Has there ever been a car you’ve been interested in, and as you dig into it you soon realize that the engine for the car just, you know, makes no sense? Like, sure, it works, in the sense that the lump of oily metal parts that smack around inside that crankcase get the car actually moving, but beyond that the engine just doesn’t seem to fit, technically or conceptually or performance-wise or whatever? Let’s talk about these cars.
There’s a lot of examples of these, when you really start thinking about them. For some cars, I think the choice of a wrong engine can be genuinely catastrophic, and, in one example I can think of, even destroyed that car and its whole company before any of the cars could even be sold.
I’m thinking of the Elio.
Remember the Elio? That little three-wheeled car that was supposed to be built in Shreveport, but the whole thing just turned into a huge mess, and maybe a scam? I think a lot of the issues with that company happened when they decided to re-engineer the old three-banger Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift engine. Why didn’t they just get a tiny three-cylinder from a supplier like Ford or GM or Mitsubishi? I have no idea. It was a terrible engine choice, and it was part of that whole disaster.
But maybe that’s not really right for this – that was more of a disaster. We’re talking more just mismatched.
How about the iconic Citroën DS?
The DS was a wildly advanced car when it came out in 1955, a genuine Gallic land-spaceship with advanced aerodynamics and design, a hydropneumatic self-leveling and adjustable suspension system, power steering, a semi-automatic transmission and so much more. It was a marvel. And yet, all of this advanced hardware was powered by the same 1911cc inline-four from the old Traction Avant, a car that came out in 1934.
It was supposed to have an air-cooled flat-six, like a Porsche 911 or a Chevy Corvair, but that never happened, so it got the hand-me-down engine from the old Traction. It was fine, but very much out of character with the advanced jet-age character of the DS.
There are plenty others: the DeLorean DMC-12 was similar to the DS in that it felt like a spaceship, but tucked in its rump wasn’t an engine that reflected the gull-winged, stainless steel character of the car, but a humble Peugeot-Renault-Volvo lump of a V6 that was dowdy and slow, more at home in rational Volvo sedans.
Our own S.W. Gossin suggests this mismatched pair:
Plymouth Prowler for mismatch. The V6 was the best they had at the time, and beat the V8 available, but didn’t really work in the marketplace with a percentage of the customer base.
The Prowler really did feel like a V8 car. I get it. Let’s hear what Mark Tucker thinks, why not?
For mismatched engines: the Mazda Rotary Pickup. Let’s put a high-revving, no-torque rotary engine – in a truck.
Okay, fair enough, but those rotary trucks were just so damn cool.
But more importantly, we want to know what you think! What car feels the most mismatched with its engine! Tell us all and then argue and agree with everyone else, as you see fit, and with glee! That’s what we do here, after all!
What Is The Worst Possible Getaway Car? Autopian Asks
What New Car Would You Buy With $15,000 Cash In 1985? Autopian Asks
What Are The Most Annoying Things That Can Happen When Wrenching On An Old Car?
Here’s my take. The 2.3L HSC engine that was in the Ford Tempo and Mercury Topaz. The Tempo/Topaz were the part of the first wave of aerodynamic cars from Ford, taking on the compact Accord/Camry of the day. Those cars had nice fuel injected OHC engines. Since the Tempo/Topaz were just enlarged versions of the Escort (the engine bay is the same), the engines in the Escort weren’t up to the added weight. Ford needed a bigger engine, but really didn’t have a larger transverse engine (yet).
So Ford took the very old and antiquated 200 I6 (that started in the Falcon), lopped off two cylinders, reconfigured it for transverse and created the 2.3L HSC engine. It was crude, rough running, and barely adequate.
What they should have done was take the (still old design, but newer) 2.3L OHC Pinto engine and reconfigure that for transverse application and use that. It would have matched features of the imports and it was a smoother engine overall. Then, for a performance engine they could have easily turbo’d it in the Tempo/Topaz as they had for the Mustang/Thunderbird and had a decent little pocket rocket.
I’ve always read Ford had intended on using the Lima OHC, but there was no additional production capacity available, but plenty of capacity to produce a version of the Thriftpower Six, hence the HSC.
Interesting. I had not heard that about Lima production capacity. I guess that would make sense then for them to create the HSC.
Hyundai Stellar with the Borg Warner auto.
Nice looking car, slow, painfully slow.
They were cheap, they were disposable, an interference engine with a short cam belt duration. They were lucky if they got oil changes let alone a cam belt.
Better engine they might have lasted, I’m thinking there can’t be any left in the wild.
I disagree with the Prowler V6 being “Mismatched” to the car. The first year engines were pretty weak, but the later versions had 250hp and the main issue with performance came down to the fact that the Prowler was only available with a 4 speed automatic. The gearbox just wasn’t well-matched to the car because autos with more gears weren’t really a thing yet (And developing a 5+ speed transaxle automatic for the sole purpose of using it in the Prowler would’ve likely bankrupt Chrysler)
I will always contend that a Chrysler V8 of the time would not have made the 4 speed Prowler any better than it was.
But as High Tech Hotrod, it sounded awful with the V6, terrible exhaust note, and sound is a good portion of what makes a hot rod
Potato potato.
Didn’t the mid-90’s Mustang have a sad 6-cylinder? Like, 145 hp sad?
My mid nineties 2 liter I-4 made 140 from the factory in my 200SX……
Same 3.8 Essex V6 that Ford had been using in many other models of the time. 150hp, 215tq. Later modifications to the intake manifold (among other things) brought it up to 197hp/220tq. It was a base model engine, not really what I’d consider a mismatch because buyers had the option of buying a V8.
When I see a Mustang from the outside, I don’t want it to be sad motor. If a DB9 had a mediocre V6, it would be fine because there was an option for a 6 liter V12?
Astons don’t get V6’s, and Pony cars shouldn’t either. It is a mismatch to me.
The little VW engine that Porsche stuck into the old 914. If you heard it before you saw it, it really did sound like a Beetle was headed your way. When they dropped the 6-cylinder into it, that was another car altogether.
Gonna disagree with you here. What was a 356, other than a warmed over VW? The 914 was supposed to be the cheap Porsche, so I think it was fair to expect the engine that it had…
Toyota in 1992, advertising the V6 in the T-100 as a viable alternative to the competitors’ V8 full-sized pickups.
By today’s standards, the T-100 deserves some credit as a decent mid-sized pickup, so the engine was technically appropriate, but Toyota saw the writing on the wall and decided to compete for real with the Tundra a few years later.
I am hoping to see more T-100s appreciated as classics soon, for sure.
I’ve always found the placement of the rear wheels made the beds look awkward…the axle should have been pushed back about another foot.
The 3VZ was a boat anchor, for sure. The later 5VZ was better.
Plymouth Prowler.
A-Series in Maestro’s and Montego’s. Those cars were supposed to be a fresh start in the mid 80’s and they used an engine from the 1950s.
The Jaguar certainly wasn’t slow with the turboed V6, but I think a V12 should have been better suited.
Talking about the XJ220 here
I read the headline and already wanted to answer Citroën DS, only to see you already mention it. As a DS driver I agree and disagree, please hear me out.
The 4 cylinder engines used are not special. The first 1911cc engines from the Traction Avant were quite underpowered, this was corrected in a later stage, with 2, 2.1 and 2.3 liter engines, the latter also with optional injection. But all engines were a bit grumpy sounding, noisy, not really refined. So I have often wondered how the 6 cylinder boxer would have been.
But… the engines were quite reliable and easy to work on. And given the car being so special and full of quite exotic engineering, especially for the time it was introduced, I think the engine at least helped to preserve the car in greater numbers for a longer time. As an DS owner you have to spend enough time and/or money on the hydraulics or rustprevention, so it helps that you don’t have to worry so much about the engine. Very different story with the SM, where the engine is a ticking timebomb of things that will go wrong.
So mismatch in terms of ultimate DS experience, but certainly a solid reliable engine to keep the rest of the DS alive and running.
The DS is such a rad car. Sci-fi films were using it up into the 2000’s as a ‘future car”, and I don’t know that anything says you nailed the design like that does.
Citroen has had so many special designs over the decades. The Traction Avant, DS, SM, XM, CX, Cactus, even the BX to some extent.
I can think of Mazda Roadpacer, an essentially rebadging Australian Holden HJ Premier with asthmatic rotary engine, as possible ultimate mismatched car and engine.
Lincoln Continental and Mark VII with diesel engines from BMW in the early 1980s.
The current generation Mercedes-AMG C 63 S E PERFORMANCE with tinny-sounding four-cylinder engine instead of V8. It wasn’t a sales success and was probably the first AMG model to be offered with generous price cut and rebate.
The Roadpacer was my thought too, but Mazda was attempting to put rotaries into even worse matches, like the Parkway – a minibus about the size of a Toyota Coaster.
Diesel engines in BMW sedans. Nothing says luxury sports sedan like soot stains on the rear bumper and the clattering of a tractor engine under the bonnet.
Well, you must be sleeping under the rock too long. The diesel engines are so much better today than in the past.
My current car is 2020 BMW M550d xDrive. The engine is 3-litre six-inline diesel engine with FOUR turbochargers, putting out 400 bhp. One of the smoothest, fastest, quietest, and quickest accelerating diesel vehicles I have ever owned. No billowing smoke from the tailpipe. No clattering.
I’ll be honest my views were shaped by the E90 generation and the ratty-looking 320ds from that era I see floating around today. I’d still probably lean towards a petrol-engine variant in any given generation of BMW, but horses for courses.
The Honda CR-Z. Now that’s a car that need a more powerful and sportier powertrain.
I really don’t know if that chassis could do much with significantly more power. It’s based on the Fit and the Insight platform, right?
People K swap the CR-Z’s relatively regularly, which makes it the car it should have been.
I wouldn’t say it doesn’t fit, but the Regal GS with the supercharged 3800 V6 was a heck of a combo.
That Regal looked a little sporty, but that’s still a LOT of engine underneath what essentially looks like a cool grandma hauler.
My DS has the 2.2 litre 106hp and a 5 speed manual, so it’s quite good, I’ve often driven over 100 mph in it.
The feeling of runing out of power, in a low and sleek 25-34hp VW Karmann-Ghia, is my choice for your question.
I’ll nominate any engine that needs premium fuel in an economy car. Looking at you 1st gen Volt and BMW i3 REX!
The BMW REX does? That’s surprising. Does BMW call for premium for that engine when it’s in the C650GT?
Yes:
https://www.motorcycle.com/specs/bmw/touring-scooter/2020/c/650-gt/detail.html
If the powertrain is well enough designed that the cost of premium fuel is offset by fuel economy gained; I have no problem with it. Those are two cars highly focused on high efficiency; I would assume there is a reason they chose engines that needs premium fuel and I’m not surprised that would mean you can’t feed it the cheapest gas while also expecting the best results.
To me designing a modern engine to be most efficent on premium fuel is just lazy. There are several economy engines that yield excellent fuel economy and power on regular and a few with very high compression ratios that also do not require premium. This BMW doesn’t even do that – 31 MPG on gas is awful for a modern economy car. Premium is just insult to injury.
This wouldn’t be such an issue except in my area premium can be considerably more expensive than regular yet unlike diesel it does not contain more energy per liter to help justify the higher price.
Fair enough, if you completely ignore every other constraint engineers are forced to work under. At the end of the day, engineering is about an efficient use of all required resources, including labor hours to actually engineer something, not just direct BOM inputs to produce the end product or inputs/outputs that the product consumes over its life. I’d bet big money that it was overall much more efficient use of all resources overall by more or less reusing the C650GT engine than it would be to re-design that engine for non-premium fuel – or – clean sheet design another engine that could fit within the i3 REx requirements. BMW had an engine on the shelf that was able to meet big hurdles (packaging constraints, emissions, power & heat generation, NVH, cost, etc) with minimal changes; that sounds like good engineering vs consuming a ton of engineering time to save someone 20-30% at the pump which is already intended to be a backup use case for the product. The i3 was already expensive, surely adding more engineering hours wouldn’t have helped that. Lazy engineering can just as often be not knowing when to stop by continuing to sink time and money into something when you already have a suitable solution.
I suspect the REX was a bone to address range anxiety and that BMW didn’t expect anyone to actually USE the damn thing with any frequency.
A clean sheet rex for any phev is also a horrible idea as the engine will never go through enough real world use to sort out reliability issues. I would always glady sacrifice some rarely used fuel economy to have an off the shelf item with a design proven non stop running in something else. And yes I know i3 rex has some reliability issues and isn’t perfect and also no one should release a design and expect the testing to done by consumers in the real world but if simulations and rigorous testing identified all issues nothing would ever break.
I’m pretty sure Toyota could make a two cylinder REX based on the current Prius engine without too much effort or cost.
The effort or cost isn’t in making it as much as certifying it. Although I am no expert on this I am pretty sure the cost savings in material cost from saving half the parts would quickly evaporate if you have changed enough to need to go through all the certification again. If Toyota was in the motorcycle business like BMW I would be shocked if they didn’t make the same choice of going off the shelf.
If it was so cheap and easy to make a drivetrain that fits each model please explain why Lexus made the ct200h with the off the shelf Prius drivetrain? That’s a car that begs for more power, probably lines up better with the level of tech and interior that the volt offered than the Prius does and the volt blew it away in performance.
Why don’t you ask them why they didn’t go with the 2.5L ES300h drivetrain instead? It even gets nearly the same fuel economy in the bigger car and would likely have solved your lack of power concerns.
It may not contain more energy per litre but it does allow an engine to extract energy from that litre more efficiently. Look at ethenol in drag racers, less energy per litre, all e85 flex fuel cars I remember got way worse fuel economy in mpg on e85 or e100 but if you tube the car for it you make massive power.
How’s the emissions on that power? Reliability?
Pretty sure there are good reasons flex fuel cars aren’t OEM tuned to make that kind of power on e85/100.
Besides if you want to extract energy more efficiently you go to an Atkinson or compression ignition like Toyota and Mazda. Both get far better fuel efficiency and power on regular than this scooter engine on pre.ium.
Yes you have proven there are more ways than 1 to increase thermal efficiency, they will all cost something and if I pay more for premium fuel at every fill up or more at purchase time for skyactive or Atkinson it’s still paying more. I think it’s probably much cheaper to increase a cars CR to need premium than do either Atkinson or skyactive (which isn’t true compression ignition and I don’t think is available to the ecu at all times) not to mention appearing to be over promised and maybe a failure.
The way volt and i3 cars were marketed it’s a fair assumption to make that lower purchase cost up front means more than the cost per fill up.
I have no doubt its probably much cheaper to increase a cars CR to need premium than do either Atkinson or skyactive. It’s also lazy.
FCA 1.4T’s is a prime suspect then! Imagine buying the one Dart rated for 40mpg and finding out that’s only with premium!
Let me stop you right there…
Eh, my sisters was pretty good to her. Didn’t blow a trans like her Neon or a hole in the block like her Cobalt. It was the 2.4L though.
Yep.
I agree with you on principle that economy cars shouldn’t take premium but neither the volt nor i3 were economy cars. I shopped both new, choose a Prius over a volt for my wife in 2013 based on the volt being too expensive, choose a leaf over an i3 for me in 2014 based on the i3 being more expensive. I since went back and had both a 1st gen volt and i3 rex as used cars since.
With the amount of gas I burned in each I didn’t care it was premium and maybe one good thing about using it when they were designed I could still get 0% alcohol premium fuel which is much better for a car that might go over a year on a tank. (All grades wtn ethanol where I live about a year ago)
If not economy then what? They certainly aren’t sports cars, nor luxury.
The i3 was a $45-50k car that fits half a snail and a thimble. It’s a luxury car.
Maybe if you’re coming out of a Yaris and have never seen a Lexus.
If Lexus means luxury then what’s the ct200?
The Lexus Cimmaron.
A perfect reply!
And because they aren’t easy to define is probably why we don’t have either of them anymore but an economy car has that element baked into its MSRP which neither of these did. I3 although it didn’t fit most people’s idea of luxury tried to play in that space and I find most trims feel very luxurious to be in. The volt was based on an economy cars platform but they did try to position it more at the mid level market. All of the trims of both feel much more luxurious and sporting than any sub $20k economy car in the late 2012-2016 period.
“an economy car has that element baked into its MSRP which neither of these did.”
I dunno, was the $12,181 MSRP Cadillac Cinnamon REALLY a luxury car even though it was by all accounts a tarted up $7,216 MSRP Chevy?
IMO MSRP is just an ask. It does not necessarily reflect quality, prestige or value.
Does the Fiesta ST count? Because, honestly, it’s so darn much fun I don’t mind having to feed it premium. That, and getting it out the door for under $20k brand new (in California, no less) meant I could buy a lot of gallons of premium and still be ahead on cost compared to many more expensive cars I might have purchased instead.
Tough call. It’s an economy car but clearly a sport variant.
The PRV engine in a 200-series Volvo. I had a succession of hand-me-down bricks post-high school and they were like cockroaches on wheels. 4cyl, almost of them. Unkillable, easy to work on. A Jamaican shade tree mechanic used jacks to un-taco one of the wagons that took the full weight of a mature oak, it just kept rolling for years after that. Looked a little lumpy.
But not the piece of shit 264 with that V6. It made decent power but was completely mismatched to the rest of the car’s reliability. What a nightmare, I believe a valve job was engine-out. Finally threw a rod at 75mph, good riddance.
And to think I traded a Land Cruiser FJ40 for it.
I’d say the 4 cylinder Fox Body (non-turbo) could be up there. It’s an economy engine sure, but it really is a pig even in a Fox Body. Same with the 3rd Gen F-bodies with the Iron Duke and 3 speed auto.
I’d also say the 2nd Gen F150 with the flathead was pretty slow. You could also get a F150 in Brazil with a gas 4 cylinder for a time in the 60’s or 70’s. What a pig that had to be.
Entry level engines typically get a pass, no matter how ‘bad’ they are. The fact that there were better options kinda makes your point moot as “all show and no go” is the common phrase for such base models. If the optional powerplants are subjectively just as bad (or worse), then it makes sense to include it on this list.
I was going to say the 2.8L V6 in the 3rd Gen F body was also bad, but someone would bring up the Iron Duke too.
I had an LX with the 2/3L. It was actually a good thing it only had 88hp because at the time I had a 1,000hp foot and would have killed myself with anything more powerful.
This. 3rd gen Camaro/Firebird with the iron duke. Also the Fiero with the iron duke. Honestly, anything with the iron duke. I knew someone with a S10 4cyl and it was embarrassingly slow.
The Fiero with an Iron Duke is fun because it teaches you about lift off oversteer without killing you.
1975-77 Mazda Roadpacer. Essentially a luxo barge from the land down under (HJ – HX Premier) powered by a Mazda 13B rotary. 135hp pushing around a 3500lb bucket of Australian magnificence, via a 3 speed Jatco automatic no less.
Needless to say the response from the buying public was underwhelming.
Lexus CT200h
So much want til you pop the hood.
I was so disappointed in this car. I saw one in traffic, got excited and then looked it up.
exact same thing happened to me
I’m really confused. What is disappointing about the Lexus Prius having the Prius powertrain?
They both eat headgaskets, apparently.
I don’t think that’s what they were getting at, but I did just look that up, and it sounds like a PITA. Probably only have to fix it once though
The Buick 3800 (partial to the series 3), not because it was bad, Quite the contrary. It’s mismatched because every car above a compact that didn’t have one should have.
GM should have then put it in Saturn, Pontiac and Oldsmobile.
Well, the 3800 did make it into a few Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles, unless I misunderstood your complaint. Don’t think it ever touched a Saturn though.
I’m with you though, it probably could have even made some truck appearances. Elite engine.
Very true it did, my old man had an Oldsmobile 88 with it.
I should have said “more” Pontiacs, Buicks and Oldsmobiles
I had an ’88 Olds 88 with the 3800 and it was perhaps the best “American” car I ever drove. On a long freeway trip, 33 mpg was not out of the question.
My in-laws had a Buick Park Avenue with the same engine and it was up to the task of moving that barge around adequately.
So, I guess we’re getting a bit off-topic here. Lol
I had a 1999 Oldsmobile Eighty Eight with a GM 3800 series II, it was the perfect engine for that car. Paired with the excellent electronically controlled 4 speed auto, it made perfect and predictable torque for all instances of driving.
I had a ’98 88 my grandfather gave me; I agree 100% about the drivetrain. I also regularly got 28mpg with it. At the time I really liked the LSS version of that car with the Supercharged 3800, talk about a sleeper!
The 3800 is on my favorite engines list.
I had a 00′ Buick Regal with the supercharged 3800. 240hp may not sound like much now but at the turn of the millennium that felt amazing.
Reliable too, Sold the car to a distant relative and last I heard it passed 280,000 miles.
Good torque with those too, down nice and low. I remember at the car mags at the time basically said this motor was bananas in a FWD application, haha.
Even the n/a version felt strong, I never had any issues merging or passing in my 88, and my parents had a Pontiac Dustbuster van with the earlier 165hp version, and that thing would smoke the front tires, haha.
GM A-body station wagons with the Iron Duke and 3 speed automatic. What a gutless and thirsty powertrain. Loaded with 4 people and luggage, I believe glaciers moved faster. 110 hp is not a lot of power for that size car.
The Pinto engine in the Ford Mustang II. If it was only adequate in the Pinto, how could it be suitable for a sporty car? While Lido did many great things, I can’t believe he gave us this car and said, “There, I fixed the Mustang.”
the whole car is terrible. cousin had one. interior was garbage. made my Dad’s Granada seem like a Merc. That had the 302? some V8. The added weight was not accommodated – weak brakes and divey suspension. so a mis match
First one that sprang to mind was the ‘63-‘68(?) Dodge D100 Custom Sport with the High Performance Package. 365hp with manual steering and brakes, a solid front axle, and pickup truck weight distribution tells me these trucks must have been absolutely terrible to drive.
But damn, the burnouts.
Rx-8 NA engine. Totally missed the point by bragging how it almost makes turbo rotary power without the turbo.
Basically the same fail as the 3rd gen DSM losing the 4G63T for an NA V6 driving the front wheels that wait for it…. Makes the same/more power as the turbo did…..
I.E. this is a sports car killing phrase. Anytime you hear it, the thing that was a sports car is now no longer that.
RX-8 was also like half the price of the RX-7, and obviously intended for people who use the rear seats. The Renesis engine was still a disappointment, though.