Ford unveils US spec Transit with class-leading fuel economy

[theoldwizard]

I wasn't trying to be an ass, I am just glad ford is bringing more than one varant.

WOW ! There are a lot details that Ford left out in the text of the announcement !

 

Look closely at this flyer. 2 wheel bases, each with 2 lengths and 3 roof heights ! Also note there will be "chassis cab, cutaway and wagon configurations" !

 

Look at this flyer. Here is the Lineup

 

MWB LR = Medium wheelbase, low roof

MWB MR = Medium wheelbase, medium roof

LWB LR = Long wheelbase, low roof

LWB MR = Long wheelbase, medium roof

LWB HR = Long wheelbase, high roof

LWB EL HR SRW = Long wheelbase, extended-length, high roof, single rear wheels

LWB EL HR DRW = Long wheelbase, extended length, high roof, dual rear wheels

 

I have not found any pictures of the interior of a wagon yet, but a MWB LR or LWB LR could fit my needs !

 

 

Still no SWB FWD (or AWD). My guess is the marketing folks are concerned that it will be to close to the Transit Connect.

Edited December 16, 2012 by theoldwizard

[rkisler]

The innovation applies to Ford being able to let go of the proven E-series platform, which is still at the top of the full size van market and and embrace something very, very different than the van it replaced.

 

Other companies in ford's position would have continued to produce the proven and popular E-series, indefinitely, and ignore the potential gains in market share with such an revolutionary (to this market) product.

 

this is the innovator dilemma, why innovate when you are on top. Ford has solved this with the transit.

 

Biker, I'm with you on this one -- this is a key point. It's very tough to let go, and if the existing platform/products are profitable, then generally the business analysis will lead one to continue rather than replace. Financial projections have a tough time determining accurately volumes and revenues including the influence of the competition or the value of innovation. Sometimes you just have to take a guts pill.

 

One of the (bad) examples of this with Ford in the past was the Panther platform which at one point was dropping substantially over a billion dollars a year to Ford's bottom line. There certainly were a number of individuals who tried to move away from the Panther because they believed there was a waterfall ahead that you would go over without warning. In the pre-Mullaly world, inertia won out over innovation. Similar story on BOF Explorer.

 

Ford had a pilot project with Transit around 2002-2003, and there were plans to produce in the U.S. at modest volumes. E-series profitability and inertia killed it. I can't tell you how upset the people working on the program were, but they were always treated as outsiders in the Ford Truck world so they didn't have the power to get the decision overturned.

[MGolden]

I wonder if quigley will be just installing the AWD components that are available from Europe? Here is a description of how the AWD on the 2006 Transit works, sounds cool.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/10609206156/ford-transit-all-wheel-drive-revealed

[mustang_sallad]

This is looking pretty awesome, can't wait to see them on the road.

 

Here's a photo of an early 90's Transit I noticed while in England in 2007 when talk of a North America-bound Transit first came up, just to show they had a DRW option, even on a short wheelbase.

 

Edited December 16, 2012 by mustang_sallad

[Bob Rosadini]

The innovation applies to Ford being able to let go of the proven E-series platform, which is still at the top of the full size van market and and embrace something very, very different than the van it replaced.

 

Other companies in ford's position would have continued to produce the proven and popular E-series, indefinitely, and ignore the potential gains in market share with such an revolutionary (to this market) product.

 

this is the innovator dilemma, why innovate when you are on top. Ford has solved this with the transit.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

Isn't this the same situation with the 150. It (150) generates huge numbers. The T-6 makes a ton if sense-well to some of us- but who is going to go up against 150's numbers? Apoparently someone had the conviction to go up against E series numbers.

[RichardJensen]

This is similar to the '98 decision to split the F-Series, with the difference being the availability of a global product to replace the lighter duty E-Series models.

 

Heavier duty E-Series models are going to be split off, and their replacement will form the nucleus of Ford's new offerings in Class 6/7.

[jpd80]

This gives us an idea of the size difference between Transit and Transit Connect

 

[RichardJensen]

BTW: I'm just not a fan of the Transit's styling.

 

Because it's basically that: styling.

 

The Transit was not designed, so much as the stylists were presented with a box and allowed to put creases on it, which they did in imitation of other, much smaller and swoopier Ford products.

 

Loved the styling of the first run of the E-Series ('76-90), and in a similar vein, the '04+ F150, and yes, even the face of the new SD (although the carryover side stamping bugs me). Why? Because the 'styling' is compatible with the 'design'. It's not styling appliques from some other incompatible product.

[sullynd]

Isn't this the same situation with the 150.

 

No. Not really a similar situation in the least.

[twintornados]

.....The T-6 makes a half ton if sense-well to some of us.....

fixed it for ya.....

[theoldwizard]

Heavier duty E-Series models are going to be split off, and their replacement will form the nucleus of Ford's new offerings in Class 6/7.

WOW ! You have a vivid imagination !!

[theoldwizard]

Ford had a pilot project with Transit around 2002-2003, and there were plans to produce in the U.S. at modest volumes. E-series profitability and inertia killed it. I can't tell you how upset the people working on the program were, but they were always treated as outsiders in the Ford Truck world so they didn't have the power to get the decision overturned.

It might have been a year or 2 earlier than that, but I would not call it a "pilot project". It was definitely in the product plans.

 

I am not certain what killed it at that time, but what really made Ford bring the Transit to the US as a replacement for the bottom of the E-Series line was new government crash standards. E150 and 250 would not pass as is. Transit needed updating so it was cheaper to include US crash requirements into the new design. Lighter weight would help CAFE. Plus, it fit well with the One Ford program.

 

FYI, from what I have heard 3rd hand, the new Transit is about 1 -2 years late because EU engineers did not know how to design for US crash standards. In the end, a small group of US engineers took over that part of the design.

[twmalonehunter]

BTW: I'm just not a fan of the Transit's styling.

 

Because it's basically that: styling.

 

The Transit was not designed, so much as the stylists were presented with a box and allowed to put creases on it, which they did in imitation of other, much smaller and swoopier Ford products.

 

Loved the styling of the first run of the E-Series ('76-90), and in a similar vein, the '04+ F150, and yes, even the face of the new SD (although the carryover side stamping bugs me). Why? Because the 'styling' is compatible with the 'design'. It's not styling appliques from some other incompatible product.

 

I'm curious, what exactly do you think a designer could possibly do to make a cargo van attractive, or well designed? How could you love the design of the 76-90 van....it's a cargo van, nothing attractive about those vehicles whatsoever. I worked out of a Ford cargo van for 15 years, and currently work out of a utility truck. I do service work, and I can tell you that even though cargo vans are used all over the place for service and other work, they suck. Working out of any of the current crop of service vans, regardless of manufacturer, is not at all a pleasant experience. Aside from the Sprinter, which I have colleagues using with much more of a positive experience. They were just always too expensive and unreliable for me to consider. People just chose the Ford van over most others by default, not because it offered any benefit over the others.

 

IMO, the new Transit looks to have been designed with maxium utility in mind. I am looking forward to ordering one of the first ones available and customizing the interior to fit my needs perfectly, something that was impossible with the current van design. As for the looks, I like it, especially the dash. I will enjoy driving something with a dash similar to my Focus, with MyFordTouch and all.

[theoldwizard]

Biker, I'm with you on this one -- this is a key point. It's very tough to let go, and if the existing platform/products are profitable, then generally the business analysis will lead one to continue rather than replace. ...

 

One of the (bad) examples of this with Ford in the past was the Panther platform which at one point was dropping adding substantially over a billion dollars a year to Ford's bottom line.

Taxi and "livery" fleets still have not forgiven Ford for dropping the Panther !

 

The first gen Transit Connect Wagon was just to crude for a taxi.

 

The MkT as a "livery car" is just a joke. What that market really want is a stretched MkS like the Chinese Volvo S80L. Not a half bad hearse.

 

 

If rumors are true, the MkT will die with the Flex at the end of 2014 or 2015. Maybe Lincoln can get a real luxury platform instead of just a gussied up Taurus.

[Biker16]

Isn't this the same situation with the 150. It (150) generates huge numbers. The T-6 makes a ton if sense-well to some of us- but who is going to go up against 150's numbers? Apoparently someone had the conviction to go up against E series numbers.

 

yes, it is the same situation with the F-series where The full sized PIck-up market should contract due fuel prices forcing downsizing into smaller vehicles, but because of brand loyalty and lack of smaller models with an appreciable increasing in economy, (price and Fuel Economy), buyer have not downsized.

 

The volumes and profits of the F-series prevent Any significant changes to the Model.

 

Now if a manufacture were to develop, a true Compact pick up that significantly differs in price and efficiency from the full sized segment, something the current batch of medium pickups.

 

For example.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year=2013&mclass=Pickup%20Trucks&srchtyp=marClass

 

the most efficient Automatic midsized pick up the Tacoma 2WD nets a combined 21mpg the Silverado, get the same 21mpg but with more capability.

 

IMO the sweet spot in the Sub full sized pick up market has not been found, if the customer is going sacrifice capability in a smaller truck there needs to be more of an upside, then the current crop of trucks offer today.

 

That sweet spot I suppose would be < 17 grand, and economy of > 30mpg hwy or 25 mpg combined.

 

Cheap and Thrifty.

 

The profits in the full-sized segment are so large up to $12,000 they can effectively sacrifice profits to keep buyers, even buyers that could downsize won't because the incentives in the segment are too great. Imagine if Ford could price the Taurus akin to that of the Focus, how many people would choose a focus over a Taurus if they were the same price? As CAFE and fuel prices increase the things that full -sized truck maker have to do to increase efficiency, will undoubtedly Reduce margins on those trucks. reducing the ability to reduce selling prices.

 

It my be amusing that GM hasn't improved economy as much as ford has on their new trucks but thier strategy is a two truck stratgey where the Colorado covers the economy minded midsized segment and the C/K covers the traditional full sized market. Ford strategy is to cover both segments with one truck, by using advanced technology, (ecoboost, aluminum, etc) to cover both segments.

 

The result will be the F150 is a better truck, but the GM truck will be cheaper to build and can be sold at lower price, so in price war Ford could have it's margins compromised.

 

Ford may know this and be willing to allow this to happen naturally and allow volume to be loss to GM, to preserve profit. when that happens It may create an opportunity to develop a smaller pick up.

 

the problem is when they are not prepared for this event, since 90% of ford profits come from the F-series and Expy/navi, it could get bumpy.

[Biker16]

It might have been a year or 2 earlier than that, but I would not call it a "pilot project". It was definitely in the product plans.

 

I am not certain what killed it at that time, but what really made Ford bring the Transit to the US as a replacement for the bottom of the E-Series line was new government crash standards. E150 and 250 would not pass as is. Transit needed updating so it was cheaper to include US crash requirements into the new design. Lighter weight would help CAFE. Plus, it fit well with the One Ford program.

 

FYI, from what I have heard 3rd hand, the new Transit is about 1 -2 years late because EU engineers did not know how to design for US crash standards. In the end, a small group of US engineers took over that part of the design.

 

the transit was Canned becuase Ford NA was losing billions of dollars and This project has always been a low priority.

[akirby]

yes, it is the same situation with the F-series where The full sized PIck-up market should contract due fuel prices forcing downsizing into smaller vehicles, but because of brand loyalty and lack of smaller models with an appreciable increasing in economy, (price and Fuel Economy), buyer have not downsized.

 

The volumes and profits of the F-series prevent Any significant changes to the Model.

 

Now if a manufacture were to develop, a true Compact pick up that significantly differs in price and efficiency from the full sized segment, something the current batch of medium pickups.

 

For example.

 

http://www.fuelecono...rchtyp=marClass

 

the most efficient Automatic midsized pick up the Tacoma 2WD nets a combined 21mpg the Silverado, get the same 21mpg but with more capability.

 

IMO the sweet spot in the Sub full sized pick up market has not been found, if the customer is going sacrifice capability in a smaller truck there needs to be more of an upside, then the current crop of trucks offer today.

 

That sweet spot I suppose would be < 17 grand, and economy of > 30mpg hwy or 25 mpg combined.

 

The result will be the F150 is a better truck, but the GM truck will be cheaper to build and can be sold at lower price, so in price war Ford could have it's margins compromised.

 

since 90% of ford profits come from the F-series and Expy/navi

 

You really don't understand the U.S. truck market. It's already contracted. The people who don't need a truck bought cars or CUVs. The people who buy full sized trucks now either need full sized trucks or they want full sized trucks and are willing to pay for them and for the fuel.

 

A F150 that gets 5 mpg better than the current model will sell far better than a small truck that gets 10 mpg better.

 

The Colorado and Canyon will only split GMs truck market share between 2 lines, not increase it incrementally.

 

A transit connect with a pickup bed would do far better and probably wouldn't cannibalize F150 sales to do it.

[Edstock]

A transit connect with a pickup bed would do far better and probably wouldn't cannibalize F150 sales to do it.

 

10-4 that.

[Hoser768]

A transit connect with a pickup bed would do far better and probably wouldn't cannibalize F150 sales to do it.

 

I'm OK with that for a Ranger replacement..

[RichardJensen]

WOW ! You have a vivid imagination !!

Ford is probably looking to do the GM topkick thing, but do it properly.

[RichardJensen]

since 90% of ford profits come from the F-series and Expy/navi

Do you have a source for that, other than an analyst for Morgan Stanley who provided no basis for his numbers?

[RichardJensen]

I'm curious, what exactly do you think a designer could possibly do to make a cargo van attractive, or well designed? How could you love the design of the 76-90 van....

 

Simple. Because it looks like what it is. The details match the overall shape and purpose. Putting flared fenders on a cargo van is like putting on spats with a bathing suit. It doesn't match.

[SoonerLS]

I do find it funny that a 16" wheel with a 28" tire looks "small".

What I find funny is that 235/65R16 used to be a low-profile tire for a performance-oriented car...

[ZanatWork]

Taxi and "livery" fleets still have not forgiven Ford for dropping the Panther !

 

The first gen Transit Connect Wagon was just to crude for a taxi.

 

The MkT as a "livery car" is just a joke. What that market really want is a stretched MkS like the Chinese Volvo S80L. Not a half bad hearse.

 

 

If rumors are true, the MkT will die with the Flex at the end of 2014 or 2015. Maybe Lincoln can get a real luxury platform instead of just a gussied up Taurus.

 

The Transit Connect is decades newer than the Panther, so I find its "crudeness" to be questionable in comparison. I certainly can't believe that enough interest from cab companies and the like wouldn't have gotten some changes made.

[SoonerLS]

The Transit Connect is decades newer than the Panther, so I find its "crudeness" to be questionable in comparison. I certainly can't believe that enough interest from cab companies and the like wouldn't have gotten some changes made.

I don't know if they want TC's or not, but I saw an article in Automotive News a week or so ago that said (some of) the taxi and livery operators in NYC were suing the city over the Nissan NV200s. I just scanned the article, but I think it was over the vehicle itself, not the contract.