Is the Transit supposed to replace the E-Series?

[theoldwizard]

The Transit is almost certainly not going to OHAP, ...

I'm almost certain that the last contract called for a new vehicle at OHAP and rumor (back then) was it would be the Transit.

[jpd80]

after all is said an done, the E-350 will not look like the vehicle it is today.

 

I would not rule out ford looking to share more components with the F- series SD, Transit and HD van replacement.

E-350/450 is much bigger and heavier than Transit, it has to be for intended purpose.

Saying a future E350 will look nothing like the present one doesn't make sense either,

a van by it's very nature has to have a defined length/shape and space utilization

otherwise it becomes longer and heavier than it's predecessor,

too short and it robs precious cargo length.

 

Main supplier costs with a platform in descending order are usually power train, electrical system , suspension.

Whatever of these that can be shared makes the platform much cheaper to build.

Edited July 13, 2010 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

E-350/450 is much bigger and heavier than Transit, it has to be for intended purpose.

Ford sold many tens of thousands of E350/E450 "cutaway" chassis for ambulance builders, Class C motorhomes as well as small buses (airport shuttles). Ford "owned" those market segments for many, many years, although they are losing some of it now that there is no longer a diesel option.

Edited July 14, 2010 by theoldwizard

[lfeg]

On what components? Electronics? Molded plastic? You think the -only- reason why the E350/E450 are viable is due to shared wiring and dashboard/door panel molds?

 

You must realize that shared sheetmetal is non-existent on a stripped chassis, that it is significantly truncated on a cutaway, and that a cab/chassis has a pretty significant amount of unique sheet metal as a percentage of all sheet metal.

 

One would think that you also realize that the frame members are very different on Class 3-5 DRWs as opposed to the Class 1/2 wagons.

 

But what are the significant differences between a stripped chassis E450 versus a stripped chassis F450. I can only think of two - one being the offset drivetrain of the E450, and the other being the setback front axle of the E450.

 

And a cab and chassis F Series uses the exact same cab sheetmetal as the pickup. Difference is in frame width aft of cab and frame kickup aft of cab. E Series cutaways use the exact same front clip, windshield and dash structure, and doors as the cargo van. Roof is shorter, and B pillars are unique to the cutaway, although you could make the cutaway rood and B pillars from the cargo van stampings by cutting off what you want and discarding the rest.

[RichardJensen]

But what are the significant differences between a stripped chassis E450 versus a stripped chassis F450. I can only think of two - one being the offset drivetrain of the E450, and the other being the setback front axle of the E450.

 

And a cab and chassis F Series uses the exact same cab sheetmetal as the pickup. Difference is in frame width aft of cab and frame kickup aft of cab. E Series cutaways use the exact same front clip, windshield and dash structure, and doors as the cargo van. Roof is shorter, and B pillars are unique to the cutaway, although you could make the cutaway rood and B pillars from the cargo van stampings by cutting off what you want and discarding recycling! the rest.

Well, I don't think you can buy a stripped chassis F450--at least I've never seen one on Ford's fleet website. Also, it's my understanding that the frames are different between the E450 & F450--as evidenced by different GVWR/GCWR (the F450 has a higher GCWR & 1,500 lb higher GVWR), although that could be based on powertrain rather than frame strength.

 

On the E-series, the cab configuration has unique sheetmetal to close off the cab. One would think that, between the cutaway & cab chassis, there'd be enough volume to have separate stamping for the roof & B pillar that would be optionally tied into the back of the cab on a cab/chassis or left open on a cutaway.

[Biker16]

E-350/450 is much bigger and heavier than Transit, it has to be for intended purpose.

Saying a future E350 will look nothing like the present one doesn't make sense either,

a van by it's very nature has to have a defined length/shape and space utilization

otherwise it becomes longer and heavier than it's predecessor,

too short and it robs precious cargo length.

 

Main supplier costs with a platform in descending order are usually power train, electrical system , suspension.

Whatever of these that can be shared makes the platform much cheaper to build.

 

so the cutaways nor the stripped chassis don't share drivetrains, electrical systems, and suspension with the e-series vans?

 

how would that change if the drive trains were from the US transit?

 

you can't take the E350 or E450 in isolation, they are part of the E-series. they will not be affordable without the volume of the Vans.

 

right now they lack:

Diesels

6spd transmissions

 

Ford is refusing to compromise the competitiveness of their big pickups, to accommodate the E-series. This tells me that ford is not concerned with cutaway and chassis market as people are saying they are.

 

I fully expect ford to develop replacements for the vans and the cutaways/stripped chassis, how they do it, i don't know, but it has to be done.

[RichardJensen]

so the cutaways nor the stripped chassis don't share ... suspension with the e-series vans?

They certainly do NOT share suspensions with the wagons. Such a notion is ridiculous. The 350 & 450 are DRW models, for crying out loud. The front suspensions are rated with a significantly higher GAWR than the wagons.

 

Additionally, your idea that the E350/E450 would fail, financially, if they were no longer sharing sheetmetal or molded plastic with other models is just, well, it's bizarre.

[Biker16]

They certainly do NOT share suspensions with the wagons. Such a notion is ridiculous. The 350 & 450 are DRW models, for crying out loud. The front suspensions are rated with a significantly higher GAWR than the wagons.

 

Additionally, your idea that the E350/E450 would fail, financially, if they were no longer sharing sheetmetal or molded plastic with other models is just, well, it's bizarre.

 

the drive trains are shared with the E-vans, along with the electrical systems,

 

question for you how many cutaways and stripped chassis are sold every year?

[RichardJensen]

the drive trains are shared with the E-vans, along with the electrical systems,

 

question for you how many cutaways and stripped chassis are sold every year?

 

The drive trains are not, optimally, shared with the E-Series. They are currently shared with the E-Series because of the common form factor. A new firewall/suspension configuration adapted for the Super Duty powertrains would likely provide even greater economies of scale than sharing with the lighter duty transits.

 

My guess is that the body-builder models (cab/chassis, cutaway, and stripped chassis) are anywhere from one half to two-thirds of all volume--with the bulk of that in Class 3 config.

 

I think GM has a greater share of the wagon market because their wagons are more passenger/work van friendly (offering dual sliding doors, a lower load floor and greater floor to ceiling height). GM's heavier duty vans, like their heavy duty trucks, are simply uncompetitive compared to Ford's entries.

[Biker16]

The drive trains are not, optimally, shared with the E-Series. They are currently shared with the E-Series because of the common form factor. A new firewall/suspension configuration adapted for the Super Duty powertrains would likely provide even greater economies of scale than sharing with the lighter duty transits.

 

My guess is that the body-builder models (cab/chassis, cutaway, and stripped chassis) are anywhere from one half to two-thirds of all volume--with the bulk of that in Class 3 config.

 

I think GM has a greater share of the wagon market because their wagons are more passenger/work van friendly (offering dual sliding doors, a lower load floor and greater floor to ceiling height). GM's heavier duty vans, like their heavy duty trucks, are simply uncompetitive compared to Ford's entries.

SO you are expecting the e-350 and 450 non vans to be replaced by a hybrid based on the SD?

 

what are we arguing about?

 

I am saying the E-series will not survive this decade, do you agree with this statement?

[RichardJensen]

SO you are expecting the e-350 and 450 non vans to be replaced by a hybrid based on the SD?

 

what are we arguing about?

 

I am saying the E-series will not survive this decade, do you agree with this statement?

 

I don't know what the E350/E450 will be 'based' on. I think that sharing their sheetmetal with the Transit is counterproductive, and I think there's enough volume there to justify the unique front suspension that provides a more fit cargo-carrier/minibus/RV solution than the SD.

 

The big thing is revising the firewall and front suspension to allow SD powertrains. The SD & E350/E450 are complementary products, not rival products. The small area where they overlap (cab/chassis ambulance prep) is offset by the fairly wide range of uses that are exclusive to each.

 

This complementary nature is in no small part due to the different front suspension & firewall of the E350/E450 (would have to check the specs, but I think the E350/E450 have a lower 'load floor' than the F450.)

 

Adapting that suspension to the SD powerpacks is, IMO, more practical than the following two options:

 

1) Utilizing Transit sheetmetal

 

2) Collapsing the E350/E450 into the SD lineup.

 

The sheet metal is subservient to the suspension & firewall layout (as they set the hardpoints that matter for a cab/chassis or cutaway). Unique suspension = unique sheet metal, or Unique suspension = bastardized shared sheet metal.

 

Whether the electronics are sourced from the SD or Transit doesn't matter. They will be shared.

 

But if the suspension remains unique, it follows that the sheet metal should as well

[bzcat]

Ok... after 4 pages, I think we are all saying the same things pretty much:

 

1. E-150/250 replacement = RWD Transit - not much controversy here as long as Ford figures out how to get V6 engine in there for US

2. E-350/450 replacement should be separated from E-150/250/Transit for obvious reasons

3. FWD Transit can stay in Europe where it makes sense

4. Maybe Ford should figure out how to fit SD powertrain in E-350/450 as that is what the customer wants

 

Did I miss anything?

[RichardJensen]

Did I miss anything?

 

Yep. Biker thinks I'm an idiot and I think he's a moron. That about covers it.:D

Edited July 15, 2010 by RichardJensen

[theoldwizard]

Ok... after 4 pages, I think we are all saying the same things pretty much:

 

1. E-150/250 replacement = RWD Transit - not much controversy here as long as Ford figures out how to get V6 engine in there for US

 

My gut says E150 will be replaced by SWB FWD/AWD Transit both short and tall, possible only I4 and EcoBoost I4 engines.

 

E250 might just go away or be replaced by MWB RWD Transit, possibly tall only.

[7Mary3]

A few thoughts: E series chassis and load floor is quite a bit lower than a Super Duty's. Should the next generation E series be based on the Super Duty, there would be compromises. Ride height would pose stability and use problems. Might not be anything to gain, as there may not be much commonality. The 6.7L Powerstroke would be difficult if not impossible to install in a vehicle like the current E series, or any full size van. So, unless consumers are willing to go back to a panel truck type vehicle, the Powerstroke is out. Maybe the 4.4L diesel would work? I have also been told neither the 3 valve Triton or the Boss will fit in the current E series. The E-150 really doesn't exist anymore. The current 'E-150' is not really a 1/2 ton full size van, it is a downrated E-350. I don't know why Ford did this, was it to get around emissions or safety regulations for vehicles under 8,500#'s GVW?

[RichardJensen]

I have also been told neither the 3 valve Triton or the Boss will fit in the current E series.

Which would be a reason for reconfiguring the front suspension & firewall for modern powertrains. Of course this doesn't mean dismissing the E350/450 in favor of the Super Duty--or trying to base the E350/450 off the SD.

 

Rather you just take the new powerpack dimensions into account when developing a new suspension/firewall setup.

 

The 4.4 may be possible-----and wouldn't it be crazy if the 4.4L ends up in Range Rovers and E350s?

[lfeg]

A few thoughts: E series chassis and load floor is quite a bit lower than a Super Duty's. Should the next generation E series be based on the Super Duty, there would be compromises. Ride height would pose stability and use problems. Might not be anything to gain, as there may not be much commonality. The 6.7L Powerstroke would be difficult if not impossible to install in a vehicle like the current E series, or any full size van. So, unless consumers are willing to go back to a panel truck type vehicle, the Powerstroke is out. Maybe the 4.4L diesel would work? I have also been told neither the 3 valve Triton or the Boss will fit in the current E series. The E-150 really doesn't exist anymore. The current 'E-150' is not really a 1/2 ton full size van, it is a downrated E-350. I don't know why Ford did this, was it to get around emissions or safety regulations for vehicles under 8,500#'s GVW?

 

On chassis and load floor, the E350 van the load floor is lower than that in an F350 box truck, but when you put a box body on the E350 cutaway, the load floor of both box bodies is nearly the same. At least that is what I notice when either backs into the truck dock here.

 

And I think that the E150 (and E250 if it is still around) have alot more in common chassis wise with the E350s than most people here realize. Basic suspensions are the same, with different spring rates, and drive axles. Even the E450 cutaways do not have much difference in the frame forward of the driver, just replacing the Twin I Beam front suspension with a beam axle and its attendant leaf springs and riveted on spring perches.

Edited July 16, 2010 by lfeg

[Biker16]

Yep. Biker thinks I'm an idiot and I think he's a moron. That about covers it.:D

yep.

 

yet we appear to agree.

[RichardJensen]

Basic suspensions are the same, with different spring rates, and drive axles. Even the E450 cutaways do not have much difference in the frame forward of the driver, just replacing the Twin I Beam front suspension with a beam axle and its attendant leaf springs and riveted on spring perches.

 

Yeah, but those differences are enough to eliminate any--or almost any--cost savings from shared parts, which was sort of the contention in favor of sharing sheetmetal between the Transit & E350/E450.

[lfeg]

Yeah, but those differences are enough to eliminate any--or almost any--cost savings from shared parts, which was sort of the contention in favor of sharing sheetmetal between the Transit & E350/E450.

 

But,

 

If the E Series cargo vans go away, will the E Series cutaways be able to survive after the bank of sheetmetal is used up? Sure, short runs of stampings can be contracted out to stampers that could use the Ford tooling, but that is not low cost. And it is not cheap to run a bodyshop to assemble/weld up the stampings into bodies if you have low volumes (and everwhere I have seen E Series production parked awaiting shipment, cargo vans outnumber cutaways by a healthy margin) how do you price things to justify maintaining partial utilization of a facility?

 

Whatever happens, the E Series will not be replaced by the current Transit, it will be replaced by a new truck that may have things in common with a new Transit. And, at least in North America, it will most likely be called the E Series. There might be some of the legacy cutaways built for a while, but there will be an updated new design replacement for them.

[Biker16]

But,

 

If the E Series cargo vans go away, will the E Series cutaways be able to survive after the bank of sheetmetal is used up? Sure, short runs of stampings can be contracted out to stampers that could use the Ford tooling, but that is not low cost. And it is not cheap to run a bodyshop to assemble/weld up the stampings into bodies if you have low volumes (and everwhere I have seen E Series production parked awaiting shipment, cargo vans outnumber cutaways by a healthy margin) how do you price things to justify maintaining partial utilization of a facility?

 

Whatever happens, the E Series will not be replaced by the current Transit, it will be replaced by a new truck that may have things in common with a new Transit. And, at least in North America, it will most likely be called the E Series. There might be some of the legacy cutaways built for a while, but there will be an updated new design replacement for them.

 

the optimal situation is a division of models between the lighter duty transit and the heavier duty specialized E-series.C-away and chassis.

 

I would like to see the ROW transit, using a Fuel efficient drivetrains, in FWD and RWD confiugrations. Only chage I would expect VS the ROW transit is the addition of V6 engines, for the FWD and RWD models. i think it would be best to keep as close to the current Transit as posble as not to Reinvent the wheel, and add complexity to an already complex model.

 

I agree it would not be cost effective long term to contiue to hold onto the E-series tooling to make cabs for the the cutaway. especailly since we expect the Frame to be redone to fit the big Diesel motor and the 6Spd transmission from the F-SD. Why would we redesign the current Cab of the eseries to fit it? You don't, you find the best mix of barrowed sheel metal and new sheetmetal.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Biker16

[7Mary3]

The E-Series is an old platform (1992) and the current Super Duty is starting to show it's age despite a couple of MCE's. Maybe the next generation Super Duty could be engineered in such a way that many components could also be use in a full size van/commercial cutaway.

[RichardJensen]

I agree it would not be cost effective long term to contiue to hold onto the E-series tooling to make cabs for the the cutaway. especailly since we expect the Frame to be redone to fit the big Diesel motor and the 6Spd transmission from the F-SD. Why would we redesign the current Cab of the eseries to fit it? You don't, you find the best mix of barrowed sheel metal and new sheetmetal.

1: The tooling has to be kept anyway

 

2: Re-engineering the sheetmetal for a custom low volume solution is an even iffier proposition than continuing to use the same sheetmetal.

 

3: The E-Series and Transit form factors are so different, and the cab to engine configuration so different that I can think of only one scenario where you could utilize Transit sheetmetal on the E350/E450:

 

Adapt the Transit to the extreme cab forward configuration of the E-Series.

 

While the Transit appears to be aggressively cab-forward note this:

 

 

Compared with:

 

 

And:

 

 

All of these are '350' designated vehicles (even the Transit). If tire sizes are comparable, the efficiency of the E-Series package is clear.

 

Adapting the Transit to the E-Series cab-forward configuration is one way that you could have sheet metal sharing between the two models. But the reality here is that the Transit will have to follow the E-Series' lead in order for that to work.

Edited July 16, 2010 by RichardJensen

[ausrutherford]

Ok... after 4 pages, I think we are all saying the same things pretty much:

 

1. E-150/250 replacement = RWD Transit - not much controversy here as long as Ford figures out how to get V6 engine in there for US

2. E-350/450 replacement should be separated from E-150/250/Transit for obvious reasons

3. FWD Transit can stay in Europe where it makes sense

4. Maybe Ford should figure out how to fit SD powertrain in E-350/450 as that is what the customer wants

 

Did I miss anything?

 

E-100 = FWD Transit.

[Biker16]

1: The tooling has to be kept anyway

 

2: Re-engineering the sheetmetal for a custom low volume solution is an even iffier proposition than continuing to use the same sheetmetal.

 

3: The E-Series and Transit form factors are so different, and the cab to engine configuration so different that I can think of only one scenario where you could utilize Transit sheetmetal on the E350/E450:

 

Adapt the Transit to the extreme cab forward configuration of the E-Series.

 

While the Transit appears to be aggressively cab-forward note this:

 

 

Compared with:

 

 

And:

 

 

All of these are '350' designated vehicles (even the Transit). If tire sizes are comparable, the efficiency of the E-Series package is clear.

 

Adapting the Transit to the E-Series cab-forward configuration is one way that you could have sheet metal sharing between the two models. But the reality here is that the Transit will have to follow the E-Series' lead in order for that to work.

 

 

the transit's appears to be extreme Cab forward design, but it really isn't

 

 

The use of front struts, and unitized construction, allows for the engine to be placed between the front axle not above it as in the E-series and other BOF vehicles. this allows for a lower CoG, wider Tranvesrse drivetrains, and a stuby nose because the engine bay is lower.