(first posted 11/11/2018) Sometimes automakers come up with a timeless model name that can be transferred from generation to generation. One of them is Transit, everybody just knows you’re speaking Ford, no matter where you live. Ford and Transit go together like Volkswagen and Transporter, like Toyota and HiAce, like Fiat and Ducato.
The first generation of the Ford Transit was introduced in 1965, but note there also was the 1961-1965 Ford Taunus Transit; the German forward control van and light truck that originally was introduced in 1953 as the Ford FK 1000/1250-series.
In August 1977, the Transit got a serious update and facelift, generally that modernized model is referred to as the Transit Mk2.
The last refresh of the series followed at the end of 1983, resulting in the Mk2 Phase 2, as seen here. Worth mentioning is that the Phase 2 was offered with Ford’s direct injected, 2.5 liter four-cylinder diesel engine. The new 68 DIN-hp power unit, marketed as the 2.5 DI, became available in early 1984. It was an evolution of the good ol’ 2.4 liter York (indirect injected) diesel engine, as previously used.
Gasoline engine options were the 1.6 and 2.0 liter OHC four-cylinders and the 3.0 liter Essex V6. The latter was the preferred choice for ambulances and police vehicles, not to mention for bank robbers’ getaway vans.
The most common Transit was the panel van, either a 2,690 mm SWB van with a low roof or a 3,000 mm LWB van with a high roof. GVM-ratings from 2,070 to 3,500 kg. All heavy-duty LWB Transits had dual rear wheels.
“There are 32 different potential door options to choose from”. Almost a case of choice overload. Vans with dual rear wheels (bottom right picture) had black, factory wheel arch trims.
The Transit parcel vans, no further explanation needed.
The factory chassis cab options. A chassis cab is a complete, rolling chassis with a cab; the stage of a truck before it gets a cargo bed or any other body.
The chassis cab was also available with a 3,452 mm long wheelbase. That’s the white Transit in the picture, obviously. Most of the time, the final product was a flatbed truck with dropsides. But as I said, anything was possible, from a box truck to a motorhome.
If you wanted to transport people rather than cargo, then you could choose from a bus, a crewbus or a kombi.
Short wheelbase, low roof, somewhere halfway a minivan and a minibus…
…but a commercial vehicle all the way.
Ford Transit, the nose ahead!
In 1986, an all-new generation of the Transit was introduced. With its highly modern looks and a more car-like interior it was a radical change from the past.
You want something similar these days, yet completely up to date? No problem, Ford offers the Tourneo Custom. That’s the FWD Ford Transit Custom people mover.
Now I wonder which Transit variant Jason Shafer would pick up for hauling the family’s movables across the States…
Johannes, that’s a good question. However, I have an admission / confession….the Transit name is still not ingrained for many of us in the US so when I hear “transit” my mind flashes back to surveying classes.
That said, I’ve long been intrigued with the Transits like you show. Plus, it has a delightful trait that is so irksomely absent in Ford’s historic van offerings, such as the one I own. This Transit has an actual hood with what appears to be full-blown access to the engine, not something in which the cowl straddles the engine. It’s hard to see what might be happening with the red 1986 model you’ve shown.
Another admission / confession is I have spent some degree of time on Ford’s website configuring a van for future travel purposes. Something with a degree of comfort and enough room to toss a mattress in the back.
I love these vans. Well, I love the looks of these vans, I’ve never knowingly been in one. This Mk2 is a perfect rectlinearization (is that a word?) of the original. And then the looks just got better with each generation.
The Transit truly is Europe’s pickup truck and van combined into one. An almost endless customization palette, good value, durability and usefulness. And the newest one that we get over here as well (finally!) is actually enjoyable to drive and quite comfortable. Having tried both, the low floor of the current ProMaster competition cannot be denied and would be a huge factor in an actual purchase decision but overall Transit has always been a huge market presence. They could just as easily have called it the T-150 for all the influence and relevance it has.
Regarding the current Transit (the big one, not one of the 3 smaller models), nowadays one can even choose from FWD, RWD and AWD.
It’s only available as RWD in North America, correct? That explains the lower floor of the FWD ProMaster, I’d say.
Yes, RWD only currently. Is the floor lower in the back on the FWD ones?
AWD would likely add some incremental sales for the camper/overlander and some snowbelter market set that the AWD Sprinter currently controls as well.
Here’s our two more common configurations that most “regular” people would have an opportunity to drive as rentals:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/future-classic/future-classic-2015-ford-transit-250-a-new-dawn-for-u-haul/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/new-car-review/future-classic-2017-ram-1500-promaster-cargo-136-wb-low-roof-u-haul-traded-in-my-transit/
As far as owning I don’t think I’d have either one without at least the midlevel roof option (both the above are the regular low roof), standing up inside is such an obvious advantage.
Jim, have a look here:
https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/Europe/nl/2014/01/Ford%20Transit%20-%20Technische%20specificaties.pdf
Interesting is N: cargo floor to roof height – 100 mm more for the FWD version compared with the RWD/AWD versions.
Jim, ‘rectilinearization’ has now appeared online. A suffiiciently in-depth search will find it – as used here, by you. People all over the world have (potentially) seen it. Thus it is a word. Whether anyone else uses it might be another matter! 🙂
Actually, it dates back to the 1940s, if the OED is to be believed.
You’re right about the name – its the longest running Ford name by a long way now and in the UK at least hearing some one refer to a van of this size as a “Transit” or “Transit van” is like hearing the word “hoover” for vacuum cleaner. The ubiquity of the Ford Transit in the UK from the late 60s on is hard to overstate
Built in Britain for many years, until the current generation moved to Turkey. Classic Ford – keep it simple, offer variety, lots of dealers, good value.
The Transit sold in the US is built in the US, according to the VIN.
While the smaller Transit Connect is now built in Spain.
The introduction of the Transit and the contempory Ford D lorry saw the end of the old ‘Thames’ name that Ford had used for Commercials in the UK. The new Ford line up was completed with the Escort van in 1968. All of them then lasted until the 1980s with various updates.
Lots of Transits here like these here too, especially as postal deliverers. Very few kept the hated 1.7 V4 teeth-rattler for long, and not even sure if there was a diesel. With some wedging and shoving, Ford Oz soon stuffed 4.1 litres of inline Falcon six into that nose, both in the original and post-’77 model.
Many moons since, in a delivery job I had, I drove a (’77 or so) dual-rear wheels cab-chassis fitted with a big tall box of a body (ex-bread delivery). Three on the floor, on LPG only, and specially tuned up for it. Low-geared, it went like the clappers, with the engine screaming for mercy at highway speeds. What speeds, I don’t know, as the speedo had long retired, but it had to be over 75mph, which is what fast-lane cars did then, and I was leading ’em. Everyone knew you couldn’t out-do an ex-postie (postman) van or ex-bread van, and I couldn’t let the Transit name down. Cornering on three wheels – actually, four I guess, because of the duallies – taking lights as mere suggestions, and lane changing as if it were a nervous tick. As you can tell, I lived, (though there was enough of such young-male stupidity in my youth that I’ve often wondered why I did).
No wonder the armed robbery set loved them.
Ford AU cocked up their Transit quite badly, too stupid to install the highway diff head from the Zephyr made them very noisy to drive, GMH screwed up the CF Bedford the same way, fitting a slow revving six with the high ratio 4 banger rear end, the 1.7 V4 should never have been on the roads an appalling engine.
They used to be common, but do they even sell the Transit in Australia any more? In my neck of the woods, the only new Fords I see are Mustangs and Rangers.
They’re still on the Aussie-website, Peter (click on ‘Vehicles’).
https://www.ford.com.au/commercial/
The Transit certainly was a leader in this segment. I was a bit torn about whether to get a Transit or Promaster, but certain qualities tipped it for me to the PM, such as the lower floor, and a wider body. In order for me to stand up in a Transit, it would have to be the extra-tall roof (there’s low, medium and XT), which makes it look mighty top heavy, because of its narrower body. The Promaster is a better dimensioned box, but the Transit has some appealing qualities, like the availability of EcoBoost engines.
There is an ongoing recall with the Transit where the drive shaft flexible coupling has to be replaced every 30,000 miles until they come up with a permanent solution.
I can understand how that would turn people off from buying the vehicle.
Yes, that’s quite embarrassing. Almost unbelievable, actually.
According to a Dutch article I just found, there was a recall last year (summer 2017) for approx. 400,000 Kansas-City built Transits due to the issue you mention.
To be complete, here’s the source. In Dutch, as mentioned.
https://www.automobielmanagement.nl/nieuws/auto-techniek/nid26412-ford-roept-zon-400000-bestelautos-terug.html
Another prevalent issue is the air filter getting wet every time the Transit is driven on a rainy day. Go to fordtransitusaforum.com & look for the “Air Filter Nighmare” post to see what I’m talking about. In the meantime, I’d stick with my Ranger until all this gets fixed.
That should’ve said “Air Filter Nightmare.”
For my purposes, the low-roof short-wheelbase Transit (essentially how the one in this article is configured) would be just fine, especially the 8-passenger version. Any of the higher-roof/longer-wheelbase versions would be too big. My dad’s Expedition barely fits under our carport! Basically what I want is a van that can haul & tow confidently like my Aerostar could, but isn’t a complete bear to maneuver & park like most larger vans in the United States have traditionally been. Interestingly enough, the late-model Grand Caravan comes standard with Trailer Sway Control/Dampening even when there’s no trailer hitch installed. I still have plenty of time for my final decision.
John, you’re basically referring to the FWD Ford Transit Custom/Tourneo Custom. Substantially smaller than the Ford Transit (length/height/width) and not available in the US.
The closest modern equivalent to an Aerostar would be a Mercedes Metris since it’s both compact and RWD. Otherwise the smallest Transit or Sprinter would work since FCA doesn’t currently offer a passenger Promaster
As an aside, there’s this Fiat Talento minibus, same segment as the Benz Metris.
Note that you’re looking at a Renault Trafic aka Opel/Vauxhall Vivaro aka Nissan NV300. (aka Fiat Talento, also offered as panel van…)
A mate of mine had a MK2 Aussie built Transit sundowner with 4.1 Falcon six and four speed, only problem is Ford AU never changed the gearing, all thats required is a Zephyr crown wheel and pinion but this technology is unknown over there, Quite a nive van it was bright red with the decals on it captains chairs up front and semi camper in the back it might still survive he traded it in Melbourne for a G60 Nissan Patrol, they were quite rare even in the late 80s.
It just hit me. In the same year that the Transit was redesigned with one-box styling, the Aerostar entered production in the United States with a similarly-sloped hood. Do you think the same design team was in charge of both vans? And it’s clear the prior generation has front-end styling similar to the 1975-91 Econoline as well as the Aerostar. If you observe closely enough, it appears that the Aerostar took THAT Transit’s headlights & grille (as well as some of the windows) and put them on a 3/4 scale copy of the upcoming model. It really looks that way when you think about it.
…”While the underpinnings remained, Ford decided to follow the one box layout from the 1980 Renault Trafic and Master”…
That’s a quote from this article:
https://www.aronline.co.uk/commercials/ford-commercials/transit/concepts-and-prototypes-1986-ford-transit/
The Transit didn’t get much press in North America. However, I do remember reading about and seeing pics, of the Ford Transit Supervan 2.
Mmmm, Transits galore here! The Mk1 and Mk2 were everywhere when I was growing up in the 1970s/80s; they’re a permanent presence in my earlier car memories. Although New Zealand got the Mk2 Transit, we didn’t receive the Phase 2 facelift. Shame really, as the Phase 2’s revised front end and rear lights improve what was already nice-looking (for a van anyway!).
When Ford NZ stopped selling the Transit in 1982, they introduced the Econovan (aka Mazda E-Series/Bongo) as its replacement. The Econovan was popular, but not as big or capable as the Transit, and certainly lacking the myriad configurations! 13 years later Ford NZ reintroduced the Transit with the facelifted Mk3 model, and it quickly became the default large van.
The sheer endless number of configuration-possibilities (SWB-LWB, single rear wheels-dual rear wheels, single cab-double cab, low roof-high roof, panel van-minibus-chassis cab, etc.etc.) was and still is common for Euro-offerings.
A fine example is the Mercedes-Benz “Bremer Transporter” T1, introduced in 1977 and pictured below.
Or in these days, the Fiat Ducato (although not offered with dual rear wheels…)
When the updated Ford Trader was released Ford claimed to ne able to build over 200,000 commercials without a repeat vehicle, I forget which year that was circa 63, and I gave all those magazines away so cant check
I am guessing that actual van-chassis units did not get the cool color-coordinated frames as shown in the promotional photo? ☺
You’re might be guessing wrong. 🙂
I’m quite certain that the chassis versions of these vans are unitized at the cab, meaning the frame rails are welded to the cab floor. In which case, they might well have painted the whole thing, frame rails too. But I might well be wrong, on the paint part.
The Jeep Comanche pickup is the same: the frame rails are part of the unitized front half, but the bed was attached to the rails in the back in the usual manner.
I’ve always liked these. I have a UK brochure from 1984 which lists electric overdrive as an option, along with the V6, parcel van etc., however the sliding doors were discontinued by then and the DI diesel wasn’t available yet. As an aside the direct injection Transit diesel was a popular swap on Landrovers in the 90s since it was the right size and readily available. This fell out of favor in the early 2000s when actual Landrover 200tdi engines became readily available from rusted out Discoveries. Also in the late 90s Ford UK actually offered a Transit pickup to fill the gap when the P100 was finally retired. This was a medium wheelbase chassis cab with a US style bed installed at the factory, as disting from the more common aftermarket dropside.
s_j_c, funny you mention the Transit diesel swap for Land Rovers. From 2007 onwards, all (factory) Defenders had a 4-cylinder Ford DuraTorq turbodiesel. First a 2.4 liter, later a 2.2 liter.
The early 00s saw Ford using PSA/Ford diesels, Landrover followed suit, the 2.2 is an early iteration of what is installed in my daily drive, the 2.7 V6 diesel went into Landrovers and Ford Territories.
I´m from the city where the famous VW Bully was made. But I prefer the Transit, especially MK 1 and 2, it´s my favourite van.
When I was a child they were common here. I still remember the white MK 2 swb from “Gottfried” the milk man in my grandparents village.
A late 3rd generation Transit I drove during my apprenticeship as interior decorator. It was grey and red, had rwd and if I remember correctly a 2,5 litre diesel.
The 4th generation I drove also, when I was in service of an aid organization. It was speciall equipped for transportation of wheel chairs.
About two years after this was originally posted, we bought our own Transit. The US all wheel drive version which is based on the global RWD Mk 8 Transit; In some ways it’s identical to the European version, but Americanized with a 3.5 V6 turbo (retuned from the F150 EcoBoost) and a 10 speed GM/Ford transmission. And it’s built in Kansas City, Missouri at a UAW plant. Our van has been flawlessly reliable over 60,000 miles 🤞.
I will say that about ten years after its US launch, and (at least in our neighborhood) near ubiquity in Amazon livery, many people still don’t know the Transit name. One friend asked us about our Sprinter. We explained that it was a Transit. I guess I should have also said Ford, because they said, “Oh I don’t know there was a Sprinter Transit.” Of course, most Americans still call the large Stellantis pickups and FWD vans Dodges(they are Rams). To complicate things, before FCA bought Chrysler, the Sprinter was sold in the US with a Dodge (not Ram) badge.
They are iconic.
The Transit that I like the most is the Mk4 (a small redesign of the MK3), called smiley by the british for its grill design.
It’s a shame that we only had it in the US in its last generation.
Not a Transit Mk II, but a Mk I – but it simply belongs here because that’s how it all began:
Ford Transit from 1965 to 1978
What an advanced design ! For comparison, take a look at a 1965 VW Transporter …
My Dad had one of these in panel van form in the early seventies. With this grill/front panel you got the petrol v4, Dad always said it was a bit rough and gutless but overall it was a quantum improvement over the Ford Thames and Bedford CA vans he’d owned previously. Winding forward to the eighties I drove short and long wheelbase Transits as well as one with a refrigerated box body. At the time they all seemed to drive quite well but low gearing and non power steering would seem archaic now.
Yes – the Germans really detested the Transit, with its crude, cart-sprung axles and that appallingly noisy V4. Of course, we Limeys were too hard-done by to notice.
At least the VW left its engine noise in its wake and had independent suspension all-round.
I always felt the M-B T1 was a bit retrograde compared to its Hanomag-Henschel predecessor in that regard. But it was way more refined than the Transit.