Ford Transit USA Forum banner

Hi Roof Transit vs Hi Roof Promaster

21K views 63 replies 23 participants last post by  Chance 
#1 ·
Hello! I am looking to purchase either a Hi Roof Transit or Hi Roof ProMaster. I am finding it difficult to find some key data points for comparison between the vehicles. All info seems to either be unlisted or based on the low Roof version. Specifically, I’d love to know how milage compares (at any wheel base/lengths) and cargo capacity volume comparison.

Any other opinions or interesting points of comparison would be appreciated as well.
 
#2 ·
Since there are no official EPA figures for our vans, you have to rely on what others experience is and a lot of variables come into play such as configuration, axle ratios, loaded weight, terrain, driving habits, etc.
When comparing reported MPG there are many factors, so as they say YMMV.

Some threads with info on High roof MPG:
https://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/gtsearch.php?q=high%20roof%20mpg

As for cargo capacity, here is a great chart:
https://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/ford-transit-general-discussion/2289-dimensions-each-ford-transit-variant-neat-graph.html

There are also discussions on Transit vs Promaster:
https://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/gtsearch.php?q=high%20roof%20mpg

As you continue your research, you will find that the search function in here is quite efficient and most topics have been covered. When you are stumped, there are many of us who can provide specific info and experiences.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Our HR 136” PM got 18-19 mpg before solar and fan on the roof. Now it's more like 16.5-17.5.

In post #33 of this thread, Hein has a photo of a Transit floormat laid out in a PM, which gives a good visual representation of the floor area disparity.

https://www.promasterforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81769

You must then factor in the inward slant of the walls. I don’t know the number for Transit, but my PM is 78.5” wide at my rear bed (33” above metal floor).

My PM will be turning 100,000 happy miles in a few weeks.
 
#5 ·
#7 ·
I drove several Promasters and Transits before purchasing my MR 148 CargoTransit. I found the ride of the Transit to be more car-like than the PM. The other day I did a highway mpg test. I drove 36 miles on the highway at the posted limit of 55 mph with cruise control on. I am delighted with the mileage and I think I am still in break-in. At 65 mph, that mileage drops to 18.5 mpg.
 

Attachments

#8 ·
I believe there have been several reports of lower reliability for the Promaster drivetrain. That alone would eliminate it as a choice for me. But, and NEW van should be just fine for at least 100k if not more. And most of the time if something is going to go wrong, it does so during the warranty period.

The MPG leader is the promaster diesel, with 25mpg. But diesel costs more than regular gas, and often more than super.

I don't know the specs for the 2020 Transit 2.0l diesel, but suspect it would be similar to the Promaster diesel.

Fuel cost is not everything, though.
 
#9 ·
The diesel engine in the PM is sourced from VM Motori. We owned a Jeep with a VM Motori diesel before the DEF requirements and it was not reliable. It had a 7 year 70 k mile warranty and we traded it in with 72000 miles. I cannot imagine how bad a new one is.
 
#11 ·
I went through the same decision making process deciding between PM, Transit and Sprinter. Initially I wanted the Promaster diesel, and was willing to put up with the lower interior height and lower tow rating to be able to get the diesel that most people report 25+ mpg. When they pulled the diesel from the market, I went a test drove a gas PM, and really didn't like the way it drops a gear going down a mild hill on the highway. The RPM's would jump up a few thousand for no apparent reason. Then I started looking at tow ratings and interior height more, and decided the Transit was a better fit for my needs. I test drove an EcoBoost and that certainly helped sway the decision. The last part that swayed me was that for my area there are 1 Mercedes, 4 Ram and 62 Ford dealers within 100 miles, so if I do need service it's reasonable. The local MB dealer wants $457 for oil and filter change. He knows he is the only one within 150 miles.
 
#12 ·
My Promaster is a 2014 with 74,000 miles. Due for replacement at 95,000 miles, so I watch all the forums, just to stay informed and make the best decision when I reach that replacement time.

The only Promaster engine issue a few high mileage guys saw was a camshaft roller bearing wearing out. It was redesigned sometime around 2017-2018 model year.

Over here, I believe there are 4 engine failure threads. Water in the air filter too.

They are no drivetrain issues on the Promaster. Few transmission issues. No CV joint issues.

Over here, many, many drive shaft issues.

Overall, I have no fear of the Promaster mechanically and will likely replace mine with another. I see no reason to change so far.

One huge factor making it difficult to place the Transit in the running for my money, is the interior roof height is too short for me to stand. The extra high roof transit will never be an option. Too expensive.
 
#14 ·
What Promaster forum are you on? I've spent a lot of time on promasterforum.com and there are multiple instances of blown engines, cracked flex plates, cracked heads, replaced transmission, leaking roofs and walls, intermittent electrical problems, grounding issues, etc. A friend of mine locally has been dealing with water leakage and electrical issues for 7-10 months now and is about to start the arbitration process for a lemon law buy back.

There may be more issues posted on the Transit forum than the Promaster forum, but keep in mind that there are almost three times as many Transits on the road as there are Promasters so I would expect to see more complaints of failures. It doesn't mean there is a higher percentage of issues, just that there are more of them out there.

I priced out a Promaster 159" WB Extended length and a Transit high roof extended length and they were less than a $1000 apart when equipped with the options I wanted.

I'm guessing you haven't got much room over your head in the Promaster. It's only 3" higher inside than the Transit mid roof, and if that was too low there probably isn't much left over to spare in the Promaster. At 6'2", the Promaster was too low for me. I was hitting my head on the beams, and there was no ceiling or floor yet.
 
#13 ·
I was first interested in the front wheel drive Promaster even though I'm a rear wheel drive guy , it just seemed that the Promaster would give me a bigger box since the floor could be lower since there is no drive shaft , I went and measured the floor height from the ground to the bottom of the floor underneath the Promaster , then I did the same measurement to my 1996 Chevrolet Express , the Promaster was only 1.5 inch lower then my Express, I couldn't believe that they didn't drop the floor down at least 5 inches , I thought what a waste of space.

I still like how the outside body of the Promaster looks lower to the ground then the Transit.
I really like the wider body of the Promaster.
I went with the Transit for the rear wheel drive , higher ceiling and what I believed to be better reliability / quality.
I don't really like the look of the Transit butt sticking up but probably a good thing considering my genset is mounted in the rear bumper.
 
#15 ·
All of the three brands are good vehicles. They all have pluses and minuses. For example, if you need seating for more than two, don’t buy a PM unless you are willing to spend substantial extra bucks. If you are less than 6’2” or so and want a transverse bed, buy a PM.

Unless there is a deal-breaking attribute for or against one, buy the one your gut likes. It knows best. Everybody else is just going to project what they like best and that is irrelevant to your decision.
 
#34 ·
Funny you say that. Just got back from baja and averaged close 18.5mpg on my ecoboost 130 med roof on my way there. This is leaving the SF bay area on highway 5. Very level, flat road with the grapevine being the highest grade. My average speed was 70. I do not have anything on my roof. Not even a fan. My rear axle is a 3.31 and have 245/75-16 tires.
I have just under 24,000 miles and my mileage has gotten better but this trip I actually babied it. I normally get on it hard and average much less than that. On my trip back I averaged less. More headwind but really not bad.
I also considered the sprinter and drove the 4x4 but the v6 was not to my likeing. If it was a 4cyl I would have bought it. The ram I really liked is the the small 118. This is due to me working in SF and parking is important, but I settled on the 130 med roof transit. I'm only 5'-8" and as others mentioned, the cargo has a diffrent floor than the passenger. I have a cargo. The ecoboost engine just did it for me. For me, it's extremely important to be able to merge in to traffic and have an engine that will breath at high altitude.
I still think the sprinter looks better and has really cool aftermarket parts, bigger wheel wells to fit larger tires, but i would sacrifice mileage for the power. Its a shame the transit is limited to 97mph.
 
#21 ·
I initially wanted the Ram Master, at the time they were much cheaper than the Transit, and obviously the Sprinter. The low rear drop axle worried me enough that I eliminated it as a choice, though. And at about that same time, for some inexplicable reason the Ram Van prices went up to be the same as the Transit. There are always discounts on Transits, and dealers are willing to budge a lot (my van was $26k new), but Sprinters are rarely less than MSRP. At least when I was shopping.

But yeah, at first the PM being wider, cheaper and getting better MPG was my choice. They are probably fine, since they are the most popular platform in Europe for RV builders and upfitters.
 
#22 · (Edited)
You won't get any kind of deal on a 4x4 Sprinter, but I believe the "got to have" craziness on the 4x4 has increased the dealer's willingness to negotiate on the 2WD models. I paid way less than MSRP on mine. Kind of irrelevant now that the new bodystyle Sprinter is out. I priced out a new one and they appear to have gotten about $5k more expensive. While Sprinters were previously diesel-only, now diesel is an expensive option much like the Transit. So the new GAS Sprinter starts out at the same base price as the previous-gen diesel Sprinter. If you're like me and only want diesel, a base van is going to cost you that much more. I'd be very interested in the 4 cyl diesel Transit if I were in the market.

The Promaster has an entirely different powertrain in the rest of the world. Chrysler literally looked around in their parts bin and put a Dodge Caravan engine and transmission in the van. Actually the powertrain is widely used in Dodge and Chrysler cars, SUVs and Jeeps. I can't imagine the transmission was ever designed to carry the kind of payload + towing capacity the Promaster has. Regardless of its intent, there's no arguing the transmission is big weakness on the PM.

I'm not here to rag on the PM, but there's also a very well known rocker arm problem that is all over the web, just google "dreaded pentastar tick." Jasper, a used/rebuilt engine manufacturer, has basically completely rebuilt the Promaster engine with better parts than Chrysler saw fit to use from the factory. I took this picture from Automotive Engineering maganzine when my Sprinter was being smogged at an auto shop.




I think it's sad the aftermarket has to address Chrysler's shortcomings.

I hope the OP finds this helpful.
 
#23 ·
High roof RAM Vs Transit

Note that if you are talking the high roof Transit (not the mid), it has quite a bit more interior height than the RAM. The interior height of the mid transit is 72", the High is 81.5", whereas the High Promaster is 76". A lot depends on your height as to which one fits you best.

On the other hand, they are very different vans from a van life perspective in that one is FWD, the other RWD and the interior width of the RAM is about 4" more. The Transit drives really nice and has great power with eco boost.

I may not have helped with the decision but those are the nuances of each van.
 
#25 ·
......cut..... The interior height of the mid transit is 72", the High is 81.5", whereas the High Promaster is 76". A lot depends on your height as to which one fits you best.

.....cut.......
Agree. I was at Ford dealer for oil change on my old van yesterday, and took a very quick look at Transit again. I don’t know how the 72” height is measured for mid-roof Transit, but it seemed lower than that under the roof ribs. I didn’t have a tape with me, but it seems the ProMaster is more than 4” taller inside. I’ll have to double check, because the high roof Transit is out of the question for me.

I’m not towing much, and like idea of AWD Transit, but if Ford offered FWD Transit in North America, I’d seriously consider it for the added headroom alone. The RWD mid roof is very tight.
 
#24 ·
Of course it depends on what you want to use it for. I'm surprised that @Mobileempire was the only one that mentioned the front wheel drive. That was a deal breaker for me but I suppose it doesn't matter to a lot of users.

Also surprising that wasn't mentioned, the PM is more square on the inside so it would be a lot easier to build out (from what I read) if that's something you're doing.
 
#26 ·
How many heights does Transit have? I am about 66”, and touched the roof ribs in what I thought was a mid. About the same as a low-roof PM. (Both bare vans). That would be absolute no-no for me.
 
#27 ·
Transits are available in 3 heights, 2 wheelbases, and 3 lengths. The extended length is available with Dual rear Wheels as well.

FWIW, it appears this thread is providing good information for those with comparison questions, yet @ShawnL who started this thread appears to have thrown out the question and then left the forum with only that one single post. ;)
 
#29 ·
Roof ribs curbed to a greater degree might make it very difficult for me to have a shower near walls in a mid-roof Transit.

I haven’t seen any factory mid-roof Transit Class Bs (all were high roof), but expect that overhead cabinets would end up much smaller in a mid-roof Transit than ProMaster. ProMaster is much wider near the top, so cabinets could be deeper and taller (everything else being equal).
 
#35 ·
I came very close to buying the 118 Promaster. Then I got on their forum to get a perspective on user experience. It was terrifying. Transits have their flaws, but early Promasters were a disaster. My Transit needed rear brakes early and I've had to change the giubo a few times, but in 90k miles it's never had to visit a dealer. Now I'm in a quandry. Do I sell it at 100k as planned, or do the 100k service and stretch it to 150 or 200? It's been a gem and I'm no fan boy. I sincerely believe there is a risk of getting a straight up lemon if I trade it in on a new one. On the other hand, they tend to make these things disposable. So getting to 100k without issue is expected but after that, it's treading on thin ice. The bean counters end the extended warranties at 150k for a reason.
 
#39 ·
My 1974 Fiat 128 was bulletproof. Not literally, but figuratively. It would not die. Unless it burned up too much oil and the engine would stop, but I'd add a quart and start it up and take off. Try running your Transit without oil until the motor stops and see what happens. It would be an interesting experiment, and a great story to share.

But really, as mentioned above, different specs and sizes and construction for different requirements. I don't know where the "DucatoMaster is cheaper" came from, when I was ready to buy the ProRam was actually MORE than a similar Transit. They started out cheaper, but something happened.
 
#40 · (Edited)
The power of the Ecoboost allows me to have a heavy build and equipment load (in my high roof extended length Transit) yet it still drives like a car, even in the mountains. I suspect that the Promaster engine would struggle at times, requiring more downshifting and higher revs.

When I test drove both makes, the Ecoboost Transit seemed extremely overpowered, but now that I have the build done and the van loaded up, the power seems just right.

2016 T350, high roof, extended length, at 88% of maximum weight
front - loaded 1640 kg (3610 lb) maximum 1870 kg (4120 lb)
rear - loaded 2400 kg (5280 lb) maximum 2720 kg (5990 lb)

Cheers.
 
#44 ·
Brand loyalty is a character trait of people in the "helpless" graph of stupidity. Even people with high IQ or many college degrees can be stupid; defined most aptly as doing things that hurt/impede others without any benefit to themselves. There are other forms of stupid, "helpless" being one in which others gain at their expense.
 

Attachments

#45 ·
Brand loyalty is a character trait of people in the "helpless" graph of stupidity
Absolutely, though I would modify it to blind brand loyalty. while that is bad enough, it gets even worse when such loyalty has to be affirmed by bashing every other brand.

The clearest example is teenage boys who have a given brand of 4wd and have to declare that all the others will self-destruct even though there are hundreds of thousands of them on the road.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: surly Bill
#46 · (Edited)
Most service vans use a ladder rack.

Work smarter not harder. I got the HR with intentions of not needing a ladder to get a ladder.

You all can find reasons why to keep your stuff inside vs. outside.

I can hang a 32' extension ladder to the ceiling and do 3rd story work.

Pictured is a 24' extension ladder & a 12 step ladder hanging from the ceiling.

I still have over a 6' clearance to walk around inside.
 

Attachments

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top