What in your opinion are the best engines ever manufactured by the Big Three (or AMC if you would like to list them seperately from Chrysler)?

Chrysler:
the 3.3/3.5/3.8 family (I'll wait to see how the new 4.0L works out before I add them), the LA/Magnum small-block V8, the original small-block (241, 331, etc.), I'm going to wait to see how the 4.7L and new HEMI work out before I add them.

Ford:
Both the Cleveland and Windsor small blocks, the Vulcan engine series (3.0L 12valve, there are other versions but I can't remember)

GM:
The small block Chevrolet, the Buick based 90 degree 3800 V6, the Twin Cam versions of the Saturn engine (1.9L).

AMC:
The famous I6 (4.0L/4.2L), I don't know too many of their other engines.

 

chryser: non-magnum small blocks own the magnums, especially the 340, which was the highest HP of the small blocks.

ford: "the 5.0"..or anything but the 4.6 modu-junk.

GM: any LSX can argue for some of the best flowing engines built, ever...especially for a smaller engine.

 

True, I meant this to be about reliability but what the heck, performance is also fun to talk about.

I hear you about the 4.6L. That engine doesn't have the lower end nor the quality that the "5.0" ever had. My relatives got over 325,XXX miles out of a 5.0L that didn't burn any oil, but the 4.6L has been burning oil since it passed the 100,000 mile mark.

The 340 was a real kick-butt engine. There is a reason why they used the engine line for the basis for the Viper V10 (it is supposed to have 340 parts in there). The crate engine versions of the 360 that Chrysler now makes produces 380 hp & 410 ft-lbs of tq. Do you think it has the 340 technology in it?

 

i thought that was about performance, not reliability...
the 360 in the ramcharger has never been apart, and it has over 200,000 on it now...

aside from the head design on the magnums, not much has changed on the small block mopars....the original Viper V10, or the "lambo viper engine" was actually a truck 360 that chrysler gave to lambo when they had an interest in them, and said "make us a supercar engine"..and the 8.0L V10 was what they made.

another thing about the 4.6L used from 95 to 04 was that the head design was crappy, which is why none of the 4.6s are worth a s*** unless people spend big bucks or boost them. even then, they are lousy engines. there is a guy at MF who wanted a "fast 4.6 new edge", so he has a fully built engine...spent something like 15 grand...he runs a tenth faster than the mirada used to..[:'(]

 

Yeah I knew that they used the 360 as the base for the V10. They bought out lambo while they were planning on making this engine so then they could do it for them. From what I read, the V10 is supposed to use parts from the 340 though, I'll get back to you later tonight after I read through my books.

Are you referring to the 4.6L as soon as it was used in the Mustang GT? If so, the first offical year they used the 4.6L in the Mustang was '96. If not did they change all the heads from 92-94, or did you mean to include them as well.

LOL!!! What a waste of money! Doing anything to those 4.6Ls is a waste of money, I would have just bought and fixed up a 5.0 instead. What a fool!

 

I think what would really be cool would be to take the V-6 /slant six or whatever verion of the Challenger and soup it up.

There have been six cylinders that have really kicked butt.

 

in the chrysler classics event series (at least when i was a competitor) they had a "slant six shootout", and it was sponsored by cox racing, who specializes in modding slant sixes. last time that i saw the clas run, i believe that two of them were in the 9s..

yeah, 95 was the last year for the 5.0...so 96 was the first of the 4.6L in the sn95...during that chassis style, they had "PI" and "non-PI" engines...and while they were all pigs, the stock non-pi 4.6, if mated to an auto trans, would be about as slow as my stock auto stratus...from a pony car? i never knew how worthless the 2V 4.6L was until a new edge owner, who had full bolt ons and a 150 shot, who was just cracking into the 11s, told me about how bad they were

 

9's is a pretty amazing feat.

My guess why we don't see them in stock vehicles is because that much horsepower puts too much stress as a reliable daily driver.

 

Only if we could have those Aussie straight six HEMIs. Those were supposed to be fast in stock form.

 

I wish Ford would have held on to the 5.0 for the Mustang GT and given it a higher output instead of that 4.6 at least until this model. Why didn't they offer the 5.8L in the Mustang to compete against the F-bodies during the 90s (not including the 95 Cobra R)?