WORST V6 Engines Ever Made.....

[Broduski]

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.

/thread. We're done here.

[SLC_Punker]

Came for this exact post; leaving satisfied.

[TurboMinivan]

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

That engine is/was not called the Pentastar; you're thinking of Chrysler's current 3.6L DOHC V6.

And speaking of Chrysler, they didn't make the 3.0L you mentioned--it's a Mitsubishi engine. While I'm no fan, but I will be honest: if you rebuild the heads and installed better valve guides, it's actually an acceptably decent engine.

[1985Jetta]

The Duratec V6 used in Contours/Mystiques.

[GolfVIDriver]

The Duratec V6 used in Contours/Mystiques.

On what grounds?

THat actually is a pretty decent engine.

[motronicmalfunction]

yes, it has been mentioned in here, but this engine really deserves a giant trophy made of poop and dongs.

The longitudinal LR2 was a truck version ("B-code") produced from 1982 to 1990. It used a 2-barrel carburetor and produced 115 hp (86 kW) and 150 lb·ft (203 N·m). This engine is often revered as the most unreliable version. It's plagued with bottom end issues which range from spun bearings to compression loss related to engineering flaws in the lubrication system. Many auto parts stores sold crankshaft kits for this motor due to its original popularity and likelihood of failure. Many people claim this to be one of the worst engines ever made taking into account the power output, longevity, and terrible fuel efficiency.

after spending a few years sweating away in the automachine shop, i could say - without a doubt - the most common work we did was rebuild lr2 v6's. the heads alone would show up in rows, all from overheated engines - warped, cracked, and miserable. we tried to get smart about it, so we pulled sets of heads from the junkyard with the idea of having them set up & ready to go. at least half the heads we pulled were already cracked to some extent. these were from vehicles that had accident damage or roll-overs (they weren't in the junkyard because they had engine trouble).

we ended up with a huge pile of lr2 v6 parts in the corner. blocks, heads, cranks, entire engines. customers would drop it off, we worked up estimates, then call back later and say forget it, keep the parts. so then came the guy who loved lr2's more than we did:

SCRAPMETALMAN...these guys alone deserve their own thread. anyone who has ever worked in a tradepark-type office park is familiar with the pioneers of lurk...

[1985Jetta]

On what grounds?

THat actually is a pretty decent engine.

Hard to work on.

[saron81]

The Duratec V6 used in Contours/Mystiques.

Hard to work on.

That's because of what they're installed in. The motor itself does not belong on this list.
It's easy to work on in the Escape, or in RWD applications.

[MAG58]

Hard to work on.

By those grounds there are a significant number of good V6's that equally qualify for worst.

[IridiumB6]

Hard to work on.

Pretty weak excuse there, mate

[200HP4dr]

Some of these engines, while having their faults, are far from a terrible engine. The GM 3.4 is not a bad engine. They make decent power and get pretty good fuel economy. The reason they blow gaskets is an accounting problem, not a design problem. That engine is in everything and has been around forever. Its powered "sporty" sedans to minivans.

As for the Chrysler engine, when the 2.7 came out in the Intrepid, I thought this engine was a beast! It had to rev for you to go anywhere, but it was hauling a massive car! I bought a brand new Intrepid in 2000 and loved it. I ended up trading it for a Camry less than a year later after my wife got tired of driving such a big car. I had no idea that they just weren't very durable and had all the timing chain and bearing issues. However, I had this engine in an 05 Sebring Sedan and thought it was fine. Had awesome power in a smaller car, but only average fuel economy.

The mitsu 3.0 was a beast when it came out too. It would power the Chrysler minivans to stoplight victories against many a stock import. Smoked like a freight train though.

When I think of a truly bad V6, that Audi 2.8 comes to mind. It had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. After driving several 10 and 20V turbo Type 44's, I just couldn't bring myself to "upgrade" to the C4 chassis. They got crappier mileage and were so slow!

[Toaster29]

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.

My parents bought a Volvo 760 in '85 or so, when I was about 3. I barely remember them buying it, but I do clearly remember my Dad replacing the cams in the back yard over a weekend when I was in about the 3rd or 4th grade. They got the V6 because they wanted a reliable, resilient drivetrain over the turbo 4


Also, I believe the 2.7L motors in the all the chrysler products was a rebranded Mitsu. That whole generation is known for being light on power, and heavy on burning oil due to a myriad of issues. My Dad had a first gen Montero with the 2V version that would occasionally burn enough oil to see a blue cloud float by while you were at a stop light. It would mysteriously stop for a few thousand miles, then return. We actually hardly ever had to add oil and it was pretty reliable other than the super annoying belt squeak and lifter tick endemic in that model.

[Cousin Eddie]

The reason they blow gaskets is an accounting problem, not a design problem.

Have you seen the amount of silicone you bridge across the gap when doing lower intake manifold gaskets? It's not exactly the best design. Sure they're powerful but they're still gasket eating junk.

[200HP4dr]

Have you seen the amount of silicone you bridge across the gap when doing lower intake manifold gaskets? It's not exactly the best design. Sure they're powerful but they're still gasket eating junk.

Oh yeah, are you using the updated gaskets? Once repaired, if done properly will last another 100k. You have to catch them early though. Before they start smoking. That's the thing, is that by the time the symptoms are serious enough for the average person to care about them, its already too late.

Chris

[CWDave]

Early 1990s 3.8L "Essex" V6 engines in the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable had a reputation for frequent head gasket failures.

That engine bay brings back nightmares. Then they decided to pair it with the most unreliable, clunky, and grenade prone auto transmission.

[geofftii2002]

I'll also nominate the 3.0L L81 found in the Catera and some Saturns:

Is that the one they put in the Saturn L300? Had a friend who worked for a Saturn dealer in MN when these wretched piles of dooo were new - they would unload them from the truck, park them out back and wait for a shipment of new engines to arrive a few days later. Such junkola!

[Cousin Eddie]

Oh yeah, are you using the updated gaskets? Once repaired, if done properly will last another 100k. You have to catch them early though. Before they start smoking. That's the thing, is that by the time the symptoms are serious enough for the average person to care about them, its already too late.

Chris

Yeah the last one I did (GF's dad's car) I used the good Fel-Pro gaskets. The silicone across the bridge is ridiculous. It was a minor leak in the intake which was no big deal, I fixed it and it will be fine for quite a while longer now.

Ours on the other hand (the ugly Teal car) just drank a resevoir of coolant out of nowhere and then proceeded to smoke. I parked it and checked the oil, full of coolant. Once that has happened there really isn't much sense in taking the time to repair the head gaskets. The crank bearings have been washed and it just makes everything a mess.

[asadjewonxmas]

gm cant design a good gasket. i did my 3.4 and 20k later it was shot again. it had the 3rd or 4th revision of the gasket too. at that point i sold it for my vw. i also had a lim gasket blow on a olds bravada with the 4.3 engine. same ****ty design at least that one didnt need to remove push rods to pull the gasket.

[Impeccable]

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.

I was subjected to the 2.5L version the 2VZ-FE head gasket failure in this

[alerxovawo]

I'll also nominate the GM L81 motor but this time its the "turbo" version that resides in the Saab 9-5 ARC 3.0t. My buddy used to drive one and it was slow and full of problems. You can find Saabs with this engine and low miles for dirt cheap...solely because of the terrible powerplant under the hood. An engine that sounded promising turned out to be complete crap. Who thinks an asymmetric turbo that powers 3 of the six cylinders was a good idea?

[Impeccable]

Same engine, same problems, but in the mustang v6 (94-98)

Wow didn't know the stang had the same exact manifold in its 3.8L, any rednecks upgrade to the windstar manifold

[2000JettaGLXVR6]

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 have to totally disagree with this. I drove around a 1994 100 S that I picked up on CL for $600. It was solid and peppy. I sold it after a week for $1,700

[Impeccable]

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.
Who also remembers the Shortstar V6???



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

I remember reading back in the day that GM tried the dual cam and other engines but decided against them because of they're high nvh levels. Remember Oldsmobile was trying to redifine itself in this era Come to think of it Intrigues are pretty much extinct around here.

[Impeccable]

I'll also nominate the 3.0L L81 found in the Catera and some Saturns:

Most L-series and cateras I drove shivered at idle(lumpy idle), only ones that didn't were super low mileage cateras.

[Impeccable]

That engine is/was not called the Pentastar; you're thinking of Chrysler's current 3.6L DOHC V6.

And speaking of Chrysler, they didn't make the 3.0L you mentioned--it's a Mitsubishi engine. While I'm no fan, but I will be honest: if you rebuild the heads and installed better valve guides, it's actually an acceptably decent engine.

I take v6 engines have never been a mitsu strength , I remember in the late 90's walking into shops and seeing plenty of head gasket failures in 3000GTs and Diamantes

[Impeccable]

On what grounds?

THat actually is a pretty decent engine.

Still makes me break neck when i hear a duratec paired to a 5-speed

[gsvr]

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 disagree with this too.. not sure about the 12valve one.. but i had the 2.8 30valve..

i drove it from 120k to 310k with out a single problem..

even at 310k miles engine was strong and smoth as butter..

[Broduski]

That engine is/was not called the Pentastar; you're thinking of Chrysler's current 3.6L DOHC V6.

And speaking of Chrysler, they didn't make the 3.0L you mentioned--it's a Mitsubishi engine. While I'm no fan, but I will be honest: if you rebuild the heads and installed better valve guides, it's actually an acceptably decent engine.

The DOHC 3.0's of the same family are quite good too. I dunno why they have a bad reputation. They're not bad.

[C4 A6]

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).

As an owner of one as my DD, I concur. Kicker: it's an auto.

[kraut_pauer79]

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.

let me be the 18589203847509th to post this, what a truly miserable turd that Chrysler 2.7 is, in every spectrum: power, reliability, and fuel economy.

[Impeccable]

As far as just bad v6s..


Ford sold some hodge podge European market sourced 2.8 v6 in the Ranger for one year in the 80s due to an engine shortage.
I know somebody that had one - it was weak, thirsty, and unreliable. A carb'd 302 swap would have improved the fuel economy. Seriously.

I think you mean the Cologne V6

[HerrGolf]

The 3.0 18-valve that Mazda put into MPVs and 929s is a nice "why did they bother" engine, and compared to Nissan's 12-valve VG, it came up short. I'm not sure how many of these there are left, but when they were around in greater numbers, they eventually all developed a distinct valvetrain noise which developed after 5 or so years.

[Impeccable]

Duck and run...

The 80s GM 2.8l V6 may have been the worst SOUNDING engine. It was "tuned" but ended up sounding like it was gargling.

I remember in the late 80s early 90s all you would hear was 2.8Ls taking off, can't say i hated how they sounded

[gsprobe]

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.

This 2.8 POS was used in S-10's and Blazers right? That is what came to mind for me- weren't these also NOTORIOUS for carbon build up everywhere? I def remember scraping insides of valve covers with screwdrivers for hours...

I also vote for the Ford 3.0 used in Rangers in late 90's. They had zero power, but were extremely noisy and whiney.

[turbinepowered]

BEHOLD! The Olds 4.3L diesel!

Honestly, this is probably the winner. No V6 singlehandedly killed an entire market like this one did. This was the copper-cooled of the Diesel world.

Eh, I'd lay that at the feet of the V8 version. There aren't/weren't nearly enough of those things around to have done that sort of damage, whereas the "350 diesel" was shoved into far more things and peddled harder.