suv_guy_19 Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Personally I thinks it looks a little better and unifies the look with the F-series... get's the styling out of the 1990s. But in a vehicle like this, styling isn't that important. Running costs are durability are. And the Sprinter apparently has the Econoline beat in this way... and customers who know how to crunch numbers are buying the Sprinter for that reason. But it wouldn't take that much to make the Econoline beat the Sprinter. To acheive that, the Econoline needs a set of modern engines and trannies. I still wonder about Ford Marketing. They talk about 305HP from a 6.8L V10 like it's actually something to be proud of. Do they know anything about what the competition is doing with their engines? Ford should be getting way more than 305HP from 6.8L... especially considering it's an OHC design. On the powertrain end, Ford needs: -modern base 6 cyl engine -modern 6cyl turbo diesel -modern/modernized V8 engines -modern and reliable V8 turbodiesel (not this recent Navistar crap) -Hybrid heavy duty diesel-electric model geared to people/businesses who drive these vans in cities a lot. Ford should do a low floor model and probably also a heavy duty dualie model. I see they talked about improved brakes. Let's hope that includes higher quality brake rotors. As long as there is a diesel, even if it is late, the van will be fine. The v10 used in the van has enough power for now, but the 3v would be nice. How many North American Sprinter ambulances have you seen so far. The engne in that vanis too small for the large distances of this continent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Personally I thinks it looks a little better and unifies the look with the F-series... get's the styling out of the 1990s. But in a vehicle like this, styling isn't that important. Running costs are durability are. And the Sprinter apparently has the Econoline beat in this way... and customers who know how to crunch numbers are buying the Sprinter for that reason. But it wouldn't take that much to make the Econoline beat the Sprinter. To acheive that, the Econoline needs a set of modern engines and trannies. I still wonder about Ford Marketing. They talk about 305HP from a 6.8L V10 like it's actually something to be proud of. Do they know anything about what the competition is doing with their engines? Ford should be getting way more than 305HP from 6.8L... especially considering it's an OHC design. On the powertrain end, Ford needs: -modern base 6 cyl engine -modern 6cyl turbo diesel -modern/modernized V8 engines -modern and reliable V8 turbodiesel (not this recent Navistar crap) -Hybrid heavy duty diesel-electric model geared to people/businesses who drive these vans in cities a lot. Ford should do a low floor model and probably also a heavy duty dualie model. I see they talked about improved brakes. Let's hope that includes higher quality brake rotors. 1) Sprinter doesn't even have the marketshare the decrepit old Ram Van had in 2001 2) The 6.8L V10 is more like a diesel, it's way undersquare, has a very low power peak, and makes wayyyyy more torque than HP. Torque numbers for that beast are pretty impressive for a gasser. 460+lb ft on the pickups (compare with numbers for GM's Vortec 8100). Because of its design, and the way it's been optimized, hp is not going to be impressive. Nor should it be in this, the most utilitarian of Ford's products. 3) Re: 6 cylinders, Expect Ford to bring over the Transit for the urban use set. Ford's Powerstroke 6 cylinder was to have gone in this thing, but apparently it's a total dog. 4) No hybrid diesel (cycling the engine on and off in cold temps is an emissions nightmare), but Ford has contracted with a company in Canada to build hybrid gas-electric vans 5) "Low Floor Model" see #3 6) Heavy duty dually: All cutaways are duallies. I don't think there's any demand for a cargo van with DRWs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 1) Sprinter doesn't even have the marketshare the decrepit old Ram Van had in 2001 2) The 6.8L V10 is more like a diesel, it's way undersquare, has a very low power peak, and makes wayyyyy more torque than HP. Torque numbers for that beast are pretty impressive for a gasser. 460+lb ft on the pickups (compare with numbers for GM's Vortec 8100). Because of its design, and the way it's been optimized, hp is not going to be impressive. Nor should it be in this, the most utilitarian of Ford's products. 3) Re: 6 cylinders, Expect Ford to bring over the Transit for the urban use set. Ford's Powerstroke 6 cylinder was to have gone in this thing, but apparently it's a total dog. 4) No hybrid diesel (cycling the engine on and off in cold temps is an emissions nightmare), but Ford has contracted with a company in Canada to build hybrid gas-electric vans 5) "Low Floor Model" see #3 6) Heavy duty dually: All cutaways are duallies. I don't think there's any demand for a cargo van with DRWs. I think the sprinter has dual rear wheels on a heavier payload package plus it MUST help a little with stablity with the height ie top-heaviness on that thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukemullen Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I'm not going to argue taste, but personally I like the styling. I am dissapointed they didn't update the interior though. It has been the bestselling full size van for the past upteen years, and it was the 3rd bestselling vehicle for Ford in February behind the F-Series and Focus, so obviously Ford has some understanding of the commercial market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I think the sprinter has dual rear wheels on a heavier payload package plus it MUST help a little with stablity with the height ie top-heaviness on that thing... Believe it or not, the Sprinter has a lower CoG than the E-Series. It is tall, but unless fully laden, that's just empty space up there. More important is the load floor, and the Sprinter (and Transit) have more compact frames, and lower centers of gravity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 (edited) who would have guessed...wonder how many roofs have been the victim of overhangs. Anyway we DESPERATELY need a mid size ( along the size of the old Aerostar ) commercial van....I get calls seemingly on a daily basis...that market seems to be ignored right now...opportunity knocks Edited March 9, 2007 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Transit Connect LWB model is actually about 5" longer than the Aerostar. It's allegedly coming stateside this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Transit Connect LWB model is actually about 5" longer than the Aerostar. It's allegedly coming stateside this year. hopefully two versions...tall and not so tall so i can get into parking structures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 hopefully two versions...tall and not so tall so i can get into parking structures Transit Connect is a whole different beast than the fullsize Transit van: Transit Connect: Transit: Shouldn't have problems parking a Transit Connect anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Transit Connect is a whole different beast than the fullsize Transit van: Transit Connect: Transit: Shouldn't have problems parking a Transit Connect anywhere. one word WOOOOHOOOOOO! There is no competition either.....YEHAH!...any drivetrain details....please rear wheel drive....if not still be happy....i Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 http://ford.co.uk/ns7/transitconnect/-/-/-/-/-/- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I wonder which motor'll get used here...? I doubt it's the 1.8 diesel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sportscraft Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 (edited) Not much of a change, but I like it. The headlights look SOOO much better on the van then they do the new superduty. on second glance, no mention of a diesel in the lineup, so forget it, the old van was better. Edited March 9, 2007 by Sportscraft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 there is a HUGE market for these....flower shops, bakerys, caterers, hospitals.....FINALLY. put a little 3.0 in there and away we go...diesel interesting, but doubt it here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 (edited) Let me get this straight: First Ford slaps a tri-bar grille on a 500 and puts some ugly ass headlights on it as well, and then they call that the Taurus. Now Ford takes the new F-350 grille and headlights, puts an Econoline box on the back, leaves the old Fisher-Price interior of the previous Econoline, and calls it a day? Whoever is designing this #$#$# at Ford needs to be fired. Get a sense of design you jerks. The Fusion, Edge, and F-150 were in the right direction, but the cars that have been coming out of Ford like this Focus (#$#$#us is more like it) and "Taurus" (idiots) suck. Feed the beast some fiber and send these constipated, overdone designs to the trash bin. Ford has been ahead in design for years, and now they decide to stop? GM is making great strides on their designs and Ford decides to start putting ugly crap like this on the road? Do they WANT to die? Is Ford actually taking a market-oriented approach to design these days? I sure as hell hope not. If they are, I'm going to go to Australia faster than a cheetah on cocaine because I might just die if I see another piece of crap like this come out of Ford's rear end. Why does Ford have to make everything UGLIER when they update it? LEAVE STUFF ALONE, FORD. Either that or just die. I don't even love you anymore thanks to your botched, POS designs. I don't know why they'd change the van's style anyway. If people were buying a van for style they're buying the wrong type of vehicle. Why couldn't Ford at least do a grille design that fit? I WISH FORD WOULD STOP HALF-ASSING EVERYTHING! Lucky for Ford, this vehicle is so ugly they won't have to worry about anybody buying it for style ... I'm not so worried about this vehicle not selling since it's got a great reputation. What I am confused about is why Ford would mess up one of their best sellers this badly. Ford is going to be the laughing stock of the van industry thanks to this joke of a design. Good van or not, this thing is UGLY. At this rate, Toyotas will look better than Fords in 2 years. The van looks like a cow in this picture. Yes, a cow. MOOOOOOOOO. I literally laughed when I saw it. Edited March 10, 2007 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J2D Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 The van looks like a cow in this picture. Yes, a cow. MOOOOOOOOO. I literally laughed when I saw it. That's funny. It puzzles me after seeing these photo's posted by Ford as being legit. what bothers me more is that maybe I wasn't paying attention at the SOTF event held at Cobo Hall. and that it's possible that I don't remember what the new F-150 will look like either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Ford is going to be the laughing stock of the van industry thanks to this joke of a design. Good van or not, this thing is UGLY. At this rate, Toyotas will look better than Fords in 2 years. Toyota has never built a van with this kind of capability. This new grille is simply form-follows-function. The E250-E350 will get the new 6.4L diesel. Ford has designed a huge cooling system for that diesel and has advertised that fact often during the new SuperDuty launch. Now they have to keep that same engine cool in the E-350 but there is even less room in the engine compartment of the van, all that air has to keep moving and get out after it goes through the radiator. It wouldn't have done any good for Ford to build that huge cooling system and then block off the air flow with a pretty little grille. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpmaster Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 jesus h. christ on a cracker that's ugly! OTOH, we make the steering gear and ps pump for these at ISSP, so I hope we sell a bundle of 'em. Why no head restraints? Any airbags---even if they're optional? How about RSC and ABS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenp77 Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 I wonder how long it will take a ford tech to lift the body off that monster to work on the super 6.4L???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 (edited) Toyota has never built a van with this kind of capability. This new grille is simply form-follows-function. The E250-E350 will get the new 6.4L diesel. Ford has designed a huge cooling system for that diesel and has advertised that fact often during the new SuperDuty launch. Now they have to keep that same engine cool in the E-350 but there is even less room in the engine compartment of the van, all that air has to keep moving and get out after it goes through the radiator. It wouldn't have done any good for Ford to build that huge cooling system and then block off the air flow with a pretty little grille. I wasn't saying Toyota built a van like that. What I was saying is that Toyota design, although boring, isn't as offensive as some of the Ford designs as of late. BTW: Edited March 11, 2007 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I wasn't saying Toyota built a van like that. What I was saying is that Toyota design, although boring, isn't as offensive as some of the Ford designs as of late.BTW: My point was Toyota dosen't have to design grilles with enough open area to cool a turbo-diesel V8 or V10 gasoline engine. Form-Follows-Function. Ford can design beautiful trucks like the SuperChief Concept but if the engineers say the grill restriction will cause the engine to over heat then the design gets dropped and that's just reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 (edited) So all of these Econolines had overheating issues because of insufficient cooling? Most of that grille seems to be about "Look at me" .. Edited March 11, 2007 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 IIRC, the cooling issue was for the 6.4L PSD, not the 6.8L V10 which has been there for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Correct, RJ .. and since the new Econoline has no diesel yet, shouldn't be an issue lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Correct, RJ .. and since the new Econoline has no diesel yet, shouldn't be an issue lol But it will eventually have one, thus making that big mamma of a grill opening necessary sooner or later... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.