Ford transit

[Bryan1]

Transit connect Vs Transit

 

the maximum load length payload

Transit connect

SWB 97.1in 1827lbs

LWB 107in 2000lbs

 

Transit

SWB 101in 3428lbs

MWB 116in 3700lbs

LWB 133in 3500lbs

Jumbo DRW 161in 5000lbs

 

E-series

Regaular length 120.6in

extended 140in

 

I'll take the Transit Van Jumbo, hightop and extended length. AWD. 13' 5" long cargo floor and 6' 3" of stand-up interior height. This would be great for hauling.

 

Download a brochure:

http://www.tinyurl.com/fordtransitbrochure

[Captainp4]

Are you *serious*?

 

Every E-Series engine is significantly more powerful (40% or more torque) than its corresponding predecessor engine.

 

You can't compare the 4.6L to the 5.0L, as, 20 years ago, the base engine was the 4.9L I-6, not the 5.0L V8.

 

One *might* argue that the upgrading engines are a result of the demand for more power in the F series market, and that because nearly all of these vans are commercial vehicles, the owners of them might not care much about performance, and more so about fuel economy and reliability. Maybe.

[RichardJensen]

The 'van' market includes cutaway RVs, chassis RVs, panel vans, ambulances, tradesmen's work vehicles, school buses and other transit, and package delivery. I think it's a mistake to generalize broadly that these assorted and very different segments are unified in their indifference to power.

[Captainp4]

That's a good point, however I thought we were talking about the smaller transit, comparable to the E150 - which it seems would fit my generalization a little bit better.

[RichardJensen]

That's a good point, however I thought we were talking about the smaller transit, comparable to the E150 - which it seems would fit my generalization a little bit better.

What it comes to is whether it's a paying proposition for a fairly small segment of the market.

 

I have my doubts that the segment of unmodified passenger 8-passenger vans (e.g. the hotel shuttle) is large enough that the smaller subset of customers happy with an I-4 would be big enough to justify it.

 

On the other hand, a FWD Transit with the 3.7L V6 might be a doable proposition.

[Edstock]

Diesel seems to be a problem with the new emissions limits. Fuel economy is down and there appear to be drivability concerns and service issues.

 

Maybe Ford might do something with the alcohol injection system with the Transit and the F-150.

 

 

[Captainp4]

What it comes to is whether it's a paying proposition for a fairly small segment of the market.

 

I have my doubts that the segment of unmodified passenger 8-passenger vans (e.g. the hotel shuttle) is large enough that the smaller subset of customers happy with an I-4 would be big enough to justify it.

 

On the other hand, a FWD Transit with the 3.7L V6 might be a doable proposition.

 

 

Right, but also remember that this volume is similar to the Transit Connect in that any sold at all are above and beyond it's bigger home market. You also have the large but light delivery vehicles to add to the segment as well.

 

You also have the customer base that is satisfied with the power/reliability/economy of the TC, but could use a little more space in their vehicle to work with.

 

Certainly the 3.7 would be viable as well, and ecoboost of both motors. (Though I'm sure they would have tune the 3.5 waaay down to make it drive-able through the front wheels only).

 

It's all about options, one of the reasons the F series has been so successful is because there are SO many ways to configure it, cabs, bed lengths, motors, 2wd/4wd, motors, transmissions, trim levels, etc. I think if they do bring the Transit here, they might as well go all in and brings every configuration they have over here. The more options the better, IMO. RWD, AWD, FWD, gas, diesel, ecoboost, I4, v6, bring it all !

[Biker16]

The 'van' market includes cutaway RVs, chassis RVs, panel vans, ambulances, tradesmen's work vehicles, school buses and other transit, and package delivery. I think it's a mistake to generalize broadly that these assorted and very different segments are unified in their indifference to power.

 

but as you have said numerous time the transit is not replacing the heavy duty E-series. also we all know the markets are very different between the cutaway and up-fitters, and the real van market.

 

There is a point about the increase in power over the last few is due to the arms race in the pickup market not the Van market.

 

Fleets value lowered operating cost over having 400hp engine to deliver packages. If they have a 75mph speed limiter who really cares.

 

if we assume the next Van will be sharing drivetrains with the F-series again.

 

our options will be

hp/Tq

6.2 gas 385/405

6.7 390/735

3.7 v6 302/278

5.0v8 360/380

3.5 v6 EB 365/420

 

the current E-series lineup

4.6 225/286

5.4 255/350

6.8 305/420

 

how do we dominate the market with engines that are easily 5 years behind what we put in our pickups. why? because performance is not as important as other things like cost of ownership, durability and capability.

 

if we look back to 2005, the e-series had a Diesel V8.

 

the diesel 6.0 235/440

 

the capability towing, payload, GCRW are same as they are today.

 

from a measly 235hp. that's 10,000lbs towing, 20,000lbs, GCRW.

 

it did the job, with much less power.

 

to be honest the 3.7 and EB 3.5 can replace every engine used in the E-series without losing capability, while improving Fuel economy.

 

An EBV6 powered Transit, would be a more than adequate replacement for the E350 van.

[Captainp4]

By the numbers, for sure the 3.5EB can do it, but do we know if an all aluminum gas turbo motor can do heavy duty - duty? While I think it will be fine in the F150 for most owners, I have concerns about it doing the same job as a mod motor or diesel motor with the same level of dependability and longevity. Maybe the tune could be turned down some to bring up the longevity of the motor and possibly save on fuel with a lower power number. Thoughts on that?

[Biker16]

Diesel seems to be a problem with the new emissions limits. Fuel economy is down and there appear to be drivability concerns and service issues.

 

Maybe Ford might do something with the alcohol injection system with the Transit and the F-150.

 

 

 

I would think they would be done together, to share the development costs. the question is how much power is needed, for each vehicle?

[RichardJensen]

There is a point about the increase in power over the last few is due to the arms race in the pickup market not the Van market.

Toothpaste is out of the tube. You can't put it back in.

 

You can't *decrease* the power in a vehicle range. People won't stand for it. "Same power, better fuel economy, or we'll go somewhere else."

 

Fleets value lowered operating cost over having 400hp engine to deliver packages. If they have a 75mph speed limiter who really cares.

You're all over the map on this one: First you're talking light duty, now you're talking package delivery? Package delivery is *not* light duty. If they're going to buy something fullsize, it will need full size power.

how do we dominate the market with engines that are easily 5 years behind what we put in our pickups.

They're not *five years behind* the pickups.

 

The 6.8 and 5.4L blocks were in use *last year*, and the entire 4.6L engine was in use last year.

a measly 235hp.

You and I both know the meaningful number is 440lb ft of torque.

[jpd80]

What it comes to is whether it's a paying proposition for a fairly small segment of the market.

 

I have my doubts that the segment of unmodified passenger 8-passenger vans (e.g. the hotel shuttle) is large enough that the smaller subset of customers happy with an I-4 would be big enough to justify it.

 

On the other hand, a FWD Transit with the 3.7L V6 might be a doable proposition.

 

I think you're talking about 8-seater Tourneau and Transit busses, I could see a RWD 3.7 V6 in there or maybe the EB V6 for heavier applications..

Perhaps the Transit's 3.2 I-5 diesel with Urea injection could become a corporate commercial engine, it has around 200 hp and 350 lb ft torque, enough to lug the transit and various versions around fully loaded at highway speed.

[RichardJensen]

3.2L I-5 would be a good engine for the E-Series, provided the cost can be brought down far enough... If it only offers a moderate fuel economy savings vs. the EB 3.5, and a significantly higher buy-in, it may not work.

[RichardJensen]

Also, if the EU is serious about tightening up all their diesel loopholes (maybe even the ones that let Audi win at LeMans), they may appreciate having chassis that support the V6 family of engines.

[jpd80]

3.2L I-5 would be a good engine for the E-Series, provided the cost can be brought down far enough... If it only offers a moderate fuel economy savings vs. the EB 3.5, and a significantly higher buy-in, it may not work.

EB 3.5 V6 is a remarkable engine and no doubt Ford bench market economy against I-5 and V6 diesels.

Unless they see a real advantage in a small corporate diesel then i doubt they will touch them.

The only other candidate would be the 2.7-3.0 Lion V6 diesel about to go into Territory.

I'm not convinced that fuel prices are anywhere near high enough in the US to justify a small diesel.

[Blue II]

Livonia has a new transmission Lion going in. Cute little Puma too.

 

 

[theoldwizard]

EB 3.5 V6 is a remarkable engine and no doubt Ford bench market economy against I-5 and V6 diesels.

Unless they see a real advantage in a small corporate diesel then i doubt they will touch them.

The only other candidate would be the 2.7-3.0 Lion V6 diesel about to go into Territory.

I'm not convinced that fuel prices are anywhere near high enough in the US to justify a small diesel.

The Transit needs a small-medium (< 3.5L) diesel to compete with the Sprinter.

[NLPRacing]

Livonia has a new transmission Lion going in. Cute little Puma too.

 

I love Blue II's inside info, but can anybody translate what this means?

[ANTAUS]

Hm there's a new coupe coming ?

[RichardJensen]

The Transit needs a small-medium (< 3.5L) diesel to compete with the Sprinter.

EU Transit, yes, US Transit? I don't think so. The Sprinter is such a marginal player here, I can't see Ford going to all the expense of federalizing a small diesel that would perform about as well as the 3.5L EB, at a significantly higher cost.

[Biker16]

Toothpaste is out of the tube. You can't put it back in.

 

You can't *decrease* the power in a vehicle range. People won't stand for it. "Same power, better fuel economy, or we'll go somewhere else."

 

 

sure you can. they did it in the 80 and late 70s.

 

capability does not increase or Decreases because of power output. Capability is what commercial customers look for, when they buy a Van.

 

power and torque are factors but not the overriding factor in purchasing any vehicle.

 

why does the E-series outsell. the GM vans with less powerful motors?

4.8 280/295

5.3 310/334

6.0 325/373

 

If your logic were correct the GM vans would out sell the E-series and no one would buy the transit connect.

 

You're all over the map on this one: First you're talking light duty, now you're talking package delivery? Package delivery is *not* light duty. If they're going to buy something fullsize, it will need full size power.

 

there are light duty package delivery, that use Vans, think fed ex's sprinters, or local courier services. big but not heavy.

 

They're not *five years behind* the pickups.

 

The 6.8 and 5.4L blocks were in use *last year*, and the entire 4.6L engine was in use last year.

 

did the the 6.8 or 5.4 in the vans get the 3valve heads used in the Pickups? no so what you are saying is that it is ok to use the same engine, not just the block from 2001 to now, and still call it "new" ? I don't think so.

 

You and I both know the meaningful number is 440lb ft of torque.

 

or that the savanna diesel makes 260hp and 525 ft/lbs, and the E-series does not even have a diesel engine.

 

How important is 440 ft/lbs of torque if is not being offered anyway.

 

My point is, that without the 6.0 diesel in the E-series, the capabilities of the van did not change, were are selling capbilites, not horsepower.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Biker16

[theoldwizard]

I love Blue II's inside info, but can anybody translate what this means?

Lion and Puma are code names for EU diesel engines.

[fordmantpw]

I love Blue II's inside info, but can anybody translate what this means?

 

+100! I've been trying to decipher it, but nothing.

 

Lion and Puma are code names for EU diesel engines.

 

Ahhh, I knew Lion was, but didn't know about Puma. Thanks!

Edited February 6, 2011 by fordmantpw

[jpvbs]

+100! I've been trying to decipher it, but nothing.

Ahhh, I knew Lion was, but didn't know about Puma. Thanks!

 

 

Puma info from Wikipedia:

 

ZSD ("Puma")Code Years Displacement (bore x stroke)/Type Power@rpm torque@rpm

ZSD-420 2000–2001 1,998 cc (1.998 L; 121.9 cu in) (?x?) I4 115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp) 280 N·m (210 lb·ft)

ZSD-420 (Duratorq TDDi) 2001–2002 1,998 cc (1.998 L; 121.9 cu in) (?x?) I4 130 PS (96 kW; 130 hp) 330 N·m (240 lb·ft)

ZSD-420 (Duratorq TDCi) 2002- 1,998 cc (1.998 L; 121.9 cu in) (?x?) I4 115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp) 285 N·m (210 lb·ft)

ZSD-422 ? 2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?) 155 PS (114 kW; 153 hp) I4 355 N·m (262 lb·ft)

ZSD-422 (Duratorq TDCi) ? 2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?) I4 85 PS (63 kW; 84 hp) 250 N·m (180 lb·ft)

ZSD-422 (Duratorq TDCi) ? 2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?) I4 115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp) 300 N·m (220 lb·ft)

ZSD-422 (Duratorq TDCi) ? 2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?) I4 140 PS (100 kW; 140 hp) 350 N·m (260 lb·ft)

ZSD-424 (Duratorq TDCi) ? 2,402 cc (2.402 L; 146.6 cu in) (?x?) I4 100 PS (74 kW; 99 hp) 285 N·m (210 lb·ft)

ZSD-424 (Duratorq TDCi) ? 2,402 cc (2.402 L; 146.6 cu in) (?x?) I4 115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp) 310 N·m (230 lb·ft)

ZSD-424 (Duratorq TDCi) ? 2,402 cc (2.402 L; 146.6 cu in) (?x?) I4 140 PS (100 kW; 140 hp) 375 N·m (277 lb·ft)

2.5 (WLC) (Duratorq TDCi) 2006- 2,499 cc (2.499 L; 152.5 cu in) (93 mm (3.7 in)x92 mm (3.6 in)) I4 143 PS (105 kW; 141 hp)@3500 330 N·m (240 lb·ft)@1800

3.0 (WEC) (Duratorq TDCi) 2006- 2,953 cc (2.953 L; 180.2 cu in) (96 mm (3.8 in)x102 mm (4.0 in)) I4 156 PS (115 kW; 154 hp)@3200 380 N·m (280 lb·ft)@1800

3.2 (Duratorq TDCi) 2006- 3.2L (?x?) I5 200 PS (150 kW; 200 hp) 470 N·m (350 lb·ft)

 

Codenamed Puma during development, these Ford 2.0 L, 2.2 L, and 2.4 L engines are called ZSD. They are produced at the company's Dagenham plant in east London.

 

2.0Released in 2000, to coincide with the launch of the Mk3 Ford Mondeo, the Duratorq ZSD-420 was initially available as a 2.0L (1998 cc) direct injection turbodiesel. Producing 115 PS (113 hp/85 kW) and 280 Nm (207 ft·lbf) it was a vast improvement over the 1.8 Endura-D powering the Mk2 Mondeo. It featured a 16-valve cylinder head with twin chain driven camshafts and utilised a variable geometry turbocharger with overboost function.

 

In late 2001 the engine was fitted with Delphi common rail fuel injection and called the Duratorq TDCi (Turbo Diesel Commonrail injection), with the original unit being renamed the Duratorq TDDi (Turbo Diesel Direct injection). Although generally identical to the original engine, the addition of the common rail system meant power was increased to 130 PS (128 hp/95 kW), with torque rising to 330 Nm (244 ft·lbf). In 2002 the Duratorq TDDi was replaced by a detuned version of the Duratorq TDCi. Producing 115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp) and 285 N·m (210 lb·ft), this unit used a fixed geometry turbocharger in place of the variable geometry unit used in the TDDi and 130 PS (96 kW; 128 hp) TDCi.

 

With 2005 came another detuned version of the TDCi for the Mondeo. Producing 90 PS (89 hp/66 kW) and 280 Nm (207 ft·lbf), this engine was substantially cheaper than other versions and was mainly targeted at fleet buyers.

 

Applications:

 

2000–2002 Ford Mondeo 2.0 TD & TDDi, 115 PS (113 hp/85 kW) and 207 ft·lbf (280N·m)

2001–2007 Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDCi 130, 130 PS (128 hp/95 kW) and 244 ft·lbf (330N·m)

2002–2007 Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDCi 115, 115 PS (113 hp/85 kW) and 210 ft·lbf (285N·m)

2005–2007 Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDCi 90, 90 PS (89 hp/66 kW) and 181 ft·lbf (245N·m)

2003–Present Jaguar X-Type 2.0d, 130 PS (128 hp/95 kW) and 244 ft·lbf (330N·m)

2.2In 2005, Ford introduced the Duratorq ZSD-422, a 2.2 L (2184 cc) turbodiesel for top-of-the-range versions of the Mondeo and Jaguar X-Type which produced 155 PS (153 hp/114 kW). This is unrelated to the PSA DW12 2.2 unit used in Peugeot and Citroën applications.

 

Applications:

 

Ford Transit

2005–2007 Ford Mondeo 2.2 TDCi 155, 155 PS (153 hp/114 kW) and 262 ft·lbf (355N·m)

2005–Present Jaguar X-Type

2.4The 2,402 cc (2.402 L; 146.6 cu in) Duratorq ZSD-424 is a turbocharged and intercooled Diesel. Output is 75 PS (55 kW; 74 hp) to 137 PS (101 kW; 135 hp) and 185 N·m (136 lb·ft) to 285 N·m (210 lb·ft).

 

Applications:

 

Ford Transit

2002-2006 LDV Convoy

2002 London Taxi TXII

2007-onward Land Rover Defender

2.5 (WLC)Ford introduced a new 2.5L version of the Duratorq for the Thailand-built 2007 Ford Ranger (J97U). It is a 16-valve DOHC engine of the VM Motori 2500 cc engine, with Bosch common-rail direct injection and a variable geometry turbocharger. It produces 143 PS (105 kW; 141 hp)@3500 rpm and 330 N·m (240 lb·ft)@1800rpm.[3]

 

3.0 (WEC)A 3.0L Duratorq similar to the 2.5 is also used in the 2007 Ranger as the top of the range. It produces 156 PS (115 kW; 154 hp)@3200 rpm and 380 N·m (280 lb·ft)@1800 rpm.

 

3.2It is an I5 engine used in Ford Transit. The engine is rated 200 PS (150 kW; 200 hp) and 470 N·m (350 lb·ft).

 

[Edstock]

And Livonia is tooling up to produce transmissions for same?