Dimensions for Each Ford Transit Variant in a Neat Graph - Ford Transit USA Forum
 6Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 17 (permalink) Old 06-17-2014, 10:04:AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Dimensions for Each Ford Transit Variant in a Neat Graph



Just to help you read this easier, here is what each of those configuration abbreviations mean.

MWB LR = Medium wheelbase, low roof
MWB MR = Medium wheelbase, medium roof
LWB LR = Long wheelbase, low roof
LWB MR = Long wheelbase, medium roof
LWB HR = Long wheelbase, high roof
LWB EL HR SRW = Long wheelbase, extended-legth, high roof, single rear wheels
LWB EL HR DRW = Long wheelbase, extended length, high roof, dual rear wheels
Moot and keweenawbee like this.
tmillar is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 (permalink) Old 06-17-2014, 11:34:AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
You're talking the cargo van though, not the transit wagon, correct? I think the transit wagon interior height is 4.5 inches less.
chaunceyjb is offline  
post #3 of 17 (permalink) Old 06-17-2014, 12:04:PM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Owosso,MI
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Yes, the medium roof height wagon is 67.6, as I recall.
ianstaines likes this.

Last edited by Dale_R; 06-17-2014 at 12:05:PM. Reason: oops!
Dale_R is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 17 (permalink) Old 06-18-2014, 06:22:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,048
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmillar View Post


Just to help you read this easier, here is what each of those configuration abbreviations mean.

MWB LR = Medium wheelbase, low roof
MWB MR = Medium wheelbase, medium roof
LWB LR = Long wheelbase, low roof
LWB MR = Long wheelbase, medium roof
LWB HR = Long wheelbase, high roof
LWB EL HR SRW = Long wheelbase, extended-legth, high roof, single rear wheels
LWB EL HR DRW = Long wheelbase, extended length, high roof, dual rear wheels
Maximum Load Lenght seems way off. Difference between long wheelbase and extended has to be over 2 feet.



HNLHugh likes this.
Chance is online now  
post #5 of 17 (permalink) Old 06-18-2014, 08:18:PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Load length difference should be about the same as the difference in overall length.

The table above is about right for the LWB EL load length, but too long for the load length of the MWB and LWB models.

According to Ford's site at
2015 Ford Transit | View Interior Specifications | Ford.com
the van cargo load lengths (at floor) are:

MWB is 126 in = 10 ft 6 in
LWB is 143.7 in = 11 ft 11.7 in
LWB, EL is 172.2 in = 14 ft 4.2 in
HNLHugh likes this.
LarryPDX is offline  
post #6 of 17 (permalink) Old 06-19-2014, 01:16:PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
So are you guys saying that some of the info in this chart isn't quite accurate? Does Ford have other information on their website? Not sure exactly where the info comes from, but I'm also not sure that I completely trust what the manufacturers say about there vehicles as far as specs and measurements go.
tmillar is offline  
post #7 of 17 (permalink) Old 06-19-2014, 01:29:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,048
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmillar View Post
So are you guys saying that some of the info in this chart isn't quite accurate? ......cut......
Precisely.

The extended van is over two feet longer by virtue that the rear overhang is approximately 28 inches longer, so the cargo length must be approximately that amount longer too. The chart shows a difference of less than 10 inches. Obviously at least one of them has to be wrong.

I think it's the LWB dimension that is off more so, which then makes the MWB dimension wrong also. I wouldn't use any of these cargo lenght dimensions for design purposes, or to base a purchase on.



HNLHugh likes this.
Chance is online now  
post #8 of 17 (permalink) Old 06-19-2014, 01:33:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,048
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
For what it's worth, when RAM first came out with information on the ProMaster there were lots of errors in specs. It appears these large companies don't place much effort in checking published data for accuracy.



Chance is online now  
post #9 of 17 (permalink) Old 06-19-2014, 06:17:PM
ted
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
thanks for posting all of these spec's
ted is offline  
post #10 of 17 (permalink) Old 06-19-2014, 10:11:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,048
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
This preliminary data seems more consistent between van length and maximum cargo length.



Attached Images
File Type: jpg image.jpg (154.1 KB, 104 views)
Chance 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
exterior dimensions alarmist Ford Transit General Discussion 7 02-15-2014 10:19:AM

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 On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome