I wouldn’t say that cam in block limits hp … it was 90% emissions limiting this engines even a old 6.2 can easily be turned up to 180 hp without a turbo
'02 GMC 8.1l only put out 345hp and 455ftlb. But my understanding was gm and Ford were not looking for high performance but rather longevity. Hence why these 8.1l, 6.0l, 5.4l and 6.8l engines are still around with well over 200 to even 300,000 miles plus on them. You look at current truck engine options and have to decide which failure you want to roll the dice on.
First Viper was way undertuned for reasons of longevity of the drivetrain. I was a chassis designer on the first gen, preproduction engines made a LOT more but tore up drivetrain parts.
charlie dee Wish they still made them, but I want to get a 99 gts. The viper v10 is just a monstrous powerhouse even as they were. Do you know if there is any merit to the rumours of the forged crank and pistons in the late 90s models?
@@bennyboyy7 the 1999 Viper was the last year of the all forged motor and the 906 cam shaft. And just to let the public know, I had a dyno at my shop and every Viper we dynoed made way more power than what they were rated.
Also the 1999 Viper was all a concept car that was suprisingly goes to in production. Chrysler wasn't sure how the car would sell, so they didn't tune up the engine. After that, the second gen was better.
@@SimplyTakuma You're ten years late. The concept car was shown at the Detroit International Auto Show in January of 1989, the production car came in 1992. I know this from being there, I was in the room when Iacocca announced it was approved for production in May 1991.
I have a 1973 Mercedes 220d diesel, 2.2L makes 60hp in a 3,000lb car. It is borderline dangerously slow but I love it. Mercedes gives a reference chart with the owners manual to estimate how much time it will take to accelerate around a car in a passing lane and it’s pretty funny to know that a 28 sec 0-60 was acceptable even back then.
There were lots of slow cars even in the heyday of the 60s muscle car era. Chevy sold lots more Chevelles with the 250 I6 and 307V8 than they did with the halo motors like the 396 and 454 SS. I'm sure the 250 was not rated much more than 150HP or so, gross HP, not net.
Correct on the 6.2 Detroit. It is gutless. I own a 1984 C30. Still to this day. It just will not die. It has not lived an easy life either. It has gone to work since 1984. It also does it at 30 MPG. Love that truck
i have 5 of them. love them. they are in trucks that i consider and use more like street legal "tractors" not great power to weight, but they just keep putting along as i need
in fact with 5:68 lockers, big tires and full of tools weight, i have one that one easily out pulled my friends 800+ super $70k whatever it was though mine was maxed at about 50mph, his was fast and felt great on the freeway with great fuel economy
It's about the HP per liter. 400hp out of a naturally aspirated 4 liter engine is awesome even today, 400hp out of an 8 liter naturally aspirated engine isn't.
@@rattlehead999 ur missing the point… In early 90s 400 hp was top tier… 5.0 mustangs were 225 hp… They didn’t have the technology we have today…. I agree. 400 hp out of a 8 liter v10 today is a dud.
@@hunterbidenscrackdealer3753 The problem is that in the early 90s the japanese were making slightly 100hp per liter naturally aspirated, which is double the HP per liter compared to the Viper. But the Japanese refused to make big engines, if they did, they would have dominated the world during that time period.
The English Electric 12CSVT locomotive engine is a V12 diesel, 185 litre displacement (pistons are 10 inches in diameter), and it produces 1750 horsepower, less than 10 horsepower per litre. But it sounds amazing under acceleration.
The cad 500 has potential. 11.1 with early 472 heads or 13.1 with 425 heads. Add the aluminum intake and a distributor curve and they are beasts. Forged steel crank, these things in stock form are bomb proof. I ran a 1974 472 5 quarts low and overheated it. Added oil and water and she fired right back up and continued on my trip. Only 80ish pounds heavier than a 350. Unlike a hot 350, this monster will idle smoothly and all that torque is right off idle. These can be the unsung power combo
Ever hear of Project Bad Seed by Hot Rod Magazine back in uhhh late 90's? Take a Caddy 500, warm it up, add it to a Chevette mounted half into the cabin, go drag racing. Look it up!
I mean, my 95 f150 has a 5.8 with like 180-220 horsepower, and torque is anyones guess. I can't seem to find the actual numbers, but it is pretty pathetic.
@Back Road Boy 460 is an insanely capable engine. Just not from the factory. The 7.3 IDI was pretty weak, but the 7.3 Powerstroke is plenty for its intended application. The 4.6 is at least according to some one of those million mile engines like the 7.3, just not tons of power or even really capability of making power.
Intresting history side note, the Mustang II wasn't available with a V8 in North America, in 1974 unless you bought it in Mexico. Speaking about the Caddy 500, in 1970 the 400 hp was gross after 72 the hp was measured net (as installed with all accessories) so that did significantly drop the numbers, not to say that it wasn't a smog-dog. The 70's brought emissions and things like CAFE cut the nards off everything. The technology wasn't there to meet the standards so you ended up with low compression, poor flowing heads, anemic cams, convoluted vacuum hoses, smog pumps, and restrictive exhausts... good times.
To be fair my old iron duke s10 was the only rig I've ever had run out of oil,catch fire, burn for 30 mins before we got it out. Then start and drive the 20 mins back to the house before it caught fire again. Truck still ran when I sent it to the wrecker
Just remember with poor performance: the brightest bulb lasts the shortest. A lot of engines used in industrial applications trade power output for endurance.
I would love to see a video on your opinion of the most reliable engines of all time. This was an amazing video and enjoyed watching it! Keep up the good work!
Rolls-Royce Corniche - pronounced "CORE-NEESH." It is a French word for "road cut into the side of a cliff." Tje Corniche was the somewhat more sporting Rolls-Royce, available in 2dr Coupe and Convertible. The 6.75 V8 was also in the Silver Shadow Sedan and Phantom Limousine.
I will always defend the 6.2 even if I do agree the hate for it. My 305 and my 454 have had issues along with the old 6.2 I had but that truck (6.2) would start for me no matter what I had done to it, no matter how cold it was and in a c20 23 mpg is pretty good imo
I'm a used car dealer, the nearest auction to me is 190 miles away. I got a 6.5 to tow inventory back and forth. Accelerating from a dead stop is painful, but once I'm rolling, I enjoy 15.3 MPG while towing 8k to 11k. I used to get about 11 MPG, but my injector pump quit, and when I pulled the old one, I found that whoever installed it last, put it in with retarded timing. I installed my new one with advanced timing. A bit of knock when cold, but runs fine otherwise.
@@vivillagerif you don’t need much for power or torque then a 6.5 is a great motor and on great platforms, it’s killer is the power as the 5.9 and 7.3 made more power or torque but I’ll die but my old 6.5. I’m actually looking for another with a 5 speed as it sits currently
Dont forget that in 1972 HP ratings were changed from gross to net, so when you compare numbers across this line your results aren't as bad as you make them out to be- Im not denying there was a loss of HP during this time, but some of the differences in your comparisons are artificially inflated.
These engines weren't necessarily bad they just had unreasonable emission goals that choked these engine to death..! It doesn't take a lot to get 500hp out of a Cadillac 500 you just got to pull the emission crap out of its ass and let it breath through something larger than a 175cfm 2 barrel!
I’m pretty sure all those Cadillacs had a 4BBL quadrajet. They all flow at least 750 CFM. I wanna say actually 850 CFM. All those engines were underrated. 190HP in a car that weighs around 5000lbs wouldn’t last very long because you’d have to beat the hell out of it every time you tried to merge onto an interstate. There are still a lot of these cars left with with over 100,000 miles on them.
You failed to mention that the 1976 Cadillac 500 only made that 190 HP in the carbureted version. The fuel-injected optional 500 motor made 25 more HP.
My '05 Dakota has the 4.7L in it, and it works very well in the mid-size truck. Even tows pretty well, but going up the Cajon Grade it does show its weaknesses. It does some rev-searching when trying to maintain 70MPH unless I completely full throttle it. I think the 4.7 was put into vehicles that were too heavy for it to really properly handle.
Some of these aren't as bad as they sound. The US auto industry switched from Gross hp to SAE Net hp around 1972. So the 180 hp Corvette would have about 250 hp under the Gross rating. Conversely, when builders and mechanics dyno an engine for comparison, they alway have an electric water pump, no alternator, and no air cleaner or mufflers. So as soon as they install it in a car, it is making less at the crank.
1:26 dafug you talking about Willis? There was NEVER Mustang II with a 840hp 302! VW flat four 25hp Chevy 3cylinder 48hp Honda CVCC 4cylinder 52hp Ford 255 V8 112hp
1975-1976 Ford 4.1L inline 6: 75HP for the 48 states, 72 for California! As far as I know, the '75-'76 6 cylinder automatic Granadas, at 23+ seconds 0-60 were the slowest American cars of that decade.
2:48 I knew my engine would be on this list. I have it in my 06 Grand Cherokee. It is comically slow for the displacement but, I love it. It sounds great and it is reliable as long as you ALWAYS change the oil on time. An intake really goes a long way with getting more power out of it too.
I'm surprised he didn't talk about the 4.6 from Ford or the 4.8 from gm since all 3 made roughly the same power. I still have my 05 ram 1500 since high school and I love it. It's not the fastest truck but it sure wasn't the slowest lol.
I'm honestly surprised he didn't talk shit about my 5.2 v8 (318), in my 97 dakota it makes 230 hp and 295 lb/ft of torque. But the thing has 240k miles on it and still going strong
I remember a '66 Chevy 283ci V8 that said it had 195 hp. That doesn't sound too bad after this video. I am thinking the measurement of horsepower in '66 was probably overstated.
@@edwardpate6128 That’s an important point no one ever really talks about. The best example to use is GM. They were the first to start reducing power output starting in 71. Ford, Chrysler and AMC waited until 72. Their engines on paper took a much larger hit. GM set an 8.5:1 compression ratio limit starting in 71. Their engine lineup from 71 to 72 was basically unchanged. So whatever HP and torque rating differences between 71 and 72 were the difference between gross and SAE ratings.
If you think the 79 Mustang was bad then you need to check the 255ci V8 from 1980 because it produced around 118hp and the funny part is that its a debored 302 but luckily the 302 came back in 82 if I'm not mistaken and so its power and by the time it reached around 85 i believe it was already making over 200 horses😮 and by 87 who ever owned a new Mustang then you're the man. 87 to 93 were the best from that era.
I don't think that the 5.0 engine was available in 1979. I believe it was also the 255 cubic inch engine and the 302 (5.0) wasn't available until 1982.
Well i own a 76 cadillac with the rated 190hp and on the dyno stock was 280hp at the rear wheels. 1k$ in parts with headers, high rise intake and a mild cam took it to nearly 380hp at the wheels
The 4.7 from Chrysler was actually designed by AMC prior to the buyout. The only thing the 4.7 has in common with the previous AMC V-8s is being a V-8. Most of these low power outputs on these engines have to do with engine controls to meet mileage and emissions goals. Engine control systems have come along way since the first electronic control systems. And since the 4.7 was a SOHC cam engine I'm surprised that Chrysler never seriously looked into swapping the heads out for twin cam 4 valve heads. (1) The 4.7 power output peaked at 310. I'm not sure just how much growth there was displacement wise in the 4.7 block due to the tighter bore spacing. If the block casting had any coolant passages between the cylinder walls it was likely only around .060c to .075" wide at the narrowest point. Also looking at the 4.7's combustion chamber and valve layout I'm wondering if the valve angles were splayed relative to each other. The valves them selves were rotated close to 45 degrees relative to the bore centerlines. 1) Going to a DOHC with a 4 valve head likely would have significantly increased the overall width of the engine. Unless they went to SOHC layout similiar to the 3.5 V-6. Curiously the 2.7, 3.5, 4.0 and I think the Pentastar V-6s all have the same bore spread as the LA and New Hemi V-8s at 4.440" or 4.450". Once you need to cast the aluminum block around the cast iron cylinder liners the block starts to get pretty long.
You missed the worst one of all time: ford’s 250 ci i6 from the 70s. At its lowest it had 72 hp, which is less than 20 per liter and all of these engines
The 4.7l standard output made 230 hp and the high output made 265hp. In 2008 and it made 305hp. You said it never made more than 50hp per liter and that's just not true. The 2008 motor with 305hp is 64hp per liter. I have an 01 dakota with a 4.7 with some mods and it's a solid motor, but I would absolutely hate to have a full sized ram with it. It's definitely too weak of a motor for that big of a truck.
@BigIglooUSMC it was offered alongside the 5.2/5.9 for a few years, and also the very late ones were flex fuel and made more power when ethanol was in them. The 4.7 was also significantly lighter than the 5.7 and especially the old 5.2/5.9
Toyotas 4.7 liter single overhead cam V8 from 2000 to 2007 only put out 245 horsepower and it was fuel injected and there was no mention of that. I had that motors in a Lexus GX 470 and it was underpowered.
This. I got an 08 ram. They modified the engine to 16 spark plugs and upped the horses to 305 with some minor mods. Runs pretty decent with 200000 miles
You should do a part two considering that the bottom end and rest of the car is there and made. Much harder to make all that than do a top end. Exhaust/Intake/Camshafts/Heads You can't do these videos without mentioning torque. There's a reason makers kept putting V8s in heavy vehicles even though I4, I4, and V6 power/energy was close, because it's not what mattered or lasted, it's the force
@@HeLpEr4u083 He keeps comparing hp. There's a reason makers kept putting V8s in heavy vehicles even though I4 and V6 power was close, because it's not what mattered or lasted
I loved the 2.5l in my S10. Wasnt fast, but you could beat on it all day long and it would just take it and come back for more. You can't beat it for reliability.
When I think of weak engines I think of the absolutely gutless and anemic 1990s and early 2000s Toyota products. Really bad inline 4 that had no torque and sounded like they're dying when you hit the gas. At least those over sized American engines have torque and some type of sound but those Japanese economy engines have nothing
Having started to drive during the era the Mustang IIs were common and the 1979 Fox body debuted, I have to come to their defense. Ford executives deserve a bit of shame for not jumping to offer something a bit more competitive under the hoods, but in retrospect, nobody was making anything that held a candle to what options a buyer had a decade earlier. The 1979 400 Poncho in a Trans Am was rated at 220 HP and only came with a four speed. It ripped the quarter in 14 seconds according to a Hot Rod Magazine test, beat the L82 225 HP Corvette. Z-28s were optimistically rated at 175 HP if you got the 350. The Dodge Lil Red Truck had a warmed over 225 horse 360 that was in the same ball park as the Trans Am. A 139 HP Ford 302 may have not been a power house, but it was the same architecture as the 289s and could be made to run at least more competitively. The 255 that came out the following year was a dog. Police car buyers in 79 got Ford LTDs on the Panther platform that had a less inspiring 351W 2V that came in varying degrees of tune - all dependent on how hung over the guy on the line was when slapping together the motor. They didn’t have enough power to cause the weak links to handle to come to light - took a redesigned 180 HP 351W Police Interceptor to do that. The 4.7 Dodge was a tougher, gutsier motor than I care to admit. I had one in a company furnished Dakota, hated it, but only because Chrysler’s questionable manufacturing processes for plastic radiator and complete lack of lumbar support in the seats made it the most miserable vehicle I ever operated.
Have a 2012 Chevy Sonic LS, 1.8 5MT, curb weight 2707. At 83k, zero mechanical repairs, no TSBs nor recalls ever. Not a race car, but I consider it a compact sports sedan. Makes 77hp/litre, (138/125) and 40+mpg, barks tires without intent, gets 0-60 @ 7 seconds, responds with authority and takes 90° turns at 60 thanks to the Corvette-tuned suspension, on cheap Douglas A/S tires (actually made by Goodyear) with 50k run off them. Routine maintenance, simply oil changes and tire rotation every 5k. Unfortunately yet typically, GM retired the durable 1.8 in favor of the now infamous 1.4 turbo option, before cancelling the Cruze/Sonic brothers altogether. Meanwhile, the 1.4T continues to fail in several small GM crossovers.
The worst thing about the 6.2 Diesel is the fact that it makes less hp and torque than the same model year gas 5.7 small block with TBI. The small block made 300 ft lbs in the 91 Suburban. It also made 200 hp.
But the 6.2 has twice the fuel mileage. I own a 1993 Blazer with the TBI 350 and it makes 15-13 mpg. The 6.2 gets 22-30 and diesel is cheaper. You can do a few cheap mods and get the power up to the 200 crank hp mark. But it wasn't built for that. We had the 6.2 in the Humvee in the Army and they were able to perform pretty well with that power to weight ratio.
I had two iron duke Fieros back in the day. I was able to squeeze a little more power out of one but the redline was so incredibly low it was really easy to spin main bearings. I have always wanted to see how much power I could get out of one if the oil system could keep up.
The Pontiac 301 it was based on wasn't much of a revver either. It's supposed to make all of its power in the low revs and was more suited to small trucks. The Quad 4 is the 4 banger the Fiero deserved with maybe a Buick 3800 as an option.
Holy shit stix I'm in your video the 6.2 makes no horsepower I will say but I get like 17 mpg out of my truck and with the turbo I installed it's more than capable at every day driving. Thanks for including my truck in the video!!
Early emissions equipment sucked and buyers became more concerned about fuel economy. But unless your country taxes displacement, I dont see any problem with using a detuned low stress high displacement engine vs a high strung tiny engine and HP/L is a useless metric in that context. An Olds 307 from the '80s only made 140-180HP but it also got nearly 30MPG highway in a full size wagon with a carburetor and had more low end grunt than a V6 at the time that would've made similar HP. Its pretty similar to turbo 4s of the time in HP as well but with a decent torque, fuel economy and reliability advantage. BuT mUh LoW hP pEr LiTeR!!!11!!1
Well, the 8.0 magnum, which the vipers engine was directly derived from, has a monstrous 310 horsepower and 450 ft/lb of torque... which frankly is even more pathetic. At the time, it was powerful, but still 38.75 horsepower per liter for the magnum and 50 horsepower per liter for the viper is pretty weak.
@@duckdestroyer2412 Less the displacement, nothing from the V-10 truck engine was in the Viper model. Not a single part. Not even bore and stroke. That Gen I Viper was only 3,200 pounds too. It was way over powered, thus known as the widow maker. It was a statement car by Dodge.
@TheBeingReal the 1992 8.0 dodge vipers engine was based on the dodge 8.0 magnum block. The bore and stroke of the magnum block exactly the same, 4 inch bore and a stroke of 3.88. It was cast out of aluminum instead of cast iron like the magnum, which was done by Lamborghini. As well as I believe some forged internals. While not identical, they are basically the same engine. One version just got the fancy parts. The newer versions are a different story with up boring and added stroke, making them closer to 8.4 liters if I am not mistaken.
Some of these came with a knock sensor and recommended fuel was 91 octane,those I think were rated at more than 235 horsepower. Would show taillights to an Accurate Honda MDX that supposedly had over 300 hp V6
I tried explaining to what I assume was a boomer that 100hp per litre is a very good output for an engine and they replied “American cars were doing that in the 60s.” It seems a lot of “car guys” confuse cubic inches with litres when it comes to displacement. Thanks for helping them understand.
To be fair, they are weak. In reality, they fit US car mantra. The general rule is the higher the horsepower, the shorter the engines lifespan. So lower power to high displacement and mechanical simplicity means reliability, useful in a country where a quick run to buy milk is a half hour trip, one way, at 45mph. Thats why super high performance engines, their lifespan is measured in hours, some are measured in minutes. Having 500+hp may seem like a buzz but in reality, where are you going to us it? Lets say your 500hp car is a sedan. You're going to use it for commutes, the school run and trips to the supermarket, driving at the speed limit for 99% of its moving life. My old Cadillac with its Olds 307 that makes 140hp (you can add that one) and its the most reliable car my family has ever seen. Its 37 years olds, sat in a field 13 for years before I bought it and I've driven it for the last 13 years as a daily. All I've done to the engine is regular fluids and filters, a couple of oil gaskets, new spark plugs (cause I broke one) and a new choke pull off. Thats it. Can the same be done with a new Camaro?
The thing about those old rolls royces was that it didn't really matter that they were laughably underpowered because they were never designed to be "sporty". Even bentley's of the era weren't thst much more powerful.
Seems like that duke would have run better. It had the stuff you’d want 4” bore,cross flow head, 5 mains. It red lined at 5k and mine was out of steam by then. Maybe it was a lousy head design🤷♂️.
Yes, I remember trying to torque-brake my father's Citation, and it didn't take off any faster than by flooring it at idle. That was in contrast to my 2.2L Lancer turbo, which literally screamed away from a stoplight if you revved it up with the brake on. The Iron Duke was was just out of breath beyond maybe 4K.
I own a 76 cadi Eldorado 500 cid ,, it get great mileage and power is great regardless of ratings and also have a 70 with 500 cid sure it will melt the tires but everyday driving about the same ,, so own it before bitching about it 🤣
They made the 4.7 all the way to 2012 in the ram. It’s built more for towing which it did well but it has the valve seat issues, head gasket leaks & timing chain issues. Sometimes you’ll get lucky with them and they’ll last 300k or sometimes you won’t.
I’ve had customers that owned a vehicle with the 4.7 with over 300k and some that didn’t make it past 50k and a majority of the ones that didn’t last the maintenance wasn’t done properly
I heard years ago that Rolls Royce wouldn't actually say how much power their cars had well into the late '80s or early '90s, only claiming it was "prudent".
Im not going to complain about your coverage on the iron duke. Yes it was enemic in power and torque but as far as reliability most likely even today the usps uses a variation of it in their mail delivery vehicles
That "182 hp" engine in the thumbnail put out around 400 hp when introduced in the '60s. It's a difference between a "emissions" engine and a "de-tuned" engine. The 119-130 hp Ford engine 4.2 was an emissions motor.
I remember having uparmored HMMWV’s that couldn't drive over a large stick from a stand still, you had to get a running start. Not the worlds biggest fan of the 6.2 and 6.5.
Sorry, but pushrods do not equate to weak HP. Top fuel dragsters make 3000 HP with old pushrod Hemis. Until electronic fuel injection became common, it was hard to make EPA ratings and have power with low octane unleaded fuel. That's just the facts. All of your worst engines still had potential for HP if you didn't mind changing parts and didn't have to have emissions inspections. many of these engines were built not to have a lot of raw power but to be smooth or last a long time (Rolls Royce, Cadillac). EVERY one of the engines with few exceptions on your list can be tweaked to make power.
If your talking about American dinosaurs ,remember these are " Madison Avenue horsepower " .Torque is really what you feel when it accelerate . On a dinomometer you will rarely see any engine come close to advertised HP and then for only a few seconds before it dies .
The 5.9 found in 2nd Gen Dodge Rams, Dakotas, and 1st gen Durangos actually had more than a 1 liter advantage over the 4.7. The 4.7 was rated at 235 hp, yet the 5.9 only made 250. 1.2 liters to make 15 more horsepower. What a shame.
People like to point fingers, but conveniently ignore that manufacturers got hit from multiple angles in the 70s and into the 80s. First came the emissions. Leaded gas was banned for “new” cars, so compression ratios dropped (instant power losses). Plus new emissions laws meant gone were the big solid cam, big port, big carb fire breathing engines. EGR became required by 1973. By 1975, cars required cats, which were archaic and restrictive by todays standards, choking power even more. And all this was done mechanically, and not nearly as precise as today’s computer controlled stuff. Along with the leaded fuel ban, there was also the 2 gas crises in 1973 and 1976. This led to CAFE standards getting created. On top of making powerful cars less appealing (since more power means more fuel), it hurt the economy on a global scale. Multiple recessions meant less cars getting sold, so less revenue for auto manufacturers, so less money for R&D. They did whatever they could to stay afloat, taking old designs, nerfing them into oblivion to meet EPA laws and CAFE standards. Pretty much, it wasn’t until the 1990s that manufacturers had the cash to develop/introduce tech that could meet the CAFE/EPA standards while making decent power.
GM Holden in Australia in 1978 had a car called a VB Commodore which had a 3.3 Litre inline 6 that made 89 horsepower. That a whopping 26.97 horsepower per litre.
Zero historical context here. 400HP was amazing in 1991 when the Viper was introduced, didn't matter that it took 8 liters to get there, everyone loved it. Only thing that was close was the ZR-1, believe it had 375 HP to start and later 405 HP, and that carried a much higher price tag than the base Corvette. The Iron Duke was a Pontiac motor, at least you got it right the 2nd time. And you really show a lack of understanding of that era 79-82, times were bad. There was a recession, interest rates reached as high as 21%, gas prices were high, unemployment was high. 60s era cars that are valuable today were put in the junkyard during this era because there were not buyers for them. The racing scene was not what it was in the 60s/70s, although it came back to life in the late 80s. There was a market for a 4 banger Camaro in those days. They also offered the 110 HP 2.8 V6 in the early/mid 80s Camaros. You don't think the 1980 Corvette should have been produced because of the 180HP rating? Well, Chevrolet sold 53,807 Corvettes in 1979, an all-time high! Yeah, I'm sure your opinion would have carried a lot of weight in the GM board room back then. The Cadillac 500ci 190HP is just an product of it's era. 360 lb/ft got those boats moving, that's it. Side note: the 500ci Caddy responds very well to modification. The 6.2 diesel was also a product of it's era, people were amazed at the time that you could get 20mpg in a full sized truck. Diesel was also generally less expensive than regular unleaded in those days, further increasing the utility of choosing the diesel engine. And they generally lasted a long time with good maintenance. If you want to contrast this with the other American OEM's, Ford introduced the 6.9 IDI in the mid-80s (86 IIRC) and it wasn't much more powerful. Dodge had no diesel option until 88 or 89 and when they brought the first gen 5.9 ISB, it had 160HP, IIRC, and that was WITH A TURBO. But nobody would dare put a Cummins ISB on the "worst engines" list, would they? My idea of a worst engines list would be things that were unreliable, regardless of horsepower rating. Cadillac 4-6-8, Chrysler 2.7 Sludge motor, Oldsmobile Diesel, and so forth. These engines you mention are just a reflection of the technology level of the era that they were produced in.
way to focused on HP, bottom end torque makes up for alot. just because a smaller engine redlines at 8k rpm to make those higher HP numbers doesnt make it a great engine. higher rpms can mean less reliable.
Gutless turds? the 6.2 is gutless but in the later years the 6.5 output power similar to a 12 valve the only problem is how it cant hold power mods that well
uhhh, major, major addendu. to the 4.7. the 4.7 ONLY made 235hp from 1999- 2007. past that it was more of a high output variant that made 265 hp, and was used until 2008 and past that a even higher output model that made 310hp was used until it was discontinued.
I'll note though that viper is still trying to kill you and the only reason it got a V10 was because Chrysler made an agreement with the government that they wouldn't build V8 cars anymore. Doesn't the Corvette weigh like 800-1000lbs more
several corrections on the video, i will just pick one- the dodge 4.7 power tech v8. 235hp, standard, 4.7 HO, 265hp/330lb torque, and the revised final gen 4.7, 310hp, 330/335lb torque, and they did not run the 4.7 through 09, it was used through 2013. engine builder, 43yrs in the business. the 265hp 4.7HO was quite the engine, and fast in the jeeps, and the last gen 310hp 4.7 with cold air kit and a tune would fist fight a 5.7 hemi.
So, here’s a bit of apocryphal trivia. If the 302 has a 2 piece rear main. A 5.0 has a one piece rear main. I picked this up in a ford drivability (eec-tach) class in 1993.
Look at naturally aspirated torque per liter for efficiency. High end stuff is 80+ ft lbs of torque per liter, usually 4 valve heads on premium gas. The cylinder pressure and engine efficiency are directly related to the torque per liter number.
The problem was at the time these engines were badly hampered by newly minted emissions regulations. While we needed those emissions regulations, car companies had no experience on how to decrease emissions without decreasing horsepower. The catalytic converter design of the time also choked the engines really badly. That's when all these terrible engines with very low compression ratios started invading the American car market. Europe was late to the emissions party, but today they're more aggressive than even America. That's why European and Japanese cars produced so much more specific horsepower (horsepower per-liter). That's until they were introduced into the American market, of course...
Parents had a1985 Chevy Conversion Van with a 305cu-in V8 It made like 150hp, weighed like 6000lbs and sucked fuel like a MF and was prone to vacuum leaks all over. They used engine vacuum to power the hvac system! An absolute turd with 100s of miles of tiny, clear plastic vacuum lines that never worked properly.
The 6.2 Detroit Diesel engine is a solid performer due to its simplicity. Fuel metering and delivery, and everything else, is mechanically controlled. The only electrical hookup needed is to the fuel shut-off solenoid. The US military still uses this motor, rather than the turbocharged, computer-controlled 6.5 liter version.
Like so many, you have been indoctrinated to focus on horsepower numbers. Truth is, HP has more to do with top end speed at higher RPMs. What burns rubber and breaks inertia off the line is low-end torque. Look at EVs and the tuning of truck engines, especially diesels. HP is meh, but there's gobs of unstoppable torque to do work. Even modern I4 engines are amazing. Take any econobox with a manual, put it in first, and watch it effortlessly climb any hill at idle. (Won't work with with a slipping torque converter.) Then it'll electronically top out at 110-120 MPH @ 5000 RPM. And remember that between 1970 and 1971 most engines were not changed, only the method of HP measurement.
As a Duke owner, I agree although we can blame GM for stuffing it in the wrong applications. It would have done fine in something smaller. But in a Camaro or an S10 4 by 4….not so good. It’s not a horrible engine, compared to a Ford 3.0 V6 interference 😣
What else would you add to the list?!
Early Ford Modular 2Valve (215hp from a 4.6 OHC)
We need to see this same list but with transmissions
@@Prestiged_peck 47RE, 2nd gear 4L60E, Any CVT
@@KRRZ350 toyota makes good CVT's lol
I wouldn’t say that cam in block limits hp … it was 90% emissions limiting this engines even a old 6.2 can easily be turned up to 180 hp without a turbo
'02 GMC 8.1l only put out 345hp and 455ftlb. But my understanding was gm and Ford were not looking for high performance but rather longevity. Hence why these 8.1l, 6.0l, 5.4l and 6.8l engines are still around with well over 200 to even 300,000 miles plus on them. You look at current truck engine options and have to decide which failure you want to roll the dice on.
That’s interesting, good point. My 5.4 now has 325,000 KM, still going strong and sucking gas like a smoker sucks cancer 😂
the 8.1 big block gasser from GM has a very low rpm limit so it acts more or less like a diesel out puting power downlow instead of up high
@@csgsavagebanana8102 exactly. My 6.8l is the same way. Builds torque fast. Towing feels more like a casual drive. Modern engines you gotta wind up.
Agreed, an under-stressed engine will just keep on going. High output/ liter engines just means it will break itself faster.
My dodge 4.7 still runs strong and it’s kind of the same concept only in 1500 trucks.
First Viper was way undertuned for reasons of longevity of the drivetrain. I was a chassis designer on the first gen, preproduction engines made a LOT more but tore up drivetrain parts.
Wow interesting, what was it like to work on such a neat vehicle?
charlie dee Wish they still made them, but I want to get a 99 gts. The viper v10 is just a monstrous powerhouse even as they were. Do you know if there is any merit to the rumours of the forged crank and pistons in the late 90s models?
@@bennyboyy7 the 1999 Viper was the last year of the all forged motor and the 906 cam shaft. And just to let the public know, I had a dyno at my shop and every Viper we dynoed made way more power than what they were rated.
Also the 1999 Viper was all a concept car that was suprisingly goes to in production. Chrysler wasn't sure how the car would sell, so they didn't tune up the engine. After that, the second gen was better.
@@SimplyTakuma You're ten years late. The concept car was shown at the Detroit International Auto Show in January of 1989, the production car came in 1992. I know this from being there, I was in the room when Iacocca announced it was approved for production in May 1991.
I have a 1973 Mercedes 220d diesel, 2.2L makes 60hp in a 3,000lb car. It is borderline dangerously slow but I love it. Mercedes gives a reference chart with the owners manual to estimate how much time it will take to accelerate around a car in a passing lane and it’s pretty funny to know that a 28 sec 0-60 was acceptable even back then.
Bro for the love of your own safety pls put a turbo on it
@@Fat_moose_420 fr turbo diesels built different
“Borderline” can you not spell unacceptably or what
There were lots of slow cars even in the heyday of the 60s muscle car era. Chevy sold lots more Chevelles with the 250 I6 and 307V8 than they did with the halo motors like the 396 and 454 SS. I'm sure the 250 was not rated much more than 150HP or so, gross HP, not net.
A 1.0L Geo is about to run away from you.
Correct on the 6.2 Detroit. It is gutless. I own a 1984 C30. Still to this day. It just will not die. It has not lived an easy life either. It has gone to work since 1984. It also does it at 30 MPG. Love that truck
I loved the 6.2, but they were gutless. That was known when you bought it.
Diesels have very diffetent logic. Displacement is not very connected with power and fuel consum.
i have 5 of them. love them. they are in trucks that i consider and use more like street legal "tractors" not great power to weight, but they just keep putting along as i need
in fact with 5:68 lockers, big tires and full of tools weight, i have one that one easily out pulled my friends 800+ super $70k whatever it was though mine was maxed at about 50mph, his was fast and felt great on the freeway with great fuel economy
Its almost impressive how they managed to extract so little power out of them
😂😂😂😂
MUH EMISSIONS
Hey now the iron duke did have this unique feature you can't get on other engines called catching on fire 🤣
Dude. 400 hp in the early 90s was impressive
It was the first time there had been 400hp available from the factory in a while. Unless you had a racecar
Yes it was back then But he’s a young buck , probably was still in school when the viper came out .
It's about the HP per liter. 400hp out of a naturally aspirated 4 liter engine is awesome even today, 400hp out of an 8 liter naturally aspirated engine isn't.
@@rattlehead999 ur missing the point… In early 90s 400 hp was top tier… 5.0 mustangs were 225 hp…
They didn’t have the technology we have today….
I agree. 400 hp out of a 8 liter v10 today is a dud.
@@hunterbidenscrackdealer3753 The problem is that in the early 90s the japanese were making slightly 100hp per liter naturally aspirated, which is double the HP per liter compared to the Viper. But the Japanese refused to make big engines, if they did, they would have dominated the world during that time period.
The English Electric 12CSVT locomotive engine is a V12 diesel, 185 litre displacement (pistons are 10 inches in diameter), and it produces 1750 horsepower, less than 10 horsepower per litre. But it sounds amazing under acceleration.
And all to spin a generator. But with a prime mover in a freight engine it's all about hours between rebuilds.
Will this fit in a Miata?
@@TherealOjsimp1286 might need some cutting around the engine bay, but yeah, an engine bigger than the car should fit.
@@TherealOjsimp1286 Considering a majority of them are in locomotives, definitely not.
@@TherealOjsimp1286 under maybe
The cad 500 has potential. 11.1 with early 472 heads or 13.1 with 425 heads. Add the aluminum intake and a distributor curve and they are beasts. Forged steel crank, these things in stock form are bomb proof. I ran a 1974 472 5 quarts low and overheated it. Added oil and water and she fired right back up and continued on my trip. Only 80ish pounds heavier than a 350. Unlike a hot 350, this monster will idle smoothly and all that torque is right off idle. These can be the unsung power combo
Ever hear of Project Bad Seed by Hot Rod Magazine back in uhhh late 90's? Take a Caddy 500, warm it up, add it to a Chevette mounted half into the cabin, go drag racing. Look it up!
@@evi1dav3 that's when I started following Steve Magnante
I mean, my 95 f150 has a 5.8 with like 180-220 horsepower, and torque is anyones guess. I can't seem to find the actual numbers, but it is pretty pathetic.
Yea people talk $hit about 4.6 but anything but the 460 and 7.3 was weak without a major overhaul
@Back Road Boy 460 is an insanely capable engine. Just not from the factory.
The 7.3 IDI was pretty weak, but the 7.3 Powerstroke is plenty for its intended application.
The 4.6 is at least according to some one of those million mile engines like the 7.3, just not tons of power or even really capability of making power.
325 torque is what it should make
@Cody Parker cool, any idea on a solid horsepower number?
@@duckdestroyer2412 210 325
Intresting history side note, the Mustang II wasn't available with a V8 in North America, in 1974 unless you bought it in Mexico. Speaking about the Caddy 500, in 1970 the 400 hp was gross after 72 the hp was measured net (as installed with all accessories) so that did significantly drop the numbers, not to say that it wasn't a smog-dog. The 70's brought emissions and things like CAFE cut the nards off everything. The technology wasn't there to meet the standards so you ended up with low compression, poor flowing heads, anemic cams, convoluted vacuum hoses, smog pumps, and restrictive exhausts... good times.
To be fair my old iron duke s10 was the only rig I've ever had run out of oil,catch fire, burn for 30 mins before we got it out. Then start and drive the 20 mins back to the house before it caught fire again. Truck still ran when I sent it to the wrecker
Just remember with poor performance: the brightest bulb lasts the shortest. A lot of engines used in industrial applications trade power output for endurance.
The 79 Camaro with the 305 V8 made 145hp and the Z28 with a 350 and a Quadrajet 4bbl made a whopping 185. Why weren't they on this list?
I would love to see a video on your opinion of the most reliable engines of all time. This was an amazing video and enjoyed watching it! Keep up the good work!
Rolls-Royce Corniche - pronounced "CORE-NEESH." It is a French word for "road cut into the side of a cliff." Tje Corniche was the somewhat more sporting Rolls-Royce, available in 2dr Coupe and Convertible. The 6.75 V8 was also in the Silver Shadow Sedan and Phantom Limousine.
6¾ V8
I will always defend the 6.2 even if I do agree the hate for it. My 305 and my 454 have had issues along with the old 6.2 I had but that truck (6.2) would start for me no matter what I had done to it, no matter how cold it was and in a c20 23 mpg is pretty good imo
The 6.2/6.5 will always make reliable power. Comparable engines for the year obviously will make more power/durability
I'm a used car dealer, the nearest auction to me is 190 miles away. I got a 6.5 to tow inventory back and forth. Accelerating from a dead stop is painful, but once I'm rolling, I enjoy 15.3 MPG while towing 8k to 11k. I used to get about 11 MPG, but my injector pump quit, and when I pulled the old one, I found that whoever installed it last, put it in with retarded timing. I installed my new one with advanced timing. A bit of knock when cold, but runs fine otherwise.
@@vivillagerif you don’t need much for power or torque then a 6.5 is a great motor and on great platforms, it’s killer is the power as the 5.9 and 7.3 made more power or torque but I’ll die but my old 6.5. I’m actually looking for another with a 5 speed as it sits currently
Dont forget that in 1972 HP ratings were changed from gross to net, so when you compare numbers across this line your results aren't as bad as you make them out to be- Im not denying there was a loss of HP during this time, but some of the differences in your comparisons are artificially inflated.
These engines weren't necessarily bad they just had unreasonable emission goals that choked these engine to death..!
It doesn't take a lot to get 500hp out of a Cadillac 500 you just got to pull the emission crap out of its ass and let it breath through something larger than a 175cfm 2 barrel!
I’m pretty sure all those Cadillacs had a 4BBL quadrajet. They all flow at least 750 CFM. I wanna say actually 850 CFM. All those engines were underrated. 190HP in a car that weighs around 5000lbs wouldn’t last very long because you’d have to beat the hell out of it every time you tried to merge onto an interstate. There are still a lot of these cars left with with over 100,000 miles on them.
You failed to mention that the 1976 Cadillac 500 only made that 190 HP in the carbureted version. The fuel-injected optional 500 motor made 25 more HP.
My '05 Dakota has the 4.7L in it, and it works very well in the mid-size truck. Even tows pretty well, but going up the Cajon Grade it does show its weaknesses. It does some rev-searching when trying to maintain 70MPH unless I completely full throttle it.
I think the 4.7 was put into vehicles that were too heavy for it to really properly handle.
In mountain driving sometimes "overdrive lockout" is appropriate with the automatic.
Try swapping the rear for a shorter geared one.
Some of these aren't as bad as they sound. The US auto industry switched from Gross hp to SAE Net hp around 1972. So the 180 hp Corvette would have about 250 hp under the Gross rating.
Conversely, when builders and mechanics dyno an engine for comparison, they alway have an electric water pump, no alternator, and no air cleaner or mufflers.
So as soon as they install it in a car, it is making less at the crank.
The EPA hammered the manufacturers until they engineered their way around.
1:26 dafug you talking about Willis? There was NEVER Mustang II with a 840hp 302!
VW flat four 25hp
Chevy 3cylinder 48hp
Honda CVCC 4cylinder 52hp
Ford 255 V8 112hp
1975-1976 Ford 4.1L inline 6: 75HP for the 48 states, 72 for California! As far as I know, the '75-'76 6 cylinder automatic Granadas, at 23+ seconds 0-60 were the slowest American cars of that decade.
2:48 I knew my engine would be on this list. I have it in my 06 Grand Cherokee. It is comically slow for the displacement but, I love it. It sounds great and it is reliable as long as you ALWAYS change the oil on time. An intake really goes a long way with getting more power out of it too.
I'm surprised he didn't talk about the 4.6 from Ford or the 4.8 from gm since all 3 made roughly the same power. I still have my 05 ram 1500 since high school and I love it. It's not the fastest truck but it sure wasn't the slowest lol.
I'm honestly surprised he didn't talk shit about my 5.2 v8 (318), in my 97 dakota it makes 230 hp and 295 lb/ft of torque. But the thing has 240k miles on it and still going strong
The 4.7 high output was alot more powerful
The 5.9L magnum was even less gutless than the 4.7L in the 2002 ram 1500 it only makes 5hp more than the 4.7 at 245 hp
@lethargicstove20 oh yea that's right. But I remember those being a little more torquey than the others. Lol
I remember a '66 Chevy 283ci V8 that said it had 195 hp. That doesn't sound too bad after this video. I am thinking the measurement of horsepower in '66 was probably overstated.
There was a change in HP ratings in 1972 when the manufacturers switched to using SAE net HP vs gross HP ratings.
@@edwardpate6128 That’s an important point no one ever really talks about. The best example to use is GM. They were the first to start reducing power output starting in 71. Ford, Chrysler and AMC waited until 72. Their engines on paper took a much larger hit. GM set an 8.5:1 compression ratio limit starting in 71. Their engine lineup from 71 to 72 was basically unchanged. So whatever HP and torque rating differences between 71 and 72 were the difference between gross and SAE ratings.
Under
you know blueprints 4 cylinder making 340hp is a iron duke block with a ls head? blueprint bought the mold from gm
I just wanted to brag that my 1979 240D has 25.8 Bhp/L which beats the 6.2 diesel.
If you think the 79 Mustang was bad then you need to check the 255ci V8 from 1980 because it produced around 118hp and the funny part is that its a debored 302 but luckily the 302 came back in 82 if I'm not mistaken and so its power and by the time it reached around 85 i believe it was already making over 200 horses😮 and by 87 who ever owned a new Mustang then you're the man. 87 to 93 were the best from that era.
I don't think that the 5.0 engine was available in 1979. I believe it was also the 255 cubic inch engine and the 302 (5.0) wasn't available until 1982.
Nice thing is a stroker 302 or 351 should bolt in fairly easily to remedy the situation. 😂
Iron Duke lived on for a long time as an industrial engine.
Well i own a 76 cadillac with the rated 190hp and on the dyno stock was 280hp at the rear wheels. 1k$ in parts with headers, high rise intake and a mild cam took it to nearly 380hp at the wheels
I driven the first gen Viper, it does have a poor hp/ liter. I remember how it has massive low rpm torque.
The 4.7 from Chrysler was actually designed by AMC prior to the buyout. The only thing the 4.7 has in common with the previous AMC V-8s is being a V-8.
Most of these low power outputs on these engines have to do with engine controls to meet mileage and emissions goals. Engine control systems have come along way since the first electronic control systems.
And since the 4.7 was a SOHC cam engine I'm surprised that Chrysler never seriously looked into swapping the heads out for twin cam 4 valve heads. (1) The 4.7 power output peaked at 310. I'm not sure just how much growth there was displacement wise in the 4.7 block due to the tighter bore spacing. If the block casting had any coolant passages between the cylinder walls it was likely only around .060c to .075" wide at the narrowest point. Also looking at the 4.7's combustion chamber and valve layout I'm wondering if the valve angles were splayed relative to each other. The valves them selves were rotated close to 45 degrees relative to the bore centerlines.
1) Going to a DOHC with a 4 valve head likely would have significantly increased the overall width of the engine. Unless they went to SOHC layout similiar to the 3.5 V-6. Curiously the 2.7, 3.5, 4.0 and I think the Pentastar V-6s all have the same bore spread as the LA and New Hemi V-8s at 4.440" or 4.450". Once you need to cast the aluminum block around the cast iron cylinder liners the block starts to get pretty long.
The 4.7 didnt have much power, but compared to the 5.2 it replaced, it was worlds better in the torque area and fuel economy.
08-13 4.7 would of been 65 hp per liter.
@@OmniOmega0X
I remember when the gold standard for a road car was 1 hp per CI. At least in the US anyway.
You missed the worst one of all time: ford’s 250 ci i6 from the 70s. At its lowest it had 72 hp, which is less than 20 per liter and all of these engines
The 4.7l standard output made 230 hp and the high output made 265hp. In 2008 and it made 305hp. You said it never made more than 50hp per liter and that's just not true. The 2008 motor with 305hp is 64hp per liter. I have an 01 dakota with a 4.7 with some mods and it's a solid motor, but I would absolutely hate to have a full sized ram with it. It's definitely too weak of a motor for that big of a truck.
Fun fact: certain years of the ram in single cab trim were faster with the 4.7 than with the bigger engine offered with it.
@@Prestiged_peck hmm do you know why? I feel like if it was the same exact truck only the motor being different than the 5.7 would be faster
@BigIglooUSMC it was offered alongside the 5.2/5.9 for a few years, and also the very late ones were flex fuel and made more power when ethanol was in them. The 4.7 was also significantly lighter than the 5.7 and especially the old 5.2/5.9
Toyotas 4.7 liter single overhead cam V8 from 2000 to 2007 only put out 245 horsepower and it was fuel injected and there was no mention of that. I had that motors in a Lexus GX 470 and it was underpowered.
This. I got an 08 ram. They modified the engine to 16 spark plugs and upped the horses to 305 with some minor mods. Runs pretty decent with 200000 miles
You should do a part two considering that the bottom end and rest of the car is there and made. Much harder to make all that than do a top end. Exhaust/Intake/Camshafts/Heads
You can't do these videos without mentioning torque.
There's a reason makers kept putting V8s in heavy vehicles even though I4, I4, and V6 power/energy was close, because it's not what mattered or lasted, it's the force
He did mention torque. Lb-ft is torque.
@@HeLpEr4u083 He keeps comparing hp. There's a reason makers kept putting V8s in heavy vehicles even though I4 and V6 power was close, because it's not what mattered or lasted
I loved the 2.5l in my S10. Wasnt fast, but you could beat on it all day long and it would just take it and come back for more. You can't beat it for reliability.
I don't think this kid ever changed a spark plug in a lawnmower .
When I think of weak engines I think of the absolutely gutless and anemic 1990s and early 2000s Toyota products. Really bad inline 4 that had no torque and sounded like they're dying when you hit the gas. At least those over sized American engines have torque and some type of sound but those Japanese economy engines have nothing
Having started to drive during the era the Mustang IIs were common and the 1979 Fox body debuted, I have to come to their defense. Ford executives deserve a bit of shame for not jumping to offer something a bit more competitive under the hoods, but in retrospect, nobody was making anything that held a candle to what options a buyer had a decade earlier. The 1979 400 Poncho in a Trans Am was rated at 220 HP and only came with a four speed. It ripped the quarter in 14 seconds according to a Hot Rod Magazine test, beat the L82 225 HP Corvette. Z-28s were optimistically rated at 175 HP if you got the 350. The Dodge Lil Red Truck had a warmed over 225 horse 360 that was in the same ball park as the Trans Am. A 139 HP Ford 302 may have not been a power house, but it was the same architecture as the 289s and could be made to run at least more competitively. The 255 that came out the following year was a dog. Police car buyers in 79 got Ford LTDs on the Panther platform that had a less inspiring 351W 2V that came in varying degrees of tune - all dependent on how hung over the guy on the line was when slapping together the motor. They didn’t have enough power to cause the weak links to handle to come to light - took a redesigned 180 HP 351W Police Interceptor to do that. The 4.7 Dodge was a tougher, gutsier motor than I care to admit. I had one in a company furnished Dakota, hated it, but only because Chrysler’s questionable manufacturing processes for plastic radiator and complete lack of lumbar support in the seats made it the most miserable vehicle I ever operated.
Finally someone made a video on this, i could never get behind liking engines that have big displacements and barley any power.
You've obviously never heard of the GM 253 v8. 120 horsepower off the factory floor
Have a 2012 Chevy Sonic LS, 1.8 5MT, curb weight 2707. At 83k, zero mechanical repairs, no TSBs nor recalls ever. Not a race car, but I consider it a compact sports sedan. Makes 77hp/litre, (138/125) and 40+mpg, barks tires without intent, gets 0-60 @ 7 seconds, responds with authority and takes 90° turns at 60 thanks to the Corvette-tuned suspension, on cheap Douglas A/S tires (actually made by Goodyear) with 50k run off them. Routine maintenance, simply oil changes and tire rotation every 5k. Unfortunately yet typically, GM retired the durable 1.8 in favor of the now infamous 1.4 turbo option, before cancelling the Cruze/Sonic brothers altogether. Meanwhile, the 1.4T continues to fail in several small GM crossovers.
But the 1.4 without turbo is the base engine on the little Spark.
1983 ford ranger 2.2 Perkins diesel, 0-60 mph in 1 minute.
The worst thing about the 6.2 Diesel is the fact that it makes less hp and torque than the same model year gas 5.7 small block with TBI. The small block made 300 ft lbs in the 91 Suburban. It also made 200 hp.
But the 6.2 has twice the fuel mileage. I own a 1993 Blazer with the TBI 350 and it makes 15-13 mpg. The 6.2 gets 22-30 and diesel is cheaper. You can do a few cheap mods and get the power up to the 200 crank hp mark. But it wasn't built for that. We had the 6.2 in the Humvee in the Army and they were able to perform pretty well with that power to weight ratio.
Too bad Diesel is no longer cheaper than gas.
@@johndemichael1990 Where I live it is.
Oh well that's interesting. Here it's over a dollar more than regular gas. It's more than premium too. By a good amount.
@johndemichael1990 I live in Germany. Gas is 1.85 per liter and diesel is 1.50
I had two iron duke Fieros back in the day. I was able to squeeze a little more power out of one but the redline was so incredibly low it was really easy to spin main bearings. I have always wanted to see how much power I could get out of one if the oil system could keep up.
Not much. Block is extremely weak along with the rods
The Pontiac 301 it was based on wasn't much of a revver either. It's supposed to make all of its power in the low revs and was more suited to small trucks. The Quad 4 is the 4 banger the Fiero deserved with maybe a Buick 3800 as an option.
The Cadillac 500 makes very little HP for its size however the torque is legendary.
It would probably make substantially more HP if it wasn’t strangled with all the anti smog equipment
@@darksaber7678like what
Big issue with the 500 is it would float the valves at around 4,000 rpm.
Can wait tell he sees a Geo Metro
Holy shit stix I'm in your video the 6.2 makes no horsepower I will say but I get like 17 mpg out of my truck and with the turbo I installed it's more than capable at every day driving. Thanks for including my truck in the video!!
Early emissions equipment sucked and buyers became more concerned about fuel economy. But unless your country taxes displacement, I dont see any problem with using a detuned low stress high displacement engine vs a high strung tiny engine and HP/L is a useless metric in that context. An Olds 307 from the '80s only made 140-180HP but it also got nearly 30MPG highway in a full size wagon with a carburetor and had more low end grunt than a V6 at the time that would've made similar HP. Its pretty similar to turbo 4s of the time in HP as well but with a decent torque, fuel economy and reliability advantage. BuT mUh LoW hP pEr LiTeR!!!11!!1
My w204 C180 with 156 bhp: Finally a worthy opponent. Our battle will be legendary
Haha, first you think "156hp out of 1.8L isn't bad" then you realize it's supercharged haha
He thinks the cam in block design is bad. Lol. I suppose he has never heard of the LS ! 😅
OHV isn't bad, its just ancient by todays standards. It'd be like buying a flathead engine in the 90's if it was manufactured, not bad just old.
4:45 pronounced "cor-neesh"
I disagree wholeheartedly about the Dodge Viper
Well, the 8.0 magnum, which the vipers engine was directly derived from, has a monstrous 310 horsepower and 450 ft/lb of torque... which frankly is even more pathetic. At the time, it was powerful, but still 38.75 horsepower per liter for the magnum and 50 horsepower per liter for the viper is pretty weak.
@@duckdestroyer2412 Less the displacement, nothing from the V-10 truck engine was in the Viper model. Not a single part. Not even bore and stroke.
That Gen I Viper was only 3,200 pounds too. It was way over powered, thus known as the widow maker. It was a statement car by Dodge.
@TheBeingReal the 1992 8.0 dodge vipers engine was based on the dodge 8.0 magnum block. The bore and stroke of the magnum block exactly the same, 4 inch bore and a stroke of 3.88. It was cast out of aluminum instead of cast iron like the magnum, which was done by Lamborghini. As well as I believe some forged internals.
While not identical, they are basically the same engine. One version just got the fancy parts.
The newer versions are a different story with up boring and added stroke, making them closer to 8.4 liters if I am not mistaken.
The 4.7 in a 99-04 Grand Cherokee was surprisingly quick, it could beat a mustang up to about 50 mph
Some of these came with a knock sensor and recommended fuel was 91 octane,those I think were rated at more than 235 horsepower.
Would show taillights to an Accurate Honda MDX that supposedly had over 300 hp V6
One of the world's most reliable engine the ford 4.9l inline six in it's worst years only made 100hp.
I had an Econoline E150 cargo van with that 4.9 lire engine and ran to over 300,000 miles and still ran good.
I tried explaining to what I assume was a boomer that 100hp per litre is a very good output for an engine and they replied “American cars were doing that in the 60s.” It seems a lot of “car guys” confuse cubic inches with litres when it comes to displacement. Thanks for helping them understand.
GM’s LF9 is a 350 cu in (5.7 L) diesel V8 that needs to be on this list
To be fair, they are weak. In reality, they fit US car mantra. The general rule is the higher the horsepower, the shorter the engines lifespan. So lower power to high displacement and mechanical simplicity means reliability, useful in a country where a quick run to buy milk is a half hour trip, one way, at 45mph. Thats why super high performance engines, their lifespan is measured in hours, some are measured in minutes. Having 500+hp may seem like a buzz but in reality, where are you going to us it? Lets say your 500hp car is a sedan. You're going to use it for commutes, the school run and trips to the supermarket, driving at the speed limit for 99% of its moving life.
My old Cadillac with its Olds 307 that makes 140hp (you can add that one) and its the most reliable car my family has ever seen. Its 37 years olds, sat in a field 13 for years before I bought it and I've driven it for the last 13 years as a daily. All I've done to the engine is regular fluids and filters, a couple of oil gaskets, new spark plugs (cause I broke one) and a new choke pull off. Thats it. Can the same be done with a new Camaro?
The 80-81 Turbo Trans Am was pretty sad too.
Isn't the iron duke what is used in the Grumman LLV?
Yeah, but it’s a more updated model with fuel injection and makes more a little more power if I remember correctly
The thing about those old rolls royces was that it didn't really matter that they were laughably underpowered because they were never designed to be "sporty".
Even bentley's of the era weren't thst much more powerful.
Seems like that duke would have run better. It had the stuff you’d want 4” bore,cross flow head, 5 mains. It red lined at 5k and mine was out of steam by then. Maybe it was a lousy head design🤷♂️.
Yes, I remember trying to torque-brake my father's Citation, and it didn't take off any faster than by flooring it at idle. That was in contrast to my 2.2L Lancer turbo, which literally screamed away from a stoplight if you revved it up with the brake on. The Iron Duke was was just out of breath beyond maybe 4K.
but those low hp engines still had great tq numbers, am I right
I own a 76 cadi Eldorado 500 cid ,, it get great mileage and power is great regardless of ratings and also have a 70 with 500 cid sure it will melt the tires but everyday driving about the same ,, so own it before bitching about it 🤣
Seriously every single one of these engines just needs a cam swap and a good valve job
They made the 4.7 all the way to 2012 in the ram. It’s built more for towing which it did well but it has the valve seat issues, head gasket leaks & timing chain issues. Sometimes you’ll get lucky with them and they’ll last 300k or sometimes you won’t.
I’ve had customers that owned a vehicle with the 4.7 with over 300k and some that didn’t make it past 50k and a majority of the ones that didn’t last the maintenance wasn’t done properly
Most likely using additives like Marvel Mystery oil or Lucas Oil, that's one way to help any any engine extend its life
I heard years ago that Rolls Royce wouldn't actually say how much power their cars had well into the late '80s or early '90s, only claiming it was "prudent".
Im not going to complain about your coverage on the iron duke. Yes it was enemic in power and torque but as far as reliability most likely even today the usps uses a variation of it in their mail delivery vehicles
2.5L 4T4 found in the Volvo S60R and V70Rs. Weak walls, any sort of heat causes them to expand and crack.
That "182 hp" engine in the thumbnail put out around 400 hp when introduced in the '60s. It's a difference between a "emissions" engine and a "de-tuned" engine. The 119-130 hp Ford engine 4.2 was an emissions motor.
I remember having uparmored HMMWV’s that couldn't drive over a large stick from a stand still, you had to get a running start. Not the worlds biggest fan of the 6.2 and 6.5.
Sorry, but pushrods do not equate to weak HP. Top fuel dragsters make 3000 HP with old pushrod Hemis. Until electronic fuel injection became common, it was hard to make EPA ratings and have power with low octane unleaded fuel. That's just the facts. All of your worst engines still had potential for HP if you didn't mind changing parts and didn't have to have emissions inspections. many of these engines were built not to have a lot of raw power but to be smooth or last a long time (Rolls Royce, Cadillac). EVERY one of the engines with few exceptions on your list can be tweaked to make power.
If your talking about American dinosaurs ,remember these are " Madison Avenue horsepower " .Torque is really what you feel when it accelerate . On a dinomometer you will rarely see any engine come close to advertised HP and then for only a few seconds before it dies .
I’ve driven one and it was a beast! A pole floater from Florida but had just some beast tires on it.
The 5.9 found in 2nd Gen Dodge Rams, Dakotas, and 1st gen Durangos actually had more than a 1 liter advantage over the 4.7. The 4.7 was rated at 235 hp, yet the 5.9 only made 250. 1.2 liters to make 15 more horsepower. What a shame.
The ford 255 v8 in the fox body was pretty bad and the olds 260
People like to point fingers, but conveniently ignore that manufacturers got hit from multiple angles in the 70s and into the 80s.
First came the emissions. Leaded gas was banned for “new” cars, so compression ratios dropped (instant power losses). Plus new emissions laws meant gone were the big solid cam, big port, big carb fire breathing engines. EGR became required by 1973. By 1975, cars required cats, which were archaic and restrictive by todays standards, choking power even more. And all this was done mechanically, and not nearly as precise as today’s computer controlled stuff.
Along with the leaded fuel ban, there was also the 2 gas crises in 1973 and 1976. This led to CAFE standards getting created. On top of making powerful cars less appealing (since more power means more fuel), it hurt the economy on a global scale. Multiple recessions meant less cars getting sold, so less revenue for auto manufacturers, so less money for R&D. They did whatever they could to stay afloat, taking old designs, nerfing them into oblivion to meet EPA laws and CAFE standards.
Pretty much, it wasn’t until the 1990s that manufacturers had the cash to develop/introduce tech that could meet the CAFE/EPA standards while making decent power.
GM Holden in Australia in 1978 had a car called a VB Commodore which had a 3.3 Litre inline 6 that made 89 horsepower. That a whopping 26.97 horsepower per litre.
I got a 88 cutlass ciera with the iron duke it’s a great engine
Zero historical context here.
400HP was amazing in 1991 when the Viper was introduced, didn't matter that it took 8 liters to get there, everyone loved it. Only thing that was close was the ZR-1, believe it had 375 HP to start and later 405 HP, and that carried a much higher price tag than the base Corvette.
The Iron Duke was a Pontiac motor, at least you got it right the 2nd time. And you really show a lack of understanding of that era 79-82, times were bad. There was a recession, interest rates reached as high as 21%, gas prices were high, unemployment was high. 60s era cars that are valuable today were put in the junkyard during this era because there were not buyers for them. The racing scene was not what it was in the 60s/70s, although it came back to life in the late 80s. There was a market for a 4 banger Camaro in those days. They also offered the 110 HP 2.8 V6 in the early/mid 80s Camaros.
You don't think the 1980 Corvette should have been produced because of the 180HP rating? Well, Chevrolet sold 53,807 Corvettes in 1979, an all-time high! Yeah, I'm sure your opinion would have carried a lot of weight in the GM board room back then.
The Cadillac 500ci 190HP is just an product of it's era. 360 lb/ft got those boats moving, that's it. Side note: the 500ci Caddy responds very well to modification.
The 6.2 diesel was also a product of it's era, people were amazed at the time that you could get 20mpg in a full sized truck. Diesel was also generally less expensive than regular unleaded in those days, further increasing the utility of choosing the diesel engine. And they generally lasted a long time with good maintenance. If you want to contrast this with the other American OEM's, Ford introduced the 6.9 IDI in the mid-80s (86 IIRC) and it wasn't much more powerful. Dodge had no diesel option until 88 or 89 and when they brought the first gen 5.9 ISB, it had 160HP, IIRC, and that was WITH A TURBO. But nobody would dare put a Cummins ISB on the "worst engines" list, would they?
My idea of a worst engines list would be things that were unreliable, regardless of horsepower rating. Cadillac 4-6-8, Chrysler 2.7 Sludge motor, Oldsmobile Diesel, and so forth. These engines you mention are just a reflection of the technology level of the era that they were produced in.
way to focused on HP, bottom end torque makes up for alot. just because a smaller engine redlines at 8k rpm to make those higher HP numbers doesnt make it a great engine. higher rpms can mean less reliable.
Gutless turds? the 6.2 is gutless but in the later years the 6.5 output power similar to a 12 valve the only problem is how it cant hold power mods that well
uhhh, major, major addendu. to the 4.7.
the 4.7 ONLY made 235hp from 1999- 2007. past that it was more of a high output variant that made 265 hp, and was used until 2008 and past that a even higher output model that made 310hp was used until it was discontinued.
There was a Turbocharged 6.75L Rolls-Royce V8 version used in some models however.
I had an iron duke s10 that thing was bullet proof never once broke on me and ran to well over 300k miles
I’ve never heard anyone say “there’s no replacement for displacement” I always heard “there’s no substitute for cubic inch” I like yours better
I'll note though that viper is still trying to kill you and the only reason it got a V10 was because Chrysler made an agreement with the government that they wouldn't build V8 cars anymore. Doesn't the Corvette weigh like 800-1000lbs more
1975 AMC Pacer with 4.2L/258ci inline six - puts out 112 hp.
several corrections on the video, i will just pick one- the dodge 4.7 power tech v8. 235hp, standard, 4.7 HO, 265hp/330lb torque, and the revised final gen 4.7, 310hp, 330/335lb torque, and they did not run the 4.7 through 09, it was used through 2013. engine builder, 43yrs in the business. the 265hp 4.7HO was quite the engine, and fast in the jeeps, and the last gen 310hp 4.7 with cold air kit and a tune would fist fight a 5.7 hemi.
So, here’s a bit of apocryphal trivia.
If the 302 has a 2 piece rear main. A 5.0 has a one piece rear main.
I picked this up in a ford drivability (eec-tach) class in 1993.
Look at naturally aspirated torque per liter for efficiency. High end stuff is 80+ ft lbs of torque per liter, usually 4 valve heads on premium gas. The cylinder pressure and engine efficiency are directly related to the torque per liter number.
The problem was at the time these engines were badly hampered by newly minted emissions regulations. While we needed those emissions regulations, car companies had no experience on how to decrease emissions without decreasing horsepower. The catalytic converter design of the time also choked the engines really badly. That's when all these terrible engines with very low compression ratios started invading the American car market. Europe was late to the emissions party, but today they're more aggressive than even America. That's why European and Japanese cars produced so much more specific horsepower (horsepower per-liter). That's until they were introduced into the American market, of course...
Parents had a1985 Chevy Conversion Van with a 305cu-in V8
It made like 150hp, weighed like 6000lbs and sucked fuel like a MF and was prone to vacuum leaks all over. They used engine vacuum to power the hvac system! An absolute turd with 100s of miles of tiny, clear plastic vacuum lines that never worked properly.
there is one car i forgot what it was but it had a 5.7 NA diesel V8 with 105 hp
The 6.2 Detroit Diesel engine is a solid performer due to its simplicity. Fuel metering and delivery, and everything else, is mechanically controlled. The only electrical hookup needed is to the fuel shut-off solenoid. The US military still uses this motor, rather than the turbocharged, computer-controlled 6.5 liter version.
these are some good videos 🤘🏽. should do a video highlighting the bad parts of some of the ‘best’/popular engines
Like so many, you have been indoctrinated to focus on horsepower numbers. Truth is, HP has more to do with top end speed at higher RPMs. What burns rubber and breaks inertia off the line is low-end torque. Look at EVs and the tuning of truck engines, especially diesels. HP is meh, but there's gobs of unstoppable torque to do work. Even modern I4 engines are amazing. Take any econobox with a manual, put it in first, and watch it effortlessly climb any hill at idle. (Won't work with with a slipping torque converter.) Then it'll electronically top out at 110-120 MPH @ 5000 RPM. And remember that between 1970 and 1971 most engines were not changed, only the method of HP measurement.
The 500 Cadillac engine made 400 horsepower pre smog controls. The later ones made so little due to the EPA.
As a Duke owner, I agree although we can blame GM for stuffing it in the wrong applications. It would have done fine in something smaller. But in a Camaro or an S10 4 by 4….not so good.
It’s not a horrible engine, compared to a Ford 3.0 V6 interference 😣