US Transit

[theoldwizard]

Today, I briefly spoke with a friend who is working on the US Transit program. Target dates are still up in the air as the company would like to keep making ALL versions of the E-Series as long as they can (regulations are going to kill E150).

 

There seems to be a lot of issues with the "One Ford" mandate as it applies to the Transit. Customer expectations are quite different across the pond.

 

Confirming what others have said, the E350/E450 cutaway will stay in production indefinitely.

 

There is likely to be at least one diesel powertrain option on the US Transit.

[Bob Rosadini]

Today, I briefly spoke with a friend who is working on the US Transit program. Target dates are still up in the air as the company would like to keep making ALL versions of the E-Series as long as they can (regulations are going to kill E150).

 

There seems to be a lot of issues with the "One Ford" mandate as it applies to the Transit. Customer expectations are quite different across the pond.

 

Confirming what others have said, the E350/E450 cutaway will stay in production indefinitely.

 

There is likely to be at least one diesel powertrain option on the US Transit.

 

Your comment about "customer expectations" is a good one. I think if you look at the sales of the Sprinter-in all of its various badges-those numbers don't say "homerun" to me. Plus I look at what Nissan is doing. Their new commercial vans are a direct imitation of the E series. do you think that Nissan made this investment without a lot of research?

 

Imitation in this case to me is confirmation of what this market is all about. I think the Transit Connect has a place, as does a high cube Sprinter/EuroTransit high cube vehicle. But I can't see the tough commercial van chassis disappearing. Not everyone needs high cube capacity.

[traxiii]

Your comment about "customer expectations" is a good one. I think if you look at the sales of the Sprinter-in all of its various badges-those numbers don't say "homerun" to me. Plus I look at what Nissan is doing. Their new commercial vans are a direct imitation of the E series. do you think that Nissan made this investment without a lot of research?

 

Imitation in this case to me is confirmation of what this market is all about. I think the Transit Connect has a place, as does a high cube Sprinter/EuroTransit high cube vehicle. But I can't see the tough commercial van chassis disappearing. Not everyone needs high cube capacity.

I've been seeing Transit Connects everywhere, most with wraps. It's large flat surfaces make advertising their businesses easy and prominent. They are getting really popular with florists and other small delivery outfits.

[Mark B. Morrow]

I've been seeing Transit Connects everywhere, most with wraps. It's large flat surfaces make advertising their businesses easy and prominent. They are getting really popular with florists and other small delivery outfits.

 

 

My local dealer has about twent TCs on the back lot with sold tags. The Pittsburgh Public Schools bought some for delivery vehicles. I guess they are retiring the E-Series vans. I now regularly see lots of TCs with all types of advertising on them. Word of mouth must be good.

 

I would like to see Ford build the Transit here. I am starting to see more Sprinters around town. The height and available length is appealing to a lot of tradesmen.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[twintornados]

If only Ford would update the gawd-awful twin I beam front suspension.....

[Sevensecondsuv]

If only Ford would update the gawd-awful twin I beam front suspension.....

 

The twin I-beam (4x2) and twin traction beam (4x4) are the best thing since sliced bread if you ask me! What could possibly be better than 200K mile service intervals. The I-beam suspension design is seriously rugged. The only complaints you ever hear are rough ride quality and difficulty alligning it (in my experience, this is only the case when the tech is too young to have experience alligning the things when Ford was building them for 20 years). Never ever does anyone complain about it being weak (unless they are chevy people and can't tell a dipstick from a muffler).

 

I would take TIB/TTB over short-long-arm IFS any day of the week. This is the number one reason I'm still driving trucks from the 90s. I seriuosly dislike the short-long-arm IFS design.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[twintornados]

The twin I-beam (4x2) and twin traction beam (4x4) are the best thing since sliced bread if you ask me! What could possibly be better than 200K mile service intervals. The I-beam suspension design is seriously rugged. The only complaints you ever hear are rough ride quality and difficulty alligning it (in my experience, this is only the case when the tech is too young to have experience alligning the things when Ford was building them for 20 years). Never ever does anyone complain about it being weak (unless they are chevy people and can't tell a dipstick from a muffler).

 

I would take TIB/TTB over short-long-arm IFS any day of the week. This is the number one reason I'm still driving trucks from the 90s. I seriuosly dislike the short-long-arm IFS design.

While I agree that twin I beam is a rugged design in 4X2 applications...it is ancient and has no place on a modern vehicle...it was stellar when all trucks had a straight axle front end...but it's time has long since passed....as for the twin traction beams.....they were a 30K interval service design and is why Ford dumped it on the redesign of the trucks.....thank god!

[robertlane]

I love my E350 (2007), however, I think the Transit would make a great addition to the lineup and honestly, the E-Series is quite dated. I can see the Transit taking the place of the E150, 250 and 350 models while leaving the E nameplate on heavier chassis models.

[Sevensecondsuv]

While I agree that twin I beam is a rugged design in 4X2 applications...it is ancient and has no place on a modern vehicle...it was stellar when all trucks had a straight axle front end...but it's time has long since passed....as for the twin traction beams.....they were a 30K interval service design and is why Ford dumped it on the redesign of the trucks.....thank god!

 

Beg to differ... I've had 4 TTB trucks now. The only one I've had to work on is the Explorer, which I changed the ball joints and u-joints at 150,000 miles. The key is getting good greaseable ball joints and u-joints (the OEM parts are not greaseable). If you grease both the ball joints and u-joints at every oil change, you'll never have to take the front end apart past the wheel bearings, which are just a minor grease job every time the rotors come off.

 

TTB is stronger than SLA-IFS because the "ball" joints are really just hinges and are only shear-loaded on two axes, vs the shear and moment loading on all three axes as is the case with the ball joints on SLA-IFS. That and TTB front ends actually have real u-joints, vs. the cheesy CV shafts found in SLA-IFS.

 

The TTB suspension is one of the strongest, most innovative light truck front suspensions ever made. It's just too bad that it was always horribly misunderstood and therefore underrated by most.

[twintornados]

Beg to differ... I've had 4 TTB trucks now. The only one I've had to work on is the Explorer, which I changed the ball joints and u-joints at 150,000 miles. The key is getting good greaseable ball joints and u-joints (the OEM parts are not greaseable). If you grease both the ball joints and u-joints at every oil change, you'll never have to take the front end apart past the wheel bearings, which are just a minor grease job every time the rotors come off.

 

TTB is stronger than SLA-IFS because the "ball" joints are really just hinges and are only shear-loaded on two axes, vs the shear and moment loading on all three axes as is the case with the ball joints on SLA-IFS. That and TTB front ends actually have real u-joints, vs. the cheesy CV shafts found in SLA-IFS.

 

The TTB suspension is one of the strongest, most innovative light truck front suspensions ever made. It's just too bad that it was always horribly misunderstood and therefore underrated by most.

The key to ANYTHING lasting is what you said in your reply.....proper maintenance and using quality parts when service is required....you did it, but how many mid-nineties 4X4 Fords have you seen with the front tires tipped in due to wiped out ball joints...I see 'em all over and it amazes me that people would continue to drive it like that.

 

I stand by my earlier assertion that by and large, the twin traction beam setup is subpar from a handling and service point of view and as such is thankfully banished to the history books, now it is time for twin I beam to follow suit.

[Sevensecondsuv]

how many mid-nineties 4X4 Fords have you seen with the front tires tipped in due to wiped out ball joints...I see 'em all over and it amazes me that people would continue to drive it like that

 

Actually it's not wiped-out ball joints that cause excessive negative camber. I've seen some pretty bad ball joints and they only cause very minor changes in camber angle. The "tipped-in" wheels on the old Fords you see running around are due to front springs that have sagged over time. Every vehicle's springs sag over time but it is especially noticable on TTB trucks because camber angle is very closely tied to spring length with the TTB design. The fix is to just adjust the camber/caster bushing to get the camber angle back within spec. I've taken enough of these old Fords apart to see that the ball joints are usually fine. In this case, it's not really a safety issue other than poor tire contact with the road surface. Then again I'm not sure that matters much either since a lot of new sports car suspensions are tuned to run with negative camber to improve cornering ability.

 

I stand by my earlier assertion that by and large, the twin traction beam setup is subpar from a handling and service point of view and as such is thankfully banished to the history books, now it is time for twin I beam to follow suit.

I can agree with the rough handling issue, but I've never considered handling important in a vehicle meant to transport loads of dirt and large trailers. I do find TTB much easier to service than the newer IFS designs from Ford and other makes. I also find that ball joint life is typically 2 or 3 times better with the TTB trucks. It's just an overall stronger design.

 

I would also venture to guess that there is a significant number of buyers who chose E-Series over the GM offerings based on the Ford's front suspension alone. In fact, I know a couple of buyers who stated that as a primary reason for buying the Ford.

[twintornados]

...I would also venture to guess that there is a significant number of buyers who chose E-Series over the GM offerings based on the Ford's front suspension alone. In fact, I know a couple of buyers who stated that as a primary reason for buying the Ford.

We are going to have to settle on "agree to disagree".....TIB and TTB (owned both) eats tires and there is nothing that can be done about it.....I once heard a phrase at a Ford garage that went something like this....

 

'the only thing constant in a twin I beam front end is camber change"

[J-150]

Back to the E-Series.

 

It will die without a diesel. Period.

[NLPRacing]

Here's my thoughts on the TC-Transit-E-Series integration into the US: BON

[Sevensecondsuv]

Back to the E-Series.

 

It will die without a diesel. Period.

 

Umm - you do realize you can get the powerstroke in the vans.....?

[fordmantpw]

Umm - you do realize you can get the powerstroke in the vans.....?

 

Can you? The 6.4 and 6.7 were not and are not offered.

[NLPRacing]

Can you? The 6.4 and 6.7 were not and are not offered.

 

When the 6.4 came out, they still offered the 6.0 in the E-Series until stock on the 6.0 ran out. I believe 2008 was the last year, but there may have been a few 2009 diesels. From what I understand, the 6.4 and 6.7 won't fit, but I bet the 4.4 would fit...

[fordmantpw]

When the 6.4 came out, they still offered the 6.0 in the E-Series until stock on the 6.0 ran out. I believe 2008 was the last year, but there may have been a few 2009 diesels. From what I understand, the 6.4 and 6.7 won't fit, but I bet the 4.4 would fit...

 

Agreed! I think the 4.4L would be great in the E-Series!

[Sevensecondsuv]

Huh, that's interesting....

 

I still see plenty of E-series driving around making the clack-clack-clack noise so I just assumed they were still available. It's really too bad that they aren't. I mean, what about the small bus conversions they make out of those things? You pretty much need the deisel for one of those things. My church has an 2009 with V10 and it does pretty good, but now that the V10 is history, does it mean that the [wimpy for a 30 passenger bus] 6.2L V8 will be the "big" engine option?

 

What about the motor home conversions? They're stuck with an underpowered gasser too I guess.

 

Too bad Ford ever quit making the good ole 7.3L. Ford reigned supreme in the diesel light truck market every year they offered that engine.

 

Sad indeed!

Edited December 16, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[NLPRacing]

Huh, that's interesting....

 

I still see plenty of E-series driving around making the clack-clack-clack noise so I just assumed they were still available. It's really too bad that they aren't. I mean, what about the small bus conversions they make out of those things? You pretty much need the deisel for one of those things. My church has an 2009 with V10 and it does pretty good, but now that the V10 is history, does it mean that the [wimpy for a 30 passenger bus] 6.2L V8 will be the "big" engine option?

 

What about the motor home conversions? They're stuck with an underpowered gasser too I guess.

 

Too bad Ford ever quit making the good ole 7.3L. Ford reigned supreme in the diesel light truck market every year they offered that engine.

 

Sad indeed!

 

The diesel alternative has been the V10 converted to run on CNG and/or LPG. Actually a pretty good option for fleets.

[J-150]

The diesel alternative has been the V10 converted to run on CNG and/or LPG. Actually a pretty good option for fleets.

 

 

A CNG/LPG V10 does not replace a big diesel in a 1 ton van.

[NLPRacing]

A CNG/LPG V10 does not replace a big diesel in a 1 ton van.

 

I agree, but a CNG/LPG V10 is a good alternative for an E450 Shuttle Bus.

[Sevensecondsuv]

The diesel alternative has been the V10 converted to run on CNG and/or LPG. Actually a pretty good option for fleets.

 

So long as the V10 is still there (regardless of fuel), it's not so bad. If they drop the V10 and only offer the 6.2 as the big engine, that's when they'll be in trouble. The 6.8 has a significantly stronger low end than the 6.2 both on paper and in the real world. For a pickup truck, it's not very noticable. But the bus/motor home conversions make a motor with a weaker low end very noticable.

 

Now of course, buyers upgrading from a 5.4 to the 6.2 definitely won't have any complaints, but if Ford takes away the V10 in the E-series, look out!

[NLPRacing]

So long as the V10 is still there (regardless of fuel), it's not so bad. If they drop the V10 and only offer the 6.2 as the big engine, that's when they'll be in trouble. The 6.8 has a significantly stronger low end than the 6.2 both on paper and in the real world. For a pickup truck, it's not very noticable. But the bus/motor home conversions make a motor with a weaker low end very noticable.

 

Now of course, buyers upgrading from a 5.4 to the 6.2 definitely won't have any complaints, but if Ford takes away the V10 in the E-series, look out!

 

From what we've been told, the 6.2L can be enlarged to 7.0L. If true, that should be a good replacement for the 6.8L V10 down the road. I have a motorhome with the 2V V10 and 4 speed auto and it has really good power considering it's pushing an 8' wide, 12' tall, 35' long box down the road at 65 MPH while flat towing an Expedition EL. A 7.0L with similar torque, more horsepower and a 6 speed auto would be really nice too.

[Sevensecondsuv]

A 7.0L with similar torque, more horsepower and a 6 speed auto would be really nice too.

Agreed. And probably a little smoother too given the V8 vs. V10 configuration.

 

Of course, I'd rather have it with the ZF-6 manual transmission

Edited December 17, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv