TRANSIT TO THE US?

[NickF1011]

How much money does Ford make from the conversation van market? I know it's not huge, but a Transit conversation van would look downright stupid and would likely destroy that market niche for them entirely if the E-series went bye-bye.

[RichardJensen]

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

1) The cost savings to be realized by merging two 200k/year products is minimal at best. Especially given that they are manufactured on two different continents.

 

2) It is by no means certain that this putative merged product could provide Transit efficiency at the low end and E-Series capability/durability at the high end. IMO you will sacrifice one to get the other.

 

3) It is foolhardy to base long-term decisions on exchange rates.

 

4) If the differences between the Transit and E-Series were as small as the differences between the US Focus & EU Focus, your assertion that the arguments can be transferred would carry more weight.

 

As it is, however, the Transit and E-Series represent radically different customer expectations.

Edited February 27, 2008 by RichardJensen

[battyr]

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

 

So a piece of steel rolled to a beam and welded into a C channel is a frame. A piece of stronger steel rolled thinner and welded into a unitized box is not a frame.

 

An F-150 does not use C-channel. It uses a welded box frame (not unitized). Is that a frame?

 

Personally I like the traditional frame because it is strong, and cheap. A unitized frame is more rigid, expensive and I don't think you really save that much weight.

 

I don't think the "back of the cab" is the same as what you would find on a FWD Transit. The transit already offers a choices of "back of the Cab"s adding a box frame choice to a redesigned Transit should not be hard. But again, how may People really need a GVW of 20,000 lbs. They should be using a SD.

 

Remember most Jeeps are unit body. So are most trailers used by 18-wheelers. Also the big pickup truck beds that sits ontop of a trucks frame is unit body as well.

[igor]

1) The cost savings to be realized by merging two 200k/year products is minimal at best. Especially given that they are manufactured on two different continents.

 

2) It is by no means certain that this putative merged product could provide Transit efficiency at the low end and E-Series capability/durability at the high end. IMO you will sacrifice one to get the other.

 

3) It is foolhardy to base long-term decisions on exchange rates.

 

4) If the differences between the Transit and E-Series were as small as the differences between the US Focus & EU Focus, your assertion that the arguments can be transferred would carry more weight.

 

As it is, however, the Transit and E-Series represent radically different customer expectations.

I think we might need to agree to disagree, but I believe you are overstating the difference between the E-series and the Transit. The current Transit was built for EU market without the need for 20,000+ GVWR - and without a proper frame it can achieve 14,500 - that is just below the bottom of a PSD quipped E-series (16,000lbs - 20,000lbs).

 

The difference in construction is absolute, but the difference in capability is much smaller that you concede, and I do believe that the next Trantis will be able reach the 20,000lb mark without sacrificing its FWD/I4 efficiency, and I do believe it is a very worthy project for Ford to pursue, and I do believe that the one-time hassle of getting after-market to follow* at the change of the chassis is well worth the long therm benefits.

 

*even the risk of losing the monopoly on ambulances - were you not the one who dissed the ambulance builders when they complained about the lack of PSD at the launch of the 08? saying they are too small to matter?

 

Igor

[RichardJensen]

But again, how may People really need a GVW of 20,000 lbs. They should be using a SD.

Wrong attitude to take toward your customer.

[battyr]

Ford F53 Super Duty Class A

 

Ford does not need a heavy duty Transit when they have this.

[RichardJensen]

I think we might need to agree to disagree, but I believe you are overstating the difference between the E-series and the Transit. The current Transit was built for EU market without the need for 20,000+ GVWR - and without a proper frame it can achieve 14,500 - that is just below the bottom of a PSD quipped E-series (16,000lbs - 20,000lbs).

 

The difference in construction is absolute, but the difference in capability is much smaller that you concede, and I do believe that the next Trantis will be able reach the 20,000lb mark without sacrificing its FWD/I4 efficiency, and I do believe it is a very worthy project for Ford to pursue, and I do believe that the one-time hassle of getting after-market to follow* at the change of the chassis is well worth the long therm benefits.

 

*even the risk of losing the monopoly on ambulances - were you not the one who dissed the ambulance builders when they complained about the lack of PSD at the launch of the 08? saying they are too small to matter?

 

Igor

I don't think a nearly 40% difference in GCWR is easily surmountable. Consider that the GCWR of the 5.4L V8 F150 is 16,400 and the 6.4L F250 is 23,000; a 40% difference in maximum GCWR on the F150 can be achieved only by replacing the entire frame, etc.

 

Furthermore, the 'one time hassle' could well equal 'the loss of a considerable number of customers', as in, Body-builder "A" realizes that it would cost less to adapt his box van to the Chevy option than the new Ford option.

 

I think YOU radically overstate the cost savings. I mean, all that can be mustered in support of this argument is a savings of cost, and yet, I wonder how much it costs to maintain these vehicles on a year over year basis? Unlike passenger vehicles, this market (in both Europe and the US) is fairly static and has a much smaller customer base, and a customer base with a much smaller list of particulars, not the least of which, however, is predictability.

 

Ford's EU & NA customers need to know that the product is not going to change radically over night.

 

It would be far better to look at the semi-truck industry than the passenger car industry to model the cargo van segment of the business.

[RichardJensen]

Ford F53 Super Duty Class A

 

Ford does not need a heavy duty Transit when they have this.

AGAIN, the wrong attitude to take toward your customers:

 

"Here, use this instead"

 

"No thanks, it would cost us less to switch to Chevy's products."

[battyr]

Ford F53 Super Duty Class A

 

Ford does not need a heavy duty Transit when they have this.

 

The link did not work. Just look up Ford F53 Super Duty Class A motorhome.

[RichardJensen]

 

The link did not work. Just look up Ford F53 Super Duty Class A motorhome.

I know exactly what the F53 is, and it doesn't change my opinion.

 

You don't give longstanding customers the finger like that.

 

I can about imagine that phone call:

 

"Oh, you've been buying 5,000 E-450 cutaways per year for RVs? Well, we're not building those anymore. You have to engineer a cab and use this instead."

 

"What do you mean you're going to buy Chevy 4500s?"

 

"You won't have to engineer a cab for them? Hmm. I guess we should've thought of that before we dumped the E-450."

Edited February 27, 2008 by RichardJensen

[Furious1Auto]

I could not find this article online so I scanned it so I could paste it to the board for you guys to read. It says the E-Series will be capable of Liniking to you home and office PC VIA the net to keep real time inventory for business's. It also mentioned the option of buying a compatible optional mouse for the system. Sounds good to me, I hope this article is not in error!

Edited February 28, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[Biker16]

Transit doesn't have a frame.

 

it could fit if we wanted to.

 

there is no reason we couldn't design a transit cab to fit onto a Frame.

[Biker16]

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

 

thank you.

We CAN sell the Transit here in the US but it would not sell in Europe or Rest of the world.

 

the same analogy, with C170 and C1. the Us is only place fit for C170 the rest of the world has moved on. it would be foolish to step backwards.

 

spec wise RJ has no real argument against the transit other than it is not the E-series.

[Biker16]

Furthermore, the 'one time hassle' could well equal 'the loss of a considerable number of customers', as in, Body-builder "A" realizes that it would cost less to adapt his box van to the Chevy option than the new Ford option.

 

why when the ford options is/could be more capable than the competition? Do you think we would improve a product and mke it worse than what it was replacing? Again what is your primary objection to the transit, other than it's different? you do know that ANY replacvement for the E-series would require our customers to change. they will either change with us or change with Chevy. either there will be change.

[Furious1Auto]

it could fit if we wanted to.

 

there is no reason we couldn't design a transit cab to fit onto a Frame.

It could but it won't happen, the weight difference will kill the fuel efficiency andvantage it has over the E-Series. Besides you can get a high top appliance for the E-Series if you need both! (a full frame and high top van)

why when the ford options is/could be more capable than the competition? Do you think we would improve a product and mke it worse than what it was replacing? Again what is your primary objection to the transit, other than it's different? you do know that ANY replacvement for the E-series would require our customers to change. they will either change with us or change with Chevy. either there will be change.

Why would they have to the E-Series is not being eliminated, and GM does/will not be offering anything comparable to the Transit/Sprinter any time soon!

Edited March 2, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[RichardJensen]

spec wise RJ has no real argument against the transit other than it is not the E-series.

Yeah, that whole 5700lb difference in GCWR is a mere flyspeck, a trifle, a non-factor in comparing the two products--a nothingth of a nothingth.

 

:rolleyes:

 

:lol:

 

 

One side of this argument is dealing entirely in hypotheticals, and it ain't THIS side. It ain't me that's saying, "it's no problem to add 5700lbs of carrying capacity, it's no problem accommodating a FWD 4 cylinder and a RWD 4.4L V8 in the same engine bay, it's no problem getting upfitters and body builders to switch to a radically different chassis and body configuration."

 

I'm not the one living in a fantasy world here.

[RichardJensen]

they will either change with us or change with Chevy. either there will be change.

And if it's cheaper to change to the Chevy?

 

My objection to your suggestion does indeed revolve around the fact that the Transit is not the E-Series.

 

It is not as capable, it is not as flexible, it does not have 3 decades of aftermarket support in this country, it, in short, is inferior to the E-Series in every meaningful respect except 1) fuel efficiency in low-end models, and 2) roof height.

[matthewq4b]

it could fit if we wanted to.

 

there is no reason we couldn't design a transit cab to fit onto a Frame.

 

 

Do you see how completly stupid that statement is ?

 

So your going to fit transit cab to a frame when Ford is already building exactly that with tooling that has long since been paid for? And it is not that simple. The cab would need extensive re-engineering to make the change. By the time you were done you would have a an updated E Seires cab that uses Trasit extrior sheet metal and interior bits.

 

The current Transit has a place along side the E Seires. Perhaps in the future when the Transit gets it's next ground up over haul it and the E Seires can be merged in to one Vehicle. The changes that need to be made to accept Unit construction and Full frame applications will have to be done at the design stage and not some thing that is tacked on as an after thought in this class of vehicle.

 

Lets put it this way would you advocate this with the Ranger and F Series as well. Just stuff a Pick up box on the back of the Transit and there ya go no more need to build the Ranger F 150 or the F 250 and up. That makes as much sence as what your proposing.

 

With the Transit we are going to see a definetive separation in the vans just like in the P/U trucks There you have the Ranger F 150 and F 250 and up In the vans we will now have the TCT the Transit the E 150 and E 250 and up. If any thing has be come redundant it is the E 150 that is the one that will go by the way side. And the bulk of E Series sales are E 250's and up any way. And the Transit is easily capable of filling most of the current E 150's duty's.

On the other hand the E 150 sits on the exact same chassis as the E 250 so the cost to keep it around is minimal.

 

 

It is painfully obvious that you do not have first clue about the consumer base for the E-seires or what they are used for. But then again this is coming form the guy that said the TC was cut when Wixom was closed and there was no way no how it was going to STAP. And do not forget Biker Sodium Chloride actually is Salt.

 

 

The more you post the more it confirms my suspision that you actually are pretty clueless.

 

 

Matthew

Edited March 2, 2008 by matthewq4b

[battyr]

it could fit if we wanted to.

 

there is no reason we couldn't design a transit cab to fit onto a Frame.

 

With different weight frames and wheel configurations (Duallies), it looks like e-series has now different chassis over a common cab. With the choice of FWD and RWD and other configurations, it looks like the transit also has a choice of different chassis over a common cab. No reason why you can't extend the choice of Chassis used by the transit to include a e-series type frame.

[RichardJensen]

No reason why you can't extend the choice of Chassis used by the transit to include a e-series type frame.

The problem with that:

 

No point in putting a Transit cab over an E-Series frame unless you're providing E-Series capability (E-350/E-450, that is), in which case, you've got a V8, which means you need a Transit cab that can fit a V8. And there is just no reason for that.

[Furious1Auto]

With different weight frames and wheel configurations (Duallies), it looks like e-series has now different chassis over a common cab. With the choice of FWD and RWD and other configurations, it looks like the transit also has a choice of different chassis over a common cab. No reason why you can't extend the choice of Chassis used by the transit to include a e-series type frame.

The most you will see is some volume reduction of the E-Series do to the nature and appliactions of the market. Ford will steal some of their own sales with the overlap. The E-Series has strengths over the Transit in some areas, while the Transit has some ereas where it is more capable! What it is really going to come down to for our customers is "What are you looking for your Utility van to be able to do?" "What are you using it for?" This will determine which portion of the already loyal E-Series customers will defect to the Transit, or even the Transit Connect for that matter! It is not a good idea to lose the E-Series, just because we offer something nearly comparable! It is more a matter of getting our three light commercial van's capacity in-line with their market so that we sell most of what we build at retail pricing. Over producing causes loss of potential profit, and this is the balancing act. I think we have a great focused leadership team going forward! It should be quite obvious at this point that the way they do bisiness has major fundemental differences over years past, our CEO is a major asset to our future in this respect!

Edited March 2, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[Biker16]

The problem with that:

 

No point in putting a Transit cab over an E-Series frame unless you're providing E-Series capability (E-350/E-450, that is), in which case, you've got a V8, which means you need a Transit cab that can fit a V8. And there is just no reason for that.

What does the Cab have to do with the capability, all i am saying is that within the next 8 years you could replace the e- series cutaway, with a BOF transit cutaway. the 150 and 250

 

 

why do you replace the E-series cab with a transit cab. because you will no longer making 2 separate interiors and bodies, no more duplicating our efforts.

[matthewq4b]

What does the Cab have to do with the capability, all i am saying is that within the next 8 years you could replace the e- series cutaway, with a BOF transit cutaway. the 150 and 250

why do you replace the E-series cab with a transit cab. because you will no longer making 2 separate interiors and bodies, no more duplicating our efforts.

 

 

In the long term that is what you will end up with. But even at that there will major differenaces between the lightest and Heaviest of the Vans. Ford is in the prosses of setting the vans up like the F series.

 

You will have the lighter duty Transit series and the super duty E Series. There may come a time when some sheet metal and interior bits can be shared. But you are not going to be able share much between a TCT and E 550 type vehicles.

 

Also since Ford is going global setting up all the transit cabs to handle Big Diesel V8'S is going to add unessesary costs for the EU models. Remember the goal is to share as many parts as possible between the EU spec and NA spec Vehicles. Ford is going to always have a superduty van. The big question is how many of the Transit's parts can they utilize in the superduty Version. A wholesale Cab swap is not pratical nor feasable. The Superduty Vans will require a dedicated cab. Even if it is copy of the Unitized FWD Transit cab that can share some interior and exterior sheet metal it will need to be a dedicated cab for the Super duty vans. And who says most of the interior parts have to come from the Transit ? the Super duty trucks can give up piles of stuff such as switch gear window actuators seats steering wheels ETC. As long as the E series is not an orphan and sharing parts with other models you are going to get the economy of scale. It does not nesssarly have to be the Transit. But sharing with the Transit makes the most sence.

 

 

I belive that from here on out we will always have the Transit and E Series Co exsist. With the Transit now here it is going to offer one stop shopping for a lot of fleet users. This may spur Ford to finally update the E series and offer the advantges of the Transits interior room in an E-series type vehicle.

 

Matthew

[RichardJensen]

why do you replace the E-series cab with a transit cab. because you will no longer making 2 separate interiors and bodies, no more duplicating our efforts.

 

Yeah. Ford has a LOT of money tied up in the interiors and sheetmetal on those things. :rolleyes:

 

Have you ever SEEN the inside of a cutaway cab? There's NOTHING THERE. Your 'savings' are hypothetical.

Edited March 2, 2008 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

I see this as mammoth engineering efforts required to achieve minimal cost savings.