Bull Market Performance: Which Engine Powers the Best Returns?

James Lipman

Each December, we put together the Hagerty Bull Market List, our annual selection of the collector-car hobby’s movers and shakers. Basically, it’s a group of 10 or so cars (with the occasional truck and motorcycle thrown in) that the data tells us are poised to grow in value over the next 12 months. This isn’t investment advice per se—rather, an opportunity to point out that, with some due diligence and a smidge of luck, you can experience the joys of the collector-car hobby and maybe get your money back or a bit more when it’s time to sell.

The 2025 group we’ll reveal on December 9 will be the eighth list, so we’ve had plenty of time (and opportunity) to check how our predictive powers panned out.

Hagerty’s annual Bull Market list looks at how vehicles perform in the market, but what if their market performance is related to how a vehicle performs on the road? We’re just about to announce our eighth Bull Market list, which means we have 72 vehicles from the prior seven lists with at least one year of market returns to evaluate. Those 72 vehicles were powered by engines ranging from two cylinders to 12 and arranged inline, a V, or horizontally. There’s even a rotary and an EV. So, when looking at the Bull Market picks organized by their engine, how do the different engine configurations perform in the market?

Not surprisingly, the V-8 is the most common engine configuration among our past picks, with 28 appearances. The average annual return for those V-8-powered picks is 5.7 percent, a bit below average. The average starting value of $64,520 is also below average, so the picks with a V-8 match that engine configuration’s best characteristics of affordable and reliable performance. The best-performing V-8-powered pick is the 1984-93 Ford Mustang Saleen from the 2019 list with a 21.0 perent annualized return.  

The second most common form is the inline four-cylinder, which powered 10 of our picks. The 11.1 percent average annualized return is also tied for the best performance, with that of the V-10. However, the average starting value of $26,020 for the four is also the lowest. Even though the inline-four is not necessarily the most charismatic engine, it still produces outsized market returns. The best return for an inline four-cylinder car is the 1981-93 Volvo 240 Wagon from the 2022 list, with an annualized return of 36.0 percent.

Two of the least common engines among our past picks are the electric motor in the 2008-11 Tesla Roadster and the rotary in the 1979-Mazda RX-7, both of which were in the 2022 list. While the EV has lost 1.9 percent of its value since it was picked, the rotary is up 9.1 percent. The inline three-cylinder turbo in the 1991-98 Suzuki Cappuccino, meanwhile, is also up a strong 11.4 percent.

The most valuable engine configuration is the V-12, and the five past picks with that engine have an average starting value of $269,394. Despite that high initial value, the average return of 9.8 percent is better than most. The best-performing V-12 is the 180-degree V of the 1985-91 Ferrari Testarossa from the 2021 list, with an annualized return of 18.0 percent.

What is your ideal engine configuration for market performance? The reliable and affordable V-8? The overlooked but poised-for-performance four-banger? Or something else? Tell us in the comments below.

Read next Up next: F1 Agrees to GM/Cadillac Entry for 2026 Season
Your daily pit stop for automotive news.

Sign up to receive our Daily Driver newsletter

Subject to Hagerty's Privacy Policy and Terms of Conditions

Thanks for signing up.

Comments

    Technical comment: A 180 degree engine would be a flat “boxer”, not a V. I apologize for revealing my insufferable engineering background. 😉

    Mikey, my engineering background half agrees with you… A 180 degree configuration is definitely a flat 12 in my book, but not necessarily a “boxer”.

    (On something like the VW beetle or Porsche flat 4 “boxer” the 180 degree crankpin offsets make the pistons mimic a boxer’s “one-two” punch. You can also stagger the crankpins on a flat engine at other offsets like most V-8’s do… then the flat engine piston movements no longer mimic a boxer’s punches. )

    My observation over the years is that a 350 car is worth less than a 327 car, and a 427 car is worth less than a 454 car, even though a 350 and 454 are both superior. Discuss amongst yourselves.

    Depends what it is in. The 327 and 427 can we worth a ton if they are in the right car with the right HP. But 325 HP 327 and L88 427 are limited in number.

    The 454 and 350 high HP were mostly 1970 cars that bring big money so they get the most attention with the LT1 and LS6 and LS7.

    It is all about the wraper the engine is in.

    Mikey- appealing to your insufferable engineering background. From my understanding Ferrari referred to it as a 180 degree V because the opposing pistons were at top center at opposite times, top/bottom. Where, for some reason, technically it’s only considered a proper boxer layout if they are in unison. To make things more complicated they still used the term ‘boxster’ on some models anyway even when they were 180 V’s.

    I’ve owned cars with an flat 4, flat 4 turbo, inline 4, inline 4 turbo, inline 6 turbo, V6 and V8 and one FWD, 5 AWD and 4 RWD so I have had a decent variety to play with. All my current cars are RWD but my V8 and Inline 6 ones are my favorite.

    My engineering knowledge on the subject of Mikey’s, Mike’s, and Paul’s posts above is LESS than flat – if that’s technically possible!

    Clare- If I’m reading you right, no. A V8 (or any V engine configuration ) refers to the opposing cylinders being at an angle to each other . The Ferrari 180 V is one that at first you think of in common terms- ‘ 180 degree V ? Isn’t that just a straight line? ‘ However it really would be more like two joined line segments. Think of a watch with hands at 3 and 9. I kind of think that maybe Ferrari used the 180 V designation as a bit of clever marketing as well. Worked well enough to get the better of my curiosity sometime ago. Or are you just trying to confuse me more than I already am?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *