Find Reviews by Make:
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
Why hasn’t anybody noticed that the “new” Ford Transit is already on a somewhat dated platform?
The only thing wrong is that it doesn’t have a mid-mounted rally engine in it.
Considering that to be successful a cargo/commercial van must pretty much be able to carry a lot of stuff, be super reliable even if not always well maintained, and not tip over even when driven by novices, van platforms really don’t need to evolve as fast as passenger car platforms. The current E-series vans have a platform whose roots date back decades, yet they are still the most successful line of cargo vans in the US market, despite the option of the comparatively modern Dodge Sprinter.
That being said, the Transit seems like a great product, and I hope we get to see it on our shores soon. I’m not sure what is ‘sport’ about this sport van aside from the wheels and racing stripes (I wouldn’t exactly call a 2.2 liter diesel pushing 138hp sporty in a vehicle this size) but I wouldn’t be opposed to driving around in something like that.
Why hasn’t anybody noticed that the “new” Ford Transit is already on a somewhat dated platform?
Compared to the Econoline, whose bones are older than mine, it’s a spring chicken.
I really want to like the Transit and the Transit Connect, but I am just having trouble getting in touch with my european sensibilities. Bluntly, these things are just butt-ugly.
European vans have always had an angular look with lots of creases and seams that has just never taken off here in the US. The Sprinter is a case in point. Even if it cost the same as an E-Series, I doubt that it would be as popular. As it is, the Sprinter is horribly expensive. We see very few in commercial service in my area, and virtually none of the passenger versions. (Jon and Kate’s doesn’t count because they probably did not pay for it themselves).
I have always considered the current E-Series an extremely good design, with fabulous balance and proportion, particularly if you go back to the 92-96 which had the last good looking grille. It just looks sturdy. Perhaps I’m biased from owning one for a long time (Chateau Club Wagon version) but the Transit leaves me cold.
Why not just re-body the current E-Series frame. Just like Ford took the 75-91 van and re-bodied it (with a lot of improvements to the basic archetecture as well), there’s not much wrong with the current van that cannot be cured with a modern body, diesel power and perhaps a shorter wheelbase version and a tall-roof version too. Just an idea.
This is way cooler than the current and ancient Econoline in the USA, hope this is the replacement..
Mark 1 to Mark 3 Transits looked good, after that they’ve been disgusting. Probably has something to do with aerodynamics and crash safety.
Also, too bad you can’t get the SWB version with RWD. I really don’t like front-wheel driven vans.
Why not just re-body the current E-Series frame
Full-size vans have real problems with rollover safety, crash performance and fuel economy. The E-Series hasn’t gotten real love since the Nixon administration and it shows, especially next to the F-Series. Ford’s done decent work keeping the old girl up to date, but there’s only so much you can do when you’re dealing with something that old.
I don’t know if the Transit is the answer. The E-Series is also ridiculously cheap to maintain, and it’s stupidly easy for the aftermarket to modify. The Sprinter has faced an uphill crawl because of it’s relative cost and price, complexity and lack of aftermarket support; the Transit would fare similarly.
I think Ford was smart to bring the smaller Connect (and get people for whom the full-size vans are too big and the Caravan CVP too crappy) and leave the Econoline as-is. Unless fuel spikes horrifically, there’s not a lot of incentive to replace the old warhorse. At best, you might see the F-150 re-engineered to replace the Econoline.
I’d consider it (or perhaps a Sprinter) if they came in a decent camper version, a-la the old VW Eurovan.
Apparently the Transit is coming to the US in 2013.
I’ve used both the transit and the e-series in their pre-last-refresh guises.
Here’s my take:
I see the Transit replacing the the E-150 and E-250 because it’s simply a much nicer van to work with. The floor is low and wide and it’s much nicer to drive.
However, it can’t compete with the E-350’s ability to tow so i can see that hanging around unchanged until some sort of regulation, like CAFE, kills it.
PaulieWalnut: I see the Transit replacing the the E-150 and E-250 because it’s simply a much nicer van to work with. The floor is low and wide and it’s much nicer to drive.
I agree. Both the Transit and the current VW Transporter handle far better than the current Ford E-series and the GM full-size vans (in fact, I would argue they also drive better than, say, the Explorer and the TrailBlazer) in spite of being working vehicles). Unlike the North American incumbents, it doesn’t feel like rubber bands were used for the steering linkage …
“Why hasn’t anybody noticed that the “new” Ford Transit is already on a somewhat dated platform?”
So, what is about it that is dated? The current Transit platform came in 2000, with a major redesign in ´06. The one platform before that lasted fifteen years, and the one before that lasted twenty years. I’d say a platform nine years old in these circumstances is considered to be almost newborn.
Hey this transit comes in two ways. The FWD and the RWD (high payload). AFAIK the RWD has it roots going back to the first Transit ever.
But at least the FWD is a nice van to drive.
never driven the modern RWD-version.
The whole transit program is considered to be a good buy here in Europe. has probably the lowest price per km of all vans sold.
@Ingvar:
I used the term “somewhat dated platform” because, as it was said earlier, compared to the E100, it definately is a spring chicken.
In terms of the lifespan of any platform, you do NOT introduce a “new” model (and in particular, a new to the U.S. segement) a mature platform.
Would you introduce the Ranger in Europe? (OK. Bad example – but it was the best I could come up with – lol).
@commando1
What is interesting is the long time it takes to federalize a european car for the american market. The reviewed Transit Connect that everybody is waiting for was introduced in 2002, on the old Focus platform, that debuted in 1998. It will be replaced in Europe before it sells in any significant numbers in the US. Perhaps it’s the same with the Transit?
Where’s Sabine Schmitz???
@commando1 :
Would you introduce the Ranger in Europe?
A new Ranger was just introduced in Europe:
http://www.ford.de/Nutzfahrzeuge/DerNeueFordRanger/ImUeberblick
@MMH :
’d consider it (or perhaps a Sprinter) if they came in a decent camper version, a-la the old VW Eurovan.
Of course that’s available right from the factory. Sprinter too.
http://www.ford.de/Nutzfahrzeuge/FordTransitNugget/ImUeberblick
They also sell specialized motorhome chassis cabs.
http://www.ford.de/Nutzfahrzeuge/BasisfahrzeugeReisemobile/ImUeberblick
“Garak” wrote:Also, too bad you can’t get the SWB version with RWD. I really don’t like front-wheel driven vans.You guys over there on the wrong side of the Pond have got to stop talking about the Transit and the Transit Connect as if they were mere “versions” of the same vehicle. They’re totally, utterly, wholly, absolutely, and unequivocally different things, onto which Ford has just happened to slap (partly) the same name, most likely for marketing reasons.
Oh, and on another note, “Garak” is of course wrong to have anything against FWD vans. For one thing, anyone who tinks about it from a theoretical standpoint for just a second will realise that a van is one of the prime examples of where it is useful not to have any mechanical crap in the way of putting the floor in the rear as low as possible. And for another, from practical experience of at least the previous generations of the Ford Transit and the VW Transporter, the FWD VW beat the Ford hands-down on handling and driveability. So it seems that’s an outmoded prejudice you need to get rid of, Gar.
@CRConrad :
You guys over there on the wrong side of the Pond have got to stop talking about the Transit and the Transit Connect as if they were mere “versions” of the same vehicle.
He wasn’t talking about the Connect, he was talking about the SWB regular Transit in the picture.
He was wrong though about it not being available in RWD – you can get the short wheelbase Transit in either FWD, RWD or AWD, with exactly the same body. All you lose is half a cubic meter of cargo capacity, due to the 4″ higher floor.
If you download the data sheet from Ford UK’s website, it’s right on page 4. RWD and FWD short wheelbase Transits in a nice comparison table.
You can DL it here:
http://www.ford.co.uk/cs/BlobServer?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&blobheadervalue1=attachment%3Bfilename%3D%22Panel+Van+Spec.pdf%22&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3Bcharset%3DUTF-8&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobwhere=1214344334984&blobkey=id
What you can’t get in the SWB Transit is a big engine. The most powerful diesel is a 140hp 2.4L. The mid- and long wheelbase versions are available with a 200hp 3.2L 5-cylinder.
Sabine Schmitz drove the SWB low-roof RWD version with 140hp on Top Gear, and the ‘Ring time was just a few seconds over 10 minutes. I wonder if the mid-wheelbase mid-roof version with 200hp would be faster.
And for another, from practical experience of at least the previous generations of the Ford Transit and the VW Transporter, the FWD VW beat the Ford hands-down on handling and driveability.
A VW Transporter is roughly as large as a SWB Transit, but you can get much larger Transits – the Jumbo Transit is nearly 6.5M long. What Volkswagen will sell you in this class is the Crafter (I rented one for moving last year, excellent van BTW). The Crafter is RWD only. A LWB Transit can be ordered in FWD or RWD.
That’s a one nice looking Ranger Europe gets. And it’s a diesel too!
Mirko R: I’ll be darned, I had no idea!
Sorry, “Garak”, Sajeev, and whoever else I thought was talking out of their… eh, wrong orifice. It was I who didn’t know what I was talking about, not you.
And yes, my driving experience with these vehicles is also from the Stone Age: When a friend and his now-wife (can’t remember if this was before they married or after) moved in together (in, ehh, the early nineties I think it must have been) we got his stuff to their new home with a rented Transporter, and then hers from another part of the country with a rented Transit. Those conveyances were about the same size: The VW was definitely the then relatively new FWD Transporter, not an LT, and I don’t think the bigger versions of the Transit were even very easily available at Swedish countryside filling-station rentals at the time (which didn’t matter, since as young students each of them didn’t really have all that much stuff).
At least back then, the VW was MUCH better to drive; you just wouldn’t have dared (or endured) driving the Transit at the same speed you could the Transporter, i.e, around 90-100-110 km/h.
So what’s this “Crafter” , then; a new name for the LT, basically?
@CRConrad :
So what’s this “Crafter” , then; a new name for the LT, basically?
Exactly. Basically it’s the same chassis and body as a Mercedes Sprinter (shared development between VW and Daimler), but with a VW drivetrain and a different front end, with a seriously huge VW logo.
Inside you get exactly the same dashboard, stereo, etc. like you get in a Sprinter, but the backlighting is blue instead of yellow.
http://www.volkswagen-vans.co.uk/crafter/