: Engine of the Year Awards



HotRodSaint
06-25-03, 09:17 AM
Here are the IEOTY winners for 2003
Overall and in the eleven awards categories:

International Engine of The Year
Mazda Renesis Rotary - Mazda RX-8

Best Performance Engine
Mercedes-Benz AMG 55 Mercedes-Benz S 55 AMG, Mercedes-Benz S55 AMG, Mercedes-Benz SL 55 AMG

Best New Engine
Mazda Renesis Rotary - Mazda RX-8

Best Fuel Economy
Honda 1.3 L IMA (Civic Hybrid) Honda Civic

Best Above 4.0 liter
Volkswagen 5.0 L V-10 TDI (Phaeton, Touareg)

Best 3.0 liter to 4.0 liter
BMW 3.2-litre - BMW M3

Best 2.5 liter to 3.0 liter
Mazda Renesis Rotary - Mazda RX-8

Best 2.0 liter to 2.5 liter
BMW 2.5 L - BMW 325i, BMW 525i, BMW Z4

Best 1.8 liter to 2.0 liter
Honda 2.0 L (S2000) Honda S2000

Best 1.4 liter to 1.8 liter
MINI Supercharged 1.6 L - MINI Cooper S

Best 1.0 liter to 1.4 liter
Honda hybrid 1.3-liter IMA - Honda Civic Hybrid

Best Sub 1.0 liter
Honda hybrid 1.0 liter IMA - Honda Insight

Full Article (http://autos.msn.com/advice/windowshop.aspx?contentid=4021951&src=Home&pos=Edit2)

BeelzeBob
06-25-03, 09:41 AM
Damn. Don't we (USA) have a good engine?

elwesso
06-25-03, 12:33 PM
We will when they come out with the cadillac 16!!!

Blackout
06-25-03, 04:45 PM
We will when they come out with the cadillac 16!!!
Which will never happen

lev
10-05-03, 02:42 PM
And thank goodness it won't.

By the way, what does it mean, "best engine".

Best in what? Reliability, fuel economy, last longest with no oil or coolant in it? Someone better elaborate.

And don't they have some kind of an American contest like this? Best Ford v8, best GM V8, best something-something?

Night Wolf
10-05-03, 04:32 PM
isn't it funny how no American engine is on there?

stupid mags and stuff are biased, a few weeks ago I was waiting for a doctors appointment, I was reading 2001 Car&Driver when they reviewed 7 familey Sedans

American:

Regal
Imapala
Taurus

import:

Accord
Camery
Hyundai GX350 or whatever it is
Altima (or Maxima, forgot now)

anyway, of course of the 7, the 3 American cars came in last, even the Hyundai beat it, for the Taurus they were mad that the suspension was soft, and the car had a front/back pitch when you hit the gas/brakes....HELLO it is a familey sedan not a 2seater sports car. For the Regal, they are like, it's old, interrior is nice, but seats are too firm, they still make these? They complained about the Impalas accelerationa nd power, even though it had more power and had a faster 1/4 time then the Camery, which they said the power was adiquite. Of course they had nothing but praise for all 3 imports, and the cons were stupid things like ciggerette lighter in the way, or brake pedal too close to gas pedal etc....

all the mags are biased it it is stupid and pathetic, I can go on and on ranting about things like this,a nd other stuff about import vs domestic and big engins vs. small etc...

elwesso
10-05-03, 11:03 PM
I agree....... Ive noticed that, although sometimes they are right.......

Blackout
10-06-03, 01:25 PM
isn't it funny how no American engine is on there?Yeah they should throw the Northstar in there since thats such an awesome engine :histeric:

Katshot
10-06-03, 02:35 PM
If you guys bothered to READ the article before going off on "biased magazines", you'd realize how the awards recipients were actually chosen. I can't say I've ever heard of this award or the group doing the voting but the way in which they go about it SEEMS fair enough.
I would suggest reading the article which HRS posted a link for at the end of his post. At least that way you'll be aware of the facts in this case.

lev
10-08-03, 04:31 PM
My question is still not answered.

Rambo
10-08-03, 05:16 PM
If you guys bothered to READ the article before going off on "biased magazines", you'd realize how the awards recipients were actually chosen. I can't say I've ever heard of this award or the group doing the voting but the way in which they go about it SEEMS fair enough.
I would suggest reading the article which HRS posted a link for at the end of his post. At least that way you'll be aware of the facts in this case.


Did you read the article yourself? The way they tested them was completely retarded. It was basically an article devoted to praising Mazda for their peristence with the Rotary Engine.

Quote from Article: "Until then, Mazda is the King of the Hill. Long live the King—and the rotary engine"

They didn't mention what happens when the engine breaks down though. If I'm not mistaken Rotary Engines are much, much more expensive to fix, and only trained profressionals can even attemp to work on them.

How were they scored?

Quote from artice: "In all cases, the scoring procedure was the same. Based on a his or her own driving impressions and technical understanding, each juror allocated 25 points to five engines in each class, with a maximum of 15 for any one engine, and no tie allowed for the first choice."

Sounds like a pretty messed up scoring system if you ask me.

And how did they go about testing the engines?

Quote from article: "Points to consider in allocating scores were fuel economy, noise, smoothness, performance and drivability—not just technical sophistication."


Some people care about that "technical sophistication. They never mentioned reliability once in that article. Almost every engine they mentioned is brand new so there is no way of telling how reliable the engines could be.

How could the LS1 or North* engines not be included? The LS1 makes over 300 HP with a flat torque curve and still produces over 20 MPG. I don't know much about the North* but from what I've read it seems like it could hold it's own in a reliability test and a smoothness test. Why wasn't the GM 3800 V6 in that test? It's been around for years and has been praised as one of the most reliable engines on the planet.

Now I'm not saying the test was completely biased, although it was obvious they were biased towards the Mazda's rotary engine, but there is no way GM engines shouldn't have been on the list. Maybe I'm just biased towards GM though. :confused:

-Kevin

2dfx
10-08-03, 11:48 PM
Did you read the article yourself? The way they tested them was completely retarded. It was basically an article devoted to praising Mazda for their peristence with the Rotary Engine.

Quote from Article: "Until then, Mazda is the King of the Hill. Long live the King—and the rotary engine"

They didn't mention what happens when the engine breaks down though. If I'm not mistaken Rotary Engines are much, much more expensive to fix, and only trained profressionals can even attemp to work on them.

How were they scored?

Quote from artice: "In all cases, the scoring procedure was the same. Based on a his or her own driving impressions and technical understanding, each juror allocated 25 points to five engines in each class, with a maximum of 15 for any one engine, and no tie allowed for the first choice."

Sounds like a pretty messed up scoring system if you ask me.

And how did they go about testing the engines?

Quote from article: "Points to consider in allocating scores were fuel economy, noise, smoothness, performance and drivability—not just technical sophistication."


Some people care about that "technical sophistication. They never mentioned reliability once in that article. Almost every engine they mentioned is brand new so there is no way of telling how reliable the engines could be.

How could the LS1 or North* engines not be included? The LS1 makes over 300 HP with a flat torque curve and still produces over 20 MPG. I don't know much about the North* but from what I've read it seems like it could hold it's own in a reliability test and a smoothness test. Why wasn't the GM 3800 V6 in that test? It's been around for years and has been praised as one of the most reliable engines on the planet.

Now I'm not saying the test was completely biased, although it was obvious they were biased towards the Mazda's rotary engine, but there is no way GM engines shouldn't have been on the list. Maybe I'm just biased towards GM though. :confused:

-Kevin
Seconded

Blackout
10-09-03, 09:32 AM
If you pickup any magazine whatsoever they have Mazda's new rotary as engine of the year. So is every magazine biased then :confused: You guys have to stop whining because american's engine's are not winning over people anymore. Give credit where credit is due. That new rotary is one hell of any engine!

HotRodSaint
10-09-03, 12:39 PM
They never mentioned reliability once in that article. Almost every engine they mentioned is brand new so there is no way of telling how reliable the engines could be.

How could the LS1 or North* engines not be included?


You mean Cadillac didn't get honorable mention for being first to production with the electric starter. :D

I'm not sure there is cost effecitive way for a magazine that gets no advertising to test reliability. That would require running all the engines in variable conditions up to a minimum of 60,000 miles. That's consumer reports job, not the job of a group looking for engineering excellence.

Rambo
10-09-03, 01:56 PM
I'm not sure there is cost effecitive way for a magazine that gets no advertising to test reliability. That would require running all the engines in variable conditions up to a minimum of 60,000 miles. That's consumer reports job, not the job of a group looking for engineering excellence.

That makes sense, but if they can't do a test right they shouldn't do it in the first place. Maybe it would of made more sense for them to rate the interior and exterior quality instead of engine quality, because IMO there is no way to rate an engine on it's quality without first knowing what kind of reliability can be expected.


You guys have to stop whining because american's engine's are not winning over people anymore. Give credit where credit is due.

Sorry if it seemed like I was whining, I wasn't trying to sound like a bitch. I will admit I have respect for some of the motors in that test, like the one in the MB SL55 AMG. :)

-Kevin

Blackout
10-09-03, 03:48 PM
Sorry if it seemed like I was whining, I wasn't trying to sound like a bitch. I will admit I have respect for some of the motors in that test, like the one in the MB SL55 AMG. :)

-KevinNah that engine blows! :D

HotRodSaint
10-09-03, 04:43 PM
That makes sense, but if they can't do a test right they shouldn't do it in the first place.

You are right. So since they can't properly test reliability, they didn't.

That does not mean that you can't test the many other traits that make a good engine.

Night Wolf
10-09-03, 09:45 PM
the 1.3L rotary is nice.....250hp but only like 180ft lbs of tourqe? that is really strange......

....I love rotarys, our snowmobile has one and it is sweet, but I heard that to work on them is tough.....plus I love more tourqe then hp...makes for a nice sleeper :D

What makes the 3800 such a reliable engine?

What about the Caddy 4.9?

Rambo
10-09-03, 10:13 PM
the 1.3L rotary is nice.....250hp but only like 180ft lbs of tourqe? that is really strange......

....I love rotarys, our snowmobile has one and it is sweet, but I heard that to work on them is tough.....plus I love more tourqe then hp...makes for a nice sleeper :D

What makes the 3800 such a reliable engine?

What about the Caddy 4.9?

The rotary in the mazda is a 2.5 liter.

I don't know exactly what makes the 3.8 so reliable but it must be something since GM has been using it since the mid 80's. It's basically the family engine over at GM, they put it in everything nowadays.

Sorry, I don't know anything about the Caddy's 4.9, so I can't comment on that.

Night Wolf
10-11-03, 01:29 AM
The rotary in the mazda is a 2.5 liter.

I don't know exactly what makes the 3.8 so reliable but it must be something since GM has been using it since the mid 80's. It's basically the family engine over at GM, they put it in everything nowadays.

Sorry, I don't know anything about the Caddy's 4.9, so I can't comment on that.

Actually, IIRC the 3800 has been around since the late 50's, it used to be called the Fire Ball and was in Specials and other Buicks.... I think it was the late 60's it was shelved for some time, them GM brought it back out.

The NEW rotary is 1.3L:

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsSpecs&vehicleCode=RX8

Katshot
10-11-03, 08:55 AM
GM was using a V6 in the 50's? First I've heard of that.
The precurser to the 3800 was the basic 3.8 V6 which was preceeded by the 231 V6. As I recall, the 231 came out around '75. The engine was an "odd-firing" engine and always had an internal balance problem which caused a rather rough idle. GM's brilliant strategy to calm customer complaints over the rough idle was to reduce the idle rpm spec to a point that the engine idled FAIRLY smooth. Yep, in the old 231 and 3.8 version, the LOWER the idle, the smoother it ran. Unfortunately, this caused a problem with engine-driven accessories at idle like low charging system output, low P/S boost, lousy A/C performance, etc. Eventually, GM decided to add an internal balance shaft to calm the engines shaking and the 3800 was born. The basic design can actually be modifed to make huge amounts of power such as in the mid 80's Grand National, and it really is a fairly reliable engine too. I personally found it to be reliable yet not very "durable". I've had first-hand experience with several that didn't hold up well under the foot of an aggressive driver (yes, I'm one of them). My '89 Pontiac SSE bought new, had approx. 60 psi compression by 50K miles. I never would've known it was bad if it weren't for my hooking it up to an engine analyzer since it ran pretty good still.

Night Wolf
10-13-03, 12:16 AM
ok, so it wasn't the 50's....early 60's, either way, here it is, definitly the 3.8 V6:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6144&item=2436350454

It was called the Fire Ball, just like Oldsmobile called their engine (the 350, correct?) the Rocket...... that is the same basic block as the new 3800, I think it was the late 60's it was shelved, then brought back as the 3.8, then 3800 and blah blah....