All-New Ford Transit Chassis Cab and Cutaway Versions

[Biker16]

Over 18 months ago, I was told by some one working at the Pilot Plant on the program, the RWD version was delayed because EU did not have the "talent" to design for US crash standards. A small team of US engineers was put on the job.

 

If you know that far in advance that you aren't going to meet your targeted launch, then why not keep building a proven money maker.

 

As for the tooling issue, I'm certain that local people were responsible for installation, but I also pretty certain that EU choose the tooling suppliers.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad when a launch slips in order to resolve issues ! I would rather see vehicles designed and built correctly rather than "paint it blue and ship it through" !

 

I think folks are just frustrated because they have been waiting for the US Transit for a loooooong time !

 

So in your mind there is no possibility that Ford North America could be responsible for the delays on the Transit?

 

By talent you mean they were unfamiliar with North American crash standards?

 

I don't think "talent" is required to meet unfamiliar crash standards.

 

Maybe it was Ford's decision to launch more than one Transit Variant in NA that caused the delays.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Biker16

[theoldwizard]

So in your mind there is no possibility that Ford North America could be responsible for the delays on the Transit?

That is an accurate statement.

By talent you mean they were unfamiliar with North American crash standards?

 

I don't think "talent" is required to meet unfamiliar crash standards.

Standards are written by government agencies. Interpreting those standards should not be difficult. EU was given the assignment and they accepted it with no reservations. It wasn't until they missed certain deadlines that it was clear they did not know how to design the chassis to meet the criteria.

Maybe it was Ford's decision to launch more than one Transit Variant in NA that caused the delays.

While I am surprised along with many others that all of the "variations on a theme" (3 wheelbases, 3 roof heights) are showing up at job #1 (or are they ?) this is really a minor change. Edited March 7, 2013 by theoldwizard

[twintornados]

I will be absolutely SHOCKED if anyone puts a stake bed, dump or other body on one of those in the US !

 

Ford wants those markets for Super Duty and Medium Duty.

Wiz....why would this shock you....What Ford wants is to sell trucks....lots of trucks.....they don't really care how you outfit it once you buy it, so if a customer wants a 3.2L diesel Transit with an open stake bed or dump bed....they will sell it to them, not "make" them buy a Super Duty or Medium Duty that does not fit their needs...

[fordmantpw]

Are we going to see an ambulance body on one of those with a 3.2L diesel in it?

 

I know the company near me that builds them has switched over to almost all F3/450 cab and chassis. Be interesting to see if the Transit picks any of that market up.

[Biker16]

That is an accurate statement.

 

 

So your statement that blamed FOE for the EB1.6 engine fires was equally accurate? Especially since it was a rather obvious that the Software was written in Dearborn and the software was to blame for the engine fires.

 

Or was this a situation where you spoke about something before you knew the facts?

 

Standards are written by government agencies. Interpreting those standards should not be difficult. EU was given the assignment and they accepted it with no reservations. It wasn't until they missed certain deadlines that it was clear they did not know how to design the chassis to meet the criteria.

 

Your world view that everything that goes wrong is FoE's fault and Everything that goes right is FNA, is overly simplistic and has often been wrong.

 

Yet they had the talent to design the Escape, Fusion, focus, C-max, and fiesta to meet US standards? it cannon be as simple as they "lacked the talent" when they designed every platform from the B-C/d to meet that standard.

 

Their launch of the Transit custom and the HD transit are on time, it is the US "N" version that is late, just like every All new launch Ford NA has done in the last 24 months (Excluding the Fusion).

 

While I am surprised along with many others that all of the "variations on a theme" (3 wheelbases, 3 roof heights) are showing up at job #1 (or are they ?) this is really a minor change.

 

I cannot believe that going from one body style, to over 20 different combinations would have no effect on the complexity of the launch, of this vehicle.

[Bob Rosadini]

Just as a thought on this discussion of the HD Transit launch, I was in italy about 8 or 10 years ago and remember seeing DRW Transits with dump bodies-cabs did not look much different than today's version. So isn't the heavier chassis an existing proven item?

 

I would also agree that the primary driver to buy a Transit "350" dump chassis over an F-350 would be the choice of the diesel vs. a (ugh)-V-8 6.7 Recognizing there is a huge disparity in power, not everyone needs 800 ft pds of torque! (As well as a 100 buck oil change)

[lfeg]

Just as a thought on this discussion of the HD Transit launch, I was in italy about 8 or 10 years ago and remember seeing DRW Transits with dump bodies-cabs did not look much different than today's version. So isn't the heavier chassis an existing proven item?

 

I would also agree that the primary driver to buy a Transit "350" dump chassis over an F-350 would be the choice of the diesel vs. a (ugh)-V-8 6.7 Recognizing there is a huge disparity in power, not everyone needs 800 ft pds of torque! (As well as a 100 buck oil change)

 

Big HP and torque are not necessary for many commercial applications. Commercial and fleet operators really just want a vehicle that will do the job as economically as possible. The engine lineup for the Transit looks good (both power and with some promise for economy) and it would be even better if the 6 speed is a wide ratio box. The torque converter also will help with takeoff and providing grunt torque when needed. Over time I see greater acceptance, especially if the economy is proven in use.

 

At one time 150 to 170 hp would do quite well moving a 33,000 lb GVCW,

[Bob Rosadini]

Big HP and torque are not necessary for many commercial applications. Commercial and fleet operators really just want a vehicle that will do the job as economically as possible. The engine lineup for the Transit looks good (both power and with some promise for economy) and it would be even better if the 6 speed is a wide ratio box. The torque converter also will help with takeoff and providing grunt torque when needed. Over time I see greater acceptance, especially if the economy is proven in use.

 

At one time 150 to 170 hp would do quite well moving a 33,000 lb GVCW,

Big 10-4 on that. My B Model with a 41,000 lb. plate started life as a gas job- I don't think it was 170 HP. At some point it was converted to a 711 Diesel and then in 1979 guy I bought it from put a Maxidyne in it-237 HP. I laugh when I look at these PStroke, Duramax numbers today

[fordmantpw]

Big 10-4 on that. My B Model with a 41,000 lb. plate started life as a gas job- I don't think it was 170 HP. At some point it was converted to a 711 Diesel and then in 1979 guy I bought it from put a Maxidyne in it-237 HP. I laugh when I look at these PStroke, Duramax numbers today

 

That's a good looking truck!

[Biker16]

It will be interesting to see how those 2 very different solutions work in "the real world" ! My "gut" says the traditional frame (either hydro formed or the traditional C channel with riveted cross members) is stiffer and more durable.

 

the Unibody will be stiffer but not as durable as a Frame.

 

the issue with the Transit is the junction between the body and the Rear frame, because with the transit there is no way to directly the loads directly to front Axle because the Struts are integrated to the Body.

 

The struts direct all vertical loads to the body, to the A-pillars to the roof structure.

 

To increase the load carrying potential of the Transit you may need to create a new Front suspension system to direct the loads to Rear frame.

[mnm]

In a meeting today...was told the transit job1 was pushed back 24 weeks. Thats for the van. I wouldnt expect any cut away variants before summer 2014......

[Biker16]

In a meeting today...was told the transit job1 was pushed back 24 weeks. Thats for the van. I wouldnt expect any cut away variants before summer 2014......

 

 

why was it pushed back?

[mnm]

I dont think all the tooling at kcap is ready. Also balance out for econo vans ..not the cutaways...is june 1ish 2014.

[lfeg]

I think part of the issue is that Ford underestimated the time it would take to refit the plant. Also, lead time on large panel diesets is long and longer.

We lost alot of capacity and knowhow in the design, build, and proveout of diesets back in 08 to 10. You cannot stamp a panel until you have a dieset, even if everything else in the plant is ready to go, and with the shortening of product lifecycles, more frequent styling updates, loss of ability to design and build the diesets themselves, and backups at tryout shops. the dieset is becoming the stumbling block

[jpd80]

JPD-Thx for the definition-and no doubt, lower production cost is good-but can that type of construction work in the higher GVW's??

 

Remember the E-550? It was offered for about two years with I think a max GVW of 19,000 lbs, had an I beam front end, a heavy truck. Dealer friend of mine was really disapointed when they pulled the plug as he felt the truck was catching on. Can't say I understood why that weight class in an E offered that much distinction from an F 550 but apparently the turning radius for one thing was enough justification to many buyers.

Bob, as per Ford's website,"The new 2014 Transit has a wide GVWR range from 8,600 to 10,360 pounds",

which means it's not replacing the larger E-Series vans and cutaways, I take it those will continue for now

until Ford decides what's needed there.......

[Biker16]

I think part of the issue is that Ford underestimated the time it would take to refit the plant. Also, lead time on large panel diesets is long and longer.

We lost alot of capacity and knowhow in the design, build, and proveout of diesets back in 08 to 10. You cannot stamp a panel until you have a dieset, even if everything else in the plant is ready to go, and with the shortening of product lifecycles, more frequent styling updates, loss of ability to design and build the diesets themselves, and backups at tryout shops. the dieset is becoming the stumbling block

 

that makes sense, all new stamping plant too. There are somethings you cannot rush, i think there is disconnect between what MBAs want to hear and what the engineers are telling them.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Biker16

[theoldwizard]

So your statement that blamed FOE for the EB1.6 engine fires was equally accurate? Especially since it was a rather obvious that the Software was written in Dearborn and the software was to blame for the engine fires.

While the "fix" was definitely done in software (that was written in Dearborn) it is still not clear to me that the "root problem" was software (maybe yes, maybe no). It certainly should have been detected during development which was done in the US.

Or was this a situation where you spoke about something before you knew the facts?

I still do NOT have all of the fact in the EB 1.6L overheat issue.

Your world view that everything that goes wrong is FoE's fault and Everything that goes right is FNA, is overly simplistic and has often been wrong.

While in your opinion, that is my position, I hope that I am not that judgmental. I have been closely watching development of the US Transit for a long time. As I said before, I hapened to bump into a person working on the project who conveyed the statement about the delay.

Yet they had the talent to design the Escape, Fusion, focus, C-max, and fiesta to meet US standards? it cannon be as simple as they "lacked the talent" when they designed every platform from the B-C/d to meet that standard.

Touché !

Their (EU) launch of the Transit custom and the HD transit are on time, it is the US "N" version that is late, ...

Actually, they are 1 year late from their original launch target.

 

 

I have already said it. I am HAPPY that Ford is taking time to do things right ! My point was EU is not necessarily a superior engineer/design center. It is less costly compared to Dearborn which make them "better" in some executives minds.

[theoldwizard]

I think part of the issue is that Ford underestimated the time it would take to refit the plant. Also, lead time on large panel diesets is long and longer.

We lost alot of capacity and knowhow in the design, build, and proveout of diesets back in 08 to 10. You cannot stamp a panel until you have a dieset, even if everything else in the plant is ready to go, and with the shortening of product lifecycles, more frequent styling updates, loss of ability to design and build the diesets themselves, and backups at tryout shops. the dieset is becoming the stumbling block

I believe the KC stamping plant is new, so if there are delays, it would likely be because delays in building and installing the presses.

 

This IS a case where EU clearly has the talent to design small diesel engines ! (I hope that EU has the capacity to meet the demand from the US and that there are no issues with shipping.) The 3.2L turbo-diesel has been available (at least for US emission development) for several years now (as were the other engines) so I don't see how Powertrain issues could have cause much delay.

Edited March 8, 2013 by theoldwizard

[Deanh]

While the "fix" was definitely done in software (that was written in Dearborn) it is still not clear to me that the "root problem" was software (maybe yes, maybe no). It certainly should have been detected during development which was done in the US.

I still do NOT have all of the fact in the EB 1.6L overheat issue.

While in your opinion, that is my position, I hope that I am not that judgmental. I have been closely watching development of the US Transit for a long time. As I said before, I hapened to bump into a person working on the project who conveyed the statement about the delay.

Touché !

Actually, they are 1 year late from their original launch target.

 

 

I have already said it. I am HAPPY that Ford is taking time to do things right ! My point was EU is not necessarily a superior engineer/design center. It is less costly compared to Dearborn which make them "better" in some executives minds.

per a tech that worked on the recall, ECU reflash and all coolant lines clamps and connections were double checked....

[Pioneer]

The KC stamping plant is not the delay. That press is running stampings for other plants right now.

[Pioneer]

I believe the KC stamping plant is new, so if there are delays, it would likely be because delays in building and installing the presses.

They only have 1 press.

[FordFanForEver]

I wonder what Forest River, Monaco, Holiday Rambler and the rest of the Class C gas motorhome manufacuers are going to do? As far as I know, the Transit's power trains will not match the E-series 6.8 V10 which produces 305 horsepower with an outstanding 420 pounds of torque which is what motorhomes need. What will Ford do? They can't just abandon that segment as they lead it and would probabley like to keep it. The 5.0 and 6.2 are not answers either.

[FordFanForEver]

BZCAT

 

Thanks for the analysis. I suspect you are right. But I sure hope the next RV I buy in a couple of years can have a Ford chassis. I don't like the E series for driver comfort or for fuel use, especially compared to the Sprinter. But I don't like having to try to find service from a Mercedes dealer.

 

BZCAT

 

Thanks for the analysis. I suspect you are right. But I sure hope the next RV I buy in a couple of years can have a Ford chassis. I don't like the E series for driver comfort or for fuel use, especially compared to the Sprinter. But I don't like having to try to find service from a Mercedes dealer.

 

I think what you mean is gas vs. diesel. Not because it's as Sprinter, but because it's a diesel. The Transit will not perform well in the 32 foot Class C gas coaches since it's power train will not likely match the 305 hp and 420 lbs of torque. While for the Winnebago Via/View which is exclusively built on the Sprinter chassis, thats fine and the Transit can compete with that. However, such as the Aspect/Access, the power trains from the Transit will most likely not be enough to move them, as the Sprinter's power train is not. I'd like to see Ford stay in the larger Class C segment and the Class A gas, Ford is currently the only supplier of the gas chassis for the Class A and for the larger Class C.

[RichardJensen]

I wonder what Forest River, Monaco, Holiday Rambler and the rest of the Class C gas motorhome manufacuers are going to do? As far as I know, the Transit's power trains will not match the E-series 6.8 V10 which produces 305 horsepower with an outstanding 420 pounds of torque which is what motorhomes need. What will Ford do? They can't just abandon that segment as they lead it and would probabley like to keep it. The 5.0 and 6.2 are not answers either.

I suspect they'll continue to use the E-Series cutaways. They're remaining in production.

[Arizona Mike]

I think what you mean is gas vs. diesel. Not because it's as Sprinter, but because it's a diesel. The Transit will not perform well in the 32 foot Class C gas coaches since it's power train will not likely match the 305 hp and 420 lbs of torque. While for the Winnebago Via/View which is exclusively built on the Sprinter chassis, thats fine and the Transit can compete with that. However, such as the Aspect/Access, the power trains from the Transit will most likely not be enough to move them, as the Sprinter's power train is not. I'd like to see Ford stay in the larger Class C segment and the Class A gas, Ford is currently the only supplier of the gas chassis for the Class A and for the larger Class C.

 

 

Of course the Transit is not a candidate for the big class c. But the Transit, as currently spec'd out cannot compete adequately with the Sprinter. The ccc of the Transit will be no where close to that of the Sprinter with the same size (24 or 25 ft) RV built into it. The ccc of the Winnie View is about 1300 lbs. With 350 lbs of people and 250 of water, that doesn't leave much for food and clothing and junk. My View, loaded for a trip, weighs in at 10,700. So I'm about 300 under the GVWR of 11,030. But I'd be almost 400 over the Transit could handle. Sure, I could cut out some junk that I carry, but I'd rather not.

 

RV builders put their rig's almost exclusively on the E450 cutaway with the V10. Very few bother with the E350, even with the V10 and I don't think any bother with the old dog 2 valve 5.4 V8.. The Transit, given a GVWR of around 11500 and a GCWR of around 15000 could easily replace the E350's, could let the E450's stay in the bigger C's only, and kick Sprinter in the butt.The Sprinter has some good things going for it, but some are pretty bad. The ergonomics of the dash and controls are awful. And service is spotty or unavailable in many areas of the country, besides having to pay Mercedes prices just to drive it onto the service drive.

 

So I'm all in favor of the Transit getting a little more beef and being able to take on Sprinter in the small RV space.