Ford Transit USA Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Does anyone know if Ford will need to post fuel economy ratings for the Transit? I was surprised to discover the Promaster was not required to post MPG because it is a commercial vehicle. Does the Transit being offered with passenger seating change it's commercial vehicle status, or is it determined by the GVWR?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
They don't have to post mpg figures if GVWR is over 8500 lbs
Thanks.
Do you know if vehicles over 8500 GVWR are included in manufacturers CAFE ratings? If so, there must be a non-public MPG rating for vehicles over 8500 GVWR? I'm just curious how CAFE works.
I suspect the Transit will achieve about the same MPG as an F150 with the same powertrain. They should be close in vehicle weight & neither is very aerodynamic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
The Transit won't be able to match the mpg of the F-150 with the same drivetrain (let's assume equal total weight) because of it's greater frontal area. (A)The best example of this so far is the difference in the mpg figures between the Promaster and the Dodge Caravan with the same drivetrain ( maybe different final drive ratio ? ). The Caravan can get 25 mpg hwy and the Pro can't even come anywhere close to that. And a Caravan + 500 lbs is the same weight as Pro 2500 Hi roof LWB. Weight is not nearly a big of a factor as drag, in mpg calcs.

It's worth noting that velocity is squared in the drag equation. It clearly shows that the power needed to overcome the drag at 60 mph is not twice as much as at 30 mph, but four times as much instead.


If anybody was wondering why their mileage drops so badly from 60 to 75 mph, well there it is.





where
FD is the drag force, which is by definition the force component in the direction of the flow velocity,[1]ρ is the mass density of the fluid, [2]v is the velocity of the object relative to the fluid,A is the reference area, andCD is the drag coefficient – a dimensionless coefficient related to the object's geometry and taking into account both skin friction and form drag.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The Transit won't be able to match the mpg of the F-150 with the same drivetrain (let's assume equal total weight) because of it's greater frontal area. (A)The best example of this so far is the difference in the mpg figures between the Promaster and the Dodge Caravan with the same drivetrain ( maybe different final drive ratio ? ). The Caravan can get 25 mpg hwy and the Pro can't even come anywhere close to that. And a Caravan + 500 lbs is the same weight as Pro 2500 Hi roof LWB. Weight is not nearly a big of a factor as drag, in mpg calcs.


However isn't the frontal area of a PM much larger than a Caravan? The frontal area of an F150 is within an inch in width & 8" in height for 2wd F150 vs low roof Transit. The Transit may also have less ground clearance & a more rounded front than the squared front of an F150, both factors that should help it?
Speed defiantly kills MPG, I keep my Express at 60 on the highway & have still never seen 17 MPG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
We will have to wait for real world mileage reports

Not like anything they tell us will be believable anyways.

fuelly.com once everyone gets their transit!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
has anyone tried looking for Euro MPG's? Just take the Euro numbers and multiply by .83 for the american conversion. I'd do it myself but i don't know where to look...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
has anyone tried looking for Euro MPG's? Just take the Euro numbers and multiply by .83 for the american conversion. I'd do it myself but i don't know where to look...


The Transit UK brochure lists some MPG numbers in Imperial gallons for "Urban" and "Extra Urban" which probably translates to City/Hwy used in the US. Depends on Van configuration and drivetrain choices but they general show in the low 30's for Urban and low 40's for Extra Urban.


These are brochure claimed amounts, not real world numbers. Also these are vastly smaller diesel engines than what we would be getting in the US and no gas engine numbers. So I don't think you will be able to get a direct comparison with the US drivetrains that will be available in the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
has anyone tried looking for Euro MPG's? Just take the Euro numbers and multiply by .83 for the american conversion. I'd do it myself but i don't know where to look...
I don't think the same version of the Transit is in Europe? The Transit custom is a FWD van. I believe they will get the same version but don't think it's out yet, & unlikely it will have the same engines as the US version.
My thinking about the Transit achieving close to the MPG of the F150 also comes from Ford hyping a 25% improvement over the E150's 13-17MPG which would be 16.25-21.25, not the 17-23 of the F150 but getting close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Reportedly, Ford has engineered this super van to overcome all that and just slip silently through the air at highway speeds....or did I dream this.



No, you're not dreaming.


Buckminster Fuller figured it out in 1933. Too bad the powers that be didn't take their blinders off.


The Dymaxion car was a concept car designed by U.S. inventor and architect Buckminster Fuller in 1933.[1] The word Dymaxion is a brand name that Fuller gave to several of his inventions, to emphasize that he considered them part of a more general project to improve humanity's living conditions. The car had a fuel efficiency of 30 miles per US gallon (7.8 L/100 km; 36 mpg-imp). It could transport 11 passengers. While Fuller claimed it could reach speeds of 120 miles per hour (190 km/h), the fastest documented speed was 90 miles per hour (140 km/h).


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
The Ford Transit Connect van is estimated to get 30 miles per gallon by the EPA. That applies to models outfitted with the 1.6-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine.

It breaks down to 30 mpg on the highway and 22 mpg in the city with the aforementioned engine. The base 2.5-liter inline-four will do 29 mpg on the highway and 21 mpg in the city.

Ford brags that the 1.6-liter EcoBoost Transit Connect Van can save $250 in fuel costs over five years compared to the Nissan NV200 and $1,750 compared to the Ram C/V.

MPG figures for the Connect Wagon are as follows: 29 mpg highway / 22 mpg city with the 1.6-liter EcoBoost and 28 mpg highway / 20 mpg city when fitted with the 2.5-liter unit.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
The Ford Transit Connect van is estimated to get 30 miles per gallon by the EPA. That applies to models outfitted with the 1.6-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine.

It breaks down to 30 mpg on the highway and 22 mpg in the city with the aforementioned engine. The base 2.5-liter inline-four will do 29 mpg on the highway and 21 mpg in the city.

Ford brags that the 1.6-liter EcoBoost Transit Connect Van can save $250 in fuel costs over five years compared to the Nissan NV200 and $1,750 compared to the Ram C/V.

MPG figures for the Connect Wagon are as follows: 29 mpg highway / 22 mpg city with the 1.6-liter EcoBoost and 28 mpg highway / 20 mpg city when fitted with the 2.5-liter unit.
thats a different van bud. Transit Connect is a different model than the Transit. Kinda like Grand Cherokee and Cherokee...

As for Euro MPG, isnt the flat 5 diesel shared with Europe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
As for Euro MPG, isnt the flat 5 diesel shared with Europe?

My brochure shows only 2.2 l diesels in the UK Transit. There are several variations but nothing bigger than 2.2.


I could be wrong but I think the 3.2 l came from the UK Ranger Pickup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
My brochure shows only 2.2 l diesels in the UK Transit. There are several variations but nothing bigger than 2.2.


I could be wrong but I think the 3.2 l came from the UK Ranger Pickup
3.2 5 cylinder diesel is used in the Ford ranger in Australia.
For fuel economy it is rated at 9.2/ L for 100 KM or 25.6 MPG for a US gallon.
This is in a 4x4 with automatic transmission.
No doubt Ford will tune down this engine in order to use more fuel in North America.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
3.2 5 cylinder diesel is used in the Ford ranger in Australia.
For fuel economy it is rated at 9.2/ L for 100 KM or 25.6 MPG for a US gallon.
This is in a 4x4 with automatic transmission.
No doubt Ford will tune down this engine in order to use more fuel in North America.
Why tune down an engine to use more fuel? Did you mean the engine would be less fuel efficient because of the US EPA requirements for diesel engines?
There are some impressive MPG numbers for users of this engine on fuelly, however, these are not US spec engines, & that makes a big difference. Look at the Promaster diesel & the problems/delays FCV is having getting that engine into production in the US.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top