Wards Announces 10 Best Engines for 2012. Direct Injection, Forced Induction win big.

American and Asian units take up 7 of the 10 spots...pretty impressive. I loved my Pentastar....too bad it get almost no coverage on IL. Not surprised at the Skyactiv either, it seems pretty impressive at first blush. And the Eco-Boost! That will anger somebody I am sure.

New HEMI made the list when it came out.

This might be the first notable non-rotary engine from Mazda. Skyactiv is looking very good.

Sky-D deserved it more than Sky-G.

The M-B ML350 diesel motor should have made the list as well.

I love BMW but the N55 does not belong on this list; it is simply not efficient enough.

The Pentastar is far from top ten. The GM DI V-6 and Ford Mustang V-6 are more impressive by a long shot. Just because Chrysler removed their head from their... ... and finally caught up to the pack, let along led it, they do not deserve to make the list.

@isaacl, the pentastar was on it last year as well. Thanks for showing up.

Now, if SkyActiv-G makes it, how come the Focus 2.0L doesn't?

The Ward's 10 Best Engines list is a complete farce. Always has been. These guys drive the cars around, occasionally look at a manufacturer presentation and peruse the spec sheet. There is no hardcore analysis of the actual _engine_ performance, nor the efficacy of the applied technologies.

As an example, I give the Nissan VQ35 V6, which made the list a number of years in a row. Now, it's a good engine, I've owned 2, but it does _not_ belong on the list of 10 best engines. You could make a case maybe the first year or two, but the competition after that was typically smoother and more fuel efficient, and often just as powerful.

THis is also a list that named the Mazda Renesis Rotary to the list back in 2005. The overrated, underpowered, fuel _and_ oil guzzling engine that was the biggest problem with the RX-8 (which was an otherwise delightful car). Or the Honda hybrid V6 from the Accord Hybrid, which was not particularly fast, nor fuel efficient, nor well integrated.

I could go on and on, but being on this list is more a what's new and popular list than it is a technical honor. This year is no different. I definitely question the inclusion of the Regal's engine. Also the Hyundai 1.6, the Mazda 2.0 and the Chrysler 3.6. The Hyundai because in testing it doesn't seem to provide any acceleration or economy gains over the competition. The Mazda because it doesn't move the game on, only gets Mazda up to par and the Chrysler 3.6 because there are plenty of better middle displacement V6's out there right now. This doesn't mean these engines are bad, or even mediocre. Just that when you compare them in their class, let alone across the spectrum of available engines, they don't stand out as being at or near the top. I haven't seen any testing yet on the Ecoboost 2.0 so I can't opine, but ask yourself this - of all the engines out there, is it really conceivable that the 3rd best 2.0 turbo on the market is better than all the other engines out there regardless of displacement, induction, etc? And where is the VW TFSI 2.0? I'd definitely put that up against the Regal's engine any day.

It's not purely a test of the power plant. Application and value are factors. The Pentastar makes the list because it applies well to so many vehicles.

Where'd the diesels go? Weren't there 2 last year?

lol, allright lostboys....allright, ill eat that one, i totally forgot the pentastar was on the list last year. good for chrysler...honestly....ive heard good things about that motor. thanks for inviting me in.

@ bpizzuti: They're totally different engines. The Focus engine is based on the old MZR architecture and is oversquare. The Mazda Skyactiv-G engine is a clean-sheet design and it's undersquare -- among other differences.

Church, I thought the GS engine had pretty high specific output...the low pressure version is not that impressive however. And the Pentastar is very class competitive and I dont think there are "plenty" of the same size engines that are better.

http://www.pentastars.com/engines/tech.php

church123: "The Ward's 10 Best Engines list is a complete farce."

For the most part, I agree. While they are perfectly good engines and it's nice to recognize them as such, there's no solid justification for which ones are really the ten "best". A generally meaningless ranking.

@bodyblue:

You are correct about high specific output.

I remember when the Celica was advertised as 100hp/liter... oh how things change in one decade.

Specific output wise for the GS, it's just caught up with engines from a decade ago and is well behind the highest specific output turbo engines out there. Not to mention that it really underperforms for its power level. While we haven't seen any dynos of the GS yet, the base turbo is rated 20 hp higher than a VW GTI 2.0T and yet the GTI puts down a good 15-20 hp more on the dyno - and it gets great gas mileage. I'd also argue that the GM LNF Ecotec turbo (from the Cobalt SS) was a better engine - it spooled up just as quick as the Regal engine and made a lot more power (it was substantially underrated). But to summarize, if I had to name 3 2.0 turbos to the list, the VW 2.0T would definitely come in ahead of the Buick. Funny though that Wards didn't name the arguably superior LNF ecotec to the list in the past (but did name the previous supercharged engine to the list).

On the V6 front, I'd have to definitely give the Chevy high feature V6 from the 2012 Camaro the nod over the Pentastar. More power and torque for starters, very fuel efficient and good performance. You can also make an argument for the Ford 3.7 too, but I think the Chevy beats it.

Ward's 10 Best Engines is an annual list of the ten "best" automobile engines available in the U.S. market, that are selected by Ward's AutoWorld magazine. The list was started in 1994, and has been drawn every year since then.

Engines must be available in regular-production vehicles on sale in the U.S. market no later than the first quarter of the year. To be eligible, the engine also must be available in a vehicle with a base price of no more than US$54,000 (for 2007 list). During a 2-month testing period, Ward's editors evaluate each engine according to a number of objective and subjective criteria in everyday driving situations – there is no instrumented testing. The selection takes into account power and torque output, noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) levels, technical relevance, and basic comparative numbers. Each engine competes against all others.

From Wards

"Though it was one of the few winners is not equipped with direct injection, editors noted the Pentastar returned better fuel economy than a similarly sized direct-injection V-6 in the competition. Editors hit better than 25 miles per gallon. The editors noted the Pentastar delivered “outstanding refinement and power.”

The Challenger with Pentastar has 302hp without DI.

Like Wards or not, the Pentastar is a massively important engine for MOPAR and they put a lot of effort into it. I think it is better than people give it credit for. I loved mine.

You've hit upon the problem though bodyblue. They noted gas mileage in on road testing as one of the reasons they selected it. That is a combination of 1)engine 2)tranny 3)driver 4)chassis 5)tires 6)driver.

There is simply no way to use a test result like that as a rational reason to declare the _engine_ as exemplary. Doesn't mean the engine isn't great, but you simply can't draw the conclusion from the data available. As long as Ward's isn't doing more detailed, objective testing, the Ward's 10Best Award will be a big circle jerk that automakers will use in advertising to the uninformed.

BTW, I have less of a problem with the best interior awards, or other things because those are pretty hard to objectively rate. But engines? That's the easiest part of a car to objectively evaluate.

So long as nissan's overrated and underwhelming vq isnt on there, I can almost buy it. How the 3.5 and 3.7 made it on there is beyond me, unless they were slipping checks under the door or getting down on their knees....