The Dodge Ram Promaster comes in three wheelbases (118″, 139″, 159″) and four body lengths (159″ wb regular and extended). By far the least common is the little guy, on the 118″ wb. It’s also only 195″ long overall, making it by by far less the only compact full size van on the market. It reminds me quite a lot of the old Dodge swb van of yore. Maybe that’s why they’re still selling this?
These two Dodge FCA vans show just how compact this guy is: the Caravan has a 121″ wb, and is 203″ long. And of course has much less cargo room. I wonder why the shorty Promaster is so uncommon?
Here it is with its spiritual predecessor. I guess the swb full-size van market just ain’t what it used to be.
By the way, the respective cargo capacities of these two shorty vans is: Promaster 118: 259.2 cubic feet; Dodge 109: 206.6 c.f. The Promaster’s FWD, low load floor and taller overall height (88..7″ to about 80″ makes the difference. One thing is for sure: the visibility from the cab is vastly better in the Promaster.
My logistics company now has two Promasters, the biggest ones available.
Modern vans are a huge improvement over the older models. They are much larger, meaning they have massively more payload for the cost of the driver and fuel. The drivers report better comfort, too.
The low loading height of the Promaster makes it ideal for urban work. It its really not any bigger than a Caravan but has a vastly larger payload. The European roots are reflected in the tight turning circle, which is very convenient in urban areas.
Ironic, as commercial versions of the minivan were what replaced the SWB full-size van in the first place.
I was going to say the same thing. Shorty vans were not that uncommon back in the day, then came cargo versions of the Astro and Aerostar and the shorty full size disappeared.
Dodge’s 109″ Ram Van did stick around until the end of the run in 2003, but it was never all that common to begin with in my neck of the woods. Around here, if you got a full-size van, it was the LWB version.
I didn’t realize the Dodge lasted that long. The Ford and Chevy went away quickly, but then again the Astro and Aerostar were more accepted as work trucks than the Caravan C/V which was later to the party.
Dodge introduced a commercial Caravan at the same time as the original passenger vans. According to David Zatz’s minivan history, the sliding door on the original Chrysler minivans was chosen because of the commercial version.
Thank you for the write up on this no so common vehicle. Since this type of Promaster has less of footprint, but more cargo room than say a Transit Connect I can see why some businesses like this Promaster. Hopefully FCA sells enough to justify keeping it around. These shorty Promasters look ripe for customization indeed.
This is longer than the long Transit Connect and wider too. So the foot print is larger than the TC.
Much shorter that this and we will start complaining about the huge overhangs on both ends 🙂 These shortys always look so friendly, and as long as they can hold a 4×8 sheet of whatever without moving seats or making other adjustments are immensely useful. If there’s an incremental market for them, take it FCA!
CC effect, I saw one of these this morning and thought “Wow, that’s a short Promaster”. And I was driving the Grand Caravan at the time. Had to go 50km into Toronto for a meeting, 2 hours there and an hour back 🙁
The other day I was driving behind a Promaster and noticed how little ground clearance there is under the rear axle. Made my remember Paul’s build post, and how some people modify them for a little more clearance during off road use.
Don’t ask me. The last time I thought about the shorty van it was in the context of “why would anyone buy a minivan – there are already really short vans available.” I was terribly wrong.
So does this foreshadow any possible effects on pickups in the future? Does the van market show what may happen in the pickup truck market, or are they totally separate?
We had small, compact pickups in the past, but mainly they were captive imports (Courier, LUV) or the Toyota or Datsun version. Then, we made midsized ones (Dakota), and bigger small ones (Ranger, S10, and Tacomas) and bigger and bigger full sized ones. We in the US went from big to bigger, with the rest of the world getting to still have smaller compact trucks available.
Will we make a turn towards the world standard for smaller pickups, or will we keep our bigger is better sizes over here? I know the OEMs want bigger for better profit, but how long is that sustainable?
Vans (excluding the traditional family minivans, although less so every year) are almost exclusively bought for utilitarian purposes; if not outright work, as a passenger shuttle or transport for a very large family (they probably mostly buy used). The only people buying new vans as a lifestyle thing are RVers like our host. They aren’t large-car substitutes like pickups have become. The importance of perceived safety, in the form of a long hood and 4WD, to that market knocked the full-size van out of contention decades ago.
“with the rest of the world getting to still have smaller compact trucks available.”
I feel it necessary to point out that the small global trucks are now either the same size or only slightly smaller than American mid-size trucks. And the original RCSB minitrucks in the ’70s and ’80s were more like subcompacts. Similarly, full-size trucks pretty much hit the ceiling for length and width in the early ’00s.
While the Hilux/Tacoma, Ranger, Colorado/DMax as well as Amarok and all the various badgings of the Nissan Navara’s are indeed a common size globally, there are still small VW and Fiat car-based pickups not sold on the US, and I wonder if these will show up here too at some point. Lots of them just across the border in Mexico. A high-top SWB ProMaster would be an interesting camper conversion candidate, though it might need standard crosswind control SW.
Except for trailer towing, new US half tons sold for personal use aren’t sold for utilitarian purposes. They’re sold for style and pleasure. A truck much smaller than a Ranger will have neither, nor will it have the super towing for big work trailers.
Back in the 80’s I delivered those customised vans from the midwest to various dealers. The longer ones got better fuel mileage.
Wonder if that’s true today.
I’ve seen shorty Sprinters around but the small vans like the Transit Connect, Promaster City and NV 200 seem more popular for that niche. I guess the van market ends up with very few niches where the medium volume medium payload of the short full size pencils out. If your loads are small the mini platform is more maneuverable and cheaper, and for heavier or bulkier loads the cost difference for the bigger van is negligible. also as Speedyk observed the longer bodies are more fuel efficient because they have smoother airflow.
I’ve been looking at these
….their apparent simplicity, utility and happiness draws them to me. Which is why I started driving pickups 40 years ago. Alas, pickups are now ruined….been considering a move to one of these.
“Ruined”? Pickups are better now than they’ve ever been.
I overstated by saying “ruined.” I should have said “ruined for me”…i just prefer things simpler. But i’m old.
Vans have all of the buried electronic stuff that pickups have. You can easily buy a plain white F150 XL with plain upholstery like a work van. How are vans different?
I was on the 105 in Eugene yesterday and noticed a shorty Promaster like this – and it was a 2500 series, too…….
No such thing. Only comes as a 1500. You probbaly saw a 136″ wb version, which is quite common, and looks “short” compared to the two longer ones.
Well, maybe………
I usually don’t get a chance to measure the length, but I do see lots of low-roof ProMasters and Transits around here. Often driven by folks whose trades require ladders. I get it, because I can’t imagine what it’s like to get a 32′ extension ladder off the top of a high-roof model.
Yeah when I see those guys with the high roof and ladders on the top I always think to myself, where do they carry the ladder needed to get to the ladder?
The other reason to go with the low roof is parking garage access. I used to have a customer many years ago that was a plumber who told me the reason he used G20s is that they would fit in parking garages where an E-250 wouldn’t.
I still remember that my 94 E-150 Club Wagon had a roof clearance of 6’8″. I would imagine that the E-250 sits higher.
Even knowing that I was good on clearance, it took a long while to get used to driving in a parking garage with those concrete roof beams passing so close to your head.
Something like this helps.
This vehicle would probably sell better if actually named Shorty Promaster.
Regarding the size comparison between the ProMaster & the old Dodge van (the Coca-Cola one), why IS the ProMaster taller despite being a FWD vehicle? Usually RWD vehicles in a given segment have a taller height (compare the Astro to a typical minivan for example), so this comes as as surprise to me. In addition, having a minimum height of 88.7″ means even the low-roof model won’t fit under a parking garage b/c it’s over 7′ tall. The Sprinter is even TALLER (94.5″ minimum) so it faces this problem too. What’s worse, any ground clearance you would otherwise gain from that height boost over a traditional American-style van is deemed useless with the ProMaster’s rear axle design.
I’ve never heard of longer-wheelbase vans getting better fuel economy; I tend to believe the shorter ones would b/c of less total weight to move around with the same engine & transmission. And regarding cargo capacity, even the smallest full-size vans of yesteryear will still hold more than a typical family vehicle in this day & age.
Because it just happens to be the shortest version of a family of four large roomy vans. It would be exceedingly difficult (expensive) to lower the roof height for just one version. These are commercial vans primarily. Back in the 70s, these were a combination of family and work vans, and their total size was lower and smaller.
It’s not about ground clearance; it’s about maximum payload size. Anyway, the 6.9″ ground clearance is actually a bit more than the RWD Transit, due to its low shock mounts and differential pumpkin.
Regardless of roof height, the selling point of the low floor is speed and safety of loading. The floor would scrape the road if that would work while moving. Massive ground clearance isn’t essential. This isn’t sold as an off road vehicle.
The Promaster rear axle that is visible from the rear is just the cheapest/lightest structure to connect the left and right side. If the OEM thought max ground clearance sold vans, that could be arched.
The rental ProMaster I reviewed a couple of years back sort of illustrates the low floor point.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/new-car-review/future-classic-2017-ram-1500-promaster-cargo-136-wb-low-roof-u-haul-traded-in-my-transit/
And here is the similar but higher floor Ford Transit that I also reviewed prior to the ProMaster:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/future-classic/future-classic-2015-ford-transit-250-a-new-dawn-for-u-haul/
I have seen a ton of these south of here (in Seattle southward) not so much north sound. Now I will see 20 tomorrow..CC effect.
I drive a Promaster for work every day, and still didn’t know that one this short even existed. I like the van though, very maneuverable and easy to load. Transmissions seem to be a weak point for the ones in our fleet though.
Interesting observation.
In Europe, the SWB is the default and more common choice.
I’m quit sure that the most common one in Europe is the medium wheelbase (136″) version. I think a lot of folks are mixing up this short version with the medium length version.
Agreed. This short ProMaster/Ducato looks really rare to me. If folks here want a van with that kind of wheelbase/overall length, they opt for the mid-size instead of the fullsize van model, which is smaller all around.
In this case that would be the Fiat Talento (rebadged Renault Trafic) instead of the SWB Ducato.
Or the Transit Custom if you’re a Ford man which slots between the Transit Connect and the smallest big Transit.