Our Two Cents: Vehicles That Never Got the Engine They Deserved

Stellantis

What vehicle never got the engine it deserved? That’s the question we asked the staff here at Hagerty Media. Our love of cars goes back decades, or centuries if you combined us into one superhero of an automotive journalist, and we’ve all wondered how much better certain cars would be if they had a different engine …

… Or a better engine, something that truly spoke to the rest of the car. Let’s see what alternate realities we have created!

A Standard V-8 for Every Cadillac

engine cadillac VVT
Lies! All lies!Cadillac

For me, it’s the fact that all Cadillac cars (cars—Escalade excluded) from the last 20 or so years lack a standard V-8 engine. GM has an excellent LS motor, and a baby Caddy with a modest 4.8-liter small-block would give buyers more reason to avoid a thirsty BMW for a slightly more thirsty Caddy.

As the Caddy becomes larger, the V-8 engine follows suit (5.3-liter CTS, 6.2-liter CT-6, etc.) with increased displacement, and forced induction for the V-series examples. The inherent torque and simplicity of a pushrod V-8 complements the minimalist architecture of GM’s new EV powertrains, and exclusively pairing those two in a luxury car brand will make Cadillac more appealing than any of its competition. — Sajeev Mehta

As under-the-radar-good (and as mod-friendly) as the ATS-V’s LF4 V-6 is, I agree. After having spent over ten thousand miles with the smaller of the Alpha-chassis Caddys, the ATS should have gotten the 455-horse LT1 from the Camaro, and the ATS-V should have gotten the LT4. — Eddy Eckart

V-8 Bronco Raptor/ Ford GT

Ford Bronco Raptor. Lack of a V-8 is … yeaaaaah. For the record, I am fully aware that you can’t easily fit that V-8 into Ford’s T-6 frame. Actually, here’s the same opinion again: This also applies to the most recent Ford GT. — Matt Tuccillo

For sure, the Ford GT shoulda had a V-8. — Larry Webster

I think I’ll also jump on the Ford GT bandwagon, as I don’t care for the reasoning of why it got the EcoBoost V-6. That car deserved a V-8 based on heritage alone. – Greg Ingold

That buttress really fliesSajeev Mehta

Yes, please! Kill the flying buttress, make room for a 900+ horsepower Coyote with a twin-screw supercharger. — Sajeev Mehta

V-8 Prowler

1997 Plymouth prowler rear three-quarter
FCA

The Plymouth Prowler comes to mind. Chrysler Corporation came up with a car that was a modern nod to the classic hot rod but forgot the one factor that people want from a hot rod: A V-8 engine. You have to actively try to miss that detail. I don’t think anyone would’ve minded seeing a 318 Magnum out of a Ram pickup in the Prowler, as long as it came with eight cylinders. — Greg Ingold

Honda Motors in a Modern Lotus

Lotus Evora GT40 front three quarter
Lotus

Any modern-day Lotus fits in this category. They make do with Toyota engines but the chassis deserves the character of a Honda motor. — Larry Webster

Having a Lotus with a K-Series would be excellent! Totally agree with that take. — Greg Ingold

A Straight-Six SLK

Mercedes-Benz

Let’s not overlook the original Mercedes SLK. This folding-roof roadster needed Mercedes’ juicy and punchy 2.8-liter straight six. That supercharged four-cylinder engine was disappointing, and the manual gearbox was even worse. — Larry Webster

SHO-inental, If Only

1989 continental signature series engine
Sajeev Mehta

I only thought of this car/engine combo since I yanked my 1989 Continental Signature Series out of storage. Turns out it needed new rubber, and tires from a 1989 Ford Taurus SHO are a smidge wider on the same-sized wheel. Getting a set of those and slapping a set of 1/4-inch spacers on the rear gave it a stance that I can’t stop looking at. And now, curiously, it’s getting a lot more compliments. Even the manager of a local burger joint stopped me from giving my order so he could compliment me on it.

He thought it was a Town Car, but that’s not the point. These moments get this Lincoln-restomodding fool thinking about one thing: Ford needed an automatic transmission ready for the Taurus SHO sooner, and should have slapped it all into the 1989 Continental. Such a tragedy! — Sajeev Mehta

Citroën DS

citroen ds engine
Le nuancier DS

The Citroën DS was so unconventional and interesting that it’s easy to forget there was only ever an old-fashioned, underwhelming OHV four under the hood. The later SM got a Maserati V-6, but the DS was never so lucky. — Andrew Newton

The Sky Shoulda Been the Limit

GM flogged its Ecotec four-banger, and I know they made crazy power for drag racing. But I thought the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky deserved a more refined motor. — Larry Webster

They needed an LS, maybe just a small-displacement 4.8-liter, to keep Chevrolet appeased with their Corvette’s dominance. But I am sure that was discussed in some conference room at GM, and it was quickly shot down. — Sajeev Mehta

Click below for more about
Read next Up next: The UK Collector Car Market Is Down but Not Out
Your daily pit stop for automotive news.

Sign up to receive our Daily Driver newsletter

Subject to Hagerty's Privacy Policy and Terms of Conditions

Thanks for signing up.

Comments

    When I saw the title of this article, I wondered if the Citroen DS would be included. As an owner of one for 50 years now (yes, that’s correct), it is the only downside to a great car. I bought an SM some 22 years ago and I put more miles on that than the DS.

    I agree with most of the list, except the Lincoln. It should never have been demoted from the Fox platform (with its 5.0 and rear drive) to the bloated Taurus it became.

    The ’55 – ’57 and 2001 – 2005 Ford Thunderbirds had anemic V8s. Why Ford didn’t offer real HP and torque in those two series is beyond comprehension. The other years’ “luxury” T-birds were dismal family cars with nothing to recommend them.

    The ’55-’57 Tbirds were equipped with Y-block V8’s that were rated over 200 hp with the 4 barrel option. Also offered were dual 4 barrel and super charged engines. Not sure what better options would have existed at that time in the Ford engine line up.

    I agree with you about the 2001 – 2005 birds. Keep in mind that in 1955 Ford was only two years into a V8 that wasn’t a flathead. But by 1957 the Thunderbird offered a couple of pretty healthy engines. Especially considering the cars “Personal car with distinction” mission.

    Don’t know what you’re talking about. My ’99 SLK 230 Sport will nail you to your seat when floored and the 5 speed shifts fast and smooth and it handles almost as good as the 944, and better than both the Spitfire and MGB I used to own.

    U left out possibly the most obvious – delorean.
    Doc had to manage a way to get it to engage the time circuits at only 88 mph because it’s such a dog of an engine

    The Opel GT with the 1.1 with 2 carbs engine was quicker and more nimble than the 1.9. 1.1 engine was much lighter than 1.9 which made the car much more fun to drive!

    The Jensen-Healey may have had a chance if it wasn’t a production test mule for the lotus 907 4 banger. Actually, it was the right motor- just too early in development. Can you imagine that car with the turbo 4 from the lotus esprit?

    My 74 1/2 Jensen-Healey was pretty quick. But I did have the engine worked on mildly. I liked that the BMW and Porsche crowd could not keep up with me on Highway 9 in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It didn’t matter if I was going up or down, I just out handled them!

    From experience, and love of British cars, my vote is for the Triumph Srag. It was supposed to get the aluminum Rover (Buick) V8, but instead the all-knowing leaders thought a BL designed unit was the right choice. Way too many bad choices in design and manufacturing caused huge warranty issues. The car itself is wonderful though!

    The DeLorean should’ve made this list. I have owned two and a small V8 or at the bare minimum a turbo V6 (never made it out of the development phase) was needed to match the looks. The 5-speed is still a fun little car on the open road but I default to my ‘68 Fastback Mustang if I need power.

    Both Pontiac and Saturn built cars for fun, not The U. S. Nationals! These vehicles were made to compete with the Masda Miata. Shoving horsepower into tiny cars defeats that car’s purpose. Not only is the initial cost higher but everything related to it’s operation is more expensive., tires, insurance, fuel, insurance, etc, and insurance. Honda built the perfect car in this series that got all the power needed in 4 little cyclinders. The S-2000 was a showroom race car. The others were competing with Masda at car shows. V-8’s are NOT the answer to all questions.

    A quality-engineered, quiet, powerful, and velvety smooth straight six, had it been developed, would be ideal for a Cadillac. Speaking of sixes, the car which begged for a more appropriate engine was the DeLorean, and the AMC Pacer, which had a six shoehorned into it at the last moment after the planned engine did not materialize.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *