Talk:Ford Essex V6 engine (Canadian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comment

The following is a comment from anonymous user 70.17.250.127, which I moved here from the main article:

This engine is NOT derived from the Windsor V8 and has many significant differences from the Windsor V8 other than the head material. This engine also appeared in the Lincoln Continental and briefly in the F150. It was not in the Mustang from the late 80s until it reappeared in 1994. The person who wrote this article really needs to recheck their facts.

To answer this, I originally stubbed this article out, and most sources I've seen give the Essex as being Windsor-based (or at least being able to trace its ancestry to it); if there's a reference that says otherwise, please link to it instead of putting unhelpful complaints in the main article (that's what this page is for). -lee 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is another one, from 141.157.47.88 there are still errors and omissions here. the engine was not used continuously in the mustang from 82 until 2003. It stopped in 1986 and did not reappear until 94. The 3.8 was found in the F100 or F150 for a period of time. Also the engine IS NOT BASED on the WINDSOR engine family. It does not share bore, does not share stroke, does not share crank design, does not share head design, does not share bore spacing, etc, etc. with the Windsor v8s.

[edit] Heady metal

The main difference from the V8 design was that it featured aluminum heads, which reduced its weight considerably and made it a very powerful engine for its size.

The difference in the materials (block vs. heads) caused different rates of expansion, leading to head gasket failure. Should we mention this in the article (or the Taurus article, too?). Though this "defect" was pretty well known, I know this from first-hand "went through two head gaskets before putting my 1990 Taurus LX 3.8 out to pasture" experience. -HiFiGuy 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Actually, the Essex IS based on the Windsor. No, it does not share bore or stoke and it has aluminum heads. This engine was designed when Ford was switching over to metric measurements, and the bore and stroke are made accordingly. No, it is NOT simply two cylinders lopped off. However, for instance, a set of roller rockers for a Windsor will fit an Essex. Ford simply decided to upgrade the design, which is why they are not EXACTLY the same.

The head gasket problem: The early Motorcraft head gaskets were unable to tolerate the different expansion rates between the iron block and aluminum heads. Most reputable shops would replace them with a high-performance set, as well as a set of new head bolts. My engine had them replaced at around 45K with Fel-Pro gaskets and I have had no trouble.

Yes, the engine was used in the Continental and was not contiguously used in the Mustang. It seems it was available in some F-series trucks in 1982 and 1983.

There is a lot of misinformation on this engine it seems. I've even found people who have the idea that it ripped off the Buick 231! Sable232 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] still not right

The head design on the Essex is closer to the Cleveland heads than they are to the Windsor heads. Windsor roller rockers will NOT fit on an Essex head. With modifications to the head, Cleveland rockers can be used. The stock Windsor rocker ratio is 1.6:1, Cleveland is 1.73, and Essex is 1.73:1 http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2001/10/rockerarms/

I would like to see a credible reference that says the Essex is derived from the Windsor. All people are doing is ford-izing the relationship between the small-block Chevy and the 4.3 liter v6 or recapitulating the same misinformation that they heard from other people

--141.157.119.19 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude is right, I've hot-rodded these V6's in EFI form since 1997 or so, and it has many Cleveland resemblances, especially the heads. Canted valves, but nice tight closed chambers unlike most domestic Cleveland V8's. The Roller Lifters are interchangeable with 5.0 and Windsor tappets, but the Cleveland rockers are the closest fit. Use FMS "blue" 1.73's but most stock cam setups need to mill about .040" off the pedestals and use the ?8mm? (check this) metric bolts. Sorry, stock pedestal bolt is too short... Longer pushrods would work but most people change cams (hot regrinds and now COMP has new billets!!!) I've practically done it all with these engines, your imagination is the limit! Windsor Rockers are not even close, I've actually test fit a set on a head on the bench. The Windsor rocker "nose" is about .200" too short. BTW, Deck height is very close to a Cleveland, 351W is taller and a 5.0 is much shorter.

5.0...~8.211" 351C.. ~9.2-ish 3.8...~9.232" 351W..~9.48"

I say it's a Cleveland V6, that just happens to share some similarities with a Buick. Different bore spacing than the Cleveland, but Buick V6 heads do not bolt up or anything.

All figures are accurate to the "tenths". I added more digits as my memory allowed. :D


RGR

[edit] another good source for info

this source talks about the relationship to the Buick engine http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/ar90134.htm The only part the 3.8 shares with the later Windsor engines is the roller lifters, perhaps that was what the other poster was thinking about when he said rockers.

[edit] even more info

The 3.8 was also available on the Mercury Capri from 1983 through 1986. The special head design was used on Windstar and Continental, not just the Taurus police engine. The last year of the SuperCoupe was 1995 not 1997 --141.157.119.19 03:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a set of "L" heads once, they had "D" shaped chambers (less valve shrouding) and I was wondering if these were the Taurus Police Package heads... If memory serves, I got them from a junkyard Lincoln Continental. Can anyone confirm this "L" casting mark being the Taurus Police head? It is in the same spot as the "SC" mark for SuperCoupe heads, just outside the valvecover rail, and on the corner towards the intake manifold.

RGR

[edit] Hmm

It doesn't surprise me that Ford borrowed from Buick, that happens all the time in the auto industry. But would it have made sense to design a completely new engine? At that time, a V6 was desperately needed and the Windsor would be the engine to derive it from. We'd need a Ford designer who worked on it to know for sure what it is. A cross between a Windsor and a Fireball? Maybe. --Sable232 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The article sounds plausible enough for me to go with it, so I did. -lee 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4.2L Info

An anonymous user added several paragraphs of mostly useless information on a recall, and unless someone thinks otherwise, it should be deleted. --Sable232 20:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed it down considerably...only the first part talked much about the recall, and even that had a lot of Ford-specific shop talk in it. The rest was only tangentially related to the engine design (mostly about why you shouldn't try cranking a hydrolocked engine etc.) and really doesn't belong here. -lee 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3.9

Ford spec sheets list the 3.9 as being 232 cid/3802cc, with a bore and stroke of 3.8 x 3.46 inches or 96.5 x 87.9 mm (this is a smaller bore than the other two). This comes out to 236 cubic inches and 3857 cc.

[edit] 3.8/3.9 in 2004 Mustang

The 3.8 was in early 2004 Mustangs, with a mid-year change to the 3.9.