Ford Transit USA Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #1


I thought that I would start a thread that goes over all the awesome things that Ford did right with its newest Transit model. Feel free to add to the list or disagree with me.

The Ford Transit improves upon its previous incarnation with a more car-like interior. This means that the driving position of the Transit is more comfortable, and other things, like larger side-door openings, have also been improved. A larger windscreen makes for better visibility as well. All this makes for a cargo van that is easy and comfortable to drive -- a huge plus in my opinion.

Ford is able to claim a host of of best-in-class features with its new Transit model. The Ford Transit has best-in-class cost-of-ownership and load carrying capacity.Compared to the last Transit model, the new Transit can carry ten percent more load volume on average, topping out at 15.1 cubic meters.

Another category where the Transit is best in its class is fuel efficiency. The most fuel efficient Transit would be the Econetic model which delivers a combined fuel economy rating of 6.4 L/100 km, or 44 mpg. That's 6 per cent lower than the Econetic version of the outgoing Transit. Another factor in the Transit's excellent fuel economy is its incorporation of a start/stop feature.



Ford is also confident in the Transit as can be concluded from its extended two-year/50,000km service intervals, with the time required for scheduled maintenance over 150,000 km cut from 5.4 to 4.2 hours over the outgoing model.

As one writer puts it:

The Ford Transit range really is now very comprehensive. And Ford’s flagship Transit model is once again setting some important new standards in its class. It has cut running costs, can shift bigger loads, as well as pioneering some good new technologies. It drives really well and Ford has delivered a comfortable cab, that is very car-like. It has to be on every fleet manager’s very short list, and small and medium businesses and owner operators should also check out the new Transit.
Does this all sound right to you? Anything you'd like to add? Any problems that you have experienced?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I thought that I would start a thread that goes over all the awesome things that Ford did right with its newest Transit model. Feel free to add to the list or disagree with me.



The Ford Transit improves upon its previous incarnation with a more car-like interior. This means that the driving position of the Transit is more comfortable, and other things, like larger side-door openings, have also been improved. A larger windscreen makes for better visibility as well. All this makes for a cargo van that is easy and comfortable to drive -- a huge plus in my opinion.

Ford is able to claim a host of of best-in-class features with its new Transit model. The Ford Transit has best-in-class cost-of-ownership and load carrying capacity.Compared to the last Transit model, the new Transit can carry ten percent more load volume on average, topping out at 15.1 cubic meters.

Another category where the Transit is best in its class is fuel efficiency. The most fuel efficient Transit would be the Econetic model which delivers a combined fuel economy rating of 6.4 L/100 km, or 44 mpg. That's 6 per cent lower than the Econetic version of the outgoing Transit. Another factor in the Transit's excellent fuel economy is its incorporation of a start/stop feature.



Ford is also confident in the Transit as can be concluded from its extended two-year/50,000km service intervals, with the time required for scheduled maintenance over 150,000 km cut from 5.4 to 4.2 hours over the outgoing model.

As one writer puts it:



Does this all sound right to you? Anything you'd like to add? Any problems that you have experienced?


This sounds like it is straight from a brochure and a European one at that. The fuel mileage quoted is for the much smaller diesel engines in Europe. No way we will be seeing anything close to 44MPG in the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
This sounds like it is straight from a brochure and a European one at that. The fuel mileage quoted is for the much smaller diesel engines in Europe. No way we will be seeing anything close to 44MPG in the US.
Agree, sounds like a comparison to previous Transit and not an Econoline.

The US Transit hasn't been rated as high as 15.1 cubic meters. But compared to Econoline it's a lot more than 10 percent larger.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
145 Posts
44mpg in a cargo van? no way.
Why can't we get mileage like that. I'm didn't replace my last e150 because it only got 14 mph on the highway. I'm sick and tired of these poor mileage trucks I'm forced to buy. When gas hits $4 a gallon I spend $3000 a month on gas.
Todd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
There is a lot to like on the new US version. Having said that, there are a few design and or option choices I wish Ford had done differently.

The most important to me personally, since I'm interested mostly on longest/biggest van for RV conversion, is the long rear overhang. It's just out of proportion on a van with that wheelbase length. I'm concerned that long a tail behind the rear axle will not only make loading more difficult, but may make towing less stable. For the longest van I would have preferred a longer wheelbase like Sprinter or ProMaster. Even GM lengthened wheelbase.

Another issue for me is the lack of a middle roof on longest model. The difference between middle and high roofs is significant, and not everyone wants a van over nine feet tall.

And to lesser degree I feel Ford should offer European FWD and AWD in the US too. With FWD the van picks up about 4 inches of headroom, so the middle roof would be around 6'-4" like the ProMaster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Why can't we get mileage like that. I'm didn't replace my last e150 because it only got 14 mph on the highway. I'm sick and tired of these poor mileage trucks I'm forced to buy. When gas hits $4 a gallon I spend $3000 a month on gas.
Todd
Some small cars dont even get 44mpg

i jsut find it hard to believe you can get 44mpg in a work van and still have it powerful enough to do real work

plus these vans arent light. takes some power to get them moving

power = gas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Some small cars dont even get 44mpg

i jsut find it hard to believe you can get 44mpg in a work van and still have it powerful enough to do real work

plus these vans arent light. takes some power to get them moving

power = gas


The 44 MPG was referring to UK imperial gallons, about 20% larger than a US gallon. 6.4L/100km converts to about 36.7 US MPG. Still an unattainable number for US Transits due to the larger diesel engines we will get.


Since we don't have any real world data yet for the US Transit, we can only guess what we would achieve here.


My guess is that the 3.7L gas engine would achieve slightly less than the Promaster 3.6L gas engine, which is about 18MPG. The Transit 3.2L diesel will probably get something similar to the Sprinter 3.0L diesel, or about 19-20MPG. Maybe a bit more if you drive carefully, use gas saving techniques, with mostly highway driving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,157 Posts
The 44 MPG was referring to UK imperial gallons, about 20% larger than a US gallon. 6.4L/100km converts to about 36.7 US MPG. Still an unattainable number for US Transits due to the larger diesel engines we will get.


Since we don't have any real world data yet for the US Transit, we can only guess what we would achieve here.


My guess is that the 3.7L gas engine would achieve slightly less than the Promaster 3.6L gas engine, which is about 18MPG. The Transit 3.2L diesel will probably get something similar to the Sprinter 3.0L diesel, or about 19-20MPG. Maybe a bit more if you drive carefully, use gas saving techniques, with mostly highway driving.
If the 3.7 gets around 17 mpg, then its operational costs are similar to the diesel without all the emission stuff that a diesel requires. One of the main reasons I am considering a Transit is to get rid of the Sprinter diesel. Do a spreadsheet to compare costs of diesel vs. gas. Include the investment value of the $6,000 upcharge and the cost of DEF and fuel filter changes. The Sprinter also has numerous design errors. Hoping the Transit engineers have done a better job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
In my opinion a smaller Transit with FWD that is not loaded down too much should be able to do around 6.4L/100km (+/- 37 MPG US) on gasoline if driven mostly in city, provided it had a hybrid system similar to the newest in Honda Accord. The technology already exists but would have to be justified in fuel savings.

The van could weigh up to 50% more than an Accord, and also have up to 50% more aerodynamic drag, and still be in that MPG range. For a smaller low-roof Transit that shouldn't be an insurmountable problem.

However, if the van has to haul up to 15 cubic meters of cargo, or tow a 4-ton trailer like many US vans can, then it's doubtful 37 MPG average is possible with today's technology. Not for real-world driving. Only plug-in technology could achieve those numbers today, and that's not a viable option for most van owners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
Not bad at all. Good for European's, not sure if that would work well in America due to the bed size
The new US Transit cab chassis will be available with fairly long wheelbase, so they might be able to have a long-enough bed to work for many cars, small SUV, minivans and so on.

Even if it were long enough, another issue may be inadequate weight rating. By the time they add the bed and lifting gear, there might not be enough left for heavier US vehicles. The GVWR of Transit would likely not allow for hauling vehicles much over 4000 pounds or so. Unless I'm missing something or Ford offers a heavier duty model later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
That Ziz 2.2L diesel tow vehicle is rated at 3.5 kilo's carrying capacity.

Greg Hayden
Greg, what is the chassis GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating)? I can see it's rear wheel drive with dual rear tires like we will get in US, but no spec I've seen for US thus far has a load carrying capacity of 3500 kilograms. That's like 7700 pounds plus the weight of the bed and lift. I can see 3.5 for the total but have a hard time with a 7700-pound vehicle on top.

No doubt 7700-pound capacity would handle most US light-duty private vehicles on road needing a tow, but if that's correct Ford must be holding back on Transit's capacity or I'm not seeing the higher chassis ratings that would be required.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
could it be possible that they might include a more powerful and higher tow cap version later on? it sort of makes sense that they release this lower output version now and the H/O later
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
My Transit Connect gets around 30 depending on the ethanol content and terrain. Transit with eco boost can get slightly over 20 but averages 18/19 also varying a lot due to ethanol content. I can tell when that content is 10% and sometimes I suspect that it is more than 10%. Now that's one EPA regulation that Republicans should change to get rid of ethanol being added to gasoline but the corn states are mostly Republican.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top