QOTD: Feeling Underwhelmed?

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

A very minor occurrence nudged my brain in this direction. One the way home from nowhere last night, a cop lit himself up like a Christmas tree in order to blow a light, his 3.7-liter V6 screaming as it strained to move the Police Interceptor Utility’s bulk with something approaching alacrity.

Which got me to thinking about the previous-generation Explorer and its platform mate, the defunct Lincoln MKT — both of which offered a 2.0-liter four-cylinder for a time. And from that, a question formed. What specific vehicles would you call under-engined?

In some cases, this will apply only to certain configurations of certain models. Like the examples mentioned above. The 2.0L Ecoboost experiment in the Explorer was over after 2015; the 240-horse mill disappeared in favor of a more potent 2.3-liter Ecoboost for those who shunned standard six-cylinder power. In the whale-like MKT, the 235-horse 2.0L was only available to fleet buyers of the livery special MKT Town Car, which came only in front-drive guise with that powerplant under hood.

Seems like an awful lot of car to pull along with an engine that’s good enough (but nothing special) in an MKC, but that’s just one way of looking at it. While the loaded, AWD MKT with 3.5-liter Ecoboost V6 tipped the scales at a hair under 5,000 pounds, the front-drive 3.7-liter model came in at a slightly more svelte 4,700 lbs. Ditch the V6 and the 2.0L MKT Town Car may have come in a not insignificant amount below that (I can’t seem to find a specific curb weight for this rare configuration).

In contrast, a loaded AWD MKC 2.0L weighed 4,000 lbs. Suddenly the MKT doesn’t seem like such a gross mismatch for this engine. Drop that engine’s output by half and sling it into a 2,300 lb economy car and you’d have, say, 118 hp and 130 lb-ft on tap to move that modest bulk. Seems adequate, doesn’t it? At least by 1990s (or even 2000s) standards, anyway.

Other examples of arguably under-engined cars include the likes of the hugely expensive and tech-laden BMW i8, with its 1.5-liter three-banger and limited recharging abilities under a heavy throttle, and such dissimilar rides as the Chrysler R-bodies of the Carter-Reagan handover era. An asphyxiated 85 hp Slant Six moving a full-size Newport or St. Regis? Ooof. Young street hockey players would have plenty of time to scatter — and maybe even prepare a snack at home — if they heard that thing winding up at the end of the block. In that case, it isn’t so much the displacement that’s the problem, it’s just the dismal output borne of EPA meddling.

Anyone old enough to recall old, non-sporting British imports is probably raising their hand at the back of class right now, squeaking out “Oh! Oh! Oh!”, so we’ll allow it, so long as they were once sold on North American soil. The same goes for any other vehicle that came from abroad.

There’s years and decades from which to choose, so get cracking. Which make and model was a total mismatch for at least one of its available engines?

[Image: Lincoln]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 74 comments
  • Schurkey Schurkey on Jun 11, 2020

    Every vehicle ever made with an Olds Diesel. Every air-cooled VW ever made. Every vehicle ever cursed with an Iron Duke. Every vehicle ever made that came with a Dynaflow Almost every vehicle with a Powerglide. Honda Civic CVCC 1300 Anything French except the SM and R5 Turbo.

  • ShoogyBee ShoogyBee on Jun 11, 2020

    The current Audi A6 with the base 2.0T engine. No bueno.

  • Analoggrotto Does anyone seriously listen to this?
  • Thomas Same here....but keep in mind that EVs are already much more efficient than ICE vehicles. They need to catch up in all the other areas you mentioned.
  • Analoggrotto It's great to see TTAC kicking up the best for their #1 corporate sponsor. Keep up the good work guys.
  • John66ny Title about self driving cars, linked podcast about headlight restoration. Some relationship?
  • Jeff JMII--If I did not get my Maverick my next choice was a Santa Cruz. They are different but then they are both compact pickups the only real compact pickups on the market. I am glad to hear that the Santa Cruz will have knobs and buttons on it for 2025 it would be good if they offered a hybrid as well. When I looked at both trucks it was less about brand loyalty and more about price, size, and features. I have owned 2 gm made trucks in the past and liked both but gm does not make a true compact truck and neither does Ram, Toyota, or Nissan. The Maverick was the only Ford product that I wanted. If I wanted a larger truck I would have kept either my 99 S-10 extended cab with a 2.2 I-4 5 speed or my 08 Isuzu I-370 4 x 4 with the 3.7 I-5, tow package, heated leather seats, and other niceties and it road like a luxury vehicle. I believe the demand is there for other manufacturers to make compact pickups. The proposed hybrid Toyota Stout would be a great truck. Subaru has experience making small trucks and they could make a very competitive compact truck and Subaru has a great all wheel drive system. Chevy has a great compact pickup offered in South America called the Montana which gm could make in North America and offered in the US and Canada. Ram has a great little compact truck offered in South America as well. Compact trucks are a great vehicle for those who want an open bed for hauling but what a smaller more affordable efficient practical vehicle.
Next