Name a worse engine

The only good thing about this engine is that it ensured all those middle aged women in 7th gen Fiestas vanished as quickly as they appeared

Die For Epstein's Client List Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Die For Epstein's Client List Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the oil dipped, internal timing belt is some end boss tier israeli shit.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why did they do it? Literally why? Why are they allergic to making a good economy engine?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        they have an amazing idea on paper but somehow, the beancounters obliterate it with compromises that the engineers must endure.
        which is most companies, but not ford, they willingly make moronic decisions. if they made durable long-lasting econoboxes their reputation would skyrocket.
        they're after that short-term profit from morons being denied warranty.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I've been told by people who were involved with the development of the PSA ripoff that the adantage over an external belt is *apparently* that it reduced internal friction because you could eliminate the cam seals. That's literally it. And of course the same advantages you'd normally have over a chain, i.e. less noise, less rotating mass, cheaper to produce

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1.4 tsi
    In short - cracking pistons and piston rings, water pump failures, valve train failures and on top of that, they smoked not much less engine oil than petrol

    And what do you think about it ?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That the twin charged 1.4?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        EA111 were the worst

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hey, don't forget the shitty PCV valves and various sealing issues causing oil leaks (If the engine didn't burn all of it yet).
      I think some later revisions didn't completely suck, but some of the early ones were definitely doomed.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >123 hp/l
    >123 hp
    >1 liter

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But bikes pull this much even without a turbo

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because bikes don't need torque and can just rev to high heavens instead, which is not really practical for a car

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We were hitting those numbers in the 60's.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    actual pile of garbage, worst engine I've ever had the displeasure of using, here's what the dyno graph looks like btw

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is shit if it's HP and still bad if it's torque.
      JFC
      This is what shitty turbo epa/carb engines get you.
      Just make it a diesel at this rate

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's a line drawn in ms paint you dingleberry

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah it's a chore to drive. Turbo does nothing until 3k, suddenly gives you a shunt forward, then immediately eats shit at 4k. You instinctively shift at 4k cause you can clearly tell the turno ran out of steam except the gears ore so wide apart that whoops now you're out of boost again, have fun waiting for 3k rpm. Also it sounds like a food processor. 3cyls can and often do sound good, this thing does not.

        it's a line drawn in ms paint you dingleberry

        It's an exaggerated "butt dyno" hp graph

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah it's a chore to drive. Turbo does nothing until 3k, suddenly gives you a shunt forward, then immediately eats shit at 4k. You instinctively shift at 4k cause you can clearly tell the turno ran out of steam except the gears ore so wide apart that whoops now you're out of boost again, have fun waiting for 3k rpm. Also it sounds like a food processor. 3cyls can and often do sound good, this thing does not.
      [...]
      It's an exaggerated "butt dyno" hp graph

      It's that bad? Frick, VW must have done something right with the 1.0 TSI 115, because its turbo starts kicking in around 1500-1700, has nearly flat ~200 Nm torque between 2000-4000 RPM, and it falls off pretty slowly after that.
      I drove a rental Polo with that engine at some point, and it was actually very usable. Definitely not sporty, but it didn't feel badly underpowered either. Kind of felt like an old turbodiesel.
      You can supposedly chip it to get 135 HP / 250 Nm, which you might actually notice in a 1100 kg / 2400 lbs car.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >VW must have done something right with the 1.0 TSI 115, because its turbo starts kicking in around 1500-1700, has nearly flat ~200 Nm torque between 2000-4000 RPM, and it falls off pretty slowly after that.
        No that's normal it's just Ford in particular that sucks dick, wiener, AND balls. Yes, it's THAT bad. I've driven the 1.0 TSI, it's fine. Totally serviceable. I wouldn't buy it for longevity concerns (nor would I buy any modern VAG product for that same reason) but I didn't get angry trying to tardwrangle it into compliance.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I remember Ford hyping this engine as the next big thing for their econoboxes. I was excited because I like I3 engines. Such a small footprint meant it could fit in a lot small vehicles. Such an absolute shame it turned out to be a steaming pile of shit.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honesty doe this engine is a tour de force of engineering.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I rented a Fiesta with one of these and a DCT and I absolutely ringed that things neck. Felt like it was going to grenade on me but I couldn’t make it happen in just a couple hundred miles.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The 2.0L SPI engine used in earlier Focuses was horrible too; they all have a flaw where they shit their valve seats around 100k miles and basically wreck the cylinder.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *