Talk:Ford Essex V6 engine (Canadian)

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.

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)

I agree, this should be in the article. - Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.157.155 (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

The Essex is absolutely NOT based on the Windsor- if you claim so cite your sources.You can't because they do not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFA1:790:4594:C71B:D26:724D (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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.

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

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)

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)

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.

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

the 3.8 Mustang HP/torque ratings increase for 2001 are not a mystery
someone said that the ratings changes were "inexplicable" but there is a simple explanation. 99-00 3.8 Mustang had the split port intakes/heads but no IMRC 01-04 3.8 Mustang had the split port intakes/heads and added IMRC. IMRC was always used on the 96+ Windstar 3.8 and always used on the 97+ 4.2, to promote low end torque. Ford decided to put it in the 2001 Mustang. This required PCM recalibration as well.


 * Ah ha, I knew there was something. I wrote "inexplicable" because there was no obvious official answer on Ford's website or elsewhere that I could find as to the cause of the differences in output. That and several websites that I've seen that describe the '99-'04 Mustangs use one set of specifications or the other for the V6 for each model year, implying that they're all the same. In any case, good nugget of information and thanks for clearing this up. --MN12Fan (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Essex Engine Plant not Essex engine line
somebody edited the capitalization from Essex Engine to Essex engine. Essex Engine Plant was the name of a plant in Windsor, Ontario, not just a production line in a building called Essex. That's the proper name and as such it should all be capitalized. http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=15249 This distinguishes it from Essex Aluminum which is a separate facility.

in the media http://www.caw.ca/en/3625.htm http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=80b8e70c-09cf-4042-8eeb-88639f419870 (they don't capitalize Plant)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.55.206 (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Successor
Is the 3.5 really the direct successor to this engine? The last time it appeared in the Mustang was 2004. The 2005 through 2010 Mustang v6 engine has been the Cologne V6. The last time the engine appeared in the F150 was 2008. The 2009 F150 has no 6 cylinder option. --72.85.40.152 (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1982-87 Lincoln Continental
I want to point out that the 1982-87 Lincoln Continental, which uses the same "Fox" chassis as models as revered as the 1979-93 Ford Mustang and the 1981-82 Ford Granada and 1983-86 Ford LTD, also used the 3.8 V6, but that for the "Fox" Contis, the V6 was not a popular option. WikiPro1981X (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

1985-86 Ford Mustang
The 3.8L V6 was not offered in the 1985 and 1986 Ford Mustang. The Mustang GT had the 302ci V8 and the Mustang LX had the 2.3L I4. The 3.8L V6 was reserved for the Mercury Capri during those years in order to boost sales for the Mercury version of the Mustang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.12.18 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Essex V6 engine (Canadian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://media.ford.com/products/presskit_display.cfm?vehicle_id=7&press_section_id=398&make_id=92
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010720072445/http://media.ford.com/products/presskit_display.cfm?vehicle_id=298&press_section_id=398&make_id=92 to http://media.ford.com/products/presskit_display.cfm?vehicle_id=298&press_section_id=398&make_id=92

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Essex V6 engine (Canadian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616010409/http://media.ford.com/press_kits_detail.cfm?presskit_id=1283&item_id=4034&press_section_id=2878 to http://media.ford.com/press_kits_detail.cfm?presskit_id=1283&item_id=4034&press_section_id=2878

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)