Worst Engines Thread! - DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums - Dodge Intrepid, Concorde, 300m and Eagle Vision chat
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 3.67 average. Display Modes
post #1 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 04:36 AM Thread Starter
Intrepid Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington Texas
Posts: 2,823
Feedback: 1 / 100%
                     
Worst Engines Thread!

Ok, so we have a Best Engine tread, well here's my Worst Engine thread.

I'll get the party started:

Oldsmobile 5.7L diesel
MANY problems, we used to own one! Had an appetite for special (and EXPENSIVE!) starters and the electrical system that ran it was complete RUBBISH!

Cadillac HT4x00 series engines (HT4100, 4.5PFI, 4.9PFI)

ABSOLUTE CRAP! Nuff said! Low output, high complexity, a real BITCH to work on. Issues were mainly electrical..... typical GM! Thank god for the Northstar, the HT4x00's replacement!

GM 3100/3400 60 degree V6

Just a bad overall design, likes to consume head gaskets and intake manifolds, won't relinquish spark plugs, other minor gripes that accumulate to make the mechanic (me!) REALLY MAD! I can't beleive this made it out of the 90s.... The new 3500 completly STOMPS this thing.

Ford 3.8L
The infamous headgasket eater, sent MANY Mustangs and T-Birds to the yard!

Chevy 2.2L pushrod engine
This Pre-Ecotec era POS found it's home in MANY Chevy Cavaliers and it is nothing but trouble. Slow, unreliable and noisy. Not an engine that should have found its way into a modern car. The 2.2 was also used in the S-10, no wonder the Ford Ranger is so popular!

Chevy Vega engine
This POS had an aluminum block WITHOUT sleeves or hardening treatment! I think you can guess how long it held up!

The Chrysler 2.7L ain't got nothin' on the above engines in terms of crappyness.

Last edited by hardwareguy; 09-26-2006 at 04:38 AM.
hardwareguy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 06:30 AM
Intrepid Pro
 
cobra65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Rochester, Ny
Posts: 1,651
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
A couple more bad ones: GM 2.5L 4 cylinder and the infamous Cadillac 4-6-8 V8.
cobra65 is offline  
post #3 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 09:24 AM
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 686
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
My vote goes for either the 2.7 Mopar or the 3.5 that was in the original LH cars (re 93 Concorde). Only because I owned both of these engines. The 3.5 went through timing chains and water pumps every 20,000 kms and the problems with the 2.7 have been welle doccumented on this forum.

Here are a few other designs that should have been left on the drawing board.

CADILLAC V8-6-4
In 1981, engineers at Cadillac made an attempt at producing better gas mileage for its line of heavy luxo-liners. Dubbed the V8-6-4 (or, Displacement On Demand), the engine changed cylinder modes, eliminating two cylinders at a time as power demands decreased. The idea was right on the money, but the available technology to implement it was not. Measuring 368 cubic inches, oil pressure to specially-designed hydraulic lifters was shut off by solenoids, which caused the lifter to collapse, and effectively prevented the cam lobe from opening the related valve. The biggest rap with the V8-6-4 was a distinct hesitation when cylinders were deactivated, which commonly became known as a "driveability" problem. The same engine resurfaced in 1982, without its cylinder deactivation feature, and as a result, was generally considered to be a good engine.

MOPAR 2.2L I-4
Launched with the successful K-Car line, the Mopar 2.2 soon became known as a rod-knocker. With multiple failures rolling in, Mother Mopar did the unthinkable and added a turbo to it. This may have been okay if it had remained under the hood of only the specialized Shelby GLHS and Dodge Daytona (quite swoopy FWD cars at the time), but Mopar chose to share the love across the entire product line--from the full-size Chryslers (also FWD) to the insanely-popular minivans. Literally, millions of Turbo 2.2 engines were produced, and while many survived, a good percentage caused headaches for owners and service techs alike. Interestingly, when rebuilt for high performance, the 2.2 has proven to be a solid foundation. However, in stock shape, their ill reputation remained.

OLDSMOBILE 350 DIESEL

The GM Corporate partners shared the grief associated with its diesel debacle of the early '80s. More often considered an Oldsmobile motor, this converted gasoline engine was used throughout the GM family, and even found its way into top-of-the-line Cadillacs, with disastrous results. Failures were commonplace, often including internal engine components. At the time, mechanics and service writers referred to warrantee repair orders as "A.F.A." - or Automatic Factory Acceptance, and each respective franchise had mountains of repair orders related to the 350 cid diesel.


CHEVY 2.2L I-4

Recently replaced by the all-new Ecotec 2.2, this pre-Ecotec inliner was a disaster. Lacking in power, unreliable, and hungry for head gaskets, the anemic four was offered in many GM front-drivers (like the Beretta and Cavalier), and the popular line of Chevy S-10/GMC S-15 pickups. Press reviews at the time recommended against backing these engines with automatic transmissions, especially in the pickups. With pathetic power and unreliable durability, what could be worse? A series of steel freeze plugs were also known to corrode, providing a messy time bomb that could go off at almost any mileage reading past 50,000. It's no wonder GM used absolutely no engineering or design from this engine when developing the Ecotec. We think GM should offer Ecotec upgrades to all owners of these pathetic mills, but alas, the designs have so much variance between them, swaps are no easy task. Too bad.

FORD 2.8L V-6

Offered in the downsized Mustang and Capri, as well as Ranger pickups, the Ford 2.8 remains a rickety memory. With a double-barrel reputation based on its noisy solid-lifter valvetrain and cracked cylinder heads, the 2.8 should be commended only for offering World Products the ability to profit from its shortcomings. When World chose to build all-new Ford V-6 heads as replacements for the factory parts, we doubt even they could have predicted it would become their most-popular seller. In a product line armed with some of the best aftermarket performance cylinder heads ever cast, the lowly Ford 2.8 V-6 replacement outsold 'em all. That should tell you how bad the factory design was.

VEGA 140 OVERHEAD CAM
This one was in production from 1970 to 1977. At the time, John Delorean was on Chevy's executive team, and had reportedly commented that the design of this engine resembled a pre-war tractor motor. Though some are not aware, this little "four-lunger" featured silicone-impregnated aluminum cylinders - not cast-iron sleeves, like most aluminum blocks. Early in production, Chevy re-called some 132,000 vehicles to correct the possibility of a carburetor fire. Other design characteristics were displayed as the blocks were subject to distortion, due to overheating, and the cylinders were prone to wear, causing an unusually high oil consumption.

LINCOLN V-12
Once again, we called on our 84-year-old automotive historian from Connecticut, whose tack-sharp memory immediately recanted snippets from days gone by. Beginning in 1940, the Lincoln V-12 was developed under orders from Henry Ford. Its basic design elements were borrowed from Ford's existing V-8, though the V-12 was engineered with a 75-degree angle. Surprisingly, it produced an approximate 110 to 120 horsepower, despite being abundant in cylinders. Like many early powerplants, overheating problems ensued, causing warped cylinders and excessive oil consumption. Likewise, early versions suffered from poor crankcase ventilation, resulting in dreaded sludge buildup. Later, engineering changes offered a much improved crankcase ventilation system, and also featured hydraulic lifters for quieter and more reliable operation.

CADILLAC HT4100
Cadillac strikes again. This time, it was an attempt at developing a lighter-weight, 4.1 liter engine called the HT4100. This engineering marvel featured an aluminum block, and for reasons unknown, cast iron cylinder heads. Displacing a paltry 249 cubic inches, it produced a meager 135 horsepower at 4,400 rpm. Many of its woes were related to failed head gaskets, which allowed coolant into the crankcase. Naturally, that chain of events resulted in GM supplying tons of crankshafts, camshafts, and related hardware under the AFA program. Even when they ran, the HT4100 was grossly underpowered. As a result, Cadillac suffered in sales and stature, conditions that took several years to overcome
boltuprite is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 11:08 AM
I hit shit with sticks!


 
Daytrepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Zebulon, NC
Posts: 37,147
Feedback: 21 / 100%
                     
Garage
1) Chrysler 2.7L V6. No offense to you 2.7 owners, but this engine speaks for itself here. Some run forever, some dont, you know the story.

2) Chevy/GMC 4.3L V6, Vortec, 1996 and newer.
A good running engine, when it runs. Very tempermental. But what makes it bad is its failures and overall design. This engine has such a weak block that any slight error in torquing the intake manifold will distort the main bearing journals. Has the worst reliability when it comes to intake leaks, oil leaks, and vacuum leaks. Seems too delicate in a way. Pre 1995? Bulletproof.

3) Cadillac 4.1L V8 1980-19?
Why they would even consider putting such a weak engine in a big Cadillac Fleetwood is beyond me. Yes, they ran quiet and smooth, but your Fleetwood couldnt beat an old man on a golf cart if it wanted too. Luxury cars should have performance and power, not just style. Head gaskets and camshafts a major issue too, mostly due to not enough engine and too much car.

4) Chevy/GMC/Olds 5.7L/6.2L/6.5L Diesel
Gm has never made a good diesel. All underpowered, underbuilt, hybrid engines. Lower end of an engine designed to run on gasoline is just not heavy enough to handle the high compression a diesel runs. 6.2/6.5 were somewhat better, but a Cummins or Powerstroke destroys both, all around, hands down.

5) Chevy/GMC 3.4L Dual Overhead Cam
Similar to the 4.3L. Fast and powerful when they run. Not reliable past 70K miles. The absolute worst engine to work on. Timing belt has 9 pulleys to line up. Have to drop engine cradle to change alternator. Head gasket, intake gasket, and major oil leak problems, repeatedly.


1998 Dodge Intrepid
President; Danbo's Truck & Diesel, Inc
Director of Speeding; Chornay Boomers of Youngsville, GmbH
President, Rush Drumming Ventures, LTD;
Daytrepper is offline  
post #5 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 11:12 AM
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,388
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
Ford 2.3L 4 cylinder and its derivative 2.0L
By far the worst motor I had the sad opportunity to own a few times over. Had one in a 1980 Ford Mustang. Oil pressure problems where oil actually got pumped out the dipstick. Spun bearings twice. Replaced it with another 2.3 and the rear main seal leaked like a sieve. Also had a mid 80's Ford Ranger with 2.0L (which is a smaller bored 2.3L) and it sucked major ass. The oil pump seized up while I was driving and the auxiliary shaft gear sheared the teeth off the distributor gear.

Chevy/GM 2.8L V-6
Didn't have the honor to own this one, but had some friends that did. Common problem was punching rods out of the block on one of the rearward cylinders. A friend of mine had the 2.8 in his Camaro and took the skirt right off the back corner one day. Boom!

2.4L DC motor in a Dodge Caravan.
First, why would anyone put the same 4 cylinder out of a small Neon or mid-size Stratus into a heavy minivan? Underpowered to say the least. Noisy as hell. I can pick up that same "clack-clack-clack" from any other vehicle with one of these motors easily. Oil leaking head gasket and after that was fixed, had a leak from an unknown area I suspect might have been the cam seals. And just as I have noticed with my 2.7L in my car, this DC motor also pulls a lot of oil out of the pcv system. I had some clear tubing on this 2.4 until I could get a new pcv hose and I could watch the beads of oil getting sucked along. I firmly believe the rumors that DC doesn't properly baffle their valve covers. I've had other vehicles by other manufacturers and never had as much oil leaving the valve covers as this 2.4 or my current 2.7.
froggy81500 is offline  
post #6 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 11:13 AM
Intrepid Pro
 
iggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Antigo, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,266
Feedback: 1 / 100%
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by boltuprite
CHEVY 2.2L I-4

Recently replaced by the all-new Ecotec 2.2, this pre-Ecotec inliner was a disaster. Lacking in power, unreliable, and hungry for head gaskets, the anemic four was offered in many GM front-drivers (like the Beretta and Cavalier), and the popular line of Chevy S-10/GMC S-15 pickups. Press reviews at the time recommended against backing these engines with automatic transmissions, especially in the pickups. With pathetic power and unreliable durability, what could be worse? A series of steel freeze plugs were also known to corrode, providing a messy time bomb that could go off at almost any mileage reading past 50,000. It's no wonder GM used absolutely no engineering or design from this engine when developing the Ecotec. We think GM should offer Ecotec upgrades to all owners of these pathetic mills, but alas, the designs have so much variance between them, swaps are no easy task. Too bad.
I am actually kind of surprised on this one. What year did these motors run in the cavaliers??? I used to own a 91 cavalier. The first owner went through one head gasket at around 60,000 i think and went out again at 90,000. Put some kind of sealer in it and it stoped and the car ran awsome. I bought it with 100,000 on it and I drove it to 160,000. Had apsolutely no problems with the engine and I just beat the hell out of that thing. Just the basic stuff went out on it like alternator and starter. I loved that car. was more reliable than my intrepid! Though when I sold it it was getting about 21 mpg some reason and I didn't care to find out. It was the car that I drove to school and back everyday that is 40 miles away.

Also was the 4100 cadilac motor that bad??? Got one right now that was fitted to a s-10 with the motor in the rear . The motor is acting crappy like it has no get up and go so looking for something to replace it now.

Silver 1997 Intrepid 3.5
Silver 2000 Intrepid ES 3.2
Dark Kaki Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited 5.7
Red 1986 Camaro IROC 5.7
iggy is offline  
post #7 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 11:18 AM
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,388
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by 32Intrepid
2) Chevy/GMC 4.3L V6, Pre 1995? Bulletproof.
I second that. When I get a chance to make one, it will easily make my top 5. After owning a '89 Chevy pickup with a 4.3L that had over 221K miles when I traded it, definately bulletproof. And I also had a frined to clock over 200K on his S-15 Sonoma. BTW, it shares the same bore and stroke as the GM 350 (5.7L), just 2 cylinders less. 4.3L is big for a V-6 when you consider there's some small block V-8's close to that size. Matter of fact, Chevy used to have a 262 CI V-8 (which equates to 4.3L) that was a garbage motor.
froggy81500 is offline  
post #8 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 11:53 AM
Intrepid Pro
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,553
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
Ford 2.3/2.5 HSC - Crap. That is all.
Ford 2.8 - Great little German designed motor until it overheats...or you get tired of adjusting valves every two weeks...or the timing gears disintegrate...
Chev 2.8 - Not any better than the Ford version.
Ford 5.0 (Mercury) 155hp out of a roller-cam 302??!! What were they thinking??!!
slowbra is offline  
post #9 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 12:29 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,675
Feedback: 1 / 100%
                     
From the other thread:

2.5 GM Iron Duke 'Iron Puke'. I hate this motor with a passion. Noisy, slow, leaky and a PITA to work on.

Chrysler 2.7. No offense to any of you 2.7 owners, but this motor is bad in my book.

GM 2.2/2.2. Another four-banger GM disaster. If its not giving out a terrible rod knock, its got a leaking head gasket.

GM Quad Four . Head gaskets every oil change! These motors are JUNK. Cracking heads, snapping bolts, try changing a power steering pump in one of those heaps!

3.8 Ford Essex V6. What a waste of iron. This motor was junk from the start and always will be. I've never seen one that hasn't had the head gaskets replaced.

Chrysler (mitsubishi built) 3.0 V6. Water pump eating oil burning hunk of junk. Around 100K they all start puffing blue smoke from the exhaust and ticking like crazy. Replacing the timing belt and waterpump on these motors is a terrible job. Better off doing it with the motor out of the car.

Chrysler (Mitsubishi built) 2.5 V6. Another reason Chrysler oughta stop using junk import motors! Same problems as the 3.0, but to change the rear plugs you have to remove the intake plenum, which normally cracks. JUNK

GM 3100 V6 (1994-present) Intake gasket and head gasket blowing heap of crap. The 3400 series is also junk. The early 3.1 (1990-1993) was a great motor, GM had to turn it in to junk like they always do.

Any Import engine is bad in my book. They always make it soo overcomplicated for a backyard mechanic to figure out. The worst were the 1980's carberuated ones. They have a billion vaccum lines running everywhere and you can never get the damn thing to work right. Scrap them all!

Last edited by Matt86; 09-26-2006 at 01:06 PM.
Matt86 is offline  
post #10 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 12:31 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 686
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
here's a few more

Triumph Stag 3.0-liter V-8

In the early 1960s, British carmaker Triumph laid down its engine architecture for the next decade, which included an overhead-cam V-8 and four-cylinder variants using many of the same internal parts. The engines were designed before the cars in which they would be used.

Big mistake.

"It's always a bad idea to compromise basic engine design to fit a package," observes England-born Dave Szczupak, Ford Motor Co.'s vice president of powertrain operations.

In 1971, Triumph was poised to become Britain's equivalent of BMW. The classically styled Stag roadster was Triumph's big move upmarket. The Stag overhead-cam V-8 might have been a decent engine had it not been for a last-minute decision to increase displacement from 2.5 to 3.0 liters, thereby designing the engine around the car. That was a crucial mistake, Szczupak says.

The increase in displacement coupled with some truly bizarre engineering overstressed the engine. The engine suffered from severe overheating problems, failed crankshafts and weak timing chains. The inefficient gear-driven water pump sat vertically between the cylinder banks, which often led to air being trapped in the cooling system.

But the biggest gaffe was in the way the cylinder-head bolts and studs were arranged. The bolts went straight through the head in the typical way. But the upper row of studs went through the head at an angle. This arrangement made it nearly impossible to get a good seal between the aluminum heads and cast iron block, so coolant leaks that led to overheating were common.

By 1973, the Stag was gone from U.S. shores. By 1977, production stopped globally after about 26,000 cars had been built.

Toyota 3.0-liter IMZ V-6; 5SFE 2.2-liter 4-cylinder

Both these engines are prone to filling with oil sludge and seizing up in 1997-2002 models, though Toyota says the engines aren't faulty. Toyota blames owners for not changing the oil often enough or for using the wrong oil. Many experts disagree. They say a defect in the breathing or circulation system is the likely culprit.

Toyota did make a few improvements to its engines that seemed to solve the problem. The company has spent millions fixing ruined engines and trying to satisfy angry owners. About 3.3 million Toyota and Lexus owners were given extended warranties, and more than 4,000 engines were replaced.

Hyundai Excel 1.5-liter 4-cylinder

The 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine built in Korea under license from Mitsubishi Motors Corp. for the 1986-94 Hyundai Excel was a sound design. The engine performed well in the Mitsubishi Precis but suffered major quality problems when Hyundai manufactured the engine. Early Excel engines leaked and burned oil, dripped coolant, overheated and sounded like badly adjusted sewing machines. Most of the leaks centered around the cylinder head. That poor quality hobbled Hyundai's growth in North America and was one of the reasons that Hyundai created its trendsetting 10-year, 100,000-mile powertrain warranty.

Chrysler Imperial fuel-injected V-8

The 1978 Chrysler Imperial - a big, stylish coupe - was powered by a 318-cubic-inch V-8 that featured Chrysler Corp.'s first electronic fuel injection system. Stalling, surging, failure to start when hot and dealerships that could not make repairs doomed the car.

Chrysler recalled the Imperial and replaced the troublesome fuel injection system with a tried-and-true low-tech carburetor.

Bob Lee, Chrysler group's vice president of powertrain product engineering, says of the technology: "It was very clever. Unfortunately, it didn't work very well."

He adds: "At least we didn't sour the industry on fuel injection."

Pontiac Fiero 2.5-liter 4-cylinder

The only way to fit an engine on the 1984-85 Pontiac Fiero chassis was by using a new and smaller oil pan holding three quarts of oil instead of the typical four. No problem as long as the owner kept the oil level full. The problem was that many Fiero drivers didn't. Moreover, some of the so-called "Iron Duke" engines had been built with defective connecting rods, which snapped when the engine ran low on oil. Broken rods flew out the side of the block and caused fires.

The episode ruined an excellent launch of what could have been one of Pontiac's biggest successes of the 1980s.
boltuprite is offline  
post #11 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 01:00 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,388
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2Deep
Ford 5.0 (Mercury) 155hp out of a roller-cam 302??!! What were they thinking??!!
Depending on what years we're talking. The 5.0L I had in my '92 Mustang was 225 HP with like 300 ft. lbs. Not too shabby at the time. Nowadays a little underpowered for a V-8 since there's V-6's pushing comparable numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt86
Chrysler (mitsubishi built) 3.0 V6. Water pump eating oil burning hunk of junk. Around 100K they all start puffing blue smoke from the exhaust and ticking like crazy. Replacing the timing belt and waterpump on these motors is a terrible job. Better off doing it with the motor out of the car.
Yeah the 3.0L and its smaller derivative, the 2.5L V-6 found in the cloud cars, like my wife's old Sebring.
froggy81500 is offline  
post #12 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 01:01 PM
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2
Feedback: 0 / 0%
 
3.8 super charged

i had a 94 tbird with the 3.8 supercharger. engine had plenty of power, but went through head gaskets like no tommrow. Main problem was poor cooling system caused overheating constantly. It supposedly had different heads and beefier parts than the regular 3.8 in mustangs and tbirds but the cooling system made it suffer
HOODI is offline  
post #13 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 01:04 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,675
Feedback: 1 / 100%
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by froggy81500



Yeah the 3.0L and its smaller derivative, the 2.5L V-6 found in the cloud cars, like my wife's old Sebring.

Ohhhh! I got to add that one to my list!
Matt86 is offline  
post #14 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 01:10 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 686
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
quote

"Any Import engine is bad in my book. They always make it soo overcomplicated for a backyard mechanic to figure out. The worst were the 1980's carberuated ones. They have a billion vaccum lines running everywhere and you can never get the damn thing to work right. Scrap them all!"

Are you kidding me? Honda, Toyota and Nissan make some of the most technologically advanced and reliable engines in the business
boltuprite is offline  
post #15 of 67 (permalink) Old 09-26-2006, 01:23 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,675
Feedback: 1 / 100%
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by boltuprite
quote

"Any Import engine is bad in my book. They always make it soo overcomplicated for a backyard mechanic to figure out. The worst were the 1980's carberuated ones. They have a billion vaccum lines running everywhere and you can never get the damn thing to work right. Scrap them all!"

Are you kidding me? Honda, Toyota and Nissan make some of the most technologically advanced and reliable engines in the business

ever have to change the head gasket on a 1983 Accord with a 1BBL carb. Just reconnecting the 10000 vaccum lines to the carb is a harder job than changing the head gasket its self.
Matt86 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums - Dodge Intrepid, Concorde, 300m and Eagle Vision chat forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Member names may only be composed of alpha-numeric characters. (A-Z and 0-9)

!!ATTENTION ADVERTISERS!! If you intend on advertising anything on this forum, whatsoever, you are required to first contact us here . Additionaly, we do NOT allow BUSINESS NAMES unless you are an Authorized Vendor. If you own a business, and want to do sales on this site via posting or private message, you will need to follow the rules. Shops, Stores, Distributors, Group Buys without being authorized will see your account terminated.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Customers knock GM on noisy engines moparman General Discussion, other Mopar Vehicles 9 11-17-2003 02:25 PM
Comparing the 2.7/3.2/3.5 liter engines Benis General Discussion (Second Generation) 37 10-23-2003 07:37 PM
Your First Thread jwilde General Discussion 27 05-02-2003 12:07 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome