Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: 6g72 Makes the top ten worst high-performance engines

  1. #1
    Member verified
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Owner Since
    2005

    Location
    Fowlerville, MI
    Posts
    1,251
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 48 Times in 41 Posts

    6g72 Makes the top ten worst high-performance engines

    The Ten Worst "High-Performance" Engines Of All Time

    Why it only moves us to tears: Not a terrible engine, but a terrible application and the collapse of a reputation. Mitsubishi's third-generation Eclipse foreswore the nameplate's import-tuner terror attitude in favor of a softer, more mature outlook; the clearest example of this change was the move from turbo-4 power to this comparatively big and lazy V6. Streetfighter gone suburban bland, the Eclipse remains a bit lost.
    In the eclipse platform, ofcourse.
    '92 Dodge Stealth RT/TT - Aug. 2012 COTM

  2. #2
    Forum User verified
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Owner Since

    Location
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA
    Posts
    745
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
    lol I like his wording I had a Stratus R/T w/that SOHC and it really wasn't that bad. Still pushed out 200HP a decade ago and it took very well to opening up the intake and exhaust w/headers, full exhaust, ported intake and what nots. Funny they say that it went from streetfighter to suburban bland in contrast w/the GSX...but after doing those little goodies I had a throatier car than a lightly modded GSX and GST. Lawl
    Last edited by MADMarc; 02-16-2012 at 12:11 PM.
    60% of the time, my car works every time.

  3. #3
    Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Owner Since
    2007 (17 Years old ;)

    Location
    rio rancho (AKA Real Rathole)
    Posts
    103
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Did anyone give them a 3S SL or a R/T to work with? Seriously why the hell would they try an eclipse... Stock... :facepalm: stupid article. When you go test a class you don't go give the special needs kid a test then base the entire class on what that kid did.... ugh....

  4. #4
    Advanced Tech? verified
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Owner Since
    2006

    Posts
    938
    Thanks
    159
    Thanked 139 Times in 87 Posts
    3.0 L that doesn't get anywhere near it's 220 hp rated output (unless you call 30% drivetrain loss normal) in sohc or dohc form. pretty crappy. a tensioner where belt tension actually loosens the pulley. 15.5mm wide rod journals. They don't even make rod bearings below 17mm for most race applications. honda can create MORE total power missing 2 cylinders, while maintaining the same amount of torque per cylinder.
    Last edited by i3igpete; 02-16-2012 at 03:44 PM.
    Maddog Performance Engineering

  5. #5
    Forum User Not Verified

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Owner Since
    2004

    Location
    Cape Girardeau
    Posts
    4,791
    Thanks
    365
    Thanked 296 Times in 214 Posts
    Pluses and minuses to everything.

    The 6G72 has a favorable bore to stroke ratio. The block is compact. The heads flow well even stock. The stock shortblock can make 600AWHP for years. In turbo form it made 100 HP a liter in 1990. The basic engine accessories such as the alternator, starter, a/c compressor last forever. The bores practically never wear due to high nickle content and a good rod ratio. They get reasonable if not very good fuel economy if driven properly. They have a unique sound that I personally think is great.

    Some minor things I really love are how fast they heat up in the winter. The ones I have owned and maintenance have NEVER failed to startup if I didn't leave the damn lights on and kill the battery, regardless of the conditions.

    They don't burn valves, they don't really blow up if you keep oil in them. I'm not sure what more you could want. What was a chevy shortblock (an engine that recently was voted #1 of all american v8s in hot rod mag for pretty much this century) making in 1990? 220 HP? Maybe 350 if you got the highest strung one in the zr1 vette.

    Parting 6 speed
    Pampena 3.5 Stroker, GTX 2867 Gen IIs, AEM Series2, oohnoo SMIC, DN Hardpipes, FIC 1650s, Walbro 525, aermotive fpr, Dejon intake pipes, Tial Q, Koyo Rad, Samco Hoses, Stoptech 332mm fronts, HKS GT4 Coilovers, Spec 4+ LW, JDM 6 Speed, Billet shift forks, Pampena brace

  6. #6
    Stuper Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Owner Since
    January 2003

    Posts
    1,108
    Thanks
    395
    Thanked 638 Times in 383 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by i3igpete View Post
    3.0 L that doesn't get anywhere near it's 220 hp rated output (unless you call 30% drivetrain loss normal) in sohc or dohc form. pretty crappy.
    I thought healthy dohc n/a's were around the 180(to the ground) mark? I've seen the 160 runs, for sure, but I don't think that's the norm...is it?

    Jeremy

    Quote Originally Posted by Echo419 View Post
    Douches

  7. #7
    Member verified
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Owner Since
    2005

    Location
    Fowlerville, MI
    Posts
    1,251
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 48 Times in 41 Posts
    My old one dyno'd at 191whp, but I think the dyno was shady.

  8. #8
    LW fears my posts Not Verified
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Owner Since
    1996, 1st Stealth TT; 2000, current TT

    Location
    Dallas TX
    Posts
    704
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked 121 Times in 102 Posts
    Eh, they say it's not a bad engine, but it was horrible to put it in the Eclipse. So... It shouldn't have made the list. Also disagree with the BMW V-12 engine. That engine is silky smooth and sounds amazing, and at the time, could produce up to 375hp, which was very good for an early 90's car.

  9. #9
    Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Owner Since
    2002

    Posts
    1,668
    Thanks
    514
    Thanked 388 Times in 259 Posts
    Just another stupid list created by someone with an opinion. Nothing to see here...
    '93 VR4 | 10.57 @ 135 on C16 | 11.29 @ 125 on 93 | ~3275 lbs

  10. #10
    Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Owner Since

    Posts
    503
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 84 Times in 75 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by i3igpete View Post
    3.0 L that doesn't get anywhere near it's 220 hp rated output (unless you call 30% drivetrain loss normal) in sohc or dohc form. pretty crappy. a tensioner where belt tension actually loosens the pulley. 15.5mm wide rod journals. They don't even make rod bearings below 17mm for most race applications. honda can create MORE total power missing 2 cylinders, while maintaining the same amount of torque per cylinder.
    Here is a 4g63 rod bearing next to a 6g72 rod bearing, for comparison.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
The 3000GT/Stealth/GTO Web History Project
3000gt.com
3000GT / Stealth International WWWboard Archive
Jim's (RED3KGT) Reststop
3000GT/Stealth/GTO Information and Resources
Team 3S
3000GT / Stealth / GTO Information
daveblack.net
3000GT/Stealth/GTO Clubs and Groups
Michigan 3S
MInnesota 3S
Wisconsin 3S
Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas 3S
North California 3000GT/Stealth
United Society of 3S Owners
3000GT/Stealth/GTO Forums
3000GT/Stealth International
3000GT/Stealth/GTO Event Pages
3S National Gathering
East Coast Gathering
Upper Mid-West Gathering
Blue Ridge Gathering