When I am refurbishing a house, my favorite day in the process (besides closing day of course) is dump day. That’s the day I usually rent a large box truck and throw all of the accumulated debris, construction waste, and other junk I no longer want into it and drive it to the landfill after selling off anything of value and recycling anything that can be.
On Wednesday another such day presented itself as I finished up a project I’ve been working on since January. After I made the short drive to a U-Haul franchise I noticed that in addition to several GMC vans and the usual larger box vans they also had some of the new to the United States market Ford Transit Vans.
After eyeballing it, I decided that I could most likely fit at least most of my trash into it and figured even if I needed to make two runs it would still be worth it since the per mileage charge was less than the box vans but really it was an opportunity to drive something different than the norm.
So, for a per day fee of $19.95 and a mileage charge of 59 cents per, I became the temporary owner of an almost brand new van with less than 1800 miles on it, making it the lowest mileage vehicle I have ever received from U-Haul by at least 100,000 miles and a significant improvement on the usual clapped out rolling deathtraps that they usually foist on me.
If all they had was the GMC vans or the older Ford Econolines I never would have attempted this, since those vans have way too much tumblehome, making the cargo area more pinched. The Transit has almost vertical walls, especially evident in the rear view, which would help as I had numerous old countertops, mirrors and other large, flat pieces to deal with.
Driving it to my jobsite it immediately felt much different than any other utility vehicle I had driven. The seat was very comfortable with adjustable lumbar, the steering wheel felt good and all of the controls operated with the same fluidity and ease as any other modern passenger car product from Ford. It was a lot like driving a large Focus, actually.
Powered by a 3.7liter V-6 and mated to a 6-speed automatic (with optional manual control!) it was quite sprightly off the line, even at our altitude. Well, at least when it was empty. Once I loaded it up it took more time to get up to speed but was not painfully slow by any means.
The slip I received from the dump later showed that when full with all of my stuff it weighed 7980lbs and after emptying it, when I exited it weighed 5340lbs, which obviously included myself as well as pretty much full tank of gasoline, so probably about 5000lbs empty.
I drove it for a total of 52 miles on various roads including residential, county roads, as well as the I-25 freeway at speeds up to 80mph and when I returned it the Average MPG readout read the same 15.4mpg as when I received it. Not at all bad for something this useful.
As I was driving it I reflected that this would be quite a useful vehicle for me, probably more than a pickup truck if I had more regular need for something like this. A passenger version (modern Club Wagon) I think might do quite well, as the driving dynamics and comfort were first rate for a vehicle of this size.
It really did not drive that much different than a FWD minivan such as a Toyota Sienna or Honda Odyssey even though it was rear wheel drive in this case. Visibility was fairly good except directly to the back, as evidenced by the broken taillight and small scrape that someone had already inflicted on the rear right corner. A backup camera would be a huge boon to this vehicle.
The dashboard was laid out very well with an extremely handy place for my cellphone just to the right of the steering wheel, cupholders out by the corners of the dash, a good radio with an Aux-In plug and lots of storage cubbies.
As I drove it, it began to rain, I was delighted to note that the wiper controls had a “nudge to wipe” feature that is missing in too many american cars. The ability to keep both hands on the wheel in rainy or misty conditions is smart and safe engineering and probably one of my few gripes about my current Chrysler is that it requires me to take a hand off the wheel to twist the wiper controller to get a single wipe.
As far as loading the cargo is concerned, the rear doors open to a detent and which the push of a switch can open almost all the way flush against the body sides. The side doors open the same way but not quite as far .
The one thing that would really help would be a tether as both the back and the side doors tried to close on me several times due in a couple of instances to wind and in others to the fact that I was on a sloped driveway.
The one I had was a standard roof version but the high roof versions allow the operator to stand fully erect in the back, making those versions ideal mobile workshops for all kinds of tradesmen.
Overall I really enjoyed driving this van, it is lightyears ahead of the traditional full-size american vans, I am looking forward to seeing more of these on the roads and also for the inevitable custom and cutaway versions that will make campers, minibuses, etc.
A flatbed version would be a very useful idea as well as the load bed could be extremely low compared to today’s pickup trucks.
In the end I did have to make two trips. The first trip was pure trash, the second trip allowed me to take some usable stuff like light fixtures and other stuff to Uncle Benny’s in Loveland, an architectural salvage place that paid me $50 for what will undoubtedly be treasure to someone else, which covered most of my cost to rent the van for the day and then drop a bunch of cardboard and metal at the recycling center with a small amount of additional trash for the dump.
Oh, if you have any interest in seeing the end result that is the house I refurbished mostly by myself with the help of some skilled trades I use, click HERE. To me, the house is also a Curbside Classic, although it sits on the other side of the curb compared to the space that we are used to looking at.
Just last Friday I rented a van from U-Haul myself, to move a couple of pieces of furniture I’d purchased. I was hoping I might get to try one of these new Transits but all they had were GMC Savanas, so that’s what I ended up with. I had similar luck to you in that it was low mileage–about 8000 in my case. But they are very much traditional vans, with dynamics not dis-similar to the old Econolines and even with a distinct familiarity to the ’92 GMC box van that I drove occasionally at a former job.
The more carlike nature of the interior of this Transit looks nice. Though I do wonder how the gas V6 will hold up over time; I know these Euro-style vans don’t generally carry V8 or V10 motivation like the older US vans did but I would have assumed a diesel 6 would provide a similar amount of torque. Seems a lot to ask an NA gas V6 to haul around nearly 8000 lbs. of vehicle on a regular basis.
Are they planning on selling a bewindowed, beseated version in the spirit of the Club Wagon, I wonder, or will places using Transits for passenger service have to get them custom outfitted?
Chris, you need to get over the idea that a smaller engine is going to explode from hauling heavy loads. Way back, almost all pickups, vans and even medium-sized trucks were sixes. And in Europe, fours are commonplace.
The size of the engine really has little or nothing to do with it. Modern engines will run hundreds of thousands of miles, regardless of what vehicle they’re in. Fours and sixes will be the the only engines this new generation of vans will ever have.
Just to clarify, the vehicle weight is right around 5000lbs, fully loaded with mainly heavy stuff (tile, countertops, mirror glass and other scrap) it came in at around 8000. It did fine hauling it at my 5000′ altitude but you could obviously notice a difference. I believe I’d also notice a difference if I had a pickup and was towing a 3000lb trailer. Maximum payload appears to be just over 4000lbs according to Ford so I was well within the limits. Mine was the base engine, but there is also a 3.5 liter turbo gas unit as well as a 3.2 liter 5-cylinder turbo diesel available. What I had did just fine, A V-8 would be overkill. Source: http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/transitcommercial/specifications/engine/
I hope the Transit’s dashboard MPG is accurate; on our ’04 Sienna, that varies as much as ±2mpg against the tank mileage. But considering you were driving it packed with stuff, it’s pretty good no matter what the error.
I still can’t get over anything under 20mpg being considered good, unless we’re talking 44 tonners.
My 8000lb works Sprinter gives 28mpg (imperial). 33 when it’s empty.
Oh, and in relation to later comments, it’s RWD, as is the little Vito, which is commonly used here as a taxi, as well as a delivery van and a hotel shuttle.
That fuel gauge would mess with my head until I got used to it (unless they all come with that sticker).
A diesel is available on these. But the take rate is bound to be low, because the diesel engine costs more, diesel fuel costs more, and the maintenance costs are higher. With our low gasoline prices, it just doesn’t pan out economically.
@ tonito, if the Mercedes 350 (gasoline) V6 was in your Sprinter, then you would probably also get than kind of mileage.
Any 4-cylinder diesel van should do at least 25 mpg on average.
I wasn’t criticizing it, just saying I was having one of those “does not compute” moments. I was already aware that petrol V6s tend to use more fuel than diesel fours 🙂 Still wouldn’t buy a diesel one in the States, in fact I would hesitate to buy a modern diesel anywhere unless it was under warranty.
I have to visit the US from time to time and have been known to drive a Suburban and an Avalanche, it was just seeing that display on a Transit was jarring. I used to get 20mpg from my Falcon in Oz (or I convinced myself I did), but if it starts with “1” it sends shivers.
Perhaps not germane to the discussion but, Tonito, your comment made me wonder–does Australia still use the imperial gallon? In that case MPG readings between US and AUS vehicles are going to be useless as the size of the gallon is different.
Exhibit # 103929234 as to why the whole world ought to be metric…
If they were going to use a gallon I guess they would use imperial, but just about everything is metric there, unlike the UK, which is all mixed up. I just worked out the mpg on the Falcon because l/km or whatever is meaningless to me.
When I was living in Korea, large loads, and I mean LARGE, were put onto their Bongo pickups. These trucks had 3 litre naturally aspirated diesels, with perhaps 100 hp. I never saw one blow up.
North American cars are way overpowered. For example, the largest engine for a Rio, outside North America, is 1.4 litres. Most are 1.2’s. We get a 1.6.
Part of that may be the American aversion to manual shifting, which one often needs to get the most out of smaller engines. It certainly can’t be our Interstate Highway speeds! 75-80mph is nothing to modern cars.
Anecdote: I took my aging mother on a trip not long ago in my Civic, and she remarked on its engine revving up to climb a hill, perfectly normal & even fun to me, but noteworthy in her past experience. She simply isn’t used to high RPMs.
But maybe smarter automatics are removing that barrier.
It seems to me that most Americans feel the need for sub-8-second 0-60 times, even in the cheapest penalty-box. At least, that’s the way the Invisible Hand of the Market seems to have pushed us…
What’s more interesting (at least to me) is how fast a car can accelerate from, say, 50 mph to 80 mph. With our without downshifting one gear. In other words: can you overtake a slower vehicle or enter a freeway in all comfort and safety.
Well if a car doesn’t do 0-60 in less than 8 seconds it gets mentioned in pretty much every review as being slow. In reality most people never do a flat out 0-60 run. They base their buying decisions on whatever their magazine or website of choice tells them they should base it on. And manufacturers have had to respond to that. Well, that, and “soft touch materials”, because that is ultra-important as well for some reason.
On the engine size issue, it would be great if VW offered their 1.4 turbo engine in the Golf in North America, instead of only the 1.8.
Strangely, the 1.4 is available in the Jetta (at least in Canada), and combines adequate power with close-to-hybrid highway fuel consumption.
Thanks for this write-up. I’m happy to see the old dinosaur vans replaced one by one, as these European designs are so much better in terms of their utility, given their boxy bodies and the wide range of body lengths and heights.
I will eventually replace our tired old ’77 Dodge Chinook with something from this new generation. I’m rather drawn to the ram, as its FWD makes a really excellent foundation for a van conversion/camper/motor home.
I would think FWD would be a disadvantage on a camper, since when loaded you are taking weight off the front. I know I wouldn’t want a FWD pickup.
The way the wheelbase is configured would make a big difference. The vans are much more COE designs than any pickup, and all of the heavy stuff could/should be located inside the wheelbase. Most pickups when fully loaded or towing (over here anyway) have much more weight on their rear axles than the front. While the Transit was not bad as far as loading goes, if it was FWD and the floor could be lowered significantly that would make a big difference.
The VW Eurovan was made into a camper over here and in Europe there have been FWD campers (large ones, even) on what is now the RAM platform for several generations. Some of our European friends can no doubt chime in here with more knowledge than me.
I didn’t consider the lower load height. Looks like the Ram (which is a Fiat) is about 7 inches lower
The Ram does give up 2500 pounds of towing to the Transit though, so there is a tradeoff.
There is a limit when making a lower load floor is no longer an advantage and it becomes a disadvantage. If you are carrying heavy or bulky items having it down below kneecap level means stooping over to lift it when it comes time to take it out of the vehicle. Yes modern pickups have become too tall but that doesn’t mean that a load floor that is near the ground is necessarily a good thing. Now for a mobile workshop or motorhome a low step in height is nice. On the other hand many of the RWD vans have inside running boards making them easy to step into.
This argument has been rehashed over and over here. The fact is, we aren’t in 1959. The Ram-Fiat van is a great unit BECAUSE it is front wheel drive. There would be very few situations where FWD would be an issue.
I didn’t realize the passage of time changed the laws of physics. Which is best depends entirely on how the van is used and in what conditions.
There are also RWD and AWD Ford Transits. Isn’t that great ?
The biggest vans still are RWD, often combined with dual rear tires. An example is the Iveco Daily, the Ram ProMaster’s big brother. The top-model Ford Transit is another one.
Here you go, a RWD Ford Transit truck-edition with dual rear tires:
Well, we have different units for different needs, and that is great.
For a motorhome, FWD is going to give huge packaging advantages.
The fabled GMC motorhome was FWD, and I don’t see anyone here complaining about that.
The Europeans have been building FWD motorhomes and campers for decades (as well as FWD work vans). And don’t forget there were once a number of FWD Toronado-based motorhomes in the US, including the GMC and Revcon. Nobody ever complained about a lack of traction.
It’s a non-issue, in my mind. And the advantages are considerable: a lower, flat floor.
For that matter, in Europe, FWD trucks are used widely, like this Fiat Ducato double cab with a dump bed.
The Ram ProMaster is FWD only, and is available to carry quite heavy loads, and is now very popular with the motorhome conversion industry.
This FWD Promaster Winnebago is probably the hottest seller in its category. I want one !!
Interesting. It may depend on where and when you are hauling, I would imagine. Traction is certainly an issue with my Grand Caravan when hauling/towing in icy conditions. But campers are generally going to be used in the summer.
You use a Caravan for towing? You are a brave man indeed.
There is a rather large difference between a Pro-Master and a Caravan, in my opinion.
I wouldn’t say I use it for towing. But on occasion, yes, I have towed with it. And hauled fairly heavy loads.
And it is quite different from the Promaster. But I don’t believe the weight bias is.
As you said above, different units for different needs is indeed great. I never meant to imply otherwise. I would just question if FWD is the best choice when hauling heavy loads or towing. But as I realized, I suppose a camper isn’t going to be used in inclement weather anyway. I’d need to see what the loaded weight bias is to really know if I’d consider it.
Well Phil, outside the US no RWD vans have been built for decades (Mercedes, Renault, Iveco, Fiat, Ford, Volkswagen, the Japanese and Korean manufacturers) and not because users there would be less demanding or would care less about performance and reliability of their equipment.
^No RWD vans have been built outside the US for decades? So the Transit being discussed is not RWD? The writeup said it was and several comments have agreed.
Also, it’s worth noting how breathtakingly ugly the Ducato/Promaster is. Compared to that beast, the Transit is a beauty queen.
Chris – The Transit in this article IS definitely RWD, I got down on bended knee to make sure. However it IS built in the US, I checked the tag to verify.
The Transit “Connect” (that little thing that sort of looks like a Focus Cargo Wagon) is built abroad.
Obviously many other large vans are built abroad as well, most of which are FWD or at least have that option.
Look guys, the Ford Transit Custom. As FWD as FWD can be.
@ Len, the ProMaster’s gasoline drive train is based on the Caravan. Yes the claim to have strengthened the transmission and axles for ProMaster use.
@ Carolus, Yes the Transit is available in a FWD version but the highest capacity versions are RWD or AWD. The Sprinter is RWD or AWD. The Vito was RWD or AWD until the 2015 MY. The Iveco Daily is RWD. The Renault Master is available in both RWD and FWD versions. The fact is for the highest capacity RWD is the way to go.
That Promaster crew cab with the dropside bed is a better work truck than any American crew cab pickup. More usable cab space, lower and wider bed and easy loading of pallets. Too bad machismo marketing precludes these things over here. I’d roll one with under bed tool boxes and a rear ramp for tandem bicycle and motorcycle hauling duties.
Also if your work or play needs include 4×4, Iveco does a 4×4 version version of the Daily/Ducato in Europe, and Quigley is making 4×4 Transits in the US.
Agreed. And I’ve been saying it for years.
I would definitely be interested in one if it were available and if the inside space is a spacious as you claim. Given my past experience with vans, I’d question that because today’s pickups are very spacious. Also, keep in mind that even the Transit can only tow a max of 7500 pounds, well below American-style pickups. The payload is spectacular.
Needs some sort of cover though, and somewhat higher bed sides for when you’re using that cover.
This is the FWD 2013 Transit we had in the UK a couple years ago. 2.2L Duratorq turbo-diesel, 6-speed manual. Fast (happily sat at 130km/h on the motorways with power to spare) and economical, and had no traction issues on road or off.
I rented one of these a few months ago, with only 300 miles on the Odo. They had several of the rotten old GMC’s around, but I begged to get the Transit instead and it was worth my groveling. The driving experience was a shock – it was wonderful! Super easy to maneuver, great acceleration, wonderful visibility. It was actually fun to zip around in and a huge contrast from the old ones, which always felt giant and unwieldy. Oh, and POWER WINDOWS..on a U-haul. What?!
Welcome to the modern age, American vans! I look forward to the next time I need to rent one for a day or two.
I was even more surprised than you when I went to adjust the (excellent, by the way) mirrors and found them difficult to reach through the window before noticing they were powered as well! It was a very nice driver as you said, if I had to move something across the country I’m not kidding when I say this van would make that a pleasurable drive.
Yes to the mirrors. This was the first time in history that I was actually able to adjust the passenger-side mirror in a U-haul vehicle so that I could actually see.
They do make these in “Wagon” passenger versions with windows all around and seating starting at $32K. And there’s a dizzying array of combinations with length, height, and even a dually available. And you can get a diesel or the 3.5 ecoboost turbo.
Quite a step up from the Econolines in pretty much every way. As they should be, being some 40 years newer.
OK, I thought of a downside of these. You can see the window stampings in the cargo versions. That looks cheap. Not that most buyers of cargo vans will care. I had to reach for that.
My job is a delivery driver, and my company just bought one of these vans. They didn’t have short people in mind when designing the driver’s seat. There’s no height and tilt adjustment for the bottom seat cushion like on our Sprinter van seats, which are manual adjust. I have to adjust my seat and steering wheel forward, until my knee is touching the ignition key tag. Maybe there’s an optional power seat that’s more comfortable. My first choice is still our Sprinter vans. Ford seems to think most their vehicles have to have the late 60s Mustang grill look, which I don’t like. A friendly vehicle face is nice, and results in better sales. .
I don’t like Ford’s oversaturation of that grille style but I don’t find the Transit’s nose unfriendly. I’ve always had trouble relating vehicle front ends without round sealed beams to faces, and if anything the slanted pulled back organic headlights the Transit has(and most vehicles in general have) makes the front end have the profile of a smiley face, which puts me off from just about everything made now a days.
Transit is a home run for Ford, selling very well.
According to a recent article over at The Truth About Cars, the commercial van segment is hot right now. Along with the full-size Transit, Nissan NVx500, and Dodge Promaster, there’s also the smaller, ‘city-size’ Transit Connect, Nissan NV200, and Promaster City. None of them are particularly fast, but the flip-side is they get good fuel mileage, and in the commercial business, that’s what counts. The small Nissan is built in China, while the Dodge and Ford are built in Turkey and shipped to the US with rear seats to avoid the ‘chicken tax’. The seats are then removed for commercial conversion at the POE and, presumably, shipped back.
GM is really dragging up the rear in this hot market right now. A few years ago they badge-engineered the NV200 into the Chevy City Express, but are still using the hoary old Chevy Express Cargo for full-size service. There was an actual review of the Express Cargo over at TTAC a few years ago and it’s one of the worst rides you can buy new today, a really archaic vehicle (still uses the old, rectangular, sealed beam headlights) that would please someone looking to experience what it was like to drive a new vehicle about 60 years ago with horrible ergonomics (back-killing seats and there’s no place to rest your left foot). I would imagine that, at some point, it will be replaced by a badge-engineered version of the Nissan NVx500. With all the great new alternatives, I can’t imagine any business, even those with the most tight-fisted owners, continuing to use those grungy Chevy Express Cargo vans when they wear-out instead of replacing them with the much better, more efficient, new-style, full-size commercial vans.
This is funny: GM’s Euro-division has this Opel Combo van.
Fully based on the Fiat Doblo, aka the Ram ProMaster City.
Looks a lot like the latest Transit Connect. With the variety of vans in play in the N.A. market now, looks like we’re in for a rumble among competitors. It’s going to get interesting.
And GM’s US arm is selling a rebadged Nissan NV200 as the Chevy City Express.
I wonder if they will ever develop their own.
It may be an antique outclassed in every way, but the Express/Savana is still in great demand. GM sold nearly 106,000 of them in 2014, up from the previous year. Due to the introduction and strong initial demand for the Colorado/Canyon pickups (also built in Wentzville) GM had to stop taking orders for 2015 model vans last October, Fleet customers now have to wait until this summer to take delivery of 2015s ordered prior to the cutoff or to place orders for 2016s.
Needless to say a lot of those customers just gave up and went with one of the new Euro-designed competitors – and smiling every month when the gas card bills show up!
I’d imagine that is due to purchase price alone. The only advantage I can see is when you get into the 1-ton vans the traditional ones have more towing than these Euro-style ones. Then again, I don’t see many vans pulling large loads, pickups are typically used for that.
Who knows, there is more to fleet costs than purchase price and gas mileage. Maybe somebody here would know more.
Part of it may just be that fleet buyers are resistant to change. Sort of like how IT people used to always buy IBM because it was considered safe, because “nobody ever gets fired for buying IBM”.
It may also be easier to only have to stock parts for one vehicle.
Many fleet operators prefer a sealed beam vehicle since composite headlamps can get very expensive. That is why for example for the longest time the fleet special versions of the Econoline, F 150 and F Super Duty have a sealed beam set up while the higher trim models that are more aimed at the retail market have composite lamps. When the driver is not the owner and not paying the bills vehicles tend to get beat up much more.
The US Nissan NV200 is from Mexico (with longer wheelbase than EU and China van) and the new Ford Connect is built in Spain (Valencia).
Here’s the thing I wonder though–as everybody involved seems to agree that the Euro-style big vans are the future, why did Nissan go to the trouble to develop the NVx500 for release so recently, debuting in 2011? While it’s based on the thoroughly modern Titan platform, otherwise, it’s very traditional-RWD, big V6 or V8 power, even has a side profile similar to that of the Express/old Econoline. For what reason? They’re selling, I suppose because they’re a much more modern rendition of the traditional van than the antique Express/Savana, but it seems like the most up-to-date version of a dying type of vehicle.
The whole reason for the US NV is because they are trying to make the factory profitable, the Titan and Frontier don’t sell enough so they figured they could up the factory’s effeciency by cobbling together the NV out of many of the existing pieces. The interesting thing is that they have the 2500 version complete with the expected in the US 8 lug wheels but that hasn’t trickled up to the Titan.
I found that the 2012 Chevy Express I drove for thousands of miles had a comfy driver’s seat and the foot room was pretty good, but then again I drive almost every vehicle with the seat back nearly all the way. Some vehicles I move the seat up a notch for city driving then move it back when on the highway or my leg(s) cramp up. I am used to driving old fashioned somewhat gutless vehicles so the Express felt somewhat at home and I rather have the sealed beam headlights because it is cheaper than the plastic headlights which yellow, crack, and come with fake chrome which peels and fades. Compared to a 2012 Econoline the Express is quieter, easier to handle, and safer. So basically the Express is the nicest of the covered wagons and the Transit is the U.S.S Enterprise. I am going to miss the bench seats in full sized vans though.
“The ability to keep both hands on the wheel in rainy or misty conditions is smart and safe engineering and probably one of my few gripes about my current Chrysler is that it requires me to take a hand off the wheel to twist the wiper controller to get a single wipe.”
I figured out that the way to operate the Chrysler wipers for momentary use is to just push it in lightly as if to use the windshield washer. The light tap gets the momentary sweep without the washer fluid spray and without having to do the ‘twist’ that requires hand removal from the steering wheel.
Thanks, I have tried that and mine seems to squirt no matter how lightly I tap it, but only after doing it several times, I guess each tiny tap advances the fluid a bit…
It’s weird though, either the 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee or the 2014 Dodge Grand Caravan (I forget which) that were my extended rentals before getting the 300 DID have the push to wipe rather than twist, so I know Chrysler has the know-how (and the part) in inventory. In that case it was a distinct two-step push, push partway to wipe, the whole way to wash and wipe. Just add it to the whole lineup, Chrysler, it only makes sense.
That’s bizarre. Some sort of momentary ‘tap-to-wipe’ would seem to be a given on any new vehicle. It’s just a matter of figuring out where it is. Maybe your 300 has a defective wiper switch?
Of course, manufacturers (usually domestic) have a really bad habit of eliminating or contenting useful features to increase profit, no matter how short-sighted. My favorite was when Ford eliminated the ‘cancel’ feature on their cruise control switches. I swore off Ford products after that.
No, it’s not defective :-). At lunch I tried to tap it again, it squirted immediately and then gave me three wipes instead of one, so not what I want. It clearly says to twist to swipe once. Works exactly as designed, just not how I’d prefer.
It’s a shame that the North American sold Transit is not available with turbodiesel engine.
It is, a 3.2l 5-cylinder turbodiesel unit. I posted the link above. The link doesn’t mention the turbo but other Ford marketing materials do.
Naturally aspirated diesel engines went the way of the dodo.
I just checked the Dutch Ford website. The only engine that’s available in the Transit here is the 2.2 liter Duratorq 4-cylinder turbo diesel. The most powerful version is 155 hp.
The 5-cylinder turbodiesel is available on all US models except the 150 Wagon & 350 (not 350HD) Van.
My company just bought two of these vans, high roof LWB models, with the 3.7 litre V-6. We didn’t go diesel as it the service costs are higher and fuel quality on the Prairies can be iffy in winter. Then there is finding someone to work on it, easier said than done in some places…..
The vans are much larger than the E-350’s they replaced. They use 40% less fuel. They haul like 100% more, making for a much better payload, and a much lower operating cost tonne/km.
As for reliability, it is too early to tell.
In the same way that John Dillinger endorsed Ford V8s, the Hatton Garden jewel thieves (arrested this morning) clearly recommend this model of Ford Transit. It shows in several of the CCTV pictures, hauling their $60 million load reliably and safely.
How long was the Transit available in Europe before it’s North American introduction? It seems like Ford would have been smart to get this going here a long time ago.
The phone pocket is a nice idea. I use my phone for Navigation, and the cupholder works well enough, but this location would be better. Nice to see a dash WITHOUT a touch screen / monitor.
Transit debuted in 1967, best selling van ever since.
….1965, actually.
The first “modern era” (sloping front) Transit, the 3th gen, was introduced in 1986. That was this one:
Also available as minivan / minibus / taxi.
Jim, thanks for sharing your experience; I’ve wondered how well these work in practice. Just last Saturday, we drove by a U-Haul dealer alongside I-10 & a Transit like yours was prominently displayed. I’m starting to see these often, looks like the market is responding. Ford has stolen a march on GM.
Did you have trouble finding the gas cap? I talked to a passenger-version driver, and he was grateful the Owner’s Manual was provided, or he never would’ve found it (behind driver’s door). He liked it, including the low step height.
Dave, the Transit dates back to the early ’60s, more or less. Ford simply domesticated the latest RWD Euro version; it’s built in their Kansas City plant, so no Chicken Tax trickery req’d.
My old work had a Sprinter which has the gas cap in the same location. I now look at that spot in any large van, so had no trouble finding it.
I liked it so much I would definitely rent one again and as a matter of fact I would INSIST on getting one of these over the old dinosaurs to the point of walking out and looking elsewhere. Yes I can be stubborn and petulant like that.
“Ford has stolen a march on GM.”
Yeah, and I can’t for the life of me figure out what GM’s doing about it. I think the commercial market (part of the entire fleet sales) upon which the domestic manufacturers rely is a huge profit generator. For decades, GM was able to get away with selling complete dreck to the commercial businesses, largely because the buyers of such vehicles were rarely the people who had to drive them.
Maybe like everything else about GM, it’s taken them completely by surprise and they’re having to play catch-up.
I do not understand your comment at all. Ford has ALWAYS outsold Chevy fleet trucks in the 3/4ton and up catagory. Chevy has always catered to the regular joe private owner of ONLY ONE TRUCK who buys on emotion rather than logic. This is why Chevy trucks look better than Ford trucks. Chevy’s are not bad trucks. They are very good trucks. They just do not give you the same level of haul/tow capability per dollar that a Ford does and this is why Fords outnumber all other commercial trucks combined. In the last 10 years Dodge has made a lot of progress though, especially in the 1/2 ton commercial truck market.
I have noticed that the rear bench on the current generation of Silverado Extended Cabs is horrible, but the Ford’s is soooo comfy.
Thanks for sharing your experience with us, Jim. I have been seeing more and more of these out and about, and wondered how they are to drive.
I have been really intrigued by the “Club Wagon” version with seats and windows. Although I am beyond the point in life where I needed something like that, my Clubber was a valued part of the family during the years that I had it. I would imagine that a modern take on the old Chateau trimmed Club Wagon could be a really nice family ride today.
Agreed. Ford should have NEVER quit using the Club Wagon name for the passenger Econoline (& Super Wagon for the 15-pass. version). In Europe, the passenger Transit is called Tourneo. Naming vehicles this way prevents having to use “Van” or “Wagon” after the primary model name (i.e. Tourneo XLT vs Transit XLT Wagon). It would indeed be nice for Ford to reuse the Chateau name for a luxury model or even offer a Titanium version like what has been done with other recent Ford vehicles.
Interesting write up, and interesting to see that America is taking to a European product.
The new vans over here are great examples now of listening to real users, with clip boards, phones, drink cans, pens and all the stuff you need in a true working van, and the Ford range is probably the best and a deserved market leader, in the UK at least.
Europe now has a graduated range of 4 Transits, from the Connect van, the Courier, the Custom (the size of the datum previous generation basic Transit and the RWD van Jim was using.
Out of interest, where is the US market van built? Mexico? European market vans now come from Turkey, not the UK any more.
Has GM got anything to go against this and Promaster?
Neil mentioned above that the US version Transit is built in Kansas City, MO. Maybe Jason Shafer can get a tour of the plant if he tells them he wants to replace his favorite van with a newer version. As you alluded to, I was impressed by how user-friendly and well thought out the whole dashboard/cab area was as compared to what this market has been suffering with forever.
GM has absolutely nothing (in the US at least) to go against this. Why they don’t bring their Opel (co-shared with several other makes) over here and slap a GMC badge on it is beyond me.
Small van: Opel Combo (the red van I posted above) = Fiat Doblo = Ram ProMaster City.
Midsized van: Opel Vivaro = Renault Trafic = Nissan Primastar.
Full sized van: Opel Movano = Renault Master = Nissan NV400.
Everybody loves everybody.
The Vivaro and Movano are sold under four brands in Europe – Opel or vauxhall depending on market, Renault, and NIssan.
There ought to be a game show called “What’s My OEM?” Maybe Top Gear could do it.
Just like:
Fiat Scudo = Peugeot Expert = Citroën Jumpy = Toyota ProAce.
Or this one:
Fiat Ducato = Ram ProMaster = Citroën Jumper = Peugeot Boxer.
The Nissan Primastar is no longer produced,it stopped when the next generation Trafic and Vivaro were launched.
The Nissan NV400 model is an independently developed Nissan model not a version of the Master/Movano as the Interstar.
The current Nissan NV400 (the successor of the Nissan Interstar) is still a Renault-Nissan-Opel joint-venture. Its engine is a 2.3 liter Renault turbo diesel. Available as FWD and RWD.
This according to the website of a Dutch Nissan dealership.
I’ve driven by the KC Plant many times; Ford doesn’t (at least when I looked) give public tours. More on van comparisons below.
Are the new-generation Ford and Dodge vans unibody construction or separate frame/body? How’s the towing capability, especially with the smaller engines, compare with the old dinosaurs they replaced?
Unibody. Check out ford.com, they’ve got a long list of model permutations & towing capacities.
It was a shock, seeing how car-like its specs are, also including Mac struts and rack & pinion steering. This is a testimony to how far behind the US has been in light commercial trucks.
Thanks Neil for the info.
So the new vans are unibody construction.
Hmm….I’m wondering if pickup trucks will be next to adopt a unibody structure. Are light-duty pickup trucks in Europe and Asia unibody-based?
Here’s an example, several (FWD) Fiat Ducato / Ram ProMaster chassis.
More interesting info here: http://www.allpar.com/cars/adopted/fiat/vans.html
And a RWD Ford Transit chassis, with dual rear tires.
Side and rear.
Just checked the Dutch Ford website.
The payload capacity of the top-model RWD Ford Transit with dual rear tires is 5,049 lbs
(2,290 kg) plus a towing capacity of 7,700 lbs (3,500 kg).
The old Dodge Ram Van was unibody, as was the 1968-1974 (or maybe later) Econoline, as well as pre-Express/Savanna GM vans. There is no real difference in strength or towing capacity due to construction. Those “unibody” vans merely had a frame welded directly to the floor pan instead of bolted with rubber mounts.
Great to read an impression 1st hand on one of these trucks. Big improvement. The Diesel would be an interesting drive. I wonder what kind of MPG real world it would achieve? The wheel covers must have been sourced from Walmart. I just drove by Hertz and only saw typical oldies. The house turned out great, it looks brand new.
Probably somewhere around 18 to 20 mpg on average. According to some real-world-reviews I read (Transit 3.2 liter 5-cylinder turbo diesel with a 6 speed manual).
These were older types of the Transit though, since the latest model is only available with the 2.2 liter
4-cylinder turbo diesel here.
The top model Ford Ranger pickup (the Wildtrak) still has the 200 hp 3.2 liter though.
Beautiful house! The van not so much, but I know that is where the style trend is at and Ford does have a way of trend setting or at least spotting trends (future or otherwise) to capitalize on; quick example being the F-150.
As for function, I realize (reluctantly) that this European/International design is long overdue for the North American Market — at least in terms of efficiency.
Old paradigm thinking the E series was, you’d never compare a hulking Econoline to an Escort, but I can see the relationship between this vehicle and the Focus as part of this new thinking. There seems to be a lot of passenger vehicle components involved.
I wish Ford offered a crew van option in the US. A mid roof Ecoboost with a back seat and a euro style double from would be a perfect family mountain bike hauler. Room for 6 people, 6 bikes, all the gear and trail head facilities in one neat box.
15.4 mpg !.Why no derv engine and get at least double that?. Can any body explain why
you need a 3.7 V6 with auto in the US.Those any body really need their goods delivered
that fast!.
If the engine feels weak and underpowered to buyers, they won’t buy.
15.4mpUSg = 18.5mpIMPg = 15.3L/100km. Not bad for such a heavy hauler. Diesel doesn’t get enough extra to cover the higher vehicle first cost, higher price per gallon and higher maintenance costs for most users.
Plus, on a rental truck driven by the public, a customer accidentally refilling with gasoline would not be an “if” or even a “when” but a “how often?”.
This van intrigues me greatly.
Yes, as Jim says, I own one of the dinosaur’s in the form of a 2000 Ford E-150 (Econoline). It is powered by a 5.4 liter V8.
I have driven dozens of pickups in my life and my van drives less pleasantly than any of them. The ride is very good 90% of the time, but it sways back and forth at low speeds with any type of pavement irregularity (especially commercial driveways) making it seem as if the wheel track is too narrow despite it looking well planted to the ground. Mine is on a 1/2 ton chassis; the 3/4 and one-ton versions I have driven are better planted to the ground.
Conversely, it sounds like these are very well planted despite the tall roof versions having the appearance of being tipsy. I know they aren’t but appearances are appearances.
I’m starting to see a few of the passenger versions at my favorite car rental place down the street from where I work.
Jim, your fuel economy is what surprises me. Your hauling a respectable load and being at higher elevations is certainly a factor in your 15 odd mpg. The 5.4 in my Ford, with a 3.55 rear gear, will do about the same in everyday driving. Highway driving has resulted in as high as 19.5 mpg; pushing it into a headwind twice gave me about 14.5 mpg. I’m at an elevation of around 500 to 1000 feet. Granted I’ve only really loaded the thing down once, yet not to the extent you did – and that is when I got my best mileage. I’ve pulled 8000 pounds with it once for a length of about 115 miles but I didn’t care about the mileage since it was burning stale gas.
This van being better to drive is quite encouraging but it wouldn’t have taken much to be better driving. I have never been a van person but it is good to know the van industry in this country has left the 1960s. I’m by nature more of a pickup person and my 4×4 crew cab pickup is more versatile than most realize. No, it’s not a macho thing.
I hadn’t realized these were built in KC. The plant there also just went online building the new F-150s also as anytime I’m on I-70 there are plenty of car haulers taking them east.
Thank you for sharing this. I have evolved as frankly I no longer care what’s under the hood so long as it performs the way I want it to.
Yeah the reported MPG doesn’t impress me. My ancient 302 powered E250 did 15 MPG in my regular use which was loaded to the gills with tools for my mobile auto repair business but that was before E10.
This is quite timely, as I’ve been around 2 of these new U-Haul Transits now, as it’s just about all our local U-haul facility has nowadays save for a couple of GMCs. First week of this month, my mom in law rented one to move some of her antiques down from PA, she was given a nearly brand-new one with only 160 miles on the clock. She liked it a lot better than the E350 she had the last time – much more comfortable for longer trips and it did the job admirably. She really appreciated the nearly vertical sides, which certainly allowed for better packing. This past week, after starting a renovation of our family room, we wound up generating lots of trash/demo debris, lots more than my little Celebrity wagon could handle, so we decided to rent a van for the day to haul away the trash to the dump. Since we had it for the rest of the day, we headed to the Depot with it so we could pick up materials (drywall, lumber, ceramic tile, insulation, etc) to start rebuilding. We ended up with another Transit, this one with just over 2k on the clock. All said and done we only had about 700 pounds of trash, and maybe a little more in new building materials on the way back, and the van didn’t seem to mind hardly at all. Driving wise, the Transit felt light years ahead of the old E-vans for sure.
I seem to remember that GM imported some 2nd Generation Renault Trafics/Opel Vivaros’ to test as they were spotted at Milford Proving Grounds.
So they could have beaten Ford and Dodge by quite a few years.
Nobody has yet commented on that ack-basswards fuel gauge that reads full at the anti-clockwise position, to the point that they had to design and install a decal on the instrument cluster bezel pointing out how it works.
Is this how fuel gauges read in Europe?
It’s a pretty good indicator of a bad design when one has to have a label attached . . .
It does seem a bit backwards relative to the norm, Europe is no different than we are in this case. It’s not a big problem as long as you are able to read the F and E marks and realize that if the needle is up it’s full and if it’s down it’s empty. I’m sure the label is there due to U-Haul’s lawyers.
In the same vein, take a look at the label on the bottom/side of the seat in the 6th photo down. It reminds you to get your foot out of the way of the closing door…Our international friends on here must think we are all complete idiots.
I actually find that more logical since with every single other gauge right = bad, and E = bad. When the gauge is reading right you might be overheating, going too fast, overrevving, so fuel reading right means you’re out in this case. Not bad
Then again right also usually = more – more heat, more oil pressure, more volts, more rpm, more speed and as common, more fuel.
The gauge in my ’95 Olds is exactly the same, and until reading this it never occurred to me that it was odd.
I think in both cases I see this more as F is up and E is down (which is logical) there just happens to be a curve involved.
+1
When I saw the sticker in the picture I had to really think to try to remember which way my gas gauges went. Not a big deal one way or the other to me I guess.
I hate the gauge. That would drive me nuts for a while.
I don’t know how someone would injure their foot in the footwell, unless it was madea lot smaller than Ford used to. When I drove the 1997 E350 box van that I had, I’d often rest my foot there when doing in-town driving. There was no room in the footwell, since the wheel arch was there. The spot next to the door worked great, but thank God that I wasn’t T-Boned there. That would have been bad
I think the Smart Cars I occasionally drive have the same ass backwards fuel gauge which threw me off at first.
On one of those Full Sized Vans I decided to see if my foot would fit in the footwell when closing the door and the result was a bit painful, but I think the door latched.
I was curious about how these are, I personally loved the wide look of the dinosaur vans like the old Econoline and Ram Van, they were distinctly American and were the last holdouts of all American vehicle design, sans European aspiration(which I do maintain has ruined the big three’s car lines), but I’ve also experienced those vans limitations first hand so I get it, I don’t have much footing to stand on when when my only complaint is that they’re narrow boxes with ant eater front ends.
I find that dash really chintzy though, I may be alone in this but I prefer spartan , I don’t see a molded plastic dash consisting of a billion textures and the several dozen buttons taking abuse well, I just envision how it will look in a couple thousand more miles with dirt and crud embedded into the faux leathergrain textures, with long deep gouges cutting through them, missing knobs, worn off text on the buttons, a murky layer of dried liquids lining the bottom of the cupholders and other low spots where things can puddle (I’d never want to put my phone up to my face after setting it in that slot) and all the other abuses a work vehicle endures. It’s like all the minimalist packaging efficiency that made the overall design so useful has been tossed out on that overwrought dash.
I recently rented a ProMaster from Enterprise Truck Rentals. I likewise had to beg, as to not get a GMC Savanna. Why would anyone take the GM vans when the RAM ias at least 50% more interior volume? I liked the ProMaster just swell.
Interesting note on U-Haul vs. Enterprise: U-Haul wanted $20/day + $.69/mile. Enterprise got $60/day + 100 free miles ($0.25/additional mile). If you’re doing anything over about 60 miles, Enterprise is the clear winner.
I actually only drove about 50 miles, so U-Haul would have been slightly cheaper. However, the customer service at Enterprise made it WELL worth the additional few bucks. They are in the business of renting commercial trucks to commercial users, and the service was VERY professional. I was out the door with the van in 15 minutes. There was no hard upsell – I imagine the usual person renting from them isn’t even the guy paying the bill, so there’s no point in upselling anything.
I think I will never rent from U-Haul again.
The Ram Protester is a huge game changer with it’s front-wheel drive. Driving the old rear wheel drive vans during Maine winters requires Good snow tires and 500 lbs over the rear axle. If you’re not going to do that you may as well stay home where it’s warm and comfy because being stuck in the ditch won’t be warm or comfy. As for a front wheel drive pick up, I’ll be first line to buy one. Compared to current pick ups they would have great traction when empty or lightly loaded, which is how most of them are regularly driven. Proper loading is a science not understood by many pick up owners.
The Promaster/Fiat FWD also comes in a less expensive Winnebago (and maybe some other brands) model that just uses the normal body instead of the larger squarer camper box. Obviously fewer cubic feet inside and not exactly vertical walls, and compromises because of using normal doors, but cheaper and more aerodynamic and maybe lighter. Maybe less creaky. Probably handles better.
The Transit Connect is now a new generation and it and the Dodge/Fiat smaller van come in passenger versions. A different shape than our normal not-very-mini-vans, (guessing, shorter and taller) but not that much cheaper and without the slick stuff like third row that folds into the floor and tricky second row seats etc.
Very interesting. I’ve been seeing more and more Transits in U Haul livery in the past month or so. Next week we’re going to need to rent a truck to take some equipment to an event and I’m pushing to go to U Haul in hopes to get a Transit to try. Of course we probably should just go to our old standby Ryder and get one of their “City Vans” which are Sprinters in the high top version. Yes their daily rate is higher but they include free miles so unless you just have a very short distance to go it ends up cheaper. The other thing that is nice is that with our local Ryder when I rent a truck for the weekend as long as it is there when they show up on Mon morn they charge for just Fri and Sat. I also used to use the local Ford truck dealer who’s rates were much better than U Haul and again much better service.
As far as the house is concerned I don’t know that it can be considered a classic being built in this century it is a spring chicken. It does look nice though.
Front wheel drive is not a good idea for heavy duty trucks. Probably most people do not need a 3/4ton pickup though. Their capabilities are much higher than most peoples’ needs. But that’s all I want for a hauling/towing vehicle.
We are going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to Curbside Classic houses and landscaping, but maybe that is why it is a Curbside Classic house because of its turn of the century McMansion architecture. The street name is catchy that is for sure. This architecture is more to my liking.
Thanks for the review of this Van and I agree it is like driving a large car, but the steering wheel seems small for a vehicle this size, maybe the Econoline’s steering wheel is the same diameter. At least the Transit’s steering wheel tilts and telescopes. I like the mesh screen on the air intake and hopefully it is easy to remove so it can be cleaned. My first thought when seeing the cubby near the steering wheel is that is sized for a chalk line or pack of cigarettes, but I see a phone works swell as well. Would spring for a sliding side door which is so nice to have as I discovered on Expresses. Especially when driving around coworkers, parking in tight spots, and being the one to fill out the paperwork everytime those clamshell doors ding themselves or something else. Am surprised at the 15.4 MPG, thought these Transits were supposed to be more fuel efficient. Do miss the bench seats for rear passengers since the 10 passenger version I test drove had 10 bucket seats which would make it less comfortable to spread out on a slog down I-70 through the High Plains. The fact the base Transit comes with fixed windows is also disappointing. Looking forward to seeing how the Transit as well as other Eurovans hold up over time.
The various stickers U-Haul applies to their vehicles sure is amusing and wonder if the fuel gauge disclaimer is just for the Transit? It has been about 20 years since you could shift a vehicle into reverse without depressing the brake, but U-Haul still has that disclaimer about how to get the Tranny out of Park; cute. Do find it interesting how U-Haul has gone away from Diesels, seems to always give Dodge now Ram the cold shoulder, and seems to mainly buy Fords. Still waiting to see what U-Haul will replace their Kodiaks and Topkicks with. When it comes to U-Haul’s Econolines you can usually tell which ones have been repaired because the chrome bumpers are now Matte Black.
Well Ford offers the V10 in the F650 and F750 making them the only gas player in the MD class now. So I suspect that U Haul will be buy those for their bigger trucks. Diesels cost more to buy and service than gas versions and U Haul doesn’t pay the fuel bill so they don’t care about fuel economy.
I don’t believe diesel will be around much longer in America for anything less than class 8 except for the enthusiast who wants to hotrod his big smoke belching class-8-wannabe pickup.
I see Citroen H-Van in these – dunno why!
I’d say that Ram’s van future is safe, since Fiat has 5 van models to offer. And only 2 of them have been rebadged as Rams so far. The Iveco Daily is the biggest, it’s the blue van on the left, below. The blue one on the right is an Iveco Daily 4×4. It looks like a Unimog, doesn’t it ?
That house is freaking amazing.
Thank you for recycling!
On one hand I feel good about the Euro import vans getting such a great foothold and feedback in North America, they really do seem a few steps ahead in comparison to the (almost) bygone American models. On the other hand it really is a shame how the different regional markets in the world are fusing more and more together. As a kid I loved watching American movies for all the odd, curious and slightly cheesy American cars in them that you’d never see in Europe. To a large extent that difference is simply gone, and not just gone but lost.
I rented one of these vans from UHaul last night, and everyone who is still following this comment thread will be happy to know that they did away with that goofy gas gauge angle. It was a standard, easy to understand “empty on the left, full on the right” placement. I didn’t even have to top my van off since I rented it with the needle above the Full mark and since I only drove 13 miles the needle didn’t go below the F, heh heh.