Essex V6 Disassembly

[1997ThunderbirdLXV6]

I enjoyed watching this although it's a later Essex, plus the commentary may not be entirely accurate.

V6 owners may find this interesting.

 

[White Lincoln]

I need to watch that because I have read some of the other stuff on the web similar to this....

Wait, that says 3.9... I have a 3.8.

 

[1997ThunderbirdLXV6]

Later Essex V6s were 3.9 [...]. Edit: see my post below.

While the visuals of the disassembly are very educational, take the commentary with a grain of salt. The comments under the video add some perspective.

He keeps talking about head gaskets, yet the gaskets seen in the video look fully intact. Meanwhile, the lower intake gasket has a piece broken out around the coolant crossover on one side, which he doesn't comment on at all.

 

[Jae 'Bird]

I think he titled it wrong, later in the video he says 3.8l

 

[1997ThunderbirdLXV6]

I think he titled it wrong, later in the video he says 3.8l

From Wikipedia:

"A slightly revised version of the smaller Essex V6 was introduced in 2004. With the same 96.8 mm (3.81 in) bore diameter as the 3.8 L and 4.2 L engines, but a stroke of 88 mm (3.46 in), displacement was 3,886 cc (237.1 cu in)."

 

[Jae 'Bird]

Ah yeah so I guess if it is a late model mustang then yeah its a 3.9, i wonder how the performance differs cause of the increase in displacement? Like I know any performance change would really come from all the efficiency increase in the later years and more/better computer control but if you could compare apples to apples, how much torque would come from a 5 cu. in. increase?

 

[MadMikeyL]

Not enough to notice, and not even enough for Ford to change the power or torque rating between the two engines.

 

[Jae 'Bird]

I wonder then why they would even bother to increase the stroke, what would have been the internal decision, cost perhaps? But I can't rationalize how that would help cost so that can't really be

 

[XR7-4.6]

Main reason the 04 Mustang got the 3.9 was because the “new” Freestar minivan got the 3.9.

Why Ford saw fit to change from the 3.8 in the Windstar to the 3.9 in the Freestar? Who knows. Maybe the same reason they mildly restyled and renamed the Windstar to that; marketing.

The Windstar and 3.8 didn’t exactly have a stellar reputation, so slightly changing some tooling and tricking customers into thinking it’s a new improved product is alot cheaper than actually coming up with truly new product.

The Mustang got it because it was basically the same engine, so it was cheaper to give it a shared rotating assembly than have two separate ones produced

 

[Jae 'Bird]

Ah that makes sense , the more ya know