Practical performance car, Top Ten worst engines

[flying farmer]

Recieved this months edition of Practical Performance Car today.
Every month they have a top ten something, this months it is the worst engines, and Triumph manage two of them.
At number one is the 1500 and I can't disagree with them having had my Toledo propelled by one during my early college years
At number seven is the Stag engine, but not for its usual self destructing capabilities for a change.
They say that could all have been forgiven if it could have produced more than its feeble standard 145 bhp

I feel a letter to the Editor coming on.......
Neil

[SUTTY1]

Name and shame what are the other 8??

[ChasR]

Careful, last time they sparked an outrage many years ago when the Rover V8 was not in their top 10 engines (I believe Will Holman is not all too keen on them) to the disappointment of many, and several letters of complaint. Yet the Jaguar V12 and Subaru 4 pot made it in (To be fair, I do like a nice old V12 ).

[Pete]

Yeah, it's all to do with numbers innit, you know, top trumps blah, blah, blah. Drive a Stag, listen, feel the sun in the day and see the stars at night and the wind in your hair and feel alive, that's what counts. That and a car that people look at at least twice and say to you, "nice".

[ChasR]

I would never have put PPC into the numbers/endowment count though if I am honest, although I did prefer the magazine when it initially came out (Dave Walker produced some informative and cracking articles back then too). But I do get the sense that they do sometimes do things 'just because' and also being a little opinionated. But then, no magazine is perfect .

[flying farmer]

Name and shame what are the other 8??

Top ten according to PPC
1 Triumph 1500
2 Oldsmobile V8 Diesel
3 NSU Ro80
4 Anything in a land rover
5 Almost any American in line 4
6 Facel Vega Facellia
7 Triumph Stag
8 TVR speed six
9 Cadillac 'clever' V8s (early models)
10 Cadillac 'clever V8s (late models)

[Kevin Garrod]

What is so terrible about the 1500? I believe the same engine was used in the MG Midget and when we had one I found it quite capable and it gave no problems whatsoever.

[mjheathcote]

What is so terrible about the 1500? I believe the same engine was used in the MG Midget and when we had one I found it quite capable and it gave no problems whatsoever.

My sister had the Spitfire 1500. Was okay, I put on a janspeed manifold and twin exhaust, changed the needles and KN's, went okay from what I can remember and certainly sounded nice, no reliability issues at all.
Cheers
Mike

[GDPR]

Weak bottom end. Marginal when brand new, but harsh within a few thousand - it was always a mutt compared to the 1300 which was infinitely stronger and more tuneable. They increased the capacity by stroking it, and the extra mass of the conrods etc on the relatively small crankpins would kill the bearings..

[Kevin Garrod]

Weak bottom end. Marginal when brand new, but harsh within a few thousand - it was always a mutt compared to the 1300 which was infinitely stronger and more tuneable. They increased the capacity by stroking it, and the extra mass of the conrods etc on the relatively small crankpins would kill the bearings..

Yes, but the worst engine ever? Surely not?

[GDPR]

I think you could level that at the Moskvich. Another little known reason for the questionable bottom end on the 1500 is BL downgraded the crankshaft steel from EN40B to EN16U which made the crank floppy at high revs, causing oil film breakdown in the bearings amongst other things. There have been mods done by undergrinding the big ends slightly and using modified MGB shells, and there apparently were some issues of the main bearing bolt threads not fully cut to the bottom in the block affecting torque settings.

The engine will hang together quite well as long as you fit an oil cooler, and decent oil to avoid the film breakdown.... but they are not an engine that likes high revs for any sustained period.

[Kevin Garrod]

Now I think about it our MG had a replacement engine fitted by a previous owner despite not having huge mileage, (around 30k something when we sold it). Perhaps the engine had been uprated in some way, it drove OK but only went on the motorway when I drove it home from Peterborough.
One of the problems with engine in the MG was that there wasn't room to fit an OD box, although it could be done with mods or alternatively a 5 speed Sierra box could be persuaded to fit.
I never got round to major tinkering with it and am just glad we got rid of it before the rust really took hold!

[flying farmer]

The 1500 engine wasn't bad if you didn't use it above 5000 rpm but without overdrive it thrashed itself to pieces and used as much fuel as the Stag. Driven hard they only had a life expectancy of about 30,000 miles if the rods didn't come out of the block first!
Neil

[GDPR]

The 1500 engine wasn't bad if you didn't use it above 5000 rpm but without overdrive it thrashed itself to pieces and used as much fuel as the Stag. Driven hard they only had a life expectancy of about 30,000 miles if the rods didn't come out of the block first!
Neil

No 3 if I remember right Neil...... oil feed to the middle two big ends came from the centre main, so when that bearing got thrashed out and oil pressure dropped to nos 2 and 3 the hottest lost..... usually no 3....

[ChasR]

I was going to say. Even with a 10,000 mile Ivor Searle engine, my Midget 1500 was not what I would have called a rev happy engine in addition to no Midget 1500 (as far as I know) even coming with an Overdrive (space was meant to be one of the reasons), making the 5 speed conversion today a relatively popular swap into 1500 engined Midgets.