[Rico]

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2014/06/04/all-new-ford-transit.html

https://media.ford.com/content/dam/...a/US/2014/06/04/2015_FordTransit_Callouts.pdf

How do these figures compare to the Promaster, Chevy Express and Nissan NV gas engines?

 

[blakej59]

at least with the gassers, that's going to leave you with some pretty short range. At least the Econoline had a 35-gallon tank which left you with what I would consider nothing beyond just adequate range. I wish there was an option for a 50-gallon tank.

 

[Rico]

Fuel mileage and power figures for the Chevy Express gas engines for comparison:

2013 Chevrolet Express 2500 Work Van Van Ratings, Prices, Trims, Summary | J.D. Power

 

[Longboard]

EPA 19 highway for either gasoline choice in short wheelbase low or medium.
So right off the bat we know these numbers mean nothing, since at highway speeds the medium roof has to do worse than the low.
I'm going to assume real world highway @ 75 mph 16 mpg
I want the interior length of my 170" regular body Sprinter, so that means the high roof long wheelbase extended body Transit. Knock off at least 2mpg and I'm now at 14 mpg.
That was my original guess before these numbers were released.
At least it cleared up our speculation on mpg differences between the two engines.......identical fuel burn.

 

[morgan]

Am I missing the diesel MPG numbers, or are they not reported in those links?

Morgan

 

[Rico]

Fuel mileage and power figures for the gas Ram Promaster:

2014 RAM ProMaster | car review @ Top Speed

 

[Longboard]

Am I missing the diesel MPG numbers, or are they not reported in those links?

Morgan

It said that EPA testing is not required for the diesel. One would think they would still give you a number for comparison, but maybe they are embarrassed by relatively low mpg for it?

 

[ted]

I was under the impression that no matter what they still test for MPG/Range, seems like the ideal thing to do.

 

[Dwight]

How do these figures compare to the Promaster,

19 pages of user reports on mpg over on the ProMaster forum.

20-22 seems to be the max highway guys report. 16 city seems common.

 

[mojogoat]

Could be they have someone in the Obama administration working there so it will take the freedom of information act, 2 years of litigation, and one "what difference does it make" to get those figures.

 

[rabbitdiesel1]

I made a comparison between my 15 mpg avg. Sprinter motorhome and a ford motorhome at 7.5 mpg on this forum. I said even at 40 cents more per gallon I'm way ahead because I only use half the fuel. I was told it wasn't a fair comparison because it showed the extremes, small diesel vs V10. Now ford is making that same comparison saying the transit gets 46% better mpg than the V10. Big deal, I get 100% better. Where did ford get the 10 to 13 mpg for the V10, the epa never rated it. I've been in Eugene, OR for to weeks and gas and diesel are the same price. Avg. mpg for gas transits 13 to 15. Do the math buy the diesel.

 

[Rico]

I made a comparison between my 15 mpg avg. Sprinter motorhome and a ford motorhome at 7.5 mpg on this forum. I said even at 40 cents more per gallon I'm way ahead because I only use half the fuel. I was told it wasn't a fair comparison because it showed the extremes, small diesel vs V10. Now ford is making that same comparison saying the transit gets 46% better mpg than the V10. Big deal, I get 100% better. Where did ford get the 10 to 13 mpg for the V10, the epa never rated it. I've been in Eugene, OR for to weeks and gas and diesel are the same price. Avg. mpg for gas transits 13 to 15. Do the math buy the diesel.

The 3.7 is only being compared with the E-Series base engine. Ford is comparing the Ecoboost specifically with V10 because the Ecoboost is a gas engine that provides more horsepower than the V10 and with similar torque numbers. Something none of the Sprinter's engines provide.

I'd expect the diesel Transit to get similar MPG figures to the Sprinter.

 

[LarryPDX]

Transit 14 city, 19 highway.

Why so much worse than the F150 with the same engines?

F150 3.5 eco 16, 22
F150 3.7 17, 23

Pickups aren't very aerodynamic, especially considering the rear tailgate.

The Transit weighs a few hundred pounds more, on the order of 5%, so I'd expect only one mpg difference there.

Different axle ratios? How much difference would that make?

Larry

 

[Chance]

Transit 14 city, 19 highway.

Why so much worse than the F150 with the same engines?

F150 3.5 eco 16, 22
F150 3.7 17, 23

Pickups aren't very aerodynamic, especially considering the rear tailgate.

The Transit weighs a few hundred pounds more, on the order of 5%, so I'd expect only one mpg difference there.

Different axle ratios? How much difference would that make?

Larry

A difference of around 20 percent between 19 and 23 MPG for highway rating is more than many anticipated for the same 3.7L engine. I think it shows a large van is not only heavy but more importantly it has high aerodynamic drag. Obviously much greater than F-150. I expect most of that is due to much greater size and not coefficient of drag.

 

[Chad]

I was hoping for a little better mileage then this but compared to my current E350 v10 which I average 11 mpg this will still be an improvement. Considering I ordered the short wheel base med roof and won't have a lot of weight in it most of the time I should be able to get on the high end of the mpg estimated numbers!
Anyone who put in an order recieve your vin number to track the production yet?

Chad

 

[bbird]

I maybe getting a 4 cylinder Sprinter after all if these numbers are true. Guys are getting 26 MPG, not even broken in. That's abut 8 MPG difference @ 60,000 miles a year, that's huge

 

[Longboard]

No, most guys are getting 23 max, 21 is more typical.
Guys getting above 23 are driving very deliberately economically and monitoring their driving very carefully and going below the highway speed limits.
Also the anticipated increase in MPG in Sprinters following break-in have not been seen.
The first 2000 miles reflect pretty much what the rest will be like despite everyone assuming an increase.

 

[Mc2guy]

Transit 14 city, 19 highway.

Why so much worse than the F150 with the same engines?

F150 3.5 eco 16, 22
F150 3.7 17, 23

Pickups aren't very aerodynamic, especially considering the rear tailgate.

The Transit weighs a few hundred pounds more, on the order of 5%, so I'd expect only one mpg difference there.

Different axle ratios? How much difference would that make?

Larry

Frontal area is the primary driver. The majority of forces that you must overcome at typical speeds are gravity and aerodynamic drag. On a flat road, gravity is not slowing the vehicle, which leaves air. Drag is defined as 1/2*Area*(Cd)*V^2.

The drag Coefficient for a van is slightly lower than a pickup, typically speaking. The current e-150 has a drag coefficient of around .42, same as the F-150. The main difference is the significantly larger frontal area.

You can read more here.

Automotive Aerodynamics: Drag Area ? Size Matters

 

[Longboard]

I'm surprised that the released mpg numbers are for both the low and medium roof. I would have guessed there would be a significant difference.
They also did not publish numbers for the tall roof, which I would be interested in knowing.
Since in flat country frontal area at highway speeds appears to be a larger factor than weight
I would guess that the long wheel base as well as extended body would not degrade the fuel economy as much as the low/med/high roof variants differences would, but it sure would be nice to see comparisons.

 

[LarryPDX]

Frontal area is the primary driver. The majority of forces that you must overcome at typical speeds are gravity and aerodynamic drag. On a flat road, gravity is not slowing the vehicle, which leaves air. Drag is defined as 1/2*Area*(Cd)*V^2.

The drag Coefficient for a van is slightly lower than a pickup, typically speaking. The current e-150 has a drag coefficient of around .42, same as the F-150. The main difference is the significantly larger frontal area.

You can read more here.

Automotive Aerodynamics: Drag Area ? Size Matters

Aerodynamics shouldn't matter much for city MPG, where there's a 20% difference between the 3.7 Transit and F150, 14 vs 17.

Frontal area:
Width without mirrors: Transit 81.3, F150 79.2, about 3% more
Height: low roof Transit 83.6, F150 75, about 10% more

The front of the Transit appears considerably more aerodynamic than F150. The rear area on the Transit is larger, but then there's that tailgate on the F150.

So why the 20% difference in highway MPG (19 vs 23?)