Being the rookie on this year’s panel, I probably should rely on the wisdom of my fellow and – more senior – judges and play nice. I should, but I won’t.

For the first time in the 11-year history of the 10 Best Engines, one of BMW AG’s inline 6-cyl. engines fails to make the list. I ask my fellow adjudicators, “What are you smoking?”

The M3’s engine, the 3.2L DOHC I-6, on last year’s list, failed to make an impact in this year’s annual deliberations. Meanwhile, BMW’s other inline 6-cyl., the 3L DOHC, tested in the 330 Ci Performance Package, which, inexplicably was left off last year’s 10 Best Engines, ranked high in the initial discussions this year. That was short-lived, however, as other engines were deemed “more worthy.”

After testing the 330 Ci, I was ready to remortgage my house to come up with the $41,895 list price. Is there an engine as refined as the 3L I-6? With pedal to the floor, the 222 lb.-ft. (301 Nm) of torque at 3,500 rpm intelligently pulls the coupe through each gear with nary a lurch or hesitation. And is there a sweeter sound than that intoxicating low whine? You can have more power and better fuel economy – this engine, more than any other, provides true harmony to the driving universe.

As I argued passionately for the 330 Ci, senior (and jaded, I should add) editors Tom Murphy and Bill Visnic nodded politely at my freshman enthusiasm and proceeded to shoot me down in flames.

At one point, I thought AutoWorld Editor Drew Winter was firmly in my corner. After all, he was as giddy as I was about the engine. But staying true to his Democratic leanings, Winter flip-flopped, as newer, more power-dense engines lured him away.

I know, this engine is long-in-the-tooth and essentially will be retired after this year improved with sophisticated new technology. Despite increasing its horsepower to a respectable, albeit modest, 235, other V-6s have far surpassed the 3L’s power in recent years. And one could argue the redline of 5,900 rpm is somewhat low. But there is no denying the near perfect balance of power and refinement this fabled engine brings.

I give it a fond farewell. BMW is introducing a new inline 6-cyl. engine next year featuring a magnesium-aluminum crankcase (the first of its kind) that saves 22 lbs. (10 kg) of mass when compared with the current engine’s all-aluminum crankcase, and its unique Valvetronic valve-timing/throttling system, which should increase the pony count significantly. I can’t wait.

Ward’s editors evaluated 36 vehicles en route to this year’s 10 Best Engines list. Here are the 36 engines tested, as well as commentary on each.

Audi AG
3.2L FSI DOHC I-6 (Audi A6)
255 hp/243 lb.-ft.
For: Audi tech again impresses.
Against: Trifling cold-start issues.
Bottom line: Diesel without the baggage?

4.2L DOHC V-8 (Audi S4)
340 hp/302 lb.-ft.
For: Power density; staggeringly refined.
Against: Appetite for high-octane would shame a Hummer.
Bottom line: Totally corrupting.

BMW AG
3L DOHC I-6 (330i Performance Package)
235 hp/222 lb.-ft.
For: Makes V-6s feel like Mix Masters.
Against: We say again: needs more cubes.
Bottom line: Waiting for Valvetronic, DI.

3.2L DOHC I-6 (M3)
333 hp/262 lb.-ft.
For: With 104 hp/L, you have to ask?
Against: Edgy driveability; soon to die.
Bottom line: Technical masterpiece.

DaimlerChrysler AG
2.8L DOHC I-4 turbodiesel (Liberty)
160 hp/295 lb.-ft.
For: Vital economy boost for thirsty Liberty.
Against: Hardly the best diesel in DC bin.
Bottom line: Won’t convince U.S. drivers.

3.2L DOHC I-6 turbodiesel (E320 CDI)
201 hp/369 lb.-ft.
For: Thunderous torque; clatter mitigation.
Against: Exhaust can be a little stinky.
Bottom line: Does everything better than a gasoline equivalent.

3.5L DOHC V-6 (Mercedes SLK)
268 hp/258 lb.-ft.
For: Chesty torque; delicious exhaust.
Against: Heavy flywheel feel; unemotional.
Bottom line: Curiously un-fun.

5.7L OHV Hemi V-8 (Chrysler 300C)
340 hp/390 lb.-ft.
For: Feels totally unstressed at 60 hp/L.
Against: Heavy-handed torque management from tranny.
Bottom line: Indomitable.

5.9L OHV I-6 turbodiesel (Ram HD)
325 hp/600 lb.-ft.
For: 600 lb.-ft. is just stupid.
Against: Really too much for civilian missions.
Bottom line: Give us half of everything for a light vehicle.

Ford Motor Co.
2.3L DOHC I-4 (Focus ST)
151 hp/154 lb.-ft.
For: Good NVH; PZEV rating.
Against: Wheezy at higher rpm.
Bottom line: Chalk up one payoff from Mazda ownership.

2.3L DOHC I-4 (Escape Hybrid)
133 hp/129 lb.-ft.
For: Works well in hybrid duty.
Against: Doesn’t like hills. Even molehills.
Bottom line: We know we’re supposed to love it, but…

4.6L SOHC V-8 (Mustang GT)
300 hp/320 lb.-ft.
For: Beautifully adapted for muscle-car duty.
Against: Low redline; how about 6 gears?
Bottom line: Best $25,000 motor on earth.

5.4L SOHC V-8 (F-150)
300 hp/365 lb.-ft.
For: Ultra-mega refinement.
Against: Hitched to a heavy, heavy truck.
Bottom line: Held back by pudgy platform.

Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.
2.5L turbo DOHC H-4 (Subaru Legacy GT)
250 hp/250 lb.-ft.
For: Stun-gun jolt when turbo spools.
Against: Boost not subtle; likes to drink.
Bottom line: Do Subaru buyers need this?

2.5L turbocharged DOHC H-4 (Subaru WRX STi)
300 hp/300 lb.-ft.
For: Can talk smack on V-8s.
Against: NVH only the “tuner crowd” could love.
Bottom line: Awesome, dude – for 15 minutes.

General Motors Corp.
3.6L DOHC V-6 (Cadillac CTS)
255 hp/255 lb.-ft.
For: Superb performance balance, NVH.
Against: Ignored by el-cheapo GM brass.
Bottom line: GM, get this in everything. Now.

4.2L DOHC I-6 (Chevrolet TrailBlazer)
275 hp/275 lb.-ft.
For: Intelligent engineering, manufacturing.
Against: Surely time for a few more horses.
Bottom line: See 3.6L V-6 above.

5.3L OHV V-8 (Chevrolet TrailBlazer EXT)
300 hp/330 lb.-ft.
For: Cylinder deactivation, hefty power.
Against: How often are half of those cylinders really gonna go quiet?
Bottom line: Tree-hugger distraction.

6L OHV V-8 (Chevrolet Corvette)
400 hp/400 lb.-ft.
For: Big numbers.
Against: Startlingly loud and ragged; not doing small-block any favors.
Bottom line: Pep Boys bait.

Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
2L DOHC I-4 (Acura RSX Type S)
210 hp/143 lb.-ft.
For: Sweetest 210 hp you’ll find.
Against: Not really an adult torque number.
Bottom line: Nobody does a better 4-cyl.

2.4L DOHC I-4 (Acura TSX)
200 hp/166 lb.-ft.
For: Deserves exhibit in the NVH museum.
Against: Typical Honda torque deprivation.
Bottom line: All anybody really needs.

3L SOHC V-6 (Accord Coupe)
240 hp/212 lb.-ft.
For: The Honda of V-6s.
Against: Not always “on the cam.”
Bottom line: All anybody really needs, V-6 edition.

3L SOHC V-6/IMA (Accord Hybrid)
255 hp/232 lb.-ft.
For: Remarkable technology integration.
Against: Sometimes gets a little busy.
Bottom line: If you’ve got to go hybrid.

3.5L SOHC V-6 (Odyssey Touring)
255 hp/250 lb.-ft.
For: Manly minivan mill; VCM ain’t bad, too.
Against: Give us a minute.
Bottom line: Hey kids, was that a BMW we just passed?

3.5L SOHC V-6 (Acura RL)
300 hp/243 lb.-ft.
For: Sets new power-density standard.
Against: Can be thrashy.
Bottom line: Credible as a surrogate V-8?

Mazda Motor Corp.
1.3L Renesis Rotary (RX-8)
238 hp/159 lb.-ft.
For: Revs forever; sounds like no other.
Against: Torque would embarrass even Honda.
Bottom line: Refreshingly unique.

2.3L DOHC I-4 (Mazda 3s)
160 hp/150 lb.-ft.
For: Solidly engineered.
Against: Not overly ambitious.
Bottom line: Seems so normal.

Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.
3.5L DOHC V-6 (Infiniti G35)
298 hp/260 lb.-ft.
For: Storming power, expressive sounds.
Against: Straying from original qualities.
Bottom line: Possibly best V-6 ever built.

4L DOHC V-6 (Pathfinder)
270 hp/291 lb.-ft.
For: Probably best engine in the class.
Against: VQ dumbed-down for trucks.
Bottom line: ...we’re not amused.

5.6L DOHC V-8 (Titan)
305 hp/379 lb.-ft.
For: Wieldy torque.
Against: Too much designed-in racket.
Bottom line: Good hp, lose the macho.

Toyota Motor Corp.
1.5L DOHC I-4 Hybrid (Prius)
76 hp/82 lb.-ft.
For: Does what it’s supposed to do (mostly).
Against: Soapbox racers have more torque.
Bottom line: Can’t argue with success.

4L DOHC V-6 (Tacoma)
245 hp/282 lb.-ft.
For: Way better than Toyota’s old V-6.
Against: Power still behind the times.
Bottom line: Money in the bank for Toyota.

4.7L DOHC V-8 (Tundra)
282 hp/325 lb.-ft.
For: Serious power hike; premium feel.
Against: Nothing another half-L couldn’t fix.
Bottom line: Excuses no longer required.

Volkswagen AG
2L SOHC I-4 turbodiesel (Passat TDI)
134 hp/247 lb.-ft.
For: No-nonsense fuel economy.
Against: Weak, automatic only.
Bottom line: We want the Euro diesels.

Volvo Cars
2.5L turbocharged DOHC I-5 (S40 T5)
218 hp/236 lb.-ft.
For: Velvety power surge, decent economy.
Against: Light grunt from forced induction.
Bottom line: Not a bad solution.

4.4L DOHC V-8 (XC90)
311 hp/325 lb.-ft.
For: Yamaha engineered it.
Against: Japan and Sweden aren’t yet famous for V-8 work.
Bottom line: Ten percent away from glory.

I was looking at a copy of Ward's Auto World, probably the best and most respected auto industry trade publication. They were doing their usual yearly Top Ten Engines pick. Although there were some good and unexpected picks (the Ford 4.6-liter SOHC V-8 was in the top five), they tend toward sophisticated European engines and high-end Japanese engines, which is all good and fine for the high-end crowd but I live on the ground floor, as do most of my customers.


My top ten list will have the following requirements: a) the engine must have been in use for a substantial number of years over the past ten years and have been in mass use (hundreds of thousands of units in service) and b) it has to have been used in a successful car or truck.

Since different engines have different uses I will not rate them from top to bottom. In 1942 the North American Aircraft Company developed a lovely airframe, but the plane was cursed with a dog of an Allison engine. Since its performance was poor over ten thousand feet where most air-to-air combat took place, it was pushed into service in the ground attack roll where it performed mediocre at best. Then someone had the idea of mating the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine from the vaunted British Spitfire into the airframe. The result was the P-51 Mustang, which exceeded all its contemporary aircraft in speed, climb, range, maneuverability and, most of all, range, and within a year had swept the Luftwaffe from the skies over Europe .

In 1984 Chrysler had a wonderful idea: a small van or minivan based on their front-wheel-drive K-car platform. When they introduced it, it caused quite a stir, but the engines used were the same four-cylinder engines used to drive the car variant and could be described as barely adequate in a car. In the van, especially if it was loaded with a family, they were total dogs. Then in 1987 they installed a Mitsubishi 3.0-liter fuel-injected overhead-cam V-6. The minivan revolution was on. With a smooth powerful engine sales soared, and even when Chrysler installed a horridly defective transmission two years later they couldn't kill the sales.

The minivan is now a staple of the American automotive diet, but without the Mitsubishi V-6 it might not have been. The Mitsubishi V-6 served in various Chrysler products until phased out by less sophisticated home-grown engines in the year 2000. Although the early production run suffered from excessive smoking due to faulty valve guide seals, it proved to be the engine that could. Although the horsepower (145) is not spectacular by today's standards, all 173 pounds of torque seemed available all the time - and I have never found myself wishing for more power in either my '89 Caravan or '91 Le Baron Convertible. Which brings up another good point. The convertible which Chrysler revived as a species in '82 came into its own in '87, also with new sharp styling and a Mitsubishi V-6. Not bad for one little V-6.

The Honda fours: four engines, two cars that set the standard for small cars and midsize sedans. The Honda 2.2-liter four-cylinder used in the Accord models from 1991 and up set the standard by which all four-cylinder engines are measured: a simply designed single overhead cam engine, but with four valves per cylinder and a balance shaft for smoothness. It's hard to put my finger on, but having worked on and driven hundreds of these cars, the Honda four is somehow superior to its contemporary Toyota Camry four-cylinder engine (though both are very good).

I have many customers with 200-, 300-, 450,000 miles on those Honda engines and they don't just run. They run like they are new - smooth and quiet. Later Honda introduced its VTEC four, slightly larger and more powerful but along the same lines. They carried the Honda line to 2003 and were never second best. In small cars, the Honda Civic with the 1.5 and 1.6 single overhead cam 16-valve engines not only saved fuel but were quite peppy and as long-lived as their big brother Accord's engines.

These cars with these engines - combined with Toyota's cars - drove Detroit from the battlefield of bread-and-butter sedans and relegated them to sell on low price because they couldn't compete.

American cars and trucks have always been about the smooth abundant power provided by V-8 engines. In the late Eighties it would have been easy for Ford Motor to sit pat on the engines they had. GM wasn't building anything that wasn't based on late Fifties technology. Chrysler was winding down its V-8 car business and hadn't been a serious contender in the truck market for over a decade. I'm sure the accountants fought it all the way, but somehow Ford produced the first modern overhead cam V-8. The 4.6-liter single overhead cam V-8 was introduced in 1991, not as an option, but as the standard engine in a '91 Lincoln Town Car.

What a statement of confidence to put it as the only engine in their flagship car! It was a winner: smoother and more powerful and more fuel efficient than the old 5.0-liter pushrod V-8. No major recalls or defects or teething problems. It was right from day one. And did Lincoln begin to eat Cadillac's lunch! The next year the 4.6 became standard in the Ford Crown Victoria and the Mercury Grand Marquis, two very successful cars that became even more so. By the mid-Nineties, Ford had the sole surviving rear-wheel-drive full-size cars wildly popular amongst older (wealthier) buyers, and the only car really suitable for police, limousine, and fleet use. Then the 4.6 and a heftier cousin, the 5.4 Triton engine, moved into the Ford truck line, giving them an advantage over the competition there too. The 4.6 is still in service and probably will be for many years to come.

Ford gets credit for foresight - and for not playing it safe - and for producing a modern V-8 every bit as trustworthy as the old V-8s.

The Eighties were a time of growth and renewal. America was back. The mighty battleships were back in service, and America needed a good little truck to go to work in. It was Toyota that built the best small pickup truck and at its heart was the 2.4-liter 22R engine introduced sometime in the Seventies (in the rear-wheel-drive Celica I think). The base design was an eight-valve single overhead cam engine which outwardly seemed rather nondescript. It utilized a chain system rather than a belt to drive the cam (it was so far behind the times it was ahead). But it just went and went and went and then went some more.

Most were sold with manual transmissions, which meant more of the power actually got to the wheels and there was no complex auto trans to fail at 200,000 miles, taking the vehicle out of service. Nope, just a clutch every five years. Actual mileage was never a factor when buying or selling a Toyota pickup. The truck's body was more likely to rust out than the engine fail. It remained a carbureted vehicle right up to 1991 when electronic fuel injection became standard. (The carburetors were remarkably trouble-free).

With electronic fuel injection it remained the base engine in Toyota trucks right up through 2004. With horsepower at 100 to 110 and torque at 130 to 140, it seems like an underachiever - but every bit of horsepower and torque was available when you needed it, so it never felt underpowered. A little noisy and crude with the timing chain rattling for the first 30 seconds on a cold start and the mechanically actuated valves ticking all the time, it has proven to be a little work mule still in service years after its contemporaries (Ranger, S-10s, Nissans, and Mazdas) have gone to their grave.

Well I'm out of space, and if we count the Honda fours as four, I'm only up to seven in my Top Ten countdown. I guess this will have to be continued because I have four engines left to go which will take me to Eleven. I like that.



Doug Flint owns and operates Tune-Up Technology, a garage in Alexandria, Va.

3.5L DOHC V-6 (Mercedes SLK)
268 hp/258 lb.-ft.
For: Chesty torque; delicious exhaust.
Against: Heavy flywheel feel; unemotional.
Bottom line: Curiously un-fun.

2.5L turbocharged DOHC H-4 (Subaru WRX STi)
300 hp/300 lb.-ft.
For: Can talk smack on V-8s.
Against: NVH only the “tuner crowd” could love.
Bottom line: Awesome, dude – for 15 minutes.

General Motors Corp.
3.6L DOHC V-6 (Cadillac CTS)
255 hp/255 lb.-ft.
For: Superb performance balance, NVH.
Against: Ignored by el-cheapo GM brass.
Bottom line: GM, get this in everything. Now.

6L OHV V-8 (Chevrolet Corvette)
400 hp/400 lb.-ft.
For: Big numbers.
Against: Startlingly loud and ragged; not doing small-block any favors.
Bottom line: Pep Boys bait.

Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.
3.5L DOHC V-6 (Infiniti G35)
298 hp/260 lb.-ft.
For: Storming power, expressive sounds.
Against: Straying from original qualities.
Bottom line: Possibly best V-6 ever built.

3.5L SOHC V-6 (Odyssey Touring)
255 hp/250 lb.-ft.
For: Manly minivan mill; VCM ain’t bad, too.
Against: Give us a minute.
Bottom line: Hey kids, was that a BMW we just passed?

3.5L SOHC V-6 (Acura RL)
300 hp/243 lb.-ft.
For: Sets new power-density standard.
Against: Can be thrashy.
Bottom line: Credible as a surrogate V-8?