: Mechanic's Top 10 Engines



Ralph
03-10-05, 02:46 PM
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=8253


"The 4.6-liter single overhead cam V-8 was introduced in 1991, not as an option, but as the standard engine in a '91 Lincoln Town Car.
What a statement of confidence to put it as the only engine in their flagship car! It was a winner: smoother and more powerful and more fuel efficient than the old 5.0-liter pushrod V-8. No major recalls or defects or teething problems. It was right from day one. And did Lincoln begin to eat Cadillac's lunch! The next year the 4.6 became standard in the Ford Crown Victoria and the Mercury Grand Marquis, two very successful cars that became even more so. By the mid-Nineties, Ford had the sole surviving rear-wheel-drive full-size cars wildly popular amongst older (wealthier) buyers, and the only car really suitable for police, limousine, and fleet use. Then the 4.6 and a heftier cousin, the 5.4 Triton engine, moved into the Ford truck line, giving them an advantage over the competition there too. The 4.6 is still in service and probably will be for many years to come."

I agree the 302 (5.0) is a tried and true engine, it's been around since the dawn of time, but I would have said the same for a Chev 305/350.

Looks like Honda builds good engines.

I know the Chev 2.8 is durable as evidenced by our 1980 Phoenix coupe. So I vote GM.

Likewise, I've read very good things about the Cadillac 4.9, 5.0, and 5.7. My overall experience has been the best with my GM cars. But I've never had anything major breakdown on my Mercury or Chryslers either. (engine wise)

Stoneage_Caddy
03-10-05, 02:54 PM
his report was total BS

he thinks the SHOC Ford 4.6 and SHOC mitsu 3.0 for chryslers are good engines .....LOL

he also thinks the toyota 22re ddint get Injection till the 90s ...WRONG 1984-85 was the first year of injection

Imho he did get the fact the 22re is one fo the greats because , well it is ....

My top ten ....well depends on what were talking , engineering or longevity ...

Ralph
03-10-05, 02:56 PM
engineering or longevity ...

Don't they sort of go hand in hand? Then again, there are a lot of old Beetles running around and they don't "sound" too well engineered, but they run forever.

The 1960's Chev Bel Air that my Dad had in the 1970's is still running around in my hometown! I can't imagine how many miles would be on it now.

Stoneage_Caddy
03-10-05, 03:12 PM
Long Life , great design :
22re Toyota
Chrysler Slant Six
GM 3.8
GM 305(some other small blocks too)
Ford 302 Pre EFI
Ford 351 Pre EFI
5.9 Cummins
Nissan SR20DE
Nissan KA24DE (also its relitve the z24)
VW TDI 1.9

Engineering Jewels (for there respective times)
Olds Jetfire (60s alumium Turbocharged alky injected 215cid V8)
The first Jag Inline Six (3.5l if memory serves)
Mazda 13b
Northstar
Nissan SR20VE-T
SHOC 427 Ford
SHOC Sprint Six (60s pontiac)
283 Fuelie Chevy
Porsche 959 Engine
Detroit Diesel (2 stroke)
Honda's First Vtec engine

ok well thats the first 11 that come to mind ...i could go all day

CoupeDevilleRob
03-10-05, 04:34 PM
The Ford 4.6 is a great engine? I know that it has a lot of power potential and a huge aftermarket, but I wouldn't call them great in terms of reliability. I've seen TONS of Town Cars, Grand Marquis and Crown Vics, mostly taxis and livery cabs, putting out smoke screens. And from both pipes most of the time. Granted that these cars lead tortured lives, but I've even seen privately owned TCs, CVs and GMs and a few cop cars (all cars that would be better maintained than taxis) putting out clouds of blue smoke. I would be really cautious about buying a Ford 4.6 with more than 75,000 miles.The Chrylser 3.3 V6 was another engine that used more oil than gas.

Ralph
03-10-05, 04:42 PM
The Ford 4.6 is a great engine?

Isn't there a dohc version of the 4.6 also? My other neighbour has a 1992 grand M. and he says it's dohc.

Stoneage_Caddy
03-10-05, 04:43 PM
yup Cobra oh and mark 8 too

slk230mb
03-10-05, 04:56 PM
Every mechanic I know cut their tooth on small block Chevy's so I voted GM.

90Brougham350
03-10-05, 04:57 PM
This is probably how I figure it, without foreign cars.

1. 426 Hemi
2. 350 Chevy
3. 427 Tunnel Port Ford
4. 327 Chevy

Best Foreign engine:
4 Liter Quad cam Lexus V8

Just my .02

Brian

davesdeville
03-10-05, 05:25 PM
Hmm. I voted GM, cause they made the 500, the northstar, and the 3100. All engines I have or my friends have so I have experiance with them. Doh! they also made the 1.9 SOHC Saturn motor in my friends SC... oh well I'll let that slide.

Adumb
03-10-05, 05:32 PM
my friend has a 2.2 boxer style engine in his turbo legacy, and hes drove that for over a year and he red lines it in almost every gear almost all the time. he drives that car like hes pissed at it or something and its has never given him trouble.

Stoneage_Caddy
03-10-05, 05:40 PM
there is one i forgot , the subaru , damn good engines ...and the non turbo cars are very easy to work on if you need to ...

but oddly enough the new Legacy (and i suppose all other subies) go only 70k betwen plug changes .....

the rest of the industry goes 100k

werid huh ?

Adumb
03-10-05, 07:15 PM
i changed the plugs on my friend turbo legacy and it was sooooo easy.

Jesda
03-10-05, 07:30 PM
This is a tough call. Nissan, GM, and Ford all have some solid offerings. I voted Other for the Nissan 3.5. Next I'd go for the Northstar and the Ford DOHC 4.6 in the Mark 8.

Playdrv4me
03-10-05, 07:56 PM
The Ford 4.6 is a great engine? I know that it has a lot of power potential and a huge aftermarket, but I wouldn't call them great in terms of reliability. I've seen TONS of Town Cars, Grand Marquis and Crown Vics, mostly taxis and livery cabs, putting out smoke screens. And from both pipes most of the time. Granted that these cars lead tortured lives, but I've even seen privately owned TCs, CVs and GMs and a few cop cars (all cars that would be better maintained than taxis) putting out clouds of blue smoke. I would be really cautious about buying a Ford 4.6 with more than 75,000 miles.The Chrylser 3.3 V6 was another engine that used more oil than gas.

The Ford 4.6 is without QUESTION one of the great engines of the nineties. How do I know this? I owned one, and sold it to my brother afterward. My 1996 Lincoln Continental had the closest engine Ford had to the Northstar, which was the 32Valve Intech V8, basically another 4.6 iteration. I purchased that car with 86000 miles on it, and even though I took relatively good care of it for a while, once the paint started going my brother treated it mostly like crap, rarely changed the oil, drove it past the 100k mark when the tune-up was supposed to be done (didnt get done like 115) and even when I picked it up from a cold snowy yard where it had been sitting for at least a month recently to trade it in, it NEVER hesitated to start, and blew NO smoke EVER. It ran a little rich as I could smell the fuel, but other than that the engine in that car was nothing short of a pleasure. A terrific engine mated to an otherwise craptastic car, and mind you the ONLY thing that kept the Continental alive after that shit-pile of an 88-94 Continental was introduced.

RBraczyk
03-10-05, 08:06 PM
GM 350 TBI. Extremely reliable and lasts forever.

Stoneage_Caddy
03-10-05, 08:09 PM
The Ford 4.6 is without QUESTION one of the great engines of the nineties. How do I know this? I owned one, and sold it to my brother afterward. My 1996 Lincoln Continental had the closest engine Ford had to the Northstar, which was the 32Valve Intech V8, basically another 4.6 iteration. I purchased that car with 86000 miles on it, and even though I took relatively good care of it for a while, once the paint started going my brother treated it mostly like crap, rarely changed the oil, drove it past the 100k mark when the tune-up was supposed to be done (didnt get done like 115) and even when I picked it up from a cold snowy yard where it had been sitting for at least a month recently to trade it in, it NEVER hesitated to start, and blew NO smoke EVER. It ran a little rich as I could smell the fuel, but other than that the engine in that car was nothing short of a pleasure. A terrific engine mated to an otherwise craptastic car, and mind you the ONLY thing that kept the Continental alive after that shit-pile of an 88-94 Continental was introduced.

your right , its odd tho that the 32 valve version of the engine did so much beatter than the SHOC version .....i see far more trouble free 32 valvers than the SHOC cars

RealmCenter
03-10-05, 09:26 PM
What about the Supercharged Jaguar AJ-27, a smooth and very powerful engine. What about the venerable Chrysler 2.2L and 225 Slant six? The 426 Hemi is probably the most legendary engine of all time. For any 2.2 nay sayers Chrysler was getting over 400hp out of this motor (prototype) in it's DOHC turbo guise. Nobody can argue with the tried and true SBC either. Ford on the other hand, well im not a big Ford fan so I'll leave that one alone (not counting the Jag motor). So what about the crummiest motor, the Ford 3.8 or maybe the Chrysler 2.7 (Intrepid/Concorde) perhaps the Quad 4? We should get that poll going!

Stoneage_Caddy
03-10-05, 09:29 PM
I mentioned the 225 six ...as for the 2.2 i was holding out on that one ....but it was a very adavnced engine ...i guess i could add it to the jewel section ...

i think the 400hp car your refering to was "the wraith" wasnt it ?beautiful car

i belive the 16v lotus head ran what 224hp ?

what was wrong with the Quad 4 ?

RealmCenter
03-10-05, 09:41 PM
Yes, the Lotus head 2.2 was 224hp, shoulda bought that IROC R/T doh! I think the Maser head 2.2 turbo in the TC was the same output but a totally different setup. I'm not sure about the Turbo Interceptor in the wraith, I may be way off here, but I think that was a 2.2 Cosworth head Twin sequential turbo with a crazy looking header that looked like a spider with all the turbo pipework. Right? Not sure of the HP output of that motor though... The 400hp motor I was referencing was a 2.5 DOHC turbo that never made it past prototype (maybe the same motor!?)

Playdrv4me
03-10-05, 09:41 PM
The Quad 4 was largely responsible for what later became the Northstar.

http://home.satx.rr.com/inebaysite/quad4.JPG

Stoneage_Caddy
03-10-05, 09:49 PM
Yes, the Lotus head 2.2 was 224hp, shoulda bought that IROC R/T doh! I think the Maser head 2.2 turbo in the TC was the same output but a totally different setup.
that maseratti head was a peice of artwork !!!

Ralph
03-10-05, 10:23 PM
I know that the "Wraith" car had a turbo, but that's all I know. My friend rented it back in the late 1980's and we FF and RR the tape over every inch of that car's angles and there is one scene where I think on the back window it said "Turbo." (very faintly) So I'm assuming it was the 2.2 or some sort of concept car.

I remember when those Quad 442's came out in the late '80's, and I think it had 150 hp? What ever happened to all the quad Calais? Or even Calais for that matter??!! It's like they vanished off the face of the earth. I don't even see any Quad Grand ams anymore.

Stoneage_Caddy
03-10-05, 10:38 PM
I know that the "Wraith" car had a turbo, but that's all I know. My friend rented it back in the late 1980's and we FF and RR the tape over every inch of that car's angles and there is one scene where I think on the back window it said "Turbo." (very faintly) So I'm assuming it was the 2.2 or some sort of concept car.

I remember when those Quad 442's came out in the late '80's, and I think it had 150 hp? What ever happened to all the quad Calais? Or even Calais for that matter??!! It's like they vanished off the face of the earth. I don't even see any Quad Grand ams anymore.
OK pull up a chair

The wraith was a chrysler conecpt car m mid engine powered by a twin cam 2.2 turbo , all of the car was enginered by shelby , the car set a couple records if memory serves, after a few autoshows chrysler had that movie done . Very similar deal to that show "viper" that was on NBC some years ago.

As for the N bodys with Quad 4s ....they ran sucessfully in scca for quite sometime , but in 1992 the Achevia came out , and took the place of the calais....for a year or so you could get the W41 on a acheiva , but then the SC and SC/X took its place as the hot moels all powered by the quad 4 ...boath calais and achieva were availble in a race spec option package too for SCCA Club memebers , like the Neon acr package

The calais had an interesting history , as you mentioned the 442 and w41, and just as interesting was this car :
http://encyclopedia.classicoldsmobile.com/pacecars/85.html
http://encyclopedia.classicoldsmobile.com/pacecars/85pace.jpg
a one off (well 3) convertible version of the car with the same 200+ hp 2.5 Iron duke the 84 Fiero pace car had (acutlly for these cars was 2.7l with superduty parts) 3 were built to pace the indy 500 that year (1985 , danny sullivan spin to win year)

Ralph
03-10-05, 11:27 PM
OK pull up a chair

The wraith was a chrysler conecpt car m mid engine powered by a twin cam 2.2 turbo , all of the car was enginered by shelby , the car set a couple records if memory serves, after a few autoshows chrysler had that movie done . Very similar deal to that show "viper" that was on NBC some years ago.

As for the N bodys with Quad 4s ....they ran sucessfully in scca for quite sometime , but in 1992 the Achevia came out , and took the place of the calais....for a year or so you could get the W41 on a acheiva , but then the SC and SC/X took its place as the hot moels all powered by the quad 4 ...boath calais and achieva were availble in a race spec option package too for SCCA Club memebers , like the Neon acr package

The calais had an interesting history , as you mentioned the 442 and w41, and just as interesting was this car :
http://encyclopedia.classicoldsmobile.com/pacecars/85.html
http://encyclopedia.classicoldsmobile.com/pacecars/85pace.jpg
a one off (well 3) convertible version of the car with the same 200+ hp 2.5 Iron duke the 84 Fiero pace car had (acutlly for these cars was 2.7l with superduty parts) 3 were built to pace the indy 500 that year (1985 , danny sullivan spin to win year)

Remember the Geo Storm?? Was't that a Quad also??

When was the last year for a production Quad 4? If it was such a good engine, why didn't they use it to this day since most cars are 4 bangers it seems? Even my trusty 1980 2.8 evolved into the 3.1 (bored out) and those two engines must have had a run well into the early 1990's or more.

What ever happened to the twin dual overhead cam Lumina Z34/GTP engine?? The technology was terrific for the time then it vanished??

Playdrv4me
03-10-05, 11:33 PM
Ralph, check out this page... http://www.angelfire.com/il2/insig2/quad4.html

The Quad4 is basically still in use in different variations apparently.

... I have an engine in my GM car that has DOHC or Dual Cam on it, is that a Quad?
Well, it just might be. If it has four cylinders and a displacement of 2.3 or 2.4L, then what you have is a newer generation of the Quad. For some reason, GM stopped using the Quad 4 name. Why? I have no idea...

J-Body Type:
Chevrolet: Cavalier Z24
Pontiac: Sunfire GT

L-Body Type:
Chevrolet: Beretta (GTZ)
N-Body Type:
Buick: Skylark Custom, Skylark Limited
Oldsmobile: Cutlass Calais (Quad442, W41), Achieva (SCX), Alero (Sadly no chance of OSV)
Pontiac: Grand Am

G-Body (Years 1990 and 1991 only):
Buick Regal?, Pontiac Gran Prix, Olds Cutlass Supreme
Modified:
Pontiac: Fiero

Ralph
03-10-05, 11:39 PM
Ralph, check out this page... http://www.angelfire.com/il2/insig2/quad4.html

The Quad4 is basically still in use in different variations apparently.

... I have an engine in my GM car that has DOHC or Dual Cam on it, is that a Quad?
Well, it just might be. If it has four cylinders and a displacement of 2.3 or 2.4L, then what you have is a newer generation of the Quad. For some reason, GM stopped using the Quad 4 name. Why? I have no idea...

J-Body Type:
Chevrolet: Cavalier Z24
Pontiac: Sunfire GT

L-Body Type:
Chevrolet: Beretta (GTZ)
N-Body Type:
Buick: Skylark Custom, Skylark Limited
Oldsmobile: Cutlass Calais (Quad442, W41), Achieva (SCX), Alero (Sadly no chance of OSV)
Pontiac: Grand Am

G-Body (Years 1990 and 1991 only):
Buick Regal?, Pontiac Gran Prix, Olds Cutlass Supreme
Modified:
Pontiac: Fiero

I still think that Z34 engine was sweet, making the same hp that I get, but with less torque.

All in the name change I guess. I think there was even talk of turbocharging the Quad 4 but I don't think it ever happened.

It still doesn't explain what happened to all the Calais's I used to see 15 years ago?? Maybe no one cared for them, much like the GM X-cars.

Stoneage_Caddy
03-10-05, 11:49 PM
the quad 4 was turbocharged a few times in a couple applications boath occuring in 1988.
http://encyclopedia.classicoldsmobile.com/pacecars/88pace.jpg
The pacecar for the Indy 500 that year was the First Front wheel drive Olds Cutlass Supreme. This car was a convertible prototype (once again only 3) the car was drivien by chuck yeager and had a turbocharged quad 4 making 250 hp ..this car would later become the cutlass supreme convertible we all know . Altho supposedly 50 replica verts were made but not with the turbo engine

then there was the olds aerotech
http://photos.velocityjournal.com/images/stk/1988/ol1988aerotechconcept01.jpg
this was based on a march indycar chassis , and started out with the turbocharged quad 4 .AJ Foyt drove it to the close coarse land speed record in 88. The car would later be rebuilt and used to test and make records witht he 4.0 liter old aurora engine

Ralph
03-11-05, 12:09 AM
the quad 4 was turbocharged a few times in a couple applications boath occuring in 1988.
http://encyclopedia.classicoldsmobile.com/pacecars/88pace.jpg
The pacecar for the Indy 500 that year was the First Front wheel drive Olds Cutlass Supreme. This car was a convertible prototype (once again only 3) the car was drivien by chuck yeager and had a turbocharged quad 4 making 250 hp ..this car would later become the cutlass supreme convertible we all know . Altho supposedly 50 replica verts were made but not with the turbo engine

then there was the olds aerotech
http://photos.velocityjournal.com/images/stk/1988/ol1988aerotechconcept01.jpg
this was based on a march indycar chassis , and started out with the turbocharged quad 4 .AJ Foyt drove it to the close coarse land speed record in 88. The car would later be rebuilt and used to test and make records witht he 4.0 liter old aurora engine

I remember the Areotech. I know that 1988 was the first year for all the GM FWD's, but my neighbour says his Monte Carlo SS is a 1988 model, when I thought (and told him) that it's a 1987 because I thought that was the last year for the RWD SS. As far as I thought there was no 1988 Monte SS?!

BTW, here are pics I took in 1987 of a brand new Monte SS that I really wanted to buy:

Stoneage_Caddy
03-11-05, 12:12 AM
I remember the Areotech. I know that 1988 was the first year for all the GM FWD's, but my neighbour says his Monte Carlo SS is a 1988 model, when I thought (and told him) that it's a 1987 because I thought that was the last year for the RWD SS. As far as I thought there was no 1988 Monte SS?!

BTW, here are pics I took in 1987 of a brand new Monte SS that I really wanted to buy:
Nope a freind of mine had an 1988 Old Cutlass Supreme ...Rear wheel drive ...

The car was a twin to the 87 ...but some screwup with production and a huge dealer supply allowed the car to end up legally becoming a 1988 , this car even had a "final run" badge ont he trunklid signifying the last of the rear drive cutlasses...

unforeutnatly the car ended up getting havcked up to make way for a olds 403 engine , he did a great job but it still bugs me the car isnt original

Ralph
03-11-05, 12:25 AM
Now I'm confused. So there was a 1988 Monte Carlo like my pics? So then 1989 was the actual first year for the major FWD move?

AAARRRGGGG. :mad:

Stoneage_Caddy
03-11-05, 12:30 AM
technically 88 was the first year ....no body bought the last of the rear drive cars ...so they were titled 88s but were really 87s ...some legal weirdness going on

Ralph
03-11-05, 12:36 AM
technically 88 was the first year ....no body bought the last of the rear drive cars ...so they were titled 88s but were really 87s ...some legal weirdness going on

OK, thanks. I guess it will never be settled with my neighbour then. :(

Stoneage_Caddy
03-11-05, 12:37 AM
nope it can go in circles for hours ...

bascilly GM will say its an 87 ...the rest of the world will say its an 88 as far as technicalitys

freefaller07
03-11-05, 10:19 AM
I love all the gm products. Have had only gm engines and never had any problems. I especially like there DOHC engines. The old 3.4 and of course the beloved NORTHSTAR. And who could forget the 5.7 350 the greatest American made engine. It is capable of so many things. You can make a 350 pull insane quarter miles and also have is pull huge loads of stuff with the great torque. Who doesnt love the 350. You can rebuild it easily and it fits so many applications at ease. GM is my vote.

caddydaddy
03-11-05, 10:48 AM
I vote for the Cadillac 425, 472, 500's, they last dang near forever if taken care of.

I can't believe no one mentioned the Volvo B230 engines??? They regularly get 500k+ miles. And the record holder Volvo had over 2 million miles on the original engine. Now that's what I call a great engine!

Ralph
03-11-05, 03:35 PM
I vote for the Cadillac 425, 472, 500's, they last dang near forever if taken care of.

I can't believe no one mentioned the Volvo B230 engines??? They regularly get 500k+ miles. And the record holder Volvo had over 2 million miles on the original engine. Now that's what I call a great engine!

I heard that Mercedes has a million miles club.

I'm suprised more people aren't voting for Ford.

evilrussian
03-11-05, 04:53 PM
I voted "other" because there is really no way to call just one engine "the best one", it all depends on the criteria given. I'd say the design of the Chevrolet small block has proved that 90 degree pushrod V8 283-400 has had a good run, but it's hard to compare with the modern engines like 4 bangers from Toyota and Honda and GM's own V6 3800.

As far as Ford's SOHC 4.6L, I'd disagree. I've seen plenty of them suffer from sensor problems, blocked EGR circuits, coolant leaks (due to cracked composite manifolds) and head gasket failures as well...

Ralph
03-11-05, 10:55 PM
I'd say the design of the Chevrolet small block has proved that 90 degree pushrod V8 283-400 has had a good run, but it's hard to compare with the modern engines like 4 bangers from Toyota and Honda

It's still doing good in the Corvette. :shhh: Too bad they knocked off the Camaro!

Ralph
03-11-05, 11:13 PM
Check this out! It explains where cars are made and the parts content, etc. Interesting:

http://www.usstuff.com/cars.htm


"According to the book 'How Americans Can Buy American' by Roger Simmermaker, (available for purchase by calling 1-888-US-OWNED howtobuyamerican.com) Chrysler produces 30% of its vehicles content in the USA, 50% for Ford, 70% for GM. The Dodge Dakota (1995?) is 80% American content. The book emphasizes the importance of US ownership of the companies that make the vehicles. A few of the US owned makes listed are Saturn, Ford, Vector, Lamborghini. Some foreign owned are Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen. U.S. Stuff beleives Chrysler (Daimler-Chrysler) is now German owned."

'As far as U.S. Stuff can tell, there are no makes of cars that are 100% American made. The closest U.S. Stuff has seen is 2001 Oldsmobile Intrigue GLS Sedan and the 2001 Pontiac Widetrack Grand Prix GT Sedan, made by USA owned Oldsmobile/General Motors and USA owned Pontiac/General Motors, both assembled in Kansas City, Kansas, USA, with a USA engine, USA transmission, with 96% US/Canadian parts content. Check the parts content sticker, though. The Grand Prix SE Sedan has a Mexican engine."

danbuc
03-11-05, 11:22 PM
I was thinking about voting for Ford, but it was a toss up between my Caddy (GM) and my Mustang (Ford) and GM won out in the end. I have to say, that the 289, is one of the toughest engines to kill. You can beat the piss out of them, and they'll just keep on running.

Ralph
03-11-05, 11:24 PM
I was thinking about voting for Ford, but it was a toss up between my Caddy (GM) and my Mustang (Ford) and GM won out in the end. I have to say, that the 289, is one of the toughest engines to kill. You can beat the piss out of them, and they'll just keep on running.

Is yours a 1966? Funny you mentioning that because today I bought a ticket on the most beautiful restored red '66 Mustang coupe with an originally detailed 289! I wonder what it's worth? I remember a guy had one when I used to cruise and I swear, I've never heard and engine scream as loudly as the 289! It must really rev.

danbuc
03-12-05, 11:19 PM
Yeah, it's a 1966. I've had it for about 3 years now, and it was my first car. I've doen some performance work to the engine and suspension, but the body still needs some work. Nothing really major, some of the body panels need to be re-aligned a little, and it could use a new paint job an dsome glass. The one thing you have to really look out ofr, is the cowl, in front of the windshield. It can rot out, and start to leak. That's why I got a cowl cover for it. Mine leaks a little bit in the rain, that's why I don't drive it in bad weather, that and I have no traction what so ever...hehe. :burn: . That's what the car does in the rain. I wish I had the 4 speed, but this 3speed cruisomatic isn't too bad. The 289, is quite the little powerhouse for only being 4.7 litres. Mine came from the factory with a 2bbl carb. It only made 200hp, but it made 280 lb/ft of torque. It makes more than that now though :sneaky: . I've been meaning to get a posi for the rear, and swap out the gears for something a little shorter. I just haven't had the time, or money. Let me know, what happens with that Red '66.

cadydaddy
03-18-05, 09:25 PM
im glad a few have gave the toyota 22re credit,along with the letter writer.

i have one in my toyota truck and its a great truck/engine.
mine has only 97,500 on it,and i can safely use the word "only" with this engine.
but i guess theres a reason my truck has a much higher resale then rangers,s10's and any other small truck.
this truck is rattle free and tighter feeling then my last truck was....a new 2000 ranger 4x4. soooo sad......for ford on that one.