![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
Ward's releases annual Top 10 engine list
Ward's has been issuing its "Top 10 Engines" list for a dozen years now, and this year's list, like others, is
filled with internal combustion goodness. In alphabetical order:
Audi 2L FSI turbocharged DOHC I-4 (Audi A3)
Audi 4.2L DOHC V-8 (Audi S4)
BMW 3L DOHC I-6 (330i)
DCX 5.7L Hemi Magnum OHV V-8 (Dodge Charger R/T)
Ford 4.6L SOHC V-8 (Mustang GT)
GM 2L supercharged DOHC I-4 (Chevrolet Cobalt SS)
GM 2.8L turbocharged DOHC V-6 (Saab 9-3 Aero)
Mazda 2.3L DISI turbocharged DOHC I-4 (Mazdaspeed 6)
Nissan 3.5L DOHC V-6 (Infiniti G35 6MT)
Toyota 3.5L DOHC V-6 (Lexus IS 350)
My comments follow below…
The first three are difficult to disagree with - theyre great engines. DCXs Hemi combines high output with
cylinder deactivation, so I understand why it makes the list instead of GMs LS2 or GenIV truck engines. But the FoMoCo
3-valve 4.6L Mod motor? In no way should that be on this list instead of the LS2 - that is, unless one favors a larger,
heavy, more complex engine that makes 25% less power. GMs supercharged Ecotec is an interesting choice; I personally
would have gone for DCXs turbocharged 2.4L from the SRT4, or Mitsubishis 2.0L 4G63 from the Lancer EVO. GMs
twin-turbo 2.8L V6 disappoints me just a bit from a power standpoint, but maybe it performs better than its numbers
would indicate. Mazdas turbo 2.3L is indeed impressive, so I have no qualms about its inclusion. No issues with the
last two engines on the list, as theyre an impressive pair of V6s, but the Acura RLs 3.5L V6 does seem left out. And
wheres the light-truck diesels, which offer an impressive combination of economy, durability, and power?
Keeping in mind that the engine had to be available in a vehicle with a retail price under $52K, what do you think
should have made this years list?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Will 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
infiniti uses a toyota engine? or is that a typo
Reply
Harry 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
Glad to see Toyota took over the manufacturing of the Inginiti G35 3.5litre V6
Reply
juan 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
Whoa. I nearly had a heart attack jsut now. Looking at the list you see no mention of the Nissan VQ V6. But then you look over to the right and you see it says Infiniti G35 6MT in parenthesis. It was just a typo... thank God. But, I also believe that the 3.5L V6 from the Acura RL should have made the list also. It's a great engine that makes good power.
Reply
V?or Rubiera 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
They should have also include Diesel engines.
Reply
james ken 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
this list makes me sad.
really, why is a strong block holding boost still interesting in this day and age? what is insightful about a well-built V6? nothing against the toyota and nissan engines, but they always struck me not as something that should be exemplary but rather something that should be average. really, it's the year 2005. every V6 out there SHOULD work as well as the VQ35. but i digress.
Reply
svt boost 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
maybe they included the 3V SOHC 4.6L ford engine for the affordibility aspect. Best buy on the market, without a doubt
Reply
bob f 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
where's the mazda 13B rotary this year? ::sigh::
Reply
Ted K 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
I find it comic that the article itself mentions 100hp/L several times yet never says anything about any Honda engines.
I'll take a K20Z3 over that FSI turbo any day. Really, you guys needed a turbo AND direct injection to match what Honda can do with a plain NA engine?
The Mazda DISI definitely belongs on the list though.
Reply
Ted K 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
#6, silly renysys or however you spell it ain't got NOTHIN on that DISI engine.
I always thought the rotary was given a gimme spot on top engine lists just for being different. When you get down to results they really aren't that good.
Reply
Chris 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
I almost died when I didn't see the Nissan VQ on there, but yeah thanks for that typo.
The 4G63 from Mitsubishi definitely deserves a spot instead of that crap Ford american junkpile engine.
Reply
md 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
Yeah Chris, the "american junkpile engine" is terrible. It only powers the best seling pickup, the best selling SUV, the best selling vans, the mustand, and the Ford GT. That engine is god-awful
Reply
Glen 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
Hmmm, so Toyota now makes the Nissan VQ? ...That's news to me. Then again, you guys have managed to misspell Scirocco (as Scirroco) in 3 different blogs.
Reply
powergyoza 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
#7, your comments make me wonder if there may have been some weird politics going on @ Primedia - only one of the biggest publishers of car media on the planet. Maybe the editors @ WardsAuto don't like to follow in-step with the editors of Primedia's tuner magazines, who always sing the praises of Honda & Mitsubishi.
I like NA just fine and it'll win everytime on the track against another FI car of same hp, but nothing is more fun than being pushed into your seat when the turbo starts to whistle.
Reply
whatRUsmokin 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
Wards has got it wrong, the 100hp per liter "benchmark" is the target for naturally aspirated engines.
Reply
kevin 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
Re #8
"I find it comic that the article itself mentions 100hp/L several times yet never says anything about any Honda engines.
I'll take a K20Z3 over that FSI turbo any day. Really, you guys needed a turbo AND direct injection to match what Honda can do with a plain NA engine?
The Mazda DISI definitely belongs on the list though."
Your post makes me laugh even more. The 2.0L Honda Si engine does not pass the 100hp/liter mark and gets worse fuel economy while producing less less power than the Volkswagen 2.0 Turbo.
The Honda engine revving at 8000 rpm for long periods of time will deliver fuel economy that is truely horrible, while a VW 2.0T engine can deliver peak power all day long and still get their fuel economy rating (which by the way is better than Honda's).
Give me the Volkswagen 2.0 Turbo any day.
Reply
Brian 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
#8, before you start putting the Audi 2.0T down and claiming your K20Z3 Honda motor does the same thing while being naturally aspirated, try taking a look at the power AND torque curves for both motors. It's not even close to the same. And the 2.0T still gets pretty decent gas mileage, if I'm not mistaken.
Reply
Eric Bryant 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
Thanks to everyone who "politely" pointed out my error. It's fixed now.
Reply
mooseman 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
...how does the 4.6L GT motor make 25% "less power" than the 6.0L LS2?
You mean a bigger motor makes more power? Well shuck my corn and call me Sally. When did that start happening?
Reply
mooseman 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
...how does the 4.6L GT motor make 25% "less power" than the 6.0L LS2?
You mean a bigger motor makes more power? Well shuck my corn and call me Sally. When did that start happening?
Reply
Mich 10:26PM (12/18/2005)
Eric, I was really hoping I wouldn't have to see you whine about the LS whatever engine not being in the top ten, but as expected, you did it anyway. Your bias toward the bowtie gets annoying sometimes. I like the Vette and the LS engines as well, but they get their fair share of recognition. The Mustang motor is also powerful, smooth, and well proven.
I know you love your personal GM cars, but come on man, there is other stuff out there, try not to make your slant so obvious.
Reply