[HotRodSaint]

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

 

[BeelzeBob]

Damn. Don't we (USA) have a good engine?

 

[elwesso]

We will when they come out with the cadillac 16!!!

 

[Blackout]

We will when they come out with the cadillac 16!!!

Which will never happen

 

[lev]

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]

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]

I agree....... Ive noticed that, although sometimes they are right.......

 

[Blackout]

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]

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]

My question is still not answered.

 

[Rambo]

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.

-Kevin

 

[2dfx]

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.

-Kevin

Seconded

 

[Blackout]

If you pickup any magazine whatsoever they have Mazda's new rotary as engine of the year. So is every magazine biased then 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]

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.

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]

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]

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

Nah that engine blows!

 

[HotRodSaint]

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]

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

What makes the 3800 such a reliable engine?

What about the Caddy 4.9?

 

[Rambo]

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

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]

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