Bad Fords.....
#1
#3
The 351 Cleveland is a 'rich man's' motor.
Another was the 427 Cross Bolt and the 427 Long Chain, both very expensive to buy parts for.
The Boss 429 was another one for deep pockets.
These are all probably considered good motors, but I never had enough money to do anything with them.
The 460 Lima hogged out to 500+ cubic inches is much better motor than any of those listed, and lot's less money.
In a Fox body Mustang coupe, they really work.
Another was the 427 Cross Bolt and the 427 Long Chain, both very expensive to buy parts for.
The Boss 429 was another one for deep pockets.
These are all probably considered good motors, but I never had enough money to do anything with them.
The 460 Lima hogged out to 500+ cubic inches is much better motor than any of those listed, and lot's less money.
In a Fox body Mustang coupe, they really work.
#4
early 4.2 V6's were a problem child...
Then you have the early 2.3L non-turbo 4 banger, the first 4.6L were crap and powerless. carb'd 1.9L 4 banger, I may catch crap.. the Flathead V8, was a problem child when it was first intrduced. Speaking of expensive to repair and buy parts for, the 428CJ.. Wow! Durable but god, were they expensive when something went shouth....
let us not forget the the "ford engines they did not make"
1.6L mazda used in the Capri's, the German 2000CC OHV toy motor used in the pinto.. well maintained it would last, but on a whole it was a unique experment.. 1.8L Mazda used in the early escort GT's (dies at 80K)
That is all I can recall off the top of my head, but I am sure the list will be added to..
Then you have the early 2.3L non-turbo 4 banger, the first 4.6L were crap and powerless. carb'd 1.9L 4 banger, I may catch crap.. the Flathead V8, was a problem child when it was first intrduced. Speaking of expensive to repair and buy parts for, the 428CJ.. Wow! Durable but god, were they expensive when something went shouth....
let us not forget the the "ford engines they did not make"
1.6L mazda used in the Capri's, the German 2000CC OHV toy motor used in the pinto.. well maintained it would last, but on a whole it was a unique experment.. 1.8L Mazda used in the early escort GT's (dies at 80K)
That is all I can recall off the top of my head, but I am sure the list will be added to..
#6
TEMPO'S ! that's great.. When my wife and I were first married in 1992 we bought one and really thought we were styling.. It was even a 4wd/AWD tempo... Youd push a button like a 4wd truck.. That car was never right! Used oil from the word go. and depending on how the sun rose that day decided if it was gonna start or not. And on one day the compression check would be bad, and then it would show good!!!!!!!! Ill never forget that car Never!
Oh and the motor in an 1986 bronco 2.. that thing cost me thousands! And im not kidding.
We did not have it long mabey a year and then traded it for a special edition dynasty.. Now that was a nice car traded it off with 180 thousand miles. And have stayed with dodge Cars since. But she cant get me to change on my trucks.
Oh and the motor in an 1986 bronco 2.. that thing cost me thousands! And im not kidding.
We did not have it long mabey a year and then traded it for a special edition dynasty.. Now that was a nice car traded it off with 180 thousand miles. And have stayed with dodge Cars since. But she cant get me to change on my trucks.
#7
Originally Posted by zapster
anything in a tempo
...zap!
...zap!
Hey buddy, them are fightin' words!
My 1994 Tempo with the 2.3 and 5-speed have almost 150,000 trouble free miles! I rely on the old car for 120 mile round trips to work every day, and it always delivers.
Stop baggin' on the old Tempo, it was a good car in it's day..... (of course, there are always exceptions!)
Trending Topics
#9
#10
#11
Originally Posted by ddellwo
Now there are two words I've never used in conjunction with one another -- "Tempo" and "styling".....
__________________
Jim
Jim
#12
#13
2.3, turbo or not. Had an 88 (I think it was 88, I try to forget) Thunderchicken turbo. It ran like an abused stepchild while I drove it. SOld it to some chick for $1200. She drove it 32 miles, the waterpump crapped out, and she kept on truckin. It went another 8 miles before shutting down. Estimated cost for head repair if possible was $1480 (included R&R) New head was quoted some astronomical number. Only ford I have ever had that the motor crapped out on.
The only other one, maybe the 260 V8 in the early mustangs. Don't know if it had problems, but it didn't last long in the pony, 2 or 3 years at most.
The only other one, maybe the 260 V8 in the early mustangs. Don't know if it had problems, but it didn't last long in the pony, 2 or 3 years at most.
#14
Originally Posted by 98Navi
2.3, turbo or not. Had an 88 (I think it was 88, I try to forget) Thunderchicken turbo. It ran like an abused stepchild while I drove it. SOld it to some chick for $1200. She drove it 32 miles, the waterpump crapped out, and she kept on truckin. It went another 8 miles before shutting down. Estimated cost for head repair if possible was $1480 (included R&R) New head was quoted some astronomical number. Only ford I have ever had that the motor crapped out on.
The only other one, maybe the 260 V8 in the early mustangs. Don't know if it had problems, but it didn't last long in the pony, 2 or 3 years at most.
The only other one, maybe the 260 V8 in the early mustangs. Don't know if it had problems, but it didn't last long in the pony, 2 or 3 years at most.
__________________
Jim
Jim