454 Engines Analyzed
4813 Car Models
675 Known Issues
34 Brands Covered

Reliability Score vs Average Repair Cost

What the data reveals

Patterns across 454 engines, 4813 models, and 675 documented failure points.

0% of engines score BEST or BUY Only 120 out of 454
0 avg score — turbo-downsizing era 2008–2015, the worst generation
0 lower score per 100hp added More power = more problems
0 avg score — pre-2000 classics Overbuilt, simple, indestructible
📐

Smaller engines outlast bigger ones

Engines under 1.5L average 71.2/100 vs 2.5L+ engines at 68.4/100. The relationship is consistent: each additional litre of displacement correlates with lower reliability. Fewer moving parts, lower thermal stress, simpler oil circuits.

<1.5L
71.2
1.5–2.5L
69.5
2.5L+
68.4
🗾

Japanese engineering leads European

Toyota, Mazda, Honda, and Suzuki average 80.1/100. European brands average 67.8/100 — a 12-point gap that's consistent across every size and fuel type. The gap widens for turbocharged engines.

Toyota
81.5
Mazda
79.7
Honda
79.2
BMW
66.1
Audi
63.8
⏱️

The worst era in engine history: 2008–2015

The turbo-downsizing era — when manufacturers replaced 2.0L naturals with 1.4T and 1.6T units to chase emissions targets — produced the least reliable engines ever built. Average score: 55/100. Pre-2000 classics averaged 82/100. The modern recovery era (post-2018) is climbing back to 75/100.

Pre-2000 classic
82.2
NA era (2000–2007)
72.5
Turbo chaos (2008–15)
55.0
Recovery (2016+)
73.6