Ford Transit USA Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I was driving down the street the other day when I pulled behind a Tall Transit. Those things always make nervous as I still have a '98 Club Wagon and it gets blown around pretty badly on the freeway when there are big gust. Well this Transit was a dually so I thought, "At least he has that going for him !"

Then dually pickup pulled up next to us and the light came on ! All dually pickup truck add the second set of wheels OUTSIDE OF THE BODY and cover them with fender flairs ! I'm sure EU did not want this with their narrow roads, but why hasn't someone in the aftermarket done this ! It would make the shuttle bus version much safer !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
There is no doubt that a wider stance is more stable, but in engineering, it is always about compromises. I agree the tall Transits look awfully "tippy" but there are standards for this and I am certain that Transit meets those standards. Not all vehicles are equally good at all things, and I would bet that a tall Transit is not as good at dealing with wind as Honda Fit, but try seating 15 people in the Fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
The dually is about 6 inches wider at the rear axle (3 inches each side). So it is more stable than the SRW version. You can see the additional width if you compare the front to rear wheels in this photo of our van.

20190413_163126.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
My numbers were off, the difference looks bigger than it is when eyeballing it. But the F350 definitely is not 24 inches wider. Here are exact specs from Ford:

F350 Rear track width
SRW: 67.2"
DRW: 74.7"
Difference: 7.5"

Transit Rear track width
SRW: 65.7"
DRW: 68.6"
Difference: 2.9"

Difference between F350 and T350 when both are DRW: 6.1". That's a long way from 24"...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Hmmmm... just did some reading on the definition of track width. I might be totally "off track".:p

Sounds like track width is measured at the centerline, not the outer tire contact point. So I don't really know a good way to compare the two vehicles. Overall width isn't a good measurement when we're talking about stability, it is the width at the ground that matters. But I don't see where they give a spec on that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Sounds like track width is measured at the centerline, not the outer tire contact point. So I don't really know a good way to compare the two vehicles.
I was not trying directly compare the rear track of the F350 vs the T350, only that the rear track of the DRW F350 seems substantially large than the SRW and that difference is substantially smaller on the T350 DRW vs SRW.
Like I said originally, the Transit is a true "world" vehicle so I am certain that keeping the overall width down was a key design point.

Related, the E-series 15 passenger "buses" had a higher, than the rest of the fleet, roll over incident rate. Most experts attributed it to a combination of driver not experienced with the vehicle and a high center of gravity for the cargo (people sit on seats, not on the floor). At least one aftermarket company came up with a dually conversion that mounted the second set of tires outboard of the body.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
The reason Track isn't useful in this discussion is with DRW on the F350, you get half a tire additional width on each side for that measurement, but in reality there is a full additional tire of extra width. For the Transit, much of the extra tire width is towards the center of the vehicle.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top