[Zyzzyx]

I've looked around a bit, have not found this info anywhere.

I'm looking for the departure angle for the rear of the long wheelbase Transit. Preferably for both the long and extended bodies.

We have a slightly uphill driveway and I'd like to see if I have a chance of getting a van (any of 'em, really) in the driveway without grabbing one on a test drive.

Heck, it could really decide whether I continue with my plans and ideas for a DIY conversion.

 

[alarmist]

https://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/

It's in there somewhere.

 

[Zyzzyx]

Yeah, just found that page. Looked through the Body Builders Layout Book. It has graphics for the different bodies, and it has the departure angle labeled, but the value is not listed in their tables of dimensions.

 

[PeterR]

Zyzzyx,

Not sure if you are referring to pp. 10-17 here:

https://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/topics/2015/2015_Transit_v1-1.pdf

but the departure angle H107 (as labeled in the diagrams) does not appear in the table on p. 17 (English units], as you say.

The rear overhang L105 is called out in the table as either 49.7" or 78.1" so if you knew the height of the bottom of the bumper, you could approximate the departure angle.

Maybe one reason they do not give an absolute value for this is that it depends on the actual load? [An overloaded van will have a lower departure angle.]

Nor is there a height of the floor off the ground. Seems to me this figure does appear in the literature someplace, for a starting point on calculating the departure angle. Will look around . . .

 

[PeterR]

Zyzzyx,

[snip]

Nor is there a height of the floor off the ground. Seems to me this figure does appear in the literature someplace, for a starting point on calculating the departure angle. Will look around . . .

OK here you go -- on pp. 1-2 here, the F. Rear Overhang is similar to the other table, and the M. Load Height (curb) is 28-29" depending on model:

https://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/topics/2015/2015Transit_techspecs.pdf

Still no figure for the distance from the ground to the underside of the bumper, but again I doubt if Ford will give an estimated distance for this, due to differing load configurations and uses.

Guess someone is going to have to measure an actual LOADED van.

 

[orton]

I've looked around a bit, have not found this info anywhere.

I'm looking for the departure angle for the rear of the long wheelbase Transit. Preferably for both the long and extended bodies.

We have a slightly uphill driveway and I'd like to see if I have a chance of getting a van (any of 'em, really) in the driveway without grabbing one on a test drive.

Heck, it could really decide whether I continue with my plans and ideas for a DIY conversion.

Empty 250 148" WB cargo van (not extended) measures approx. 50" from rear axle centerline to back of bumper. The dimension from ground to bottom of rear bumper is approx. 17"

 

[PeterR]

I just measured a van on a dealer lot, and it was similar to orton's figures, but the bumper height was closer to 16" off the ground. A ball park layout on my workbench yields a departure angle of about 18 degrees.

Another van on the lot has a factory bumper hitch which is only 13" above the ground, resulting in a departure angle of about 14 degrees.

If an extended body van had a similar bumper hitch, 78" back from the rear wheel center point, the resulting angle would be about 9 degrees by my rough approximation. Without a hitch, the angle might be more like 12 degrees.

Again -- just rough approximations for what it's worth . . .

PS these vans were completely empty of any load. The height numbers could drop 2-4" with full loads IMO, depending on load rating, tire pressure, etc..

 

[Zyzzyx]

Went out and made some measurements on the rear of my Audi wagon, with the euro hitch on. Comes out to a 14 degree rear departure is what I have now.

Rolled the car down to the driveway apron and I have 2" clearance hitch to ground. That gives me a street to driveway angle of roughly 11 degrees.

Sounds like it could all be rather close, especially with the extended body.

Don't know exactly what kind of load would be in the van. I would ask Orton about how much weight he added with his conversion setup, I'd be looking at something very similar. Add a few bicycles, travel gear, and maybe a full fresh water tank (15 gallons? really dunno yet) would about max it out for what it would see parked in the driveway.

And then there's always the option of angling in. We have a full width driveway in front of a three car garage, with some gravel space off to the side, could put the front end over there.

I'll have to see about getting some pictures of it all...

 

[orton]

Sprinter conversion added 2100 lbs with full 24 gallon fresh water and empty 11 gallon gray. Expect Transit to be about 300 lbs less.

 

[PeterR]

. . . Sounds like it could all be rather close, especially with the extended body . . .

Agreed, especially if you plan to have a hitch receiver. Any chance of a test drive of an extended body using your actual driveway?

If you can make do with the 148" wheelbase, and use a trailer when needed, you might be better off, but then you would have the added need to maneuver the trailer in your driveway.

Another consideration -- the extended body may introduce trailer sway issues, as well. See:

http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/introductions/3938-results-2700-miles-trip.html

 

[Zyzzyx]

Not likely for testing the extended body, the local dealer only has two right now, both LWB standard length.

I would like to add a hitch receiver. Heck, I have a hitch on my Audi wagon, its surprising how often it gets used. (but then I'll go months without using it, so...)

However, if we were to tow anything, it would likely just be fairly lightweight cargo trailers, probably flatbed style. Nothing of much weight to speak of that would induce sway.


Right now its all just a mental exercise. While I am having fun with all the research, we're still 50/50 on whether we want to do the whole van thing or not...

 

[PeterR]

Z, does either of the available vans have a hitch receiver on it, like the one I saw yesterday? You could make up a 2"x2" x 4-6' +/- (TBD) to stick in the hitch to approximate the bumper location of an extended body, including hitch back there. Simple, at least to eye-ball your driveway vs. extended van full-scale . . .

 

[Chance]

....cut.....

I would like to add a hitch receiver.

....cut....

With a receiver you can add a roller in the hitch that prevents dragging on road or driveway. I haven't used one myself but have seen them on RVs and RV catalogs.

The tough part is if you plan to tow a trailer from the driveway. Often the trailer tongue is even lower than van's receiver.

 

[PeterR]

Good point, Chance: "Often the trailer tongue is even lower than van's receiver."

Also, certain brands of sway control units protrude lower than the bottom of the hitch receiver. The Reese unit I had years ago stuck down probably 2-3" +/- below the hitch receiver.

 

[PeterR]

. . . .

Right now its all just a mental exercise. While I am having fun with all the research, we're still 50/50 on whether we want to do the whole van thing or not...

Curious whether you ever got this angle of departure resolved with your driveway?

 

[Zyzzyx]

Curious whether you ever got this angle of departure resolved with your driveway?

Nothing tested directly with any local Transits. I was satisfied enough for now with my measurements of driveway angle and what we figured out for the rear of the Transit.

And to be honest, if we were forced to choose one of the three vans right now, it would be the ProMaster; so now I need to find the same info for it.


(in other tidbits, the sloped driveway was certainly interesting this morning as we had freezing rain last night, about 1/4" of ice covering everything. I back my car in and park it in the driveway, was fun sliding downhill to the door handle and then trying to open the stuck door, all with my feet on ice)

 

[rickhoran]

Congratulations on your ProMaster purchase! Hope that they don't keep you waiting as long as Ford.

 

[Clam]

Nothing tested directly with any local Transits. I was satisfied enough for now with my measurements of driveway angle and what we figured out for the rear of the Transit.

And to be honest, if we were forced to choose one of the three vans right now, it would be the ProMaster; so now I need to find the same info for it.


(in other tidbits, the sloped driveway was certainly interesting this morning as we had freezing rain last night, about 1/4" of ice covering everything. I back my car in and park it in the driveway, was fun sliding downhill to the door handle and then trying to open the stuck door, all with my feet on ice)

What made you decide to go Promaster over Transit? I hear it's a good van but I just can't get past the hideous front end. Something about the spacing between the top edge of the headlight lens and the windshield not being consistent makes it look like they were designed for a different vehicle.

 

[Zyzzyx]

What made you decide to go Promaster over Transit? I hear it's a good van but I just can't get past the hideous front end.

Without thinking about it too much...

• The more I looked at it, the more I liked it. The more I looked at the Transit, the uglier it became. (especially after seeing a few of each model on the road)
• The med roof Transit was too short inside, the high roof looks like a mobile apartment block, especially in the LWB extended. The height of the PM works well, inside and out.
• Longer wheelbase - possibly a better ride, and a shorter rear overhang (to come back to thread topic). Boggles me that the long wb Transit is only 148".
• Front wheel drive - very short nose and front end provide shorter van overall, and I think also contributes to the shorter overhang (even on the extended length)
• Didn't measure it, but marketing and by feel the entry seems lower, both side door and rear
• Size - just a wee bit wider than the others, and the walls are closer to vertical
• Dealership - nicer guys at the Ram dealer than at the Ford dealer
• Simpler, with less options - sounds a bit odd, especially since we checked almost all the available options, but I've mentioned elsewhere that with the three different engine options and three (or four?) rear end ratios, there's an "analysis paralysis" with the Ford. And also all the electronic goodie options that I'd be hard-pressed to resist, but don't really need.
• Diesel with the automated manual transmission - drove it, loved it.

 

[Clam]

Without thinking about it too much...

• The more I looked at it, the more I liked it. The more I looked at the Transit, the uglier it became. (especially after seeing a few of each model on the road)
• The med roof Transit was too short inside, the high roof looks like a mobile apartment block, especially in the LWB extended. The height of the PM works well, inside and out.
• Longer wheelbase - possibly a better ride, and a shorter rear overhang (to come back to thread topic). Boggles me that the long wb Transit is only 148".
• Front wheel drive - very short nose and front end provide shorter van overall, and I think also contributes to the shorter overhang (even on the extended length)
• Didn't measure it, but marketing and by feel the entry seems lower, both side door and rear
• Size - just a wee bit wider than the others, and the walls are closer to vertical
• Dealership - nicer guys at the Ram dealer than at the Ford dealer
• Simpler, with less options - sounds a bit odd, especially since we checked almost all the available options, but I've mentioned elsewhere that with the three different engine options and three (or four?) rear end ratios, there's an "analysis paralysis" with the Ford. And also all the electronic goodie options that I'd be hard-pressed to resist, but don't really need.
• Diesel with the automated manual transmission - drove it, loved it.

OMG "analysis paralysis" lofl. That hits so close to home I'm going to steal that.

I've been driving an E250 for 10 years and I'm dying to have a vehicle with power windows/locks and maybe even go crazy and get remote start. That's the one thing that keeps me from buying the Sprinter is that it's too utilitarian. I want all the bells and whistles I can get because at this point in my career I'm betting this is the last work truck I'll be buying and I've earned some creature comforts. The 4X4 Sprinter coming out soon looks really enticing too.

analysis paralysis