TRANSIT VS. SPRINTER (Part II - Page 3 - Ford Transit USA Forum
 59Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #21 of 178 (permalink) Old 07-17-2014, 08:03:AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobojay View Post
When you drive the Transit 3.2 diesel you will like it. After 2 Sprinters, it's a very refreshing change to drive a diesel that acts & runs like a gasser


If it can match my 24 MPG on my Sprinter, I maybe Interested. And the maintance has to be a lot lower also
bbird is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 178 (permalink) Old 07-17-2014, 08:31:AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbird View Post
If it can match my 24 MPG on my Sprinter, I maybe Interested. And the maintance has to be a lot lower also
Are you talking T1N?
Sprinter_Owner is offline  
post #23 of 178 (permalink) Old 07-17-2014, 08:45:AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
[QUOTE=Sprinter_Owner;34177]Are you talking T1N?[/QUOTE










04 144 W.B H.R., 560,000 miles
bbird is offline  
 
post #24 of 178 (permalink) Old 07-17-2014, 12:10:PM
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbird View Post
If it can match my 24 MPG on my Sprinter, I maybe Interested. And the maintance has to be a lot lower also

Can't say for sure on the fuel mileage but it should be close to the Sprinter 4 cyl, but I can say the maintenance will be way lower.
Example, the diesel EGR valve for the 3.2 is 1/4th the cost of the one on the Sprinter. Fuel and oil filters will be about the same. Oil change quantities are less than the V6 3.0 is, with virtually the same change intervals, (that is unless you run more than 5% bio diesel, which requires more frequent oil changes. Same with the ProMaster diesel)

Time will tell on the rest....
5ing likes this.

2013 Sprinter 3500 Cargo Van
Converted to Class B RV
Our Second & Last Sprinter
GM Retiree after 34 years
bobojay is offline  
post #25 of 178 (permalink) Old 07-17-2014, 03:00:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbird View Post
Hi everyone, I am sure most of you read my 1st review, Well now I took the Eco boost for a spin. Two words best sums it up "HOLLY-CRAP" This motor is a beast, unlike the 3.7 this will leave my 04 Diesel Sprinter (5 cyl.) for dead.


.....cut.....
It sounds like you are implying that the 3.7 liter standard V6 wouldn't leave your 5-cylinder Sprinter for dead. And that's quite an interesting differentiation.

When Motor Trend tested the naturally aspirated ProMaster V6 and also the V6 and I-4 Diesel Sprinters, they found the ProMaster accelerated way faster than either diesel Sprinter. The Sprinters took almost 50% longer to get to 60 MPH.

While I don't doubt the 3.5 EcoBoost will out accelerate the standard naturally-aspirated 3.7L Transit, it seems to me that either Transit of similar size and weight should blow the doors off your Sprinter. Was that not the case when you tested the 3.7L engine?

I'm a little confused because I'd expect the standard Transit V6 to accelerate similarly to gasoline ProMaster. Maybe a little slower due to added weight but not that much slower. If so it would still be way faster than a similar Sprinter.
Chance is offline  
post #26 of 178 (permalink) Old 07-17-2014, 03:38:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbisch View Post
There will be a fix for high fuel consumption when the Ecoboost is driven hard.

The Future of Propane in Trucks | Landscaping | Landscape Care & Ideas
Interesting claim this article makes but where does the extra 30 percent fuel that is dumped into engine end up?

If it's extra beyond what is needed the fuel would either go out tail pipe which would be horrendous pollution, or would have to be "converted" by catalytic converter which would make the converter a lot hotter, not cooler. And that's assuming there was enough oxygen left which is doubtful. Claims just don't seem reasonable in the context of why EcoBoost engines don't save fuel at moderate to high loads.

The answer is much simpler and can be verified by Ford's own research on EcoBoost technology. The truth is that EcoBoost engines save fuel at low loads because a smaller engine can be used in the first place (like 3.5L EcoBoost producing as much power and torque as a 6.8L V10). But when power demand is high, like when towing, the thermal efficiency of a smaller EcoBoost engine is about the same as that of a larger naturally-aspirated gasoline engine.

So at low loads like when driving at 55 MPH an EB may get 50% better mileage than a V10. But the same comparison while towing large trailer at 70 MPH there may be no difference in MPG. This is what typically happens, and it's not that the EB is bad at towing, it's actually that the V10 is horrendous at low loads. This difference seems to confuse the issue.

To me the difference seems simple because I studied engines in school but realize that it's not intuitive and therefore must be confusing.
Chance is offline  
post #27 of 178 (permalink) Old 07-17-2014, 05:50:PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
[quote=bbird;34201]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprinter_Owner View Post
Are you talking T1N?[/QUOTE










04 144 W.B H.R., 560,000 miles
Thats great, lets see if a Transit can do that? My 05 144 T1N only has 113K but the **** rust is the biggest heartache.
Sprinter_Owner is offline  
post #28 of 178 (permalink) Old 07-17-2014, 07:15:PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance View Post
It sounds like you are implying that the 3.7 liter standard V6 wouldn't leave your 5-cylinder Sprinter for dead. And that's quite an interesting differentiation.

When Motor Trend tested the naturally aspirated ProMaster V6 and also the V6 and I-4 Diesel Sprinters, they found the ProMaster accelerated way faster than either diesel Sprinter. The Sprinters took almost 50% longer to get to 60 MPH.

While I don't doubt the 3.5 EcoBoost will out accelerate the standard naturally-aspirated 3.7L Transit, it seems to me that either Transit of similar size and weight should blow the doors off your Sprinter. Was that not the case when you tested the 3.7L engine?

I'm a little confused because I'd expect the standard Transit V6 to accelerate similarly to gasoline ProMaster. Maybe a little slower due to added weight but not that much slower. If so it would still be way faster than a similar Sprinter.


Take a 4 cyl. Sprinter, which has about the same power as my 5 cyl. then take the 3.5 and the 3.7 for a ride. Then get back to me
bbird is offline  
post #29 of 178 (permalink) Old 07-17-2014, 07:54:PM
Member
 
rbisch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance View Post
Interesting claim this article makes but where does the extra 30 percent fuel that is dumped into engine end up?

If it's extra beyond what is needed the fuel would either go out tail pipe which would be horrendous pollution, or would have to be "converted" by catalytic converter which would make the converter a lot hotter, not cooler. And that's assuming there was enough oxygen left which is doubtful. Claims just don't seem reasonable in the context of why EcoBoost engines don't save fuel at moderate to high loads.

The answer is much simpler and can be verified by Ford's own research on EcoBoost technology. The truth is that EcoBoost engines save fuel at low loads because a smaller engine can be used in the first place (like 3.5L EcoBoost producing as much power and torque as a 6.8L V10). But when power demand is high, like when towing, the thermal efficiency of a smaller EcoBoost engine is about the same as that of a larger naturally-aspirated gasoline engine.

So at low loads like when driving at 55 MPH an EB may get 50% better mileage than a V10. But the same comparison while towing large trailer at 70 MPH there may be no difference in MPG. This is what typically happens, and it's not that the EB is bad at towing, it's actually that the V10 is horrendous at low loads. This difference seems to confuse the issue.

To me the difference seems simple because I studied engines in school but realize that it's not intuitive and therefore must be confusing.
Are you saying the information from Southwest Institute is incorrect?

Southwest Research Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
rbisch is offline  
post #30 of 178 (permalink) Old 07-17-2014, 09:34:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbisch View Post
Are you saying the information from Southwest Institute is incorrect?

Southwest Research Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The article in Total Landscape Care is worse than wrong, it's misleading. I have no idea what the Southwest Research Institute actually stated just because they were quoted.

To imply that the engine uses 30 percent more fuel as it affects efficiency and therefore lowers fuel economy by similar amount at moderate to high loads is irresponsible in my opinion.

If you really want to get into Ford efficiency data for the EcoBoost I'll gladly debate the issue with you. I've seen the performance curves and there is no 30 percent drop off. Not even close.
Chance is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

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



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