Ford Transit details

[carringb]

Chance - I was wondering the same thing too! More power = less tow rating

The fact they detuned the EcoBoost made me suspicious about the cooling. But even the Taurus get the 365HP version!

One thing not mentioned yet - Ford has stated they are using the SAE J2807 tow rating methods for 2015, which is probably a big reason why the tow ratings are more detailed now. Since its a performance standard, I can see how different body configurations can have an affect on its final GCWR, where before Ford's main concern was warranty claims.

[carringb]

Also, the EcoBoost is just as capable of a tabletop "torque curve" as the diesel. Makes me wonder what the Transit's curve will look like.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by carringb

Also, the EcoBoost is just as capable of a tabletop "torque curve" as the diesel. Makes me wonder what the Transit's curve will look like.
....cut......

I expect nothing but more of the same. The flat torque curve must be computer controlled by limiting boost. Every EcoBoost torque curve I've seen was a horizontal line in the middle.

What I find somewhat funny is that everyone now wants a flat torque curve whereas in the past large truck engines advertised a steeper torque curve as a desirable feature. I personally prefer a significant amount of torque rise when it matches well with transmission gearing.

The Transit's EcoBoost has higher torque yet less power than the one pictured above. Seems that Ford is tuning these engines for considerably different driving conditions. In a heavy van they provide more torque and in sports cars more power.

[Chance]

I've been reading early reviews of the new Transit, which for the most part seem positive, but was surprised to read in this one that the significant difference in standup height between the cargo and passenger vans is due to the floor being higher to accommodate seat attachment and HVAC ducts. I think most of us would have assumed the difference was mainly due to lower ceiling height in passenger vans.

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2015-ford ... 860/+damon

This makes me wonder how the floor is configured if a cargo van is available with windows, as when converting to RV use. I'd like to see pictures because it's a little hard for me to visualize that much difference. Or the affect on step in height.

[SCBrian]

At my local Ford Dealer. Transit 250 144". Quick drive by but got caught by the salesman. He was so excited to show it off. Keyless entry from the factory. It wasn't as ugly as I originally gave it credit for. Try to pass a Ford Dealer without looking for one. Happy Shopping!!

[TomH]

Spotted a Transit 250 PowerStroke cargo van today northbound on I-5 approaching Red Bluff. Passed it and let it pass me several times in order to look at it closely until it exited @ Red Bluff. Solid black. Looked so much like a Sprinter it was spooky. Somewhere I had read a couple of years ago that the North American version would be 6 inches wider than the E-Series. That certainly is not true; it seems the same width as a Sprinter. There was no AWD emblem on the vehicle. Originally Alan Feld thought the AWD would be available, but from what I read, it won't. The van passed me at 80MPH effortlessly several times. There is no way SMB will be able to convert this van into an off-road motorhome. The king (E350) is dead; long live the king.

[carringb]

With the slab sides and less intrusive interior walls, I could see the inside width being 6" wider, even though the exterior is the same.

The SMB fiberglass body is also about 6" wider inside, by removing the interior wall (the E-series are double-wall construction) and moving the exterior wall out an inch each side.

I really think the SMB body on the cutaway chassis is the way to go for an off-road van. It eliminates the wasted space of the stock body, and the cutaway chassis means you automatically get a full-float axle. And if SMB is willing, it also means the possibility of longer wheelbases (combined with a cab extension), dual rear wheels, or even a 14,500 GVWR chassis.

[lndshark]

Originally Posted by carringb

With the slab sides and less intrusive interior walls, I could see the inside width being 6" wider, even though the exterior is the same.

The SMB fiberglass body is also about 6" wider inside, by removing the interior wall (the E-series are double-wall construction) and moving the exterior wall out an inch each side.

I really think the SMB body on the cutaway chassis is the way to go for an off-road van. It eliminates the wasted space of the stock body, and the cutaway chassis means you automatically get a full-float axle. And if SMB is willing, it also means the possibility of longer wheelbases (combined with a cab extension), dual rear wheels, or even a 14,500 GVWR chassis.

I'm hoping SMB-W will offer a Voyager top and not just a PH on their fiberglass body. Maybe they're working with Fiberline on a wider solid roof...

[carringb]

Originally Posted by lndshark

I'm hoping SMB-W will offer a Voyager top and not just a PH on their fiberglass body. Maybe they're working with Fiberline on a wider solid roof...

I don't think they need to do that. The top flange of the new body is the same width of the gutters on the stock vans. SMB simply moved the walls out to match outer edge of the gutters.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by carringb

With the slab sides and less intrusive interior walls, I could see the inside width being 6" wider, even though the exterior is the same.

....cut.... .

Assuming the above is about Transit:


Maximum cargo width suggest much less difference than 6 inches; at least near bottom where many campers want extra width to sleep transversely or to have wider aisle between cabinets. Near the top walls that are more vertical should yield a lot of difference between the Transit and an Econoline -- particularly if equipped with fiberglass roof to have similar standup clearance.

It would not surprise me if at between 5- and 6-feet off floor a high-roof Transit isn't more than 6 inches wider than an Econoline with common fiberglass roofs. Feeling of openness while standing should be much better due to greater space between upper cabinets.