Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

What are your top 5 motors of the last 15 years?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 3, 2003 | 12:37 PM
  #16  
jrp4uc's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,724
From: Hebron, KY
Re: What are your top 5 motors of the last 15 years?

Originally posted by loberant
2.2L Tubro-charged boxer Subaru
It's 2.0L turbo boxer
Old Jun 3, 2003 | 01:21 PM
  #17  
Evil Turbo SS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 781
From: Houston TX (Chicago/Evanston IL)
By the no exotic clause the LT5 should not be listed. It was a hand built exspensive motor.In its six years only 4500 or less were put on the street. Smaller run than most porsce/ prancing horse cars.
Old Jun 3, 2003 | 02:46 PM
  #18  
bigsteve7's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 499
From: Raleigh, NC
I dont think by anymeans the LT5 is one of the top 5 motors from the last 15 years, but then agani its all on how you rate them. I'm going by perforance, reliability, practicality etc. The LT5 gets booted in my opinion because while it was a good motor for its time, its cost, and costs for repair etc. are way out of the league of your average car buyer. Its definately one of the top 5 "coolest" motors, but I dont think its one fo the top 5 "best."

If I had to make a top 5 coolest motors list itd be totally different. Just curious, are people making their picks by a "best engine" point of view or are they pickign their personal favorites?

Last edited by bigsteve7; Jun 3, 2003 at 02:51 PM.
Old Jun 3, 2003 | 03:19 PM
  #19  
CamaroJim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 180
From: Chino, California
I am suprised that only one other person (the guy who keeps spelling his name wrong ) mentioned the new I6 from GM. an I6 which puts out 275 horsepower, is very, VERY quiet and smooth! The same engine you can bolt on a supercharger to and get 400 little horsies out of (sounds boost friendly to me).........I am ashamed of you all!!!!
Old Jun 3, 2003 | 06:12 PM
  #20  
WERM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,873
From: South Jersey
Originally posted by 1990 Turbo Grand Prix

3. Quad 4 (sound funky, but really was a good motor and the forerunner to the Northstar's technology)
If I had about two hours, I'd post everything that went wrong on mine. Yeah, they made good power, but they were no engineering marvel by a long shot. No smiley can describe how I feel about this engine, but this one is close (a little on the positive side though) ->

I think other notable engines (beyond what has been mentioned earlier) -

*Honda S2000 Engine
*Neon SRT4 Engine
*VW VR6
*Chevy 305 - less than 200 HP out of a basic engine design that can handle more than 350HP doesn't sound impressive until you consider how overbuilt and indestructable these engines are. I've got 225,000 miles on mine and it still doesn't use any oil.
Old Jun 3, 2003 | 06:21 PM
  #21  
GN1270's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 361
From: Connecticut
Buick 3.8L SFI turbo.....
Old Jun 3, 2003 | 08:58 PM
  #22  
RiceEating5.0's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
1. 2JZwatever I6 from the Supra TT (overbuilt and very potent)

2. 2003 S/c 4.6L Dohc (Same as above, gotta love the S/c and v8 combo)

3. Turbocharged 3.8L GN motor (15 years later and this engine still rocks)

4. Current m3 engine.

5. S2000 2.0L 240hp I4 (120hp/Lt)
Old Jun 3, 2003 | 09:20 PM
  #23  
kizz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 564
From: Fletcher, NC, US
Well, It's a 20-21 yr old motor but.. the LU5; Can't beat it for originality It gets second-glances at all the car shows.

gt
Old Jun 3, 2003 | 11:11 PM
  #24  
Evil Turbo SS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 781
From: Houston TX (Chicago/Evanston IL)
Im surprised no one has mentioned the 5.4 lightning motor or the new 5.7 Hemi.
Old Jun 4, 2003 | 06:56 AM
  #25  
Eric Bryant's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Originally posted by Evil Turbo SS
Im surprised no one has mentioned the 5.4 lightning motor or the new 5.7 Hemi.
The 5.4 L Lightning engine isn't too bad, but the Hemi? Not only is it only competitive with the 6-year-old LS1, but it requires a twin-plug head in order to get decent part-throttle/light-load combustion. That's not to say that it's a bad engine, but the GenIII is far superior in my eyes.
Old Jun 4, 2003 | 01:49 PM
  #26  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
1. Ford's 5.0 HO: The simplest, most durable, easiest to hop up engine on the planet. It got better fuel milage and more power than the so-called "more advanced" smaller 4.6. Any 1985 engine that lasts 220,000 miles and is still going strong when I sold it is no doubt a great engine.

2. GM's LT1: The reverse flow cooling and cam driven water pump was almost ingenious, as was the optispark (once GM figured how to properly seal it from water & dirt). Made impressive power, good fuel economy & extremely durable.

3. GM's 3.8 Turbo V6: Indestructable, underrated, and very responsive to hop-ups. Also by association, Buick's normally aspired 3.8 V6. This engine was designed in the early 60's, sold to ****** Jeep, bought back from Jeep, used in the 70s during the energy crisis, turbo'ed to unbelievable heights in the 80s, supercharged to unbelievable heights since then, and is still relevent today, 40 years after it was 1st designed. Indirectly it's the oldest American made powerplant.

4. Cadillac's Northstar V8: Perhaps the best engineered multi cam V8 on the planet. "Limp home" mode, though fairly common today, was genious when introduced. This engine singlehandely brought Cadillac back into the game and spawned an equally impressive smaller version used in Oldsmobile. There simply is no other car on the planet that equals this engine, even at Cadillac prices.

5. Last but not least, GM's LS1 & LS6 V8s: These 5.7 liter engines not only get from 340 to 400 horsepower, they also has the same fuel economy as a Toyota Solara's 198 horse 3.0 liter V6 (19/28 Z28 vs 20/27 Solara). These engines are advanced in every way from compact size & alumunum construction, to a advanced engine management system. Beyond piston slap, I've heard of no problems with these engines at all. The only down side is that these engines are already so pumped up, there isn't too much you can do to them. Wish all engines had that problem.


Honorable Mention:

Ford-Yamaha SHO V6: Free revving, high output, trouble free engine that escaped Ford's V6 headgasket debacle, and unlike the V8 version that replaced it, the engine had no tendancy to self destruct once the normal warranty ran out.

Ford's SC 4.6 V8: Here's an engine that puts out much the same ACTUAL horsepower as such engines as the 426 Hemi, Ram Air 2s, SD 455s, and a host of other "historic "muscle" powerplants.... out of just 281 cubic inches!
Old Jun 4, 2003 | 02:02 PM
  #27  
IZ28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,647
From: At car shows and cruise nights!
The L98. Torque!! Whoo Hooo!! This is the engine that brought back real performance to the F-Body when all there was before was pretty low powered 305's. Ever since the 350 TPI our cars have been getting faster and progressing back to real muscle, they basically started it off again. 5.7 Liters, 225HP, 330TQ, 6 sec 0-60's, and low 14's in 87 was definetly something to talk about. This was probably the 1st actually good fuel injected GM engine with some power, gas mileage was rated at 16/26 MPG too. They are still great contenders today and you can't beat an SBC. Unless you have a BBC that is.

Last edited by IZ28; Jun 4, 2003 at 09:28 PM.
Old Jun 4, 2003 | 04:31 PM
  #28  
l_bilyk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 94
From: Mississauga Ont.
Originally posted by Eric Bryant
The 5.4 L Lightning engine isn't too bad, but the Hemi? Not only is it only competitive with the 6-year-old LS1, but it requires a twin-plug head in order to get decent part-throttle/light-load combustion.
haha talk about a little history repeating... the only reason chrysler ever went with the hemi design is because thy could not refine a regular straight valve motor to the same degree as GM and ford
Old Jun 5, 2003 | 04:13 AM
  #29  
CamaroJim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 180
From: Chino, California
psssst.... the GM Inline 6
Old Jun 5, 2003 | 10:02 AM
  #30  
loberant's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 18
Well im glad to see a lot good comments about the 3.0 Sho motor (the 3.4 V8 SUCKS). I owned 2 other sho's before the one i own now. I am not a fan of fords, but that car is just amazing. I just bought a 92 5-speed loaded with 51,000 miles on it for $3800 bucks



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 PM.