car. Because it was derived from Buick's 215 cu in (3.5 L) aluminum V8, it has a 90° bank between cylinders and an uneven firing pattern due to the crankshaft having only three crank pins set at 120° apart, with opposing cylinders (1-2, 3-4 and 5-6) sharing a crank pin in, as do many V8 engines. The uneven firing pattern was often perceived as roughness, leading a former American Motors executive to crow "It was rougher than a cob."
      strangely, being one of the worst V6s ever made, this engine is a direct ancestor to the 3800 V6 that is also one of the best V6 engines ever made

    19. Member BostonB6's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 16th, 2005
      Location
      Boston, MA
      Posts
      9,359
      Vehicles
      2013 BMW E93 328i / 2015.5 Volvo XC-60
      08-10-2012 09:14 AM #19
      Sorry, but all those V6's are stellar when compared with the base 200-cubic-inch (3.3 L) V-6 engine for the 1978 Chevrolet Malibu which developed just 95 horsepower (71 kW). This engine has NO redeeming qualities. Couple that with a wonderful 3 speed automatic and you have what is possibly the worst combination that I've ever driven.

    20. 08-10-2012 09:19 AM #20
      Quote Originally Posted by Impeccable View Post
      I have to say the Audi 2.8L things drank oil like no tommorow. Engine cover was so bulbous it made it look big as a 6.0 small block. This thing was slow as s*** on the low end of the power band getting the 5 speed manual didnt help that (I can only imagine how painful a C4 100 series with an auto would be).
      I (my wife) owned a C4 auto wagon for 10 years, and although I agree it was no performance engine, my 528e w/ ~120 hp felt quicker around town, it was smooth, quiet, reliable, and felt much stronger at highway speeds. Though I would agree that engine was the worst part of an otherwise great car, no wonder the C4 S4/6s are so well loved, as the turbo 5 fixed the C4's glaring deficiency.

      In its day, in the class of car it was in I would agree that it was the worst v6 made, but compared to cheaper cars or older v6s not a chance, there were far worse that came before it from a performance and reliability standpoint and after based on reliability. It also looked really good in the engine bay.
      Last edited by phofpower; 08-10-2012 at 09:27 AM.

    21. Member geofftii2002's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 6th, 2001
      Location
      Lehigh Valley, PA
      Posts
      14,268
      Vehicles
      2008 Mini Cooper S Clubman, 2006 Forester, 1972 BMW 2002tii, 93 W124 gone to the glue factory
      08-10-2012 09:22 AM #21
      Quote Originally Posted by Egz View Post
      The 3.0 Pentastar engine, with the valve guides made out of wax.
      I don't know what it is, but this sort of stuff makes me giggle.
      Classicmotoringllc.com - my new brokerage and consulting business based out of a lavishly converted first floor bedroom in Allentown, PA. I am always looking for quality enthusiast cars to consign, research projects or consultation opportunities. Keep an eye on my page as you can see my blabberings about cars and other such junk in the blog section!

    22. 08-10-2012 09:46 AM #22
      Audi 2.5 Tdi.
      89 W201 2.5-16v - 80 Corrolla KE70 wagon - 77 Caprice Coupe.

    23. Member MK5golf's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 30th, 2012
      Location
      French Canada
      Posts
      1,904
      Vehicles
      2009 VW Rabbit; 2015 Honda CBR300r
      08-10-2012 09:48 AM #23
      Quote Originally Posted by worth_fixing View Post
      Worst ever? I don't know, but this one is rated pretty poorly. Many many of them seize at one of the main bearing for lack of oil. These engines aren't typically pushed very hard, given the vehicles they're put in, yet their failure rate is pretty high. They're also bad with engine sludge (probable source of lack of oil on bearings) and have problems warming up.

      2.7L V6 Sebring. They sound good though.

      Exactly what I came in here to post. WORST EVAR!
      Full time manual transmission elitist
      Part time arm chair CEO

    24. Member GLgod's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 23rd, 2006
      Location
      Philly
      Posts
      1,307
      Vehicles
      '07 TL, '03 GTI 24V, '03 R6, '04 Pathfinder
      08-10-2012 09:55 AM #24
      Not sure if this was already mentioned...

      But GM's LR2 2.8 V6 was the biggest pos that I can remember. Had one in a Cherokee and when it wasn't broken, the thing could barely reach 65mph in stock form.
      The Elite 24v VR6 Club: Member #245

    25. 08-10-2012 09:58 AM #25
      I'll also nominate the 3.0L L81 found in the Catera and some Saturns:

    Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •