TEST RIDE (Transit vs. Sprinter) - Ford Transit USA Forum
 7Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2014, 12:44:PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
TEST RIDE (Transit vs. Sprinter)

Went to my local dealer and they had the transit in stock. It was the 3.7 medium roof 250 149 W.B. First I spent a good twenty minutes Inspecting the van. Everything was top notch and heavy duty. Noticed the lower and upper guides for the sliding door was twice as heavy than the Sprinters. Jumped on the bumper and managed to compress the front end about an Inch (I weight 225)Sprinter about three. same difference in the back bumper. I am 5'11" and I used about half the travel for the seat. The doors close using one finger


OK lets take her for a ride, but 1st I am gonna compare the transit with my 04 Sprinter 2500 model high roof 144 W.B. Ok fasten your seatbelts


COMFERT: top notch, way better than the Sprinter, The ride is deffinelty Stiffer than the Sprinter, which is a good thing. No noise, turned off the fan and heard nothing. Steering is very responsive and I noticed the steering wheel is about 3" shorter


POWER, now for some bad news, my 5 cylinder diesel will smoke this motor in all catagories. However I do realize I am comparing apples and oranges.Also the Sprinter @ 70 MPH is running 2500 RPM, Transit 22.


Now for the deal breaker and again more bad news. I had the Average MPG readout on during the ride The best I got was 11 MPG, which is pathetic. And yes I realize the motor is not broken in. So lets go 13MPG. This was during a 30 mile ride on Interstate going between 70 and 60 MPH, in that order. Keep in mind this is a empty van, put 2,000 Lbs. of payload in the back. In comparision I get about 25 MPG @ 60 MPH




CONCLUSION Quality and ride is 2nd to none. The motor is very weak and down shifted twice as much as the Sprinter. I hope the Eco-boost lives up to it reputation. In ending I am being completely honest and will definetly being buying the Transit. Just not sure if its gonna be the Eco boost or diesel. Stay tuned
kymover likes this.
bbird is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2014, 01:03:PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Thanks for posting this bbird.
One of my concerns is will the 3.7 V-6 be enough motor for a van this size. Now I'm looking at a 130 wheel base low roof wagon so hopefully it will do better in the smaller body.
And that gas mileage is bad, I do better than that in my F-150 with a 5.4 V-8! I can hit 19 mpg on the freeway (cruise control set at 60, 1750 rpms)
Could they have been running E-85? Then it would all make sense.
Jim_W is offline  
post #3 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2014, 03:07:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,377
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
bbird,
Thanks for the information on your ride, especially the ride comparison.

Do you remember if the slider was any bigger (higher) on the medium roof, than it it is on the low?

Hoping it is and also on the high roof.

Wonder how much difference the 3.5 will make on shifting and mpg?

Have learned never to trust the electronic mpg figures, I only use the old fashioned, miles driven ÷ gallons @ fillup. But it does give a general idea.

Semper Fi
USMC Vet is offline  
 
post #4 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2014, 03:17:PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
As far as the sliding door, they only had one van, however I did measure it, it was 50" wide opening, measuring from the edge of the door to the van. As far as the calculations go, they should be about 5% accurate. I saw the needle move during our ride of about 30-40 miles. It would have be off by about 50% for my taste
bbird is offline  
post #5 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2014, 05:13:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_W View Post
Thanks for posting this bbird.
One of my concerns is will the 3.7 V-6 be enough motor for a van this size. Now I'm looking at a 130 wheel base low roof wagon so hopefully it will do better in the smaller body.
And that gas mileage is bad, I do better than that in my F-150 with a 5.4 V-8! I can hit 19 mpg on the freeway (cruise control set at 60, 1750 rpms)
Could they have been running E-85? Then it would all make sense.
It sounds like CORN to me (e85)= no power, no range
I am getting high 16s to 17.0 mpg running @ 80 mph (on gasoline) with V8 econolines & expresses new
put a tank of gas in it!

Last edited by VanMan; 06-28-2014 at 05:14:PM. Reason: correction
VanMan is offline  
post #6 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2014, 05:29:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbird View Post
...Also the Sprinter @ 70 MPH is running 2500 RPM, Transit 22...
Thanks for the real world rpm and mileage observation bbird.

2200 might be better than Promaster. And by better, I mean higher rpm. These small, non-boosted engines can do the job but you will have to let them rev. I estimated the theoretical max speed in top gear at max rpm for the 1500 Promaster (1500 has the lowest numerical final drive ratio). It was an absurd 212 mph. It may perform fine on level ground, but once you get in the hills, your 6 spd transmission becomes a 4 spd.

Even my little Mercedes SUV with a similar 3.7L turns over 2500 rpm at 70 mph. Pulling my 7x12 enclosed trailer I drop to 3rd (from 5th) pulling hills. My sister has a GMC Terrain with the 2.4. I thought it would suck but GM geared and programmed it well. You just have to get used to seeing 4000 rpm on a regular basis. Modern engines are designed for it.
.
If I were ordering a 3.7 Transit (which I wouldn't because the ecoboost is such a bargain) I would get the highest final drive available. It probably won't make any difference in gas mileage and you'll make better use of the gear ratios. It's easier on your transmission and TC too.
carnut is online now  
post #7 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2014, 08:17:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Thanks for sharing your discoveries and thoughts - appreciate it!

This is a long-shot, and probably not likely. But is there any chance the Average MPG display was not reset at the beginning of your test ride (and possibly being heavily biased by city driving from the previous driver)?

Grabbing at straws to explain the poor mileage...
Brad is online now  
post #8 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2014, 08:26:PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The average MPG trip computer feature is not accurate I find and certainly not with the information given. Was it zeroed? How does it average?

Nice comparisons otherwise. Thanks.
Flex2Transit is offline  
post #9 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2014, 09:42:PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flex2Transit View Post
The average MPG trip computer feature is not accurate I find and certainly not with the information given. Was it zeroed? How does it average?

Nice comparisons otherwise. Thanks.


Was not cleared, started @ 5.5 MPG, calibrates about every 30 seconds, The gas gauge went from 1/4 to 1/8 In less than a forty mile ride in which 95% was Interstate. Don't shoot the messanger
bbird is offline  
post #10 of 53 (permalink) Old 06-28-2014, 09:53:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
I wonder how many (and what kind of) miles were accumulated before the last clear, whenever that was?

As an aside, I have found with the cars I have owned, the Average MPG displayed to be pretty accurate compared to filling the tank and doing a manual calculation - better than 10% accuracy.

Last edited by Brad; 06-28-2014 at 09:56:PM.
Brad is online now  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



  Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My Ride & Drive Day with the Transit (long post) bobojay Ford Transit General Discussion 29 06-20-2014 10:47:PM
2015 Ford Transit Immersion Ride and Drive (Video) Rico Ford Transit General Discussion 0 05-30-2014 09:03:PM
Ford uses robots to test Transit durability Aristo Ford Transit General Discussion 0 06-17-2013 04:58:PM

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off