VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner

61 - 80 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,182 Posts
VR6:wave::wave::laugh::popcorn::popcorn::beer::beer:laugh:
I feel like VW's VR engines are a dark horse candidate—they're generally durable and reliable and are the foundation for the W engines that have been essential to the success of VAG's premium brands over the past 15 years. Of course the very thing that made them so versatile, their compact size, also give them thermal performance that makes things like fuel efficiency and aftermarket tuning tougher than for a more traditional 60 or 90 degree V6. I guess they're kind of VW's rotary engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,327 Posts
I feel like VW's VR engines are a dark horse candidate—they're generally durable and reliable and are the foundation for the W engines that have been essential to the success of VAG's premium brands over the past 15 years. Of course the very thing that made them so versatile, their compact size, also give them thermal performance that makes things like fuel efficiency and aftermarket tuning tougher than for a more traditional 60 or 90 degree V6. I guess they're kind of VW's rotary engine.
Hmmm...like the rotary maybe...maybe not. The reliability of the actual engine I heard is remarkable...I read an article sometime ago that VW had not a single blown VR6 engine due to internal components. Plus I can get 32mpg highway and as we all know WoW...the music she makes is unforgettable.

Long live the tiny...yet Mighty VR6:wave::wave:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,182 Posts
Hmmm...like the rotary maybe...maybe not
Yeah, I guess what I meant was both the VR/W engines and the rotary are examples of a company taking an idea that other automakers looked at and rejected, and making it a centerpiece of their engine strategy. The VR has definitely worked out better for VW than the rotary did for Mazda!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,070 Posts
Yeah, I guess what I meant was both the VR/W engines and the rotary are examples of a company taking an idea that other automakers looked at and rejected, and making it a centerpiece of their engine strategy. The VR has definitely worked out better for VW than the rotary did for Mazda!
Did it, though? The rotary is what set Mazda apart from every other manufacturer in the U.S. marketplace in the 1970s. The RX2 and RX3 were quite popular, and there was even a rotary pickup. The engines were used for decades quite successfully. That it’s time has passed means little. The air cooled VW engines were incredibly successful, but they too are limited to work well in their time. The VR6 is hanging on by a thread, but at some point it will be gone. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great engine, but all have their limits, whether it’s packaging, regulations, or something even more fundamental like the passing of the gasoline engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,887 Posts
F yes. My wife had an '02 Civic in college that started giving us problems around the ~10 year old mark - and guess how many miles :laugh:

Started by intermittently losing heat, which meant we'd been losing coolant. I checked it several times for external leaks. Had it checked out a few times as well, nothing found either. No tell tale signs of head gasket distress. Finally after exhausting all options, we just went for a head gasket replacement, and found a TINY split. Small enough to lose enough coolant over time, but kind of annoying when you buy a vehicle for its mechanical reputation.

The rest of the vehicle wore pretty poorly too. Headliner and door fabric delaminating, lots of hard plastic, just generally cheap-feeling. Things that you would expect in a more bargain-priced vehicle, not a Honda. It did give 11 years/175k miles, so it wasn't a total pile. Just pretty disappointing.

My wife's 05 Civic sedan turned over 125k recently. I'm hoping it holds up for awhile, but it's something to look out for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,182 Posts
Did it, though? The rotary is what set Mazda apart from every other manufacturer in the U.S. marketplace in the 1970s.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the rotary engine as a bad engine, but historically they have had issues with fuel economy, emissions, and longevity relative to a piston engine of equivalent power. Which was a bad combo for Mazda hitching their wagon to that design just as the oil crisis and emissions regulations hit. Apparently they haven't given up on it though and are looking at using rotaries in hybrids, so maybe modern materials science will help get the rotary back in road-going cars. We'll see—like you said, the rotary, VR, and ICE in general have a rapidly-approaching expiration date.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,239 Posts
Mazda :
Best : PE-VPS from the ND2 or KLZE V6
Worst : Renesis or 2.3 MZR L3-VDT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,539 Posts
No one is doing Porsche?

Best: Would be the M97/74 in the 997 GT3 RS 4.0, a friend has one and it sounds great. I also like the Mezger
996 era M96/79 also a GT engine or M96/70 turbo.

In air cooled you have the 930 motors and my beloved SC NA 3.0 might not have made a lot of power but they are durable, something that cannot be said about the 3.2 L engines directly after them, with their metal to metal seals or...

Worst: ...the engines before them, the 2.7s. A 2.7 RS engine is a jewel, sure, but I truly hated the 2.7 era engines with their propensity to leak oil, pull headstuds, overheat, bend valves, develop piston issues, it goes on and on. I owned a 2.7l 911S. A 996 engine is a freaking Toyota commuter engine piker on the “let me show you how I can detonate” scale compared to a 2.7.

The cars they came in are narrow hipped beautiful wonders but if I had an extra 2.7 in my garage (and I would certainly need one) I’d throw a wrench at it every time I passed by it just for old times sake. You go into any good Porsche shop and they’ll be one sitting bright and beautiful on a stand being rebuilt. And another one waiting. Because air cooled guys have more money than sense, and that’s me included.



‘The enemy of my enemy is still my @#$&@# enemy’
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,070 Posts
No one is doing Porsche?

,,,Worst: ...the engines before them, the 2.7s. A 2.7 RS engine is a jewel, sure, but I truly hated the 2.7 era engines with their propensity to leak oil, pull headstuds, overheat, bend valves, develop piston issues, it goes on and on. I owned a 2.7l 911S. A 996 engine is a freaking Toyota commuter engine piker on the “let me show you how I can detonate” scale compared to a 2.7.

The cars they came in are narrow hipped beautiful wonders but if I had an extra 2.7 in my garage (and I would certainly need one) I’d throw a wrench at it every time I passed by it just for old times sake. You go into any good Porsche shop and they’ll be one sitting bright and beautiful on a stand being rebuilt. And another one waiting. Because air cooled guys have more money than sense, and that’s me included.

‘The enemy of my enemy is still my @#$&@# enemy’
Haven't just about all of the 2.7s issues been addressed in the ensuing years? Anchoring the head studs, the head studs themselves, thermal reactors, valves, all of that.

If memory serves they're still magnesium cases during those years, which is part of the problem since magnesium can't take repeated overheating and maintain its strength. Do 911 cases get re-heat treated upon rebuild? It generally isn't worth it in the VW world, but it seems like a numbers matching 911 rebuild certainly should qualify.


Also, the "best" (according to how one defines it) to me would have to be the 4-cam Fuhrmann engine. Probably in 2 liter guise in the 356. It's a complex symphony of clacking moving parts and gear whine, is temperamental, takes expert (and extremely expensive) care, but what a glorious engine! Of course I'm biased, as that's my favorite road going engine of all time. :heart:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,580 Posts
About Porsche, what about the 944 motors? I guess for their time they are probably ok, but for the power the n/a motors make, they seem fairly maintenance heavy for the level of performance you get out of them, but Japanese n/a 4 cylinder motors have spoiled me with their performance to reliability ratio lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,800 Posts
At least it didn't need a new head gasket with every oil change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Essex_V6_engine_(Canadian)

Or eat cams like the damn DOD LS units. The 5.4 and 6.8 get so much crap but of all the fleet units and high mileage stuff its always the 2v 4.6 5.4 or the 6.8 v10. The 1 YEAR first year 5.4 a couple puked the spark plugs out then everyone assumed it was never fixed and commonly get them mixed up with the 3v 4.6/5.4 that has the long nosed spark plugs that get carboned and fuze to the the head and snap on removal if you are not careful. and the cam phasers sucked.

Fords best in my eyes is the 6.8 or the 4.9/300 inline six. Indestructible.

Worst Is the 4.2 V6 they shoved in the 97-98 f series. If you got 40k out of one that was considered a museum piece
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,539 Posts
About Porsche, what about the 944 motors? I guess for their time they are probably ok, but for the power the n/a motors make, they seem fairly maintenance heavy for the level of performance you get out of them, but Japanese n/a 4 cylinder motors have spoiled me with their performance to reliability ratio lol.
You had to bring them up. Well, a 944 motor is also diabolical, yes. All Porsche motors can and will crush your soul when you aren’t driving. I’ve owned three 944s and while yep the Turbo was punishing nothing could touch the 2.7 for its ability to either clatter or leak oil spontaneously. At least a new 944 motor is pretty cheap although a 16v head isn’t. An NA 944 once you get past the clutch, seals, timing chain water pump valve cover and power steering will be okay for awhile. It’s the three or four grand in parts right when you buy it that’s hard to swallow. Once they are right NA 944s are pretty solid.

The other thing is 944s that are na do have a distinctive exhaust sound. It is recognizable from a distance. You know it’s a 944.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,723 Posts
Best VAG: 1.9 TDI and 1.8 20VT
Worst VAG: 1.4 TSI 160/180bhp
I was amazed at the gulf in awesomeness between the new 1.8T and 1.4T. 1.8T has all the upsides of turbo engines, at least practically. I loved it. 1.4T is terrible. The MK7 Golf 1.8Ts are such great dailys.

I have a controversial pick.

Honda's best: K20Cx
Honda's worst: any N/A motors 2.0L or smaller

DOHC VTEC is awesome at the track or in a super light car. But in something even like 2800lb, on the highway you're cruising at at least 3.5K RPM with 90s era NVH. And if you want to do more than just keep up with traffic you're getting on the big cams. I remember spending so many times in my H22 Accord just waiting for an open stretch of road to rip TEC on, and then being disappointed :facepalm: Def not for me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,352 Posts
Or eat cams like the damn DOD LS units. The 5.4 and 6.8 get so much crap but of all the fleet units and high mileage stuff its always the 2v 4.6 5.4 or the 6.8 v10. The 1 YEAR first year 5.4 a couple puked the spark plugs out then everyone assumed it was never fixed and commonly get them mixed up with the 3v 4.6/5.4 that has the long nosed spark plugs that get carboned and fuze to the the head and snap on removal if you are not careful. and the cam phasers sucked.

Fords best in my eyes is the 6.8 or the 4.9/300 inline six. Indestructible.

Worst Is the 4.2 V6 they shoved in the 97-98 f series. If you got 40k out of one that was considered a museum piece
In his defense, he did say it was because of the sound of the old 5.4's on the road, which I took as the usual cracking manifolds on these - not really specific to the 5.4, but it seems like a lot of 5.4 Super Duties have cracked manis and because they're usually beater work trucks, they're not usually tended to. Well, it usually ends up happening to all trucks, other varieties just descend into beater status a little more slowly.

My old boss at work has a 300k+ mile F150 w/ the 5.4, and it's still on its original engine and trans. He used it for years to haul snowmobiles up north, so it's been worked. A few years ago he bought a 2500HD Duramax, but for some reason he still keeps his F150 around and drives it (well, drove it pre-COVID) to work a whole bunch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,327 Posts
Best BMW engine: i3 REX!! i3 is one of the most reliable BMW mainly because there is NO BMW engine inside!! That range extender is actually made by a Taiwanese scooter, motorcycle and ATV manufacturer called Kymco. :thumbup::thumbup:



This is why this modern BMW has something call dipstick to check engine oil.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,539 Posts
Best BMW engine: i3 REX!! i3 is one of the most reliable BMW mainly because there is NO BMW engine inside!! That range extender is actually made by a Taiwanese scooter, motorcycle and ATV manufacturer called Kymco. <img src="http://www.vwvortex.com/Anthony/Smilies/thumbup.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Thumb Up" class="inlineimg" /><img src="http://www.vwvortex.com/Anthony/Smilies/thumbup.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Thumb Up" class="inlineimg" />



This is why this modern BMW has something call dipstick to check engine oil.

Non M motors, no, M54B30 I think the e39 i6. I almost think it has to be an inline six na motor and the 3.5s were not as good. The e39 in a 3.0 i6 could drive all day at 30.0 mpg and go well over 500 miles I did this like 8 times in that car. Not bad for that time. My fake rich Ford can’t do that and it’s a 2006.

There’s a 90s 3.0 v8 that’s a high revver that’s good, too. (M60 b40 or b50 I think). For a dog I’d pick the e21’s second motor, the North American 1.8 liter i4. The original 2.0 was great fun, but that 1.8 was gutless with the only advantage being the five speed. The older motor was mated to a four speed manual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,211 Posts
I was amazed at the gulf in awesomeness between the new 1.8T and 1.4T. 1.8T has all the upsides of turbo engines, at least practically. I loved it. 1.4T is terrible. The MK7 Golf 1.8Ts are such great dailys.

I have a controversial pick.

Honda's best: K20Cx
Honda's worst: any N/A motors 2.0L or smaller

DOHC VTEC is awesome at the track or in a super light car. But in something even like 2800lb, on the highway you're cruising at at least 3.5K RPM with 90s era NVH. And if you want to do more than just keep up with traffic you're getting on the big cams. I remember spending so many times in my H22 Accord just waiting for an open stretch of road to rip TEC on, and then being disappointed :facepalm: Def not for me
You were disappointed by the H22 which is a 2.2L motor but list their worst as anything that is 2L or smaller?

One of my favourite cars was an old Honda Ballade with the 1.6 DOHC ZC motor. What's wonderful about the small motors is that they are economical and quiet most of the time but they can be fun too, that's the whole point of the small Honda motors isn't it? The best of both worlds, I'm not sure how else you could get that kind of economy and performance out of a small NA motor. They were pretty reliable too AFAIK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,451 Posts
Pontiac -

Best: 1969-'70 400 Ram Air IV
Worst: 1961-'63 3.2L "Trophy" 4-cylinder.
Disagree due to the car that surrounded it, since the original 61-63 Tempests have the distinction of being the first production car with a rear mounted Transaxle-the 4 speed and powerglide units from the Corvair (for a front-engined car). It also made a decent amount of power for a domestic Four at the time. With the 4 speed it was the closest thing to an American BMW, Porsche of course would claim the 928 was actually the first.


Also, the 3.4s (both the quad-cam and pushrod versions) and the Iron Duke/Tech 4 must be worse. Although generally reliable if you could keep enough oil in them, the 2.5s were underpowered, thirsty and GM's refusal to develop a volume OHC four in the 1980s was to the company's detriment.

(Yes I'm aware fo the Quad-4 but that was a rare performance engine)



AMC/Jeep/DC/FCA/whatever unholy union is next

Best: 4.OMG
Worst: 3.8L V6

The 3.8 is a bad call. They were outdated by 2010 but perfect for the 1990s/2000s, as solid as the 3.3 was the 3.8 had the grunt that it lacked-van owners loved them.

The 2.7 V6 and 4.7 V8 are solid contenders.



I was amazed at the gulf in awesomeness between the new 1.8T and 1.4T. 1.8T has all the upsides of turbo engines, at least practically. I loved it. 1.4T is terrible. The MK7 Golf 1.8Ts are such great dailys.

I have a controversial pick.

Honda's best: K20Cx
Honda's worst: any N/A motors 2.0L or smaller

DOHC VTEC is awesome at the track or in a super light car. But in something even like 2800lb, on the highway you're cruising at at least 3.5K RPM with 90s era NVH. And if you want to do more than just keep up with traffic you're getting on the big cams. I remember spending so many times in my H22 Accord just waiting for an open stretch of road to rip TEC on, and then being disappointed :facepalm: Def not for me

Totally agree on the VW 1.4, the far superior 1.8 was probably dropped for cost/emissions reasons.

You make a good point on the Hondas- as cars got heavier/bigger in the 90s and 2000s, you need extra grunt to compensate. That's hard to do with an N/A 4, and a common trait of some Hondas/Acuras.
 
61 - 80 of 85 Posts
Top