Is the Transit supposed to replace the E-Series?

[lfeg]

So are F-150's and just about any vehicle. And your point is?

 

My point is that to an upfitter, there is not much of a difference between a Ford and a Chevrolet cutaway. To a guy that just needs a cargo van both the Ford and Chevrolet van will do the same job just about as well as each other. Brand loyalty and the whole "I am a (your favorite here) truck man" is nowhere as big a factor in the commercial market as it is in the consumer market. Notice how when GM redid their vans they closely copied the features of the E-Series? They did it for a reason. Ford is the market leader and they wanted to gain sales through fungibility.

[lfeg]

Different time and place.

 

With the exceptionally stiff emissions standards in place for heavy duty trucks, you can't get torque cheap anymore. I think a turboed V6 (gas or diesel) would be so inefficient in Class 3-5 that it would scarcely save over a larger engine that would be under less stress during acceleration (therefore more durable).

 

Maybe if you started equipping Class 3-5 with two sets of gears a la Class 6-8, you could run smaller engines without just torching them and burning a lot of gas in the process, but it seems like a real stretch to get people used to automatics (Class 3-5) adjusted to, say, a 12 speed gearbox.

 

Sure, different times and requirements. Think 2.5 to 3 liter inline 4, direct injection and turbo (Ford does have the Ecoboost tech, right?), tuned for a nearly flat torque curve (around 280 to 300 lb-ft) between 1500 and 3000 rpm. With a wide ratio 6 speed auto you will be good for everything but pulling overloads up Mt. Washington. For urban delivery service you could get away with 220 to 250 lb-ft of torque. And most work vans and cutaways are class 3, some class 4 anyway. And most class 5 and 6 mediums have dropped their 2 speed axles a while back. A wide ratio 5 or 6 speed auto with a strong torque converter is better (and more driver friendly) than the old 5+2 setups anyway. Ford even knew that (and even sold it) back in the late 50s with the Transmatic Drive 6 speed auto.

[RichardJensen]

Sure, different times and requirements. Think 2.5 to 3 liter inline 4, direct injection and turbo (Ford does have the Ecoboost tech, right?), tuned for a nearly flat torque curve (around 280 to 300 lb-ft) between 1500 and 3000 rpm. With a wide ratio 6 speed auto you will be good for everything but pulling overloads up Mt. Washington. For urban delivery service you could get away with 220 to 250 lb-ft of torque. And most work vans and cutaways are class 3, some class 4 anyway. And most class 5 and 6 mediums have dropped their 2 speed axles a while back. A wide ratio 5 or 6 speed auto with a strong torque converter is better (and more driver friendly) than the old 5+2 setups anyway. Ford even knew that (and even sold it) back in the late 50s with the Transmatic Drive 6 speed auto.

 

I don't think you can get a durable 2.5L 4 with 280 lb-ft. Not for this kind of service; heck, in passenger car trim the 2.5L will be tweaked in every way imaginable to get 280 lb-ft. I don't think you could gear a transmission low enough to make that work. And a 3.0L 4 would require a custom engine architecture which would require a pretty significant up-front capital investment.

 

Not trying to play "Mr. Negative" here, but I just don't see it.

 

I could see a 3.5L boosted V6 in Class 3-5 provided you could get some incredibly short gear ratios in the first few gears (well over the current 4.84:1 in the F150 transmission), because demanding all 300+ lb feet of torque for the first few moments after every stop light is just asking for a grenaded engine, IMO (shoot, it'd be the equivalent of a SHO driver trying to lay down rubber at every stop light). And you'd be hard pressed to get delivery drivers to baby that engine.

[Biker16]

But why would you?

 

Why complicate things that much?

 

Why -force- the Transit cab to accommodate a large diesel or gas V8, in order to share some stamping with the E350/E450 (maybe 80k units a year in cutaway & cab/chassis)?

 

Why force the Transit to accommodate the larger and altogether different front suspension of the E350/E450 (you're looking at independent front suspensions for the Transits and, likely, beam axles for the E350/E450)?

 

The E350/E450 are able to share sheet metal with the E150 & E250 because the E350/E450 have 'grown' out of the E150. It's like "grandfather's ax" in a way. They've worked within the confines of that box for the past 35 years.

 

Now that Ford is bringing a significantly different form factor to market here, why would you compromise that form factor by -forcing- it to accommodate a very specialized vehicle?

 

Look at GM's Zeta. It makes for a lousy coupe because it was originally designed as a sedan.

 

Similarly, a Transit cab that accommodates the E350/E450 powertrain and suspension will be a lousy form factor for every Transit everywhere. Why would you force EU Transits to accommodate the large engines and heavy duty suspensions of a vehicle that is very NA specific?

 

the body would be separate from the frame, from the firewall forward make it anything you like, hood, fenders grille do not have to be shared with lighter duty models, firewall doors, glass, and interior would be common.

 

the engines on the transit are forward of the firewall. having a separate chassis from the body. would solve alot of issues.

 

Edited July 9, 2010 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

And that's a problem right there. The firewalls on ALL E-Series vehicles have doghouses, as the bellhousing intrudes well into the cabin.

 

Why try to force an awkward compromise?

Edited July 9, 2010 by RichardJensen

[lfeg]

I don't think you can get a durable 2.5L 4 with 280 lb-ft. Not for this kind of service; heck, in passenger car trim the 2.5L will be tweaked in every way imaginable to get 280 lb-ft. I don't think you could gear a transmission low enough to make that work. And a 3.0L 4 would require a custom engine architecture which would require a pretty significant up-front capital investment.

 

Not trying to play "Mr. Negative" here, but I just don't see it.

 

I could see a 3.5L boosted V6 in Class 3-5 provided you could get some incredibly short gear ratios in the first few gears (well over the current 4.84:1 in the F150 transmission), because demanding all 300+ lb feet of torque for the first few moments after every stop light is just asking for a grenaded engine, IMO (shoot, it'd be the equivalent of a SHO driver trying to lay down rubber at every stop light). And you'd be hard pressed to get delivery drivers to baby that engine.

 

I do not know how you drive, but I have driven my share of fully loaded cargo vans, and I have never needed anywhere near full torque to pull away from a light. Most engines are light on torque off idle anyway. When taking off, you just floor it, and torque builds up to a peak, then you have a shift, and you back off the pedal as you reach speed. Full torque is generally used when accelerating up hills, or trying to maintain speed on hills. And the beauty of a torque converter is just that - it multiplies torque. A 1.5:1 torque multiplication is very doable, and 2:1 is not a stretch. On takeoff, your engine tachs up and produces Y lb ft of torque, the torque converter output is 1.5 x Y at a lower speed than the engine is turning, going to the transmission. Your 4.84 first gear is effectively 7.26 (2:1 will get you 9.68 - that short enough for you?), and it drops to 4.84 as you gain speed and the engine produces more torque as it climbs the curve. When the 1 to 2 shift happens, your torque converter again "slips", multiplying torque as needed. When you no longer need the additional torque multiplication, the torque converter lockup clutch can engage to improve efficiency. And the final drive ratio can be made taller or shorter to match available torque to tractive force required. Back in the early 2000s Ford even published literature that the Super Duty pickup with a 5.4 produced a fair bit more tractive effort than the powerstroke 7.3. Even though the 5.4 had significantly less torque, iy had a shorter final drive ratio and a looser torque converter (more multiplication). And with modern engine/drivetrain programming and controls, the engine can be kept from being overstressed while still providing adequet performance. Realistically, a van with a 9000 lb GVW could have reasonable acceleration characteristics with as low as 220 lb ft of torque given the proper ratio splits, torque multiplication ratio and final drive ratio. It might not be able to fly down the road at 125 mph, but that is a good thing.

[RichardJensen]

Realistically, a van with a 9000 lb GVW could have reasonable acceleration characteristics with as low as 220 lb ft of torque given the proper ratio splits, torque multiplication ratio and final drive ratio. It might not be able to fly down the road at 125 mph, but that is a good thing.

 

I'll just grab this remark: The highest GVWR that Ford gave the comparably powered 4.2L V6 in the F150 & a 4-speed was (IIRC) somewhere around 7500lbs. So, yeah, you could probably do 9,000 GVWR with a 2.5L EB 4, with the right transmission.

 

But that's only a Class 2 GVWR. I was talking more Class 3-5 (10,000-19,500)--I think trying to pull Class 3-5 loads with a 2.5L ecoboost is really stressing the system---even with 2:1 torque multiplier, etc.

 

But you might be able to make it work with an EB V6---again, provided you're not burning so much fuel at WOT that you're essentially eliminating the cost savings.

Edited July 9, 2010 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Some Transit models already come with the 3.2 I-5 diesel with plenty of low end torque,

I could see the 2.7/3.0 V6 diesels branching out and becoming an option for the USA,

the torque in single and twin turbo models is impressive and work is well advanced on

Bluetec for other applications to meet tighter NOX emissions coming in Euro 6.

 

Smallish diesels thrive in heavy vehicles and give great fuel economy for fleets.

Edited July 9, 2010 by jpd80

[lfeg]

I'll just grab this remark: The highest GVWR that Ford gave the comparably powered 4.2L V6 in the F150 & a 4-speed was (IIRC) somewhere around 7500lbs. So, yeah, you could probably do 9,000 GVWR with a 2.5L EB 4, with the right transmission.

 

But that's only a Class 2 GVWR. I was talking more Class 3-5 (10,000-19,500)--I think trying to pull Class 3-5 loads with a 2.5L ecoboost is really stressing the system---even with 2:1 torque multiplier, etc.

 

But you might be able to make it work with an EB V6---again, provided you're not burning so much fuel at WOT that you're essentially eliminating the cost savings.

 

 

But the bulk of E series is below 11,500 lb GVW. And really, the only DRW applications (above 10,000 lb GVW) are cutaways. Those could be replaced with the F450 or even a variant of it, something like the old N series of the 60s.

[Biker16]

And that's a problem right there. The firewalls on ALL E-Series vehicles have doghouses, as the bellhousing intrudes well into the cabin.

 

Why try to force an awkward compromise?

'because it cannot fit the modern Diesel engine used other ford trucks.

 

we either develop a new engine for the E-series or make the E-series fit the motor we already have.

 

We are designing a new van, why not design a new van to meet our new needs and let the e-series die.

 

The market will adapt to a measurably better product. More comfortable, better driver and passenger space, better economy, and more versitility.

 

There are ways to meet and excceed the needs of the current upfitters, but i don't think it is a wise business decsion to continue to build a model that dates back to 1992, indefinatly is a mistake. How can you keep both the transit and and Eseries fresh without breaking the bank. you will have to commit to one or the other, you cannot have it both ways.

[theoldwizard]

We (Ford EU) are designing a new van, why not design a new van to meet our new needs and let the e-series die.

 

The market will adapt to a measurably better product. More comfortable, better driver and passenger space, better economy, and more versitility.

I concur.

 

The new Transit was pushed back in EU (now 2013-14MY ?), I assuming so that it could be more accommodating of US "customer requirements", especially in the engine and transmission areas !

[RichardJensen]

The market will adapt to a measurably better product.

I cannot fathom your belief that the vehicle that both pioneered this segment and continues to dominate it is somehow unfit for it.

 

That firewall doghouse is not some pointless relic of the 'bad old days' at Ford. It serves a very very specific purpose. It allows the driver to be moved about half a foot forward, thus increasing the space available for cargo by roughly 18 cu. ft on the wagons and about 40 cu. ft on the box vans.

[RichardJensen]

But the bulk of E series is below 11,500 lb GVW. And really, the only DRW applications (above 10,000 lb GVW) are cutaways. Those could be replaced with the F450 or even a variant of it, something like the old N series of the 60s.

 

Couple things:

 

How much E-Series business is in wagons (Class 1 & 2, basically)? At least based on what I see, the biggest market for E-Series is in stripped chassis, cab/chassis, & cutaways. I guess the 'school & church' hauler market might be bigger than it seems around here, but shoot: conversion market is dead or comatose and the minivan segment has just about eliminated the van as 'family hauler'. I would've pegged Class 3 & up as 2/3rds or more of Ford's biz. Even if most of it was in class 3.

 

The other thing: If Ford could consolidate the DRW stuff on SD, why didn't they do so and bring over the Transit years ago (according to TOW, Transit/E-Series merging has been studied on multiple occasions).

Edited July 12, 2010 by RichardJensen

[battyr]

And that's a problem right there. The firewalls on ALL E-Series vehicles have doghouses, as the bellhousing intrudes well into the cabin.

 

Why try to force an awkward compromise?

 

The doghouse is for the engine. The transmission is underneath the cabin so only the bellhousing intrudes. In the Transit, the engine is forward of the cabin so you don't have a doghouse imposing on cabin interior space

 

Keeping the engine forward of the firewall solves a lot of problems making for a very modular and flexible platform. The Transit is a van with the flexibility of a truck or better.

[EdselBryantFord]

I was reading about the Transit (not the Connect), and apparently the van is 4-cylinder and front-wheel-drive. Fine, but isn't the rest of the story that it's supposed to replace the E-series?

 

How?

 

I can't see a van like that doing the job of an E-350. My company used to have several E-350s used for hauling and towing. We had considered a Sprinter, but it's just not up to the task the way the E-350 w/ V10 would be.

 

Or is the Transit (for North America) going to be built heavier than what I've read?

its not acomplete replacement either transit or transit connect, but with upcoming fuel economy standards we are left with little choice.

[bzcat]

I cannot fathom your belief that the vehicle that both pioneered this segment and continues to dominate it is somehow unfit for it.

 

 

I'll take a stab...

 

Could it be the current vehicle could not be updated to meet future CAFE requirements in an economically feasible way? Your argument (and I'm not attacking you personally... just staying on point) about the E-van and chassis continue to dominate the market segment remains me of some of the Panther platform diehards. Crown Vic and Town Car also dominates their segment but it is a shrinking and increasingly irrelevant segment.

 

Now granted the E-van market's long term outlook is probably a little better than BOF RWD sedan but I don't suppose the margins are as health as say... F-150 which has a bigger retail sales component. So I think the choice Ford has to make is thus:

 

1. Somehow wring some profit out of the E-van for as long as you can until safety/environmental regulation make it obsolete or when consumer preference changes: I call this the Ford Ranger/Crown Vic/Freestar strategy - simplify and streamline the product, produce what the fleet customer wants.

 

or

 

2. Get ahead of the curve and use your market dominate position to dictate the terms of future product offering that will meet both CAFE/safety as well as customer requirements: I call this the Ford Escape strategy - continue to refine the product and use the lead in the segment to set the agenda/benchmark on what competitors should offer to "catch up" (in the specific case of Escape, it was first the option of V6 engine, which was class first; later it was the hybrid powertrain and 6 speed auto, again, also class first).

 

What is the smart money move? I don't know... but I think for one thing, Ford really ought to treat E-150/250 and E-350/450 as two separate vehicles and consider their replacement separate as they have pretty different customer profiles and applications.

[RichardJensen]

Ford really ought to treat E-150/250 and E-350/450 as two separate vehicles and consider their replacement separate as they have pretty different customer profiles and applications.

^ This.

 

The Transit is a much better light duty van platform than the E150/E250.

 

However, what bothers me is when people assume that the E350/E450 is as ill-suited to its uses as the E150/E250.

 

The E150/E250, I agree, has been superseded. It no longer has a competitive form factor and it could definitely benefit with better powertrains.

 

However, when I hear people say, "the engine is ahead of the firewall in the Transit" as though this somehow reduced the amount of space that the engine takes up.....

 

You only get so many feet, bumper to bumper, and if you slide the engine forward, as these are suggesting, as though sharing the firewall between vans sold in Paris, France and Paris, Texas will make a meaningful difference in the bottom line... I have a problem with that because it ignores the reality that the engine has to go somewhere, and the farther back you push the cab from the front bumper, the less space efficient the overall package.

 

You cannot, in any way shape or form, come up with a scenario where two vehicles of the same overall length, with the same powertrain, will have the same usable space, if you insist on moving the cab farther back on one of them.

 

The E350/E450 present an incredibly good package from the standpoint of usable space. To suggest that, somehow, the Transit would be better.... I don't get it. Short of using a transverse engine (all but impossible with front-engined Class 3+), you would be hard pressed to get more space behind the driver's seat than what's available in the E350/E450 (and the GM vans).

Edited July 12, 2010 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

^ This.

 

The Transit is a much better light duty van platform than the E150/E250.

 

However, what bothers me is when people assume that the E350/E450 is as ill-suited to its uses as the E150/E250.

 

The E150/E250, I agree, has been superseded. It no longer has a competitive form factor and it could definitely benefit with better powertrains.

 

However, when I hear people say, "the engine is ahead of the firewall in the Transit" as though this somehow reduced the amount of space that the engine takes up.....

 

You only get so many feet, bumper to bumper, and if you slide the engine forward, as these are suggesting, as though sharing the firewall between vans sold in Paris, France and Paris, Texas will make a meaningful difference in the bottom line... I have a problem with that because it ignores the reality that the engine has to go somewhere, and the farther back you push the cab from the front bumper, the less space efficient the overall package.

 

You cannot, in any way shape or form, come up with a scenario where two vehicles of the same overall length, with the same powertrain, will have the same usable space, if you insist on moving the cab farther back on one of them.

If you think that the Transit is in any way less space efficient that the E150 then you're sadly mistaken, engines in Transit are much lighter and generally shorter than American V8s, that's why they can fit either longitudinally (RWD) or transversely for FWD/AWD.

[RichardJensen]

If you think that the Transit is in any way less space efficient that the E150 then you're sadly mistaken, engines in Transit are much lighter and generally shorter than American V8s, that's why they can fit either longitudinally (RWD) or transversely for FWD/AWD.

 

Sigh.

 

I'm speaking of the E350/450.

 

You would need a longitudinal 5 pot diesel which would arguably be longer than (if not as wide as) a V8 diesel. And even at that, you would be challenged to economically meet Class 4/5 expectations.

 

And regardless, the question is whether the far-forward firewall of the E350/450 is a *drawback* (which appears to be the attitude of the "Transit is the perfect solution for problems that it was not even designed to address" crowd).

 

In fact, the doghouse E350/450 (and 150/250) has a very definite purpose, and to suggest that it can be eliminated without compromising the fundamental problem that it solves is simply unreasonable.

 

One might as well suggest that Cab-overs can be replaced by conventional cabs without compromising the ability to attach a cargo box.

[jpd80]

Sigh.

 

I'm speaking of the E350/450.

 

 

 

Sorry .......

 

In fact, the doghouse E350/450 (and 150/250) has a very definite purpose, and to suggest that it can be eliminated without compromising the fundamental problem that it solves is simply unreasonable.

 

One might as well suggest that Cab-overs can be replaced by conventional cabs without compromising the ability to attach a cargo box.

 

As the trucks and Vans get bigger so to do their requirements for larger engines.

we can only hope that Ford's next versions of E350/450 will also have a place on theglobal market as well. the 3.0 V6 diesel offers good low down torque (+400 lb ft) and could possibly serve as a base engine in markets outside the USA.

[lfeg]

OK, I will confine these comments mostly to the E350/E450.

The E350 is actually two different vehicles - one is a conventional SRW van and the other is a DRW cutaway or DRW stripped chassis. I would put these into two different categories. The E350 cargo van with other cargo vans. The capabilities of the E350 cargo van have quite a bit of overlap with the E250, and the current form factor could stand some improvement.

The E350 DRW and E450 are pretty much all either cutaways or stripped chassisThey are a big part of the mix, but that is changing as we speak. I do not know about the rest of you, but the market for cutaways seems to be declining. Space utilization is one point often brought up, ie, the short hood due to the doghouse. A low cab forward cab and chassis can do as well or better in maximixing the "cargo cube" in a box truck application than a cutaway. Right now the cutaway is often a lower cost option due to the commonality with cargo vans (cab structure, front frame and suspension, etc.). Migrate the cargo vans to something else, and you loose that commonality. The cutaways and stripped chassis that were based on the cargo vans are now orphans. This will raise costs of producing them, making the low cab forward cab and chassis a more attractive proposition for box and straight truck applications.

And for busses/people movers, two big attractions for using cutaways are the availibility of aftermarket bodies designed for them over the years, and the relatively low cost of the cutaways. Again, migrate the cargo vans, and the cost advantage goes away. And there is other competition - over the last few years I am seeing busses of the type cutaways are primarily used for going to truck cowl and chassis. One in particular is the International 4400 (or 4600) Series. I have seen a few Freightliners too.

 

And on the subject of engines for these applications, four cylinder diesels are popular in low cab forward trucks in classes 3, 4 and into class 5. They are accepted, they provise adequet torque and power, and provide good economy. Given the upcoming demands for fuel efficiency on all fleets, why not look at putting everything on the table for consideration.

 

 

And I also have a selfish reason for much of what I am advocating. All E Series production is now at Avon Lake. One fear that I have is that if there is too much in effort and resources invested in keeping a legacy platform (in this case E350 cargo vans and E350/E450 cutaways) around that is not compatible with the new generation of cargo vans, the new vans will be produced at a different facility allowing continuation (for a time) of the legacy platform. This will doom Avon Lake to a fate similar to Atlanta, Twin Cities, and St Thomas.

[RichardJensen]

The Transit is almost certainly not going to OHAP, regardless, and the E350/E450 aren't enough to keep OHAP open either way.

 

As to the question of cost savings via commonality, it doesn't seem likely that the E350/E450 cab/chassis, cutaway, and stripped chassis have much in common with the E150/E250 as far as frame members go. One would think that the front suspension & frame would be quite different, thus making the E350/E450 specialty vehicles quite unique as far as major components go.

 

OTOH, you -can- share no end of electronics between the Transit/E350/E450, seat frames, etc.

 

And I would think that the cost savings between an LCF and the E350/E450 is not primarily due to shared sheetmetal between the E350/E450 & the E150/E250.

 

And yes, I've seen more Chevy 4500/International 4400(?) cabs on passenger vans, and I credit that not so much to the greater suitability of that form factor, as to the issues with the PowerStroke

 

What might happen (also) is an E350/E450 with greater component sharing with the Super Duties and assembled at KTP. (that is, the bulk of the electronics, powertrain, 4x2 front suspension, etc., but not the frame rails aft of the firewall, or the firewall itself).

Edited July 13, 2010 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

OK, I will confine these comments mostly to the E350/E450.

The E350 is actually two different vehicles - one is a conventional SRW van and the other is a DRW cutaway or DRW stripped chassis. I would put these into two different categories. The E350 cargo van with other cargo vans. The capabilities of the E350 cargo van have quite a bit of overlap with the E250, and the current form factor could stand some improvement.

The E350 DRW and E450 are pretty much all either cutaways or stripped chassisThey are a big part of the mix, but that is changing as we speak. I do not know about the rest of you, but the market for cutaways seems to be declining. Space utilization is one point often brought up, ie, the short hood due to the doghouse. A low cab forward cab and chassis can do as well or better in maximixing the "cargo cube" in a box truck application than a cutaway. Right now the cutaway is often a lower cost option due to the commonality with cargo vans (cab structure, front frame and suspension, etc.). Migrate the cargo vans to something else, and you loose that commonality. The cutaways and stripped chassis that were based on the cargo vans are now orphans. This will raise costs of producing them, making the low cab forward cab and chassis a more attractive proposition for box and straight truck applications.

And for busses/people movers, two big attractions for using cutaways are the availibility of aftermarket bodies designed for them over the years, and the relatively low cost of the cutaways. Again, migrate the cargo vans, and the cost advantage goes away. And there is other competition - over the last few years I am seeing busses of the type cutaways are primarily used for going to truck cowl and chassis. One in particular is the International 4400 (or 4600) Series. I have seen a few Freightliners too.

 

And on the subject of engines for these applications, four cylinder diesels are popular in low cab forward trucks in classes 3, 4 and into class 5. They are accepted, they provise adequet torque and power, and provide good economy. Given the upcoming demands for fuel efficiency on all fleets, why not look at putting everything on the table for consideration.

 

I like your take on things.

 

the only reason the E 350 and E450 Cutaways and chassis are viable is because of mainstream E--150 and E-250 vans provide the economies of scale needed to keep it viable. without the light duty the cost of the Cutaway will go up, and the list of improvements will go down, until it is marginalized (Ranger, CV, etc.).

 

I don't think Avon lake will close, either it will get the transit or it will get another product. after the E-series is killed off.

[Biker16]

 

OTOH, you -can- share no end of electronics between the Transit/E350/E450, seat frames, etc.

 

 

the estimated global Transit volume is ~500,000 units. there will be a lot opportunities for sharing electronics and other components.

 

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.

[RichardJensen]

the only reason the E 350 and E450 Cutaways and chassis are viable is because of mainstream E--150 and E-250 vans provide the economies of scale

 

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.

Edited July 13, 2010 by RichardJensen