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?
This isn’t the most mismatched combo ever, but the revvy 1.8L Toyota 2ZZ in the first gen Matrix XRS and Vibe GT, paired with the 6 speed manual transmission with the 1-2 ratio not close enough to keep the engine in lift with the tune from 2004-2006 (and the 2003 tune just barely doing so if you slam the shift as fast as possible), comes off as a very poorly refined drivetrain package that was hastily made to compete in the popular hot hatch segment. With the suspension unchanged from the regular versions of the car, they were more like lukewarm hatches. They do respond well to handling modifications at least.
I still find them cooler than the second gen GT which used the 2.4L from the Camry, even though that is a more well rounded engine.
The supercharger for the 1ZZ (a dealer installed option) would probably have been a better fit from the start – or to just offer the supercharged 2ZZ that was used in the European Corolla TS.
My friend was car shopping and told me she had decided on the 1st-gen Matrix. She was at least considering the XRS, and I advised her to save her money because she would likely be happier with the base engine. I explained it pretty much the way you did above. She got the base engine and later thanked me for the advice.
(She had that car for like 8 years, and was very upset when it was destroyed by a drunk driver who smashed into it while it was parked.)
The sexy, sporty looking Karmann Ghia made a blistering 34 HP.
The Fiat X1/9 also deserved better.
There was a Fiat workshop near me that used to sell a kit of everything needed to do a 5 speed/2 litre engine swap for X1/9s, which seemed to me to be much more in line with what the car actually deserved from factory.
BMW inline 6 turbodiesel in the Lincoln Mark VII in the 1980s.
Similar story to the DS – the 1948 Morris Minor was intended to have a flat-four, but it wound up with a prewar side-valve four. Later versions got the A-series, which was reasonable for the period.
The cars that come to mind are the MK 4 Golf and Jetta.The quality and feel of the interior, as well as the feel of the structure and chassis, were so good that Mercedes-Benz allegedly delayed the launch of the new C-class to be competitive. With a Jetta. They spend so much money on those aspects that there apparently wasn’t any left for the drivetrain, so they simply plopped in the old 115hp 2.0L from the MK 3 as the base engine.
They were quite popular so I got to drive ones owned by a few friends. The interior was amazing, from the touch points the to the soft lighting, and solid feel of the structure and the smooth ride lived up the “Audi-like” description that so many reviewers bestowed. At least until you gave it some gas.
On paper the power was competitive but the solid structure and fancy features made it weigh up to 400lbs more than its competition, so when floored not only was it gutless, the gritty sound quality was more 1980s GM that the smooth 4-cylinders from Honda or Toyota.
Honestly, it was decent with the manual but the automatic sapped any sense of urgency. It was a solid compact car overall, but engine was such a contrast to the luxurious experience that rest of the vehicle provided.
Probably not the most mismatched, but I think the 3.5V6 in the 3rd gen Taco was a terrible choice.
A car motor that made peak tq at 5500 rpm in a “truck” with a 6-speed auto programmed to keep it at the lowest possible RPM.
I test drove one and hated it. My theory is that Toyota knew they were going to the 2.4L/turbo powertrain, and the 3.5L was just a placeholder till it was ready.
A few come to mind.
Mercedes R63 AMG. Stoked it exists, but a fire breathing V8 minivan is wild!
2.3 DISI-powered Mazda CX-7. Wildly unreliable, got horrible MPGs, and was eventually mated with the NA 2.5 which remedied the troubles the turbo models had.
2.7 4cyl 2nd and 3rd gen Tacoma’s and 5th gen 4runner. Those engines are DOGS and were dangerously slow in the 4runner.
Mazda RX8 Automatic. They had to have a recall, as the automatic transmissions were popping Rotary engines due to not revving high. Funny oversight.
MGC – Throw a straight six where the inline four was, turning the car nose-heavy. Required changing the front suspension to torsion bars, and in the end wasn’t as good a performer as the “Big” Healey it was supposed to replace. That’s why fitting the Rover V8 (as the factory did with the MGB GT V8) is a much better propostion. It weighs just about the same as the B-series it replaces, so you get all the extra oomph without messing up the handling.
Rotary was supposed to be the big thing in the 70’s until reality set in. they were only cool because they were different and only cool to a few of us, not most.
I would say the Smart car motors were mismatched. For the size of the car and the motor in general they should have gotten better fuel economy than the afore mentioned 3 cylinder Metro, yet they did not.
I also recall plenty of farm trucks with weazy lean Burn slant sixes. They were still somewhat unkillable, but also unusable for most things, outside of rolling down a country lane at 35 mph unladen.
Putting a high strung turbo v6 or 4 cylinder into a full size truck or suv where there used to be a v8.
Silverados and Sierras equipped with the 4-cylinder turbo. Sure, the engine gets the job done, but still feels ridiculous having an engine that small in a truck that big.
Going farther back, I’m going to nominate the Vulcan V6 in the original Taurus and Sable. The engine was fine, decent enough power for its day and pretty reliable as it stuck around for more than 20 years. But for a new design put into such a futuristic vehicle, a standard issue iron block and heads, 12 valves per cylinder, overhead valve engine seems like such a letdown and at odds with the rest of the vehicle.
I would say plopping the Yamaha V6 into the Taurus vs an SVO mustang was a bigger failure. Or perhaps not reviving the Capri on the basic mustang chassis using this more euro type engine to have a decent differentiator for the Beemer Crowd to lust after.
12 valves per cylinder?
Heard it here first.
“, 12 valves per cylinder,”
12 valves per cylinder is TOTALLY FUTURISTIC!!!! 72-valve V6 BABY!!!! OOOH YEAH!!!
LOL
Damn sausage fingers. 12 valves per cylinder would’ve been pretty nuts, so when an automaker finally comes out with one, I want the credit.