TRANSIT TO THE US?

[RichardJensen]

What's more, would you argue that the F150 & Super Duty should be merged back into a single platform line?

 

NO?

 

But certainly you would get economies of scale if you did that.

 

Super Duty = E-Series

F-150 = Transit

 

And that is flat out my final analogy and words on the subject. If that illustration fails to penetrate your willful blindness ('I can't see what they've changed, therefore no change has been made'), that's your problem, not mine.

Edited February 23, 2008 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

What's more, would you argue that the F150 & Super Duty should be merged back into a single platform line?

 

NO?

 

But certainly you would get economies of scale if you did that.

 

Super Duty = E-Series

F-150 = Transit

 

And that is flat out my final analogy and words on the subject. If that illustration fails to penetrate your willful blindness ('I can't see what they've changed, therefore no change has been made'), that's your problem, not mine.

 

we are merging the SD and LD F-series. T1 is supposed to do that. That does not mean we will loose capability, there is no reason we

cannot share seats, switchgear, basic architecture where it makes sense.

 

My thinking is the E-series is old and less capable than The transit would be.

 

this is the new E-series interior. which is a big improvement over the last interior.

 

 

this is the transit. Focused on what the customer needs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2008 by Biker16

[suv_guy_19]

My thinking is the E-series is old and less capable than The transit would be.

 

And your thinking would be wrong. For what NA contractors do, the E Series is MORE capable....and it has a computer now too.

[RichardJensen]

We are NOT merging the F150 & SD. Nothing could be farther from the truth. T1 is about merging the Expy/Navi and the F150, not the F150 & SD. Where on earth did you get such a wrong headed idea, Biker?

[NickF1011]

We are NOT merging the F150 & SD. Nothing could be farther from the truth. T1 is about merging the Expy/Navi and the F150, not the F150 & SD. Where on earth did you get such a wrong headed idea, Biker?

 

Dang Richard, just castrate him while you're at it. Didn't get your cawfee fix this morning?

[RichardJensen]

Dang Richard, just castrate him while you're at it. Didn't get your cawfee fix this morning?

I'm working on it. That was after my first cup. This is after my second.

 

BTW, how would =you= handle the assertion that Ford is going to merge the SD & F150?

 

:lol:

[NickF1011]

I'm working on it. That was after my first cup. This is after my second.

 

BTW, how would =you= handle the assertion that Ford is going to merge the SD & F150?

 

:lol:

 

I'll get back to you after you've had your third cup.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

I'm working on it. That was after my first cup. This is after my second.

 

BTW, how would =you= handle the assertion that Ford is going to merge the SD & F150?

 

:lol:

 

Maybe Biker 16 has been reading into a bit to deep what Alan Mulally has been saying he want's more commonality of parts & design worldwide Richard.

 

An engineer at heart, Mulally has been shaking his head at the rampant inefficiencies of Ford's global apparatus. He contrasts it to rival Toyota Motor Corp., a company he studied as head of Boeing Co.'s commercial aircraft division, and one which he makes no secret of admiring even as CEO of Ford.

 

Where Toyota's auto parts bin is a tidy collection of standardized components, Ford's is a costly and complex hodgepodge. By reducing the number of parts and components that Ford vehicles draw from worldwide, Mulally hopes to achieve new economies of scale, as well as greater quality and reliability. Mulally mentioned it here Richard.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...390/1364/AUTO04

[battyr]

Max GCWR for the biggest Transit: 14,500lbs.

 

Max GCWR for the 6.0L PSD E-Series: 20,000lbs.

 

Think about that.

 

If the Transit has a GCWR of 14,500 lbs, if you put in an American sized engine you should be able to get a GCWR of over 20,000 lbs. A 4.4L Diesel or EB V-6 should do it. Some modifications and upgrading would be needed but Transit design is already flexible(Both FWD and RWD). If a long I-5 diesel engine fits a V-8 should fit with a few changes. FNA should be given the job to redesign the Transit for the world market including the USA. Transit would also need an American sized front grill; like from the F-150 or SD but curved and tilted back.

 

Time to put the E-series van out to pasture.

[suv_guy_19]

If the Transit has a GCWR of 14,500 lbs, if you put in an American sized engine you should be able to get a GCWR of over 20,000 lbs. A 4.4L Diesel or EB V-6 should do it. Some modifications and upgrading would be needed but Transit design is already flexible(Both FWD and RWD). If a long I-5 diesel engine fits a V-8 should fit with a few changes. FNA should be given the job to redesign the Transit for the world market including the USA. Transit would also need an American sized front grill; like from the F-150 or SD but curved and tilted back.

 

Time to put the E-series van out to pasture.

 

 

No no no. Its a very bad idea...and changing the engine will not necessarily give you more capacity. Its about the frame, or lack there of.

[battyr]

A reminder of what a Transit can do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RichardJensen]

If the Transit has a GCWR of 14,500 lbs, if you put in an American sized engine you should be able to get a GCWR of over 20,000 lbs. A 4.4L Diesel or EB V-6 should do it. Some modifications and upgrading would be needed but Transit design is already flexible(Both FWD and RWD). If a long I-5 diesel engine fits a V-8 should fit with a few changes. FNA should be given the job to redesign the Transit for the world market including the USA. Transit would also need an American sized front grill; like from the F-150 or SD but curved and tilted back.

 

Time to put the E-series van out to pasture.

You ain't gonna get a 5700lb difference in GCWR just by substituting the 350lb ft I-5 with the 440lb ft 6.0L. You will need to bolster a lot of chassis bits, and that increases weight, and reduces fuel economy, and hence, appeal in the Transit's core market. You will also need to redesign the vehicle to accept a much larger transmission.

 

Moreover, the fact that the Transit presently accommodates a 5 cylinder engine is no assurance that it will readily accommodate a V8, as the dimensions of neither engine are known. The 5-cylinder engine is not necessarily as long as the PSD, let alone longer. It may have a longer short block, but that's hardly indicative of the dressed engine's size.

 

Furthermore, rejiggering the engine bay for the PSD may end up rendering the bay unsuitable for FWD/AWD setups; so you'd end up with two Transit engine bays.

 

And, even assuming you do all that, you're still looking at a bunch of teed off body builders and upfitters who have to retool for the Transit, and who get no benefit for their expenditure.

[suv_guy_19]

 

[RichardJensen]

 

Just a reminder of what the E-Series can do.

[battyr]

You ain't gonna get a 5700lb difference in GCWR just by substituting the 350lb ft I-5 with the 440lb ft 6.0L. You will need to bolster a lot of chassis bits, and that increases weight, and reduces fuel economy, and hence, appeal in the Transit's core market. You will also need to redesign the vehicle to accept a much larger transmission.

 

Moreover, the fact that the Transit presently accommodates a 5 cylinder engine is no assurance that it will readily accommodate a V8, as the dimensions of neither engine are known. The 5-cylinder engine is not necessarily as long as the PSD, let alone longer. It may have a longer short block, but that's hardly indicative of the dressed engine's size.

 

Furthermore, rejiggering the engine bay for the PSD may end up rendering the bay unsuitable for FWD/AWD setups; so you'd end up with two Transit engine bays.

 

And, even assuming you do all that, you're still looking at a bunch of teed off body builders and upfitters who have to retool for the Transit, and who get no benefit for their expenditure.

 

The largest engine in the Transit is currently a 3.2 L I-5 with 200 hp and 470 lb ft. The engin I was thinking of for the US is the new Lion V-8 destin for the F-150. At 4.4 L it is quit abit smaller than a 6.0 L PSD and would have smaller cylinders than the 3.2L. The Lion V-8 is currently a 3.6 L and used by Jaguar. By increasing the size only to 4.4 L you would have 324 hp and 576 lb ft. The numbers I am using are based on European specs. I don't know what US specs would be. I think this would work.

[battyr]

 

Just a reminder of what the E-Series can do.

 

Look very similar to me. The only differences are the cabs and the frames. I bet Ford could design the next Transit to fit ontop of both a Transit and a E-Series frame.

[suv_guy_19]

Look very similar to me. The only differences are the cabs and the frames. I bet Ford could design the next Transit to fit ontop of both a Transit and a E-Series frame.

 

Transit doesn't have a frame.

[RichardJensen]

The largest engine in the Transit is currently a 3.2 L I-5 with 200 hp and 470 lb ft. The engin I was thinking of for the US is the new Lion V-8 destin for the F-150. At 4.4 L it is quit abit smaller than a 6.0 L PSD and would have smaller cylinders than the 3.2L. The Lion V-8 is currently a 3.6 L and used by Jaguar. By increasing the size only to 4.4 L you would have 324 hp and 576 lb ft. The numbers I am using are based on European specs. I don't know what US specs would be. I think this would work.

That's 470 NM, not lb-ft; 1NM is about .728 lb-ft.

 

Also the 4.4 will have twin turbo plumbing to deal with.

 

And, regardless, I am opposed to screwing over a van that sells well in Europe in order to get it to sell well in the US, especially since the US is well served by its own van.

 

There is simply no reason to merge these two products. Both have numerous legacy users who would object to dramatic reconfiguration. In the EU, you would have uproar over the new doghouse and heavier weight required to accommodate US preferences, and in the US you would have uproar over reduced engine choices (unless you support rejiggering the Transit engine bay for the 4.6 & 5.4L Mods, or the "Boss" as well), and substantially unchanged capacity in a brand new configuration.

 

As Emerson said, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

[igor]

The largest engine in the Transit is currently a 3.2 L I-5 with 200 hp and 470 lb ft. The engin I was thinking of for the US is the new Lion V-8 destin for the F-150. At 4.4 L it is quit abit smaller than a 6.0 L PSD and would have smaller cylinders than the 3.2L. The Lion V-8 is currently a 3.6 L and used by Jaguar. By increasing the size only to 4.4 L you would have 324 hp and 576 lb ft. The numbers I am using are based on European specs. I don't know what US specs would be. I think this would work.

315hp / 550ft./lbs

 

Igor

[RichardJensen]

The only differences are the cabs and the frames.

Precisely. You might as well say, "summer is the same as winter, the only difference is the temperature and the length of the days."

 

In both Europe and NA, body builders have come to depend on frame and cab dimensions for -both- Transit & E-Series. Change either, and you demand extensive engineering efforts for customers in both markets. And what do you deliver? A heavier Transit with worse fuel economy in Europe and a step sideways in NA that demands extensive investment in new bodies and delivers no improvement in end-use capability.

 

If you can answer this question, then you can substantiate a move to merge the Transit and E-Series:

 

"How will a body builder be able to raise the price of his products to cover the costs involved in retooling for the new van?"

 

The heavier Transit will get worse gas mileage, and the new E-Series will have no distinct advantage over the old E-Series.

Edited February 27, 2008 by RichardJensen

[battyr]

Transit doesn't have a frame.

 

 

[suv_guy_19]

 

 

Its bolted on to the back of the cab, that isn't its frame.

[Deanh]

315hp / 550ft./lbs

 

Igor

thats AWESOME! would probably leave the 6.4 for dead with those specs and lighter curb weight....

[igor]

The heavier Transit will get worse gas mileage, and the new E-Series will have no distinct advantage over the old E-Series.

Except for one - it will eliminate the "not wuite F150" frame from being built and paid for by Ford .... on top of that - everything else related to building and updating two unrelated product will be eliminated and only one vehicle will be built - one interior, one set of engines, one frame, one everyting ..

 

oh and one more thing - the US Transit will be able to be exported to Europe making even more $$$$$ for Ford .. and THAT alone is worth making the change. If ford can fully replace the E-series capability and then some ...and in the process eliminate all this excess product development .. then why not?

 

This would be the same argument as to why keep C170 Focus here and C1/C2 in Europe .. it makes no sense.

 

Igor

[matthewq4b]

 

Just a reminder of what the E-Series can do.

 

 

 

And one more application, one the transit will never be able to fullfill.

 

 

 

These units see the same service as as full size transit buses. With more than a few now over a million KM. In fact they see more severe service as they are used on side streets and stop at shopping malls and get pounded over the speed bumps in those facility's.

 

Matthew

Edited February 27, 2008 by matthewq4b