America has been in love with the V-8 for almost a century now. From a hallmark of luxury and affluence in the first decades of the 20th century, it shifted to become a symbol of speed, excitement, sport, and adventure for the average working man. It fueled the post-Second World War hotrod boom of the late 40s and 50s. In the 1960s, it became the focus of the Super Stock craze and the following muscle car era. For the last 25 years, it has seen a Rennaissance thanks to ever-increasing technological advancements that overcame strict emissions and fuel economy standards. During the past 100 years, many excellent V-8s and some genuinely tragic ones have existed. Today we look at some of the worst American V-8s to find themselves in consumers’ engine bays.

The mid- to late 1970s was the middle of the “Malaise Era” for American performance. Lasting from roughly 1973 to 1983, it was indeed a dark time for Detroit. Oil embargoes, unleaded fuel, tightening emissions standards, and staunch competition from Japan kept American automotive executives awake at night. Even the venerable small block Chevrolet fell victim to these currents of misfortune. In scrambling for a solution to high gas prices, General Motors came up with the smallest and weakest first-generation small block Chevrolet ever. As a result of a tiny bore and short stroke, the engine displaced just 262 cubic inches (4.3-liter) and produced only 110 horsepower at 3600 RPM. To put this in perspective, the smaller 231 cubic inches (3.8-liter) Buick V-6 of the same era produced the same horsepower. The engine proved woefully unpopular amongst owners, and GM scrapped it late in 1976, the surplus engines finding their way into a few 1977 Pontiac Venturas. GM didn’t learn much from this experience, putting out the terrible 267 from 1979-1982 that produced just ten more horsepower while having the least parts compatibility with other Chevrolet V8s.

Many will consider putting anything “Hemi” on a worst engines list as blasphemy, but there are reasons this engine is here. Dodge introduced the Red Ram Hemi in 1953, two years after the Chrysler division and one year after DeSoto. Coming in at just 241 cubic inches (4.0-liter), the new 241 Red Ram was the smallest first-generation Hemi produced. This diminutive Hemi produced just 140 gross horsepower, which is why it was on this list. The Chrysler corporation conceived the Hemi as a performance-focused engine. Compared to its Chrysler and DeSoto stablemates, the smaller Red Ram lacks power, but why? Dodge took the expensive to-produce Hemi platform and wasted its potential by scaling it down and tuning it for fuel economy. The 241 had a very low compression of 7:1 and featured a small two-barrel carburetor so it could run on the cheapest fuel. The executives at the Dodge division realized the need for more power, and small amounts of performance “dash one series” Red Rams were made available in the later and larger iterations of the Red Ram. It was not enough to save Dodge’s first Hemi; the Red Ram faded into history in 1957.

The headwinds of the late 1970s affected all of the “Big Three” automakers. Ford Motor Company decided that the best way to comply with upcoming CAFE fuel economy standards was to replace the venerable 302 Windsor small block with something smaller. To get the required fuel economy, the engineers at Ford shrank the bore of the 302 from 4.00 inches to 3.68 inches. Unique cylinder heads using smaller valves and restrictive oval ports in place of the traditional rectangular ports further reduced fuel consumption and performance. Outwardly, the 255 (4.2-liter) Windsor is almost identical to the 302; only the unique intake manifold gives away its identity. The intake manifold is open with a lifter valley cover, a throwback feature of previous Ford V-8 designs such as the Y- block. The 255 was better on fuel but produced a meager 122 horsepower in its best state of tune. What further justifies its place on this list is that it found its way into the Foxbody Mustang as an option, making it the weakest V-8 to ever live in a Mustang engine bay. Ford realized their mistakes and dropped the 255 in 1982, deciding to continue the 302 production, which gave rise to the updated 5.0.

Again we find ourselves in the nadir of the V8, the malaise era. While Ford and GM played with new smaller displacement engines to meet emissions and fuel economy regulations, the engineers at Chrysler took a more radical approach; electronics. In 1976 they released their “Lean Burn” technology on 400 cubic inch V-8s in their mid-size and full-size vehicles. The Lean Burn system was an early computerized ignition system that more carefully controlled the engine’s timing curve using a special carburetor, various sensors, and yards upon yards of vacuum lines. By monitoring the engine’s coolant temperature, throttle position, and air intake, the system could allow the engine to run significantly leaner fuel-to-air ratios without risking detonation. The system also allowed the engine to reduce emissions significantly. In 1977 Chrysler installed Lean Burn on all of the company’s V-8s. It was short-lived, though, as the system worked well when new, but problems rapidly developed. The computer was mounted to the air cleaner assembly, exposing it to engine vibrations and heat, often causing intermittent or complete failure of the ignition system. The yards of vacuum hosing developed leaks, causing the system to adjust timing incorrectly, leading to poor driveability. It soldiered onwards with some Slant six-cylinder models into the 1980s, but better computer technology and fuel injection eventually replaced it. Many owners of these models retrofit them with older carburetors and distributors to eliminate the Lean Burn system, as parts are difficult to source and keeping the aging system functioning is difficult.

Again, a General Motors Division makes our list. During the 1970s, most GM divisions shrank their V8s to get them into compliance with regulations. The Oldsmobile division came out with their 260 cubic inches (4.3-liter) V8 in 1975 to combat high fuel prices in the wake of the OPEC oil embargo of 1974. Like Ford did with the 255 Windsor, the Olds 260 was a standard Olds V-8 with a significantly reduced bore diameter. Combining reduced displacement with a new Rochester two-barrel carburetor provided increased fuel economy compared to the 350 cubic inch Olds. The 260 Olds produced 110 peak horsepower, the same as the base 231 cubic inches (3.8-liter) Buick V-6 used in many Oldsmobile models. While making equal power, marketing pushed the 260 V8 as an upgrade. The Buick V6 of the time was notoriously rough running, so the new V8 gave consumers a smoother driving experience and increased durability at the cost of worse fuel economy. In 1982, the last 260 Oldsmobile came off the assembly line, succeeded by the more powerful 307 cubic inches Oldsmobile V-8.

Another choice that may raise eyebrows is the 221 cubic inch (3.6-liter) Ford Flathead. It was a paradigm shift when the Ford Motor Company released the 221 Flathead in the Model 18. A V8 engine was available in a car for the masses for the first time in America. However, the first 221 Flathead was rife with issues, many of them severe. Water pumps were new on Ford engines, and the ones used were poorly designed, resulting in overheating issues for many consumers. Many reports of piston failures emerged in the first year of production, requiring extensive engine repairs. The 221 Flathead suffered from terrible oil consumption due to bad oil control rings; some consumers stated the engines burned multiple quarts of oil per tank of gas. Fuel pumps were also new to Ford engines, and these were prone to vapor lock in the heat and freeze up in the cold. Although revolutionary in its ability to automatically advance timing, the ignition system was temperamental. Despite all these issues and a meager 65 horsepower produced, the Flathead V-8 caught on with the public. After 1932, Ford worked to improve the Flathead to be more reliable and powerful.

We place Pontiacon the list with their 265 (4.3-liter) cubic inch V-8. Pontiac engineers used the typical GM formula and reduced the bore diameter of the existing 301 Pontiac from 4.00 to 3.75 inches to create the new 265. Much like the 260 Oldsmobile and 262 Chevrolet on the list, the result is a V8 with improved fuel economy but severely lacking power. The Pontiac 265 produced just 120 horsepower. This iteration of the Pontiac V-8 was a sad farewell for the brand’s powerplants, as GM scrapped all Pontiac engines in 1981. From 1982 onward, Pontiac models equipped with a V-8 had 305 Chevrolet and 307 Oldsmobile engines under their hoods.

The Cadillac division of General Motors tried to do what Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile did and shrank the bore on their existing 425 cubic inch engine in 1980. The new 368 cubic inches (6.0-liter) L61 engine offered improved fuel economy, largely thanks to a new fuel injection system, but not enough. In 1981 they did much the same as Chrysler did with the Lean Burn system and turned to computer technology. Teaming up with Eaton, the engineers at Cadillac developed a variable displacement system for the L61. The resulting L62 used a system of sensors and a computer that read the load placed on the engine. When power demand was minimal, such as cruising on the interstate, the computer system employed solenoids on the rocker arms to disable two or four cylinders. As power was needed, the computer would reactivate the cylinders. In theory, it is a great idea, and we see variable displacement systems in common use today. However, in 1981 computers were not up to the task, and the Cadillacs with the L62 were often unbearable to operate. The system constantly struggled to find the appropriate number of cylinders to keep activated, resulting in surging like an automatic transmission searching for the right gear. The L62 fuel injection was a throttle body system, so fuel pooled up on the intake valves of deactivated cylinders. When cylinders were re-activated, the excess fuel rushed in, causing more driveability issues. Cadillac released thirteen software updates for the system but never resolved all of the problems. After a single model year, the entire engine was discontinued, and Cadillac replaced the variable displacement L62 with a much smaller 4.1-liter V-8. Many owners of 1981 models had the variable displacement system removed, and Cadillac’s reputation suffered for many years afterward.

After the 262 small block failed, Chevroletreturned to the drawing board to find a compromise between efficiency and performance. The result was an engine that lived far longer than it deserved, the 305. Much like the earlier Ford Windsor 255 on the list, the 305 partially earns a spot here because GM installed it into cars such as the 1980 C3 Corvette, where it put out 180 horsepower. It was also the engine that powered the 1983 to 1988 Monte Carlo SS with 180-190 horsepower depending on the year. From the mid-1970s to the early 1980s, the 305 suffered notorious camshaft failures due to cost-cutting and poor quality control, tarnishing the engine’s reputation. In the mid-1980s, GM used a computer-controlled carburetor system to raise fuel economy, but it proved temperamental, especially as the system aged. The introduction of four-speed automatic transmissions and better fuel injection systems helped the 305 survive from the mid-1980s onward. Both helped boost overall power and acceleration for vehicles equipped with the engine, giving it a longer lease on life than any other engine on this list.

The 5.7 Oldsmobile Diesel was a disaster from the start. To hurry a diesel V-8 onto the market, GM based the 5.7 on the reliable and well-proven 350 cubic inch Oldsmobile gasoline V8. The engines were not great performers, producing just 120 horsepower and 220 pound-feet of torque. The engineers used the same head bolt pattern as the Olds 350 gas engine. Due to the much higher compression required for a diesel, head bolt failures were widespread. GM also did not equip the 5.7 with a water separator to cut costs. Poor quality fuel was common at the time, so water contamination resulted in corroded injection pumps. GM dealerships mechanics, unfamiliar with diesel engines, were often undertrained and ill-equipped to work on the cars with the 5.7 Olds, further compounding consumer frustrations. In 1980, the Federal Trade Commission took on GM in a complaint about the 5.7. When GM submitted the cars with the 5.7 for certification with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), they could not be certified because the test vehicles all suffered significant engine breakdowns during their examination. GM stubbornly continued to market the 5.7 diesel as an option before discontinuing it due to poor sales in 1985.