Ford Delays Launch of Global Transit

[RichardJensen]

I don't Care, keep it, leave it, it is a very small part of what ford is trying to do with the transit, and Transit Connect.

 

the E-series is thoroughly modern with its Twin I-beam suspension. C-section Frame, Power recirculating ball steering, I love how the really modern features from the F-series's frame have missed the E-series.

- Weren't you earlier saying that the Transit sheetmetal should be on the E350/E450 frame? Then you were saying that the E350/E450 frame should be replaced, and now you're saying keep it as it is because it's a 'small part' of what Ford is trying to do. My that's consistent reasoning on your part. If it's such a small part, then why go to all that trouble to save a few pennies on a windshield washer reservoir?

 

- As far as the Twin I up front--The E-Series has the highest front axle rating in the biz, and it's considerably higher than it was 30 years ago, so even if the DESIGN is the same, the EXECUTION is improved.

 

- C section frame----JUST LIKE SEMI TRUCKS. You know what Box section is good for? Strength without increasing frame height. With WORK vehicles, where step-in is a minor inconvenience (or taken care of with steps), frame height is not a concern. And, WHERE THINGS ARE BOLTED TO THE FRAME, C-Channel is actually an advantage.

 

- Recirculating ball steering-----JUST LIKE IN SEMI TRUCKS AND THE SUPER DUTIES. You have this hilariously out of place notion that a cab/chassis van should be treated like a passenger car. Recirculating ball is PREFERRED in heavy duty applications. Like the E-Series.

 

BTW: Thanks for the warm and fuzzy pictures of the tiny plastic dashboard storage unit that would get the heck beat out of it over the 15-20 year service life of an E-series delivery vehicle.

Edited February 12, 2009 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Transits have C-channel too, BTW.

[battyr]

Transits have C-channel too, BTW.

 

I was going to ask, whether anyone knew what kind of frame the Transit had? From the pictures that I have seen, makes it look like a unit body welded together in a box frame manner. But it's hard to tell. The dump box version looks like it has an added box frame on top of the standard frame.

 

For comparision, what does the Sprinter use? It looks like C-channel. How does the Transit compare to the Sprinter in capability? They both look to be the same size.

 

Does the Transit have different types of frame for different version? A C-channel frame would we difficult with the FWD version.

 

I sounds like we are assuming that the Tranist uses Rack-and-Pinion steering. Is this true?

 

Sounds like a lot of people are making a lot of assumptions about the Transit based on what they do and do not know about the E-series. It would be nice if someone with intimate knowledge of the Transit, could discribe it's mechanicals.

[RichardJensen]

Transit is more capable than the Sprinter---it's like comparing the F-series to the Ram.

 

Unless I'm much mistaken, you can't get cab/chassis FWD Transits, and why would C channel cause a problem with FWD vehicles? Importantly, the C channel is out back, where you have to bolt stuff. I think the Super Duty uses hydroformed tube section up front, just like the F150.

 

Transit is rack and pinion, but I doubt that your typical US driver would like the experience of driving a Class 3-5 vehicle with rack and pinion steering. As evinced by the continued use of recirculating ball everywhere above Class 2 in the US.

[rkisler]

Transit is more capable than the Sprinter---it's like comparing the F-series to the Ram.

 

Unless I'm much mistaken, you can't get cab/chassis FWD Transits, and why would C channel cause a problem with FWD vehicles? Importantly, the C channel is out back, where you have to bolt stuff. I think the Super Duty uses hydroformed tube section up front, just like the F150.

 

Transit is rack and pinion, but I doubt that your typical US driver would like the experience of driving a Class 3-5 vehicle with rack and pinion steering. As evinced by the continued use of recirculating ball everywhere above Class 2 in the US.

 

I should know more about the Transit than I do (and I apologize if this has been answered over the previous posts), but...

 

When I look at the Transit, I'm seeing unibody, not body-on-frame. Transit has the following options:

 

FWD with a low load floor

RWD

AWD (which is based off of the RWD model)

 

From a glance at the brochure, all of these powertrain combinations are accomplished without changing the front end -- even the suspension remains the same (with minor changes in the knuckles I would think).

 

Combined with the powertrain flexibility, the body versatility of the Transit is pretty amazing. You might want to take a look at the Ford UK website where you can pull down a brochure.

 

So, my take is that all of the van versions are unibody.

 

There are also chassis cab models, but this is accomplished through extended chassis rails off of a unibody front end; these rails are then reinforced into a ladder-frame type construction in the rear. That construction is not the same as a true body-on-frame. Australia does the same thing with the Falcon Ute commercial vehicles. It looks like this is available on RWD/AWD only as you mentioned Richard.

 

The advantage of this type of system is you can keep the same unibody front end for all of the models. The downside is that it is unlikely that you could make a frame extension that would be as robust as a true bof.

 

Truly the Transit is a versatile vehicle.

 

While the Transit can provide an amazing amount of versatility, trying to somehow combine the Transit with the E doesn't make too much sense to me. There is no way you're going to keep much commonality with the different body constructions. Of course, you could look at common sourcing on some components, but the real money is in combining platforms if you can. I could see Ford gearing up Transit and have it take over some of the E's commercial space (and hopefully some of the competition's as well). Then I see eventually confining E to a smaller space that the Transit can't cover, and not spending a lot on E except for necessary upgrades.

[RichardJensen]

That's pretty much the way I see it, Austin.

 

The Transit with its lower load floor and higher roof is more accommodating for passengers and for panel van owners that have to do some work out of their van.

 

In fact, GM's strengths in the van market are in the typical van/wagon body style, as their vans have (if memory serves) a noticeably higher inside clearance (plus available AWD and dual sliding doors).

 

The Transit, then poses an opportunity for Ford to perhaps gain marketshare from GM.

 

However, the suitability of the Transit drops off when it comes to cab/chassis options in the US.

 

--

 

BTW, I have looked at the Transit brochures and I'm impressed by how many configurations Ford does inhouse there that are done by body builders here. I expect us to get the Transit vans and that's it.

 

--

 

Thing's only got Mac struts up front---I can't conceive of a way that thing could duplicate E350/E450 durability & performance.

Edited February 13, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

That's pretty much the way I see it, Austin.

 

The Transit with its lower load floor and higher roof is more accommodating for passengers and for panel van owners that have to do some work out of their van.

 

In fact, GM's strengths in the van market are in the typical van/wagon body style, as their vans have (if memory serves) a noticeably higher inside clearance (plus available AWD and dual sliding doors).

 

The Transit, then poses an opportunity for Ford to perhaps gain marketshare from GM.

 

However, the suitability of the Transit drops off when it comes to cab/chassis options in the US.

 

--

 

BTW, I have looked at the Transit brochures and I'm impressed by how many configurations Ford does inhouse there that are done by body builders here. I expect us to get the Transit vans and that's it.

 

--

 

Thing's only got Mac struts up front---I can't conceive of a way that thing could duplicate E350/E450 durability & performance.

 

 

We could have both cab variants sold side by side, and leave the E450 as is until we could have a more long term solution.

[Edstock]

Thing's only got Mac struts up front---I can't conceive of a way that thing could duplicate E350/E450 durability & performance.

 

How about an extra heavy-duty RevoKnuckle strut? Keep making it bigger and tougher, until the sumbitch can take the pounding.

 

IIRC, Ford did a low-bed FWD F-150 concept a couple of years ago.

[RichardJensen]

We could have both cab variants sold side by side, and leave the E450 as is until we could have a more long term solution.

Yeah, I guess you could bring the Transit cab/chassis to the US and see if customers want to pay the same amount of money for a form factor that they have nothing designed for and with less capability than the E450. Or you could bring the Transit panel and window vans here, take some business from GM, and retire the E150 & 250.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the E350/E450 IS a long term solution. It's a standard form factor for the industry. Its dimensions haven't changed, nor are there any compelling reasons for them to change.

[RichardJensen]

How about an extra heavy-duty RevoKnuckle strut? Keep making it bigger and tougher, until the sumbitch can take the pounding.

 

IIRC, Ford did a low-bed FWD F-150 concept a couple of years ago.

I think the Mac Strut is, pound for pound, a considerably more durable architecture than the Revo-knuckle (as it uses a single piece hub, whereas the Revo knuckle separates the strut assembly from the hub). Remember, the Revo-knuckle is there to eliminate torque steer, not to make the product more durable. Furthermore, the Revo-knuckle still uses a shock absorber for the upper locating member.

 

As is, the use of a shock as the upper locating member for the king-pin axis instead of a forged or stamped control arm is a recipe for disaster, given US expectations for maintenance and loading.

 

I mean, you're basically suggesting the use of a shock absorber as a replacement for the forged I-beam on the front suspension of the E-Series.

 

At a minimum, you need an SLA architecture, and that with some sturdy pieces, for a work vehicle.

[battyr]

Yeah, I see no advantage in revoknuckle for durability.

 

SLA uses strong control arms to take the loads off the shock. Strut suspension shock as a control point. Because of limitations in the shock, it puts additional loads on the lower control arm. The durability of both revoknuckle and strut depends on the strength of the shock and lower control arm.

 

I would not say that Strut can't be durable. I would say that it needs extra effort to make it durable. In the case of the Transit, does it copy a cars strut suspension? Or does it have a more advance lower control arms that are more durable and can take some of the loads off the upper strut?

[battyr]

Ford Transit Van - 1996-1999

 

Shown is the injected 5.0 Windsor commonly found in EB-AU Ford Falcons

 

Note this is an old generation Transit.

 

[RichardJensen]

Yeah, I see no advantage in revoknuckle for durability.

 

SLA uses strong control arms to take the loads off the shock. Strut suspension shock as a control point. Because of limitations in the shock, it puts additional loads on the lower control arm. The durability of both revoknuckle and strut depends on the strength of the shock and lower control arm.

 

I would not say that Strut can't be durable. I would say that it needs extra effort to make it durable. In the case of the Transit, does it copy a cars strut suspension? Or does it have a more advance lower control arms that are more durable and can take some of the loads off the upper strut?

Since the key problem with struts is bump and jounce isolation, I would imagine that any mac strut tough enough to stand up to heavy duty usage would ride like---well, buckboard is perhaps too generous a word.....

[Biker16]

Yeah, I guess you could bring the Transit cab/chassis to the US and see if customers want to pay the same amount of money for a form factor that they have nothing designed for and with less capability than the E450. Or you could bring the Transit panel and window vans here, take some business from GM, and retire the E150 & 250.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the E350/E450 IS a long term solution. It's a standard form factor for the industry. Its dimensions haven't changed, nor are there any compelling reasons for them to change.

 

 

As you have stated Ford does alot of aftermarket Stuff in-house. YOU will Fin maktes that don't need nor want the Issues of the E-series (economy, size, Wieght, comfort) and have a more appropriate Form factor, for thier needs.

[battyr]

Since the key problem with struts is bump and jounce isolation, I would imagine that any mac strut tough enough to stand up to heavy duty usage would ride like---well, buckboard is perhaps too generous a word.....

 

True.

[battyr]

As you have stated Ford does alot of aftermarket Stuff in-house. YOU will Fin maktes that don't need nor want the Issues of the E-series (economy, size, Wieght, comfort) and have a more appropriate Form factor, for thier needs.

 

It's the third party modifications that sells the E-series. A school bus company would be able to sell more e-series school busses than Ford will.

 

Does Ford really want to compete against their biggest customers?

[Biker16]

Note this is an old generation Transit.

 

 

the old transit did not have FWD capability. the Frame rails on the current transit are much futher apart, to mount the Transverse powerpack. it shouldnot have a issue fitting the wider mod V8s.

 

BTW Notice how low the motor sits in the body, between the frame not on top of it. lower CoG.

 

 

It's the third party modifications that sells the E-series. A school bus company would be able to sell more e-series school busses than Ford will.

 

Does Ford really want to compete against their biggest customers?

 

Ford does alot of E-series work in-house. I see them driving the bodies and cabs from avon lake to walton hills everyday on I90. it is happening already. with the transit bing soo tall, and able to have a 6'3" stand in it there would be less of a need for aftermarket buses. I don't think your would need short school buses based on the E450 the E350 would be fine. That customer may prefer a transit based bus that would save money on fuel and tires vs the E-series.

 

there are markets, for which custoimer do want a lighter cutaway, and they do make boxes and other aftermarket builders building stuff for the sprinter.

[RichardJensen]

As you have stated Ford does alot of aftermarket Stuff in-house. YOU will Fin maktes that don't need nor want the Issues of the E-series (economy, size, Wieght, comfort) and have a more appropriate Form factor, for thier needs.

This would be the market that has embraced the Sprinter cutaway, right? Because few builders have embraced it.

 

And frankly, I don't see COMFORT being that much of an improvement with the Transit, and economy, size, and weight are all prices that you pay for capability.

 

If someone doesn't need a class 4/5 delivery van, they're not going to buy a class 5 delivery van. It's not as though there's this huge underserved market for 75-80% implementations of the E350/E450 cutaways and cab/chassis vehicles.

 

Maybe, MAYBE, there is potential for RVs, but that's about it.

[RichardJensen]

there are markets, for which custoimer do want a lighter cutaway, and they do make boxes and other aftermarket builders building stuff for the sprinter.

It's a dang small market. You're essentially saying, "Anyone want a Class 2/lightweight Class 3 delivery van?" and the answer is pretty much "no."

 

RVs, like I said, may be something different, as fuel economy becomes more important--assuming that the Transit gets significantly better fuel economy than a comparably sized E-Series, something that I'm inclined to doubt.

[Biker16]

This would be the market that has embraced the Sprinter cutaway, right? Because few builders have embraced it.

 

And frankly, I don't see COMFORT being that much of an improvement with the Transit, and economy, size, and weight are all prices that you pay for capability.

 

If someone doesn't need a class 4/5 delivery van, they're not going to buy a class 5 delivery van. It's not as though there's this huge underserved market for 75-80% implementations of the E350/E450 cutaways and cab/chassis vehicles.

 

Maybe, MAYBE, there is potential for RVs, but that's about it.

 

the sprinter largest engine is a I5 TDi I would assume the Transit would have the 4.6/5.0 and 5.8 V8s available with it. That would open up more of the market, to the lighter Transit cutaway.

 

 

The transit because of it's flexiblity, will create new market niches, and expand ford's market domince.

 

embrace the opportunity.

[RichardJensen]

the sprinter largest engine is a I5 TDi I would assume the Transit would have the 4.6/5.0 and 5.8 V8s available with it. That would open up more of the market, to the lighter Transit cutaway.

 

 

The transit because of it's flexiblity, will create new market niches, and expand ford's market domince.

 

embrace the opportunity.

1) Ford has no plans to offer a 5.8L V8 anywhere.

 

2) How could the Transit be lighter and as capable as the E-Series? It's not as though the E-Series has weight thrown away on it.

 

I mean what exactly are you arguing for here? An overpowered less robust Transit (that is, a Transit with an E-Series powertrain, but without E-Series GVWR, GCWR, and FAWR?)

 

As I see it, you think that the E350/E450 is too heavy for most of the market. In fact it is not. Weight as it relates to fuel consumption is a pretty small concern in the TCO calculation for a fleet owner.

 

The only niche I see for Ford here is the possibility to expand the RV market. Some RV builders may embrace the Transit cutaway for an expanded range--not as capable as their E350 offerings, but lighter and more fuel efficient.

Edited February 17, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

1) Ford has no plans to offer a 5.8L V8 anywhere.

 

2) How could the Transit be lighter and as capable as the E-Series? It's not as though the E-Series has weight thrown away on it.

 

I mean what exactly are you arguing for here? An overpowered less robust Transit (that is, a Transit with an E-Series powertrain, but without E-Series GVWR, GCWR, and FAWR?)

 

As I see it, you think that the E350/E450 is too heavy for most of the market. In fact it is not. Weight as it relates to fuel consumption is a pretty small concern in the TCO calculation for a fleet owner.

 

The only niche I see for Ford here is the possibility to expand the RV market. Some RV builders may embrace the Transit cutaway for an expanded range--not as capable as their E350 offerings, but lighter and more fuel efficient.

 

The Transit is more capable than the E150 E250 and in some case the E350 VAN. Its Unibody, makes it lighter, while maintaining strength. Don't Try to argue for The Light Duty E-series, they will be gone, There is nothing to save them, like there are valid reasons for keeping the Cutaways.

 

Realistically, is it Necessary for all businesses to need a cutaway that can tow 18,000 and haul 12,000lbs.

 

you should see Transit cutaways sold along side the E-series cutaway.

[Biker16]

bump

[ausrutherford]

Anybody seen the spy shots yet?