The Worst Gas Engines at Producing Power Ever (updated)

"3ch0" (UsedToBe3ch0) 09/14/2014 at 15:19 • Filed to: top gear, engines

19

100

I was watching the Top Gear special on "The Worst Car in The World" from 2012, when I heard something a bit shocking: a 7 liter V-8 producing barely 200 horses. James and Jeremy are comparing two land yachts from the seventies, a Buick LeSabre and a Lincoln Continental. James' Buick has a 5.7 liter V-8 good for 160 HP, whereas Jezza has a 200hp 7-liter monster in his gigantic Lincoln.

That got me thinking: which other seemingly impressive engines produce measly hp figures?

TG's two examples were victims of the first wave of serious emissions control and fuel economy measures. So there must be a lot more terrible output figures from the seventies.

And sure, you could throw diesel engines in there, but that would not be fair: they have that torque to compensate, so no diesel please!

Here's another example: Harley Davidson's undersquare V-twins. They can't rev very high because of a skinny piston travelling a long distance at high speed, and they seem to output about 50-60 HP for a 1.2 liter engine. On a motorcycle, that is comparatively low. It does handily beat the barges' ratios though, and they do have torque going their way.

So:

Buick: 28 HP/L

Lincoln: 28.57 HP/L

What else comes to mind, dear collective?

Update: 1. You guys are so well behaved, especially considering my initial rejection of diesels. And torque.

2. Somebody should really graph out these unscientific results into an awesome chart. Michael?

Sweet Trav > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 15:25

161

1976 Cadillac Eldorado - 500CID 190HP. Thats 8.2L so 23.17 hp/l

EL_ULY > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 15:26

1

early DB9's 6.0 V12 making like 460 or something. They have really bad throttle responce. Look ok, but even a C5 Z06 can spank this thing considering the huge price and engine

Manuél Ferrari > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 15:28

11

wow

That is truly terrible

Steve in Manhattan > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 15:28

6

After driving my mom's '77 Aspen, I always suspected this engine, and sure enough: "Dodge Dart with the 225 slant six (3.69L) was 101hp, or 27.37 hp/liter."

DoYouEvenShift > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 15:30

2

Torque!!!!

Sweet Trav > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 15:32

47

Still made 360 Ft/lbs of torque though. Those are numbers like a Turbo Diesel

Manuél Ferrari > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 15:34

30

I bet if you turbo charged it and removed emissions stuff it would make a massive amount of power.

Sweet Trav > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 15:35

25

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e…

514 hp at 4,400 rpm on the dyno. Torque? Try a healthy 575 lb-ft at 2,600 rpm on for size, buster.

Follow us: @HotRodMagazine on Twitter | HotRodMag on Facebook

3ch0 > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 15:35

0

Fair point!

3ch0 > DoYouEvenShift 09/14/2014 at 15:35

0

Fait point!

Manuél Ferrari > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 15:42

2

nice. 575 LB-FT is nutty!

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 15:44

1

Some earlier versions of this engine made closer to 300hp and well over 500ft.lbs. of torque from the factory, IIRC.

Sweet Trav > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 15:45

27

No 575 Ft-lb isnt nutty, 575 lb-ft at 2600 RPM is the nutty part.

HammerheadFistpunch > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 15:52

0

makes the Toyota f engine look ballsy

Manuél Ferrari > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 15:52

4

Reminds me how crazy the new Z06 is. All that torque basically from idle

Sweet Trav > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 15:56

0

I would love to see exactly how much power both this caddy engine and the LT4 Z06 engine literally make at an idle, like 700-900 rpm

Manuél Ferrari > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 16:02

1

my dad used to have a 1970 Chevy truck with a 454 V8

Driving it was scary. So much power and such shirty brakes

I locked up those drums multiple times

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > HammerheadFistpunch 09/14/2014 at 16:10

0

The 3VZE now looks extremely impressive for it's size.

Tohru > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:10

18

1976 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser.

Curb weight: ~5400 lbs. (Heaviest Oldsmobile ever built.)

Engine: Oldsmobile 455ci (7.5L) Rocket V8 with Rochester QuadraJet carb, single exhaust, and catalytic converter.

Standard rear axle ratio: 2.73:1

Output: 190hp @ 3400rpm, 350 lb./ft. of torque @ 2000rpm.

Result: 25.33 (repeating, of course) hp/liter

CALUSA > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:38

0

Every old American car with many liters. Yeaah.

Buckus > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 16:41

3

If you removed the emissions stuff from a whole bunch of engines they'd be alot more impressive. Especially the turds from the late 70's/early 80's.

Rockchops > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:43

7

a 4.9L turbo v8 should be absolutely stunning right?

LOL NOPE, 210 horsepower (though to be fair there was decent torque).

The 455 (7.5L) only had 310hp, which for the size wasn't all that great.

Herbie53 > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 16:43

3

It's really because they had to lower the compression ratios to deal with unleaded gasoline.

A better cam and a dual exhaust kit fixes that.

FriskyDingo > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:44

2

Olds 403 6.6l biggest small block made (maybe not anymore) 185hp 320lb/tq

My X-type is too a real Jaguar > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:44

1

Well the 1980 California Corvette is really the high performer of this group with 36HP per Litre.

Buckus > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:45

2

The 1979-80 Pontiac Firebird featured an awesome 155 Hp 5.0L V-8, for a totally rad 31 HP/L. But that was only with the screaming eagle sticker: everyone knows the sticker was responsible for at least 70 of those horses.

SirUno > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:45

11

How about that wretched 1976 Ford 302 5.0 V8 in the Mustang II, putting out a whopping 134hp?

No. Just...no.

RallyWrench > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:45

11

Are we trying to limit this to post-emissions control cars? Many, many prewar cars & brass-era machines will make even that 8.2L Caddy look like a pillar of power density.

2cvhoonage > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:46

4

You can excuse it for being the first, but 1 hp from about 1 litre is pretty poor.

meanornice > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:46

27

http://jalopnik.com/a-little-math-…

Crown Vic.

4.6L V8 with 215hp.

46.7HP/L.

Sure, not as terrible as other cars mentioned, but these specs are for the 2012 model (last model year), not some boat from the 70s.

Buckus > meanornice 09/14/2014 at 16:48

6

True, but it was descended from some boat from the 70's...so there's that. Also, apparently those engines were durable as heck.

meanornice > Buckus 09/14/2014 at 16:51

1

True on both counts.

2cvhoonage > Rockchops 09/14/2014 at 16:52

7

Take away the turbo and I'd be surprised if it could even hold its own weight at 70mph. I guess we can't really blame American cars in the 70s, America was used to big engines so they were hit hard by the gas crisis. Here in Europe we'd already had small cars and small sports cars, our engines were already small.

Ian McDowell > DoYouEvenShift 09/14/2014 at 16:53

0

which is advantageous in a car for what reason?

2cvhoonage > RallyWrench 09/14/2014 at 16:54

52

Don't forget the king, 1hp per litre. Mercedes, the best or nothing, that's not hard when there's nothing else.

JayHova > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:54

2

Unfortunately it's only gas engines....on worst power/displacement ratio, the oldsmobile diesel V8 springs to my mind: 112 hp out of 5,7 litres - that's 19,5 HP/L.

John Kimble > EL_ULY 09/14/2014 at 16:55

7

DB9:

450 out of 6L = 75 BHP/L

C5 Z06, even at the most optimistic bhp figure:

425 / 5.7 = 74.56 BHP/L

What's your point

John Kimble > Steve in Manhattan 09/14/2014 at 16:55

1

I think this is my favourite. 3.7L six making 100hp. Amazing

RallyWrench > 2cvhoonage 09/14/2014 at 16:58

0

Exactly! I had some of those monster Darracqs in mind too.

Makosi Ratyas > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:58

3

Don"t have to go back to the seventies, I had a 1982 Cadillac Eldorado with the HT-4100, 4.1L V8, 135HP. - Got it used, it was practically free.... The funny (sad?) thing is that HT stands for "High Technology"

CaptainStu > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:59

1

What about the real classics like Rolls Royces? The Phantom had a 7.6L that made 40-50 hp.

JayHova > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 16:59

5

Ford T: 2,9 litres - 20hp...that's 6,9HP/L.

32,9 Seconds for the quarter mile.

Also that bad boy:

Mercedes Patentmotorwagen: 0,9hp out ot 0,954l....

that 0,943HP/L.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > EL_ULY 09/14/2014 at 17:02

7

Really bad throttle *response? Have you ever driven one?

Mark Out West > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:04

2

Rolls/Bentley's long-lived L410 6.75 liter V-8 put out around 200 HP and 340 lb/ft torque back in the 70s and 80s. In it's last incarnation in the Brooklands Coupe it was around 530, with 775 lb/ft torque. Of course, that was with twin turbos and engine management.

The Transporter > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:04

7

The GM 3400, although any GM 60° V6 that isn't an LQ1 could go here. It replaced the outstanding Oldsmobile Quad 4 in the 5th (and final) generation Grand Am's GT trim. Not only did it produce less HP than the outgoing Quad 4, but it was pushrod (a technological step back) and consumed a lot more fuel. Yeah, it produced more torque, but torque is like kryptonite to a GM transverse slushbox.

BlackLab > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:04

4

Those high displacement engines were strangled by emissions. If you owned one now you could rip all that crap off and get pretty decent performance. Still its pretty backwards to go with displacement as engine size on a Jalopnik blog. Weight/Performance is a better metric if you want to look for bad engines.

Mike_Smith > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:05

2

'75 Monte , 350 ci (5.7L) making 145 hp, so 25.4 hp/L.

FillupJFried > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 17:06

7

I've got you by .17 :) 1973 Chevelle 307 put out 115 horse with a 5 liter engine, so 23 hp/l

Siman > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:06

0

Iron duke was bad but yeah...

smalleyxb122 > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:07

4

I've never liked specific power as a metric. Some of those large displacement, low output engines are more efficient than a (contemporary) higher revving smaller displacement of comparable horsepower. I suppose it's an easier number to find, and therefore compare, than brake specific fuel consumption, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

JayHova > 2cvhoonage 09/14/2014 at 17:07

3

It's actually even less than 1hp per litres (0,9hp from 954cc)....that's roughly 0,943 hp/litre.

LTIROCKS > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 17:08

2

So what? It was still slower than elephant turd because the vehicles WEIGHT TO HORSEPOWER RATIO was poor.

Manuél Ferrari > Buckus 09/14/2014 at 17:09

1

Yeah. There is a lot of untapped potential in some Malaise era cars.

lonestranger > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:10

34

While 50 HP/L isn't nearly the lowest number, my nomination is definitely " seemingly impressive" . The original 1992-1995 Dodge Viper, 8.0L V10, 400 HP. Even in the early '90s, 50 HP/L was pretty poor for a car so associated with raw power.

LTIROCKS > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 17:10

1

Pretty much anything will make lots of horsepower when MODIFIED. That article has pretty much nothing to do with how that engine came from the factory when new, though.

The Transporter > RallyWrench 09/14/2014 at 17:11

22

Don't forget the Stanley Steamers. HP on these things was never more than a couple dozen, but you had to accelerate them slowly lest the many hundreds of (and sometimes even over a thousand) foot-pounds of torque accidentally changes the rotational axis of the Earth.

LTIROCKS > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 17:12

0

I didn't know people drove at idle...

Keep in mind that the Corvette's HP and Torque figures are SAE Net, while the HOT ROD article's figures are some wild off-take of SAE Gross.

How much of a difference can that make, you ask?

Let's take a look at Cadillacs 1971 Brochure and find out! ;-)

365 "Gross" HP = just 235 Net HP! And engine torque changed similarly.

RallyWrench > The Transporter 09/14/2014 at 17:13

0

Another great example!

Ian McDowell > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:14

2

the 1.5l alfa romeo only made 420hp in 1951....oh wait you said BAD hp/l? um....maybe the 13.5 pierce arrow engine that mad 66hp? thats only 4.88/l.

I wouldn't pick on older stuff those, especially something cool like a pierce arrow. The fact is engines in the 70s are by far the worst in the history of the automobile, but it isn't just for hp/l, its about what we were truly capable of engineering and what we actually made, which were undercompressed, underbuilt, shit.

LTIROCKS > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 17:15

1

It didn't make anything close to the power of a new 5.3 liter Silverado - assuming the engine was original to the truck and unmodified. And I don't believe the 454 was available from the factory in a C/K series pick-up in 1970 - not even in the C20 version.

Sweet Trav > FillupJFried 09/14/2014 at 17:15

0

307 - 5024cc - 22.89 Hp/l

500 - 8193.89cc - 23.18 Hp/l

You win.

Goofnik > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 17:16

3

I'm fairly certain I could design a better engine, in my apartment, in my spare time.

DoYouEvenShift > Ian McDowell 09/14/2014 at 17:20

5

Do I really have to say it? How else are you supposed to achieve the correct amount of desired implosion of the plutonium fuel to generate 1.21 jiggawatta of power. That kinda of torque is only generated by big inch V8s. At least in that timeframe.

nocoolnames > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:20

11

750 hp/46L= 16.3 HP/L

Pretty much any old aircraft engine would do though.

Sweet Trav > LTIROCKS 09/14/2014 at 17:21

0

Trololololol.

Its simply out of curiosity that I want to know what it makes.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 09/14/2014 at 17:22

1

I had a 4Runner with that engine. Zero power, but I loved the truck itself. Got 8 mpg. I have a 5.4L F150 now though, much better.

His Stigness > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 17:23

3

Except that a 3.0L turbo diesel could make that horsepower, and more torque. That's truly pathetic.

His Stigness > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 17:25

1

It's also supercharged dude. My car has 220 pounds feet of torque at about 2000 RPM, which isn't bad for a 2000 2.3L.

LugNutz > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:25

1

A NA diesel has no real torque advantage over a NA gasoline engine, so they get no free pass! Emissions were one part of the equation, and the other being that they were pushing around 6klb cars and needed torque. A 160hp 1.6L 4cyl might seem not so bad, but hook it to a C6 transmission, 2.41 gears, and try to get a Lincoln Continental moving with it.

A later model Olds diesel was 105hp from 5.7L for a whopping 18.4HP/L. Take that, diesel!

Steve in Manhattan > Tohru 09/14/2014 at 17:28

4

And that clamshell tailgate ... what a machine!

3ch0 > My X-type is too a real Jaguar 09/14/2014 at 17:28

0

It is kind of sad isn't it?

3ch0 > SirUno 09/14/2014 at 17:29

2

26.8 HP/L ? In a Mustang... Sigh.

The Transporter > John Kimble 09/14/2014 at 17:30

3

If you just went off all the hype you'd think Aston Martins of that era - especially V12s - made more horsepower than God.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 09/14/2014 at 17:30

0

That and the transmission are the only 2 things I would change about mine as of right now. Well not all, but the highest and most wanted on the list.

RichardNixon72 > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:31

1

Still more cars than England made at the same time.

3ch0 > meanornice 09/14/2014 at 17:31

3

This is a great example! 2012!

LongbowMk2 > EL_ULY 09/14/2014 at 17:32

23

That sounds awful. Oh please sweet lord never punish me with an early V12 DB9 with manual transmission. Have mercy!

JayHova > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:32

9

The ZiS 110....a 6 litre V8 with 140 hp. That's 23,32 hp/litre. There was an armoured version, which weighed 5280kg....

3ch0 > JayHova 09/14/2014 at 17:33

0

May be worth reconsidering that, looking at the torque figures from some of those V-8s from the 70's.

CAcoalminer > Sweet Trav 09/14/2014 at 17:33

0

Here you go:

http://jalopnik.com/the-corvette-z…

3ch0 > Makosi Ratyas 09/14/2014 at 17:34

0

32.9 HP/L, not bad. Kinda funny when paired with that HT monicker.

Manuél Ferrari > His Stigness 09/14/2014 at 17:34

0

I know it's supercharged. Still impressive though.

LongbowMk2 > The Transporter 09/14/2014 at 17:35

5

better than the 125hp 2.8 it was derived from. And the quad4 was a p.o.s.

3ch0 > JayHova 09/14/2014 at 17:36

2

Two icons! To be fair, they had no competition, and were built by some guy just winging it.

Somebody should graph the evolution of the worst ratios through time.

(not me)

RaptorConner > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:36

3

My 1985 Bronco with the 4.9L Inline 6 made 98rwhp/215rwtq on a dyno with factory emissions and 1bbl carburetor. That's 20rwhp/L. (Factory ratings at the crank were 120hp/240lb-ft)

For comparison, my 1989 Thunderbird with the 3.8L NA V6 made 166rwhp/254rwtq with a custom intake and exhaust. That's 43rwhp/L. (Factory ratings at the crank were 140hp/215lbft. Using the 22%hp and 11% torque differences shown above by my truck, I figure I'm currently around 200hp and 280lbf-t at the crank).

3ch0 > The Transporter 09/14/2014 at 17:38

0

Got numbers?

jebus123 > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:38

1

New Acura NSX specs dont quite add up

Honda is using its new twin-turbo 3.5-liter V6 mated to a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission in tandem with a hybrid powertrain to propel the car. Two electric motors power the front wheels while a third electric motor works in the rear. That combination is expected to produce somewhere in the ballpark of 500 to 525 hp

2 Turbos and 3 electric motors and they're expecting 500hp...

Joneez > 3ch0 09/14/2014 at 17:38

4

That was not a Mustang, that was a "Mustang." In all respects.

3ch0 > BlackLab 09/14/2014 at 17:40

0

Was simply looking at bad engine output. Adding weight to this simple equation could show badly accelerating cars, or cars hampered by a boat anchor of an engine, of which many have existed.

Manuél Ferrari > LTIROCKS 09/14/2014 at 17:40

0

Not really fair to compare a new truck to one from 44 years ago...

He bought the truck used in the late 80s so it's possible that a prior owner had performed an engine swap if the truck was not available new with one. If it wasn't the 454 then it was definitely one of the big blocks. He towed his Sea Ray boat with it for a while until he sold the boat. I think the boat was between 28'-30' long. I was pretty young so hard to remember the exact details.

His Stigness > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 17:41

0

Oh it is, for sure. I just don't get excited about American cars, because at the end of the day, it's still American.

3ch0 > smalleyxb122 09/14/2014 at 17:41

0

The whole story? But it's Sunday!

3ch0 > lonestranger 09/14/2014 at 17:42

6

Way to take this in a new direction. I agree!

Manuél Ferrari > His Stigness 09/14/2014 at 17:42

3

LOL. Way to be objective.

His Stigness > Manuél Ferrari 09/14/2014 at 17:43

0

Haha YUP! When America can make a car that is just as good in every single way as a German car, then I'll change my mind. But until that day, which will probably be the same as when Hell freezes over, my opinion will stay the same.

3ch0 > Ian McDowell 09/14/2014 at 17:44

0

Older cars would be part of the history of bad output. Each had their reasons, be they technological or regulatory.

Manuél Ferrari > His Stigness 09/14/2014 at 17:46

1

What do you mean by "good"? Performance? Looks? Interior? Reliability? Fit and finish?

It's hard to say what is good or bad. The C7 matches or beats the German rivals in many areas.

DrGonzho > lonestranger 09/14/2014 at 17:47

14

But wasn't that the point? Back then 400hp was unheard of in anything less than an exotic. The 'vette made 300hp, the 911 Turbo S made 347hp.

The 8.0L V-10 was the ultimate "no replacement for displacement" motor. No fancy DOHC, turbos, or VTEC.

3ch0 > nocoolnames 09/14/2014 at 17:47

1

I had not even though about those engines. Always figured they were the exception in their era, producing insane amounts of power because they were not held back by anything, and designed by the need to power planes, and win wars.

RevCrowley > RallyWrench 09/14/2014 at 17:47

1

Yes, but that was before 103 octane gas, and with inferior metallurgy. Apples to oranges.