NLPRacing Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Autoblog Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 As much plastic as a first generation Avalanche. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) Positioning the entire powertrain, including the fuel tank in the nose........ What?!?! Edited October 2, 2013 by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 What?!?! The fuel tank is located just aft of the front axle, below the driver's area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 looks like it has a fat lip with that bumper on it! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 looks like it has a fat lip with that bumper on it! I agree, that bumper is hideous. If they were to paint the top half of it, it wouldn't be so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92LX302 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 In TTAC's review, does anyone knows if they're comparing it to the E-Series Ford or the new T-Series?http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/10/review-2014-ram-promaster-cargo-van-with-video/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 In TTAC's review, does anyone knows if they're comparing it to the E-Series Ford or the new T-Series? http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/10/review-2014-ram-promaster-cargo-van-with-video/ Knowing TTAC they're probably comparing it to a 20 year old Ford product. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 In TTAC's review, does anyone knows if they're comparing it to the E-Series Ford or the new T-Series? http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/10/review-2014-ram-promaster-cargo-van-with-video/ E-Series. T-Series won't be released in the U.S. market until summer 2014 (as as 2015 model). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 Knowing TTAC they're probably comparing it to a 20 year old Ford product. E-Series. T-Series won't be released in the U.S. market until summer 2014 (as as 2015 model). You're both right as the E-Series hasn't been significantly updated since 1992. Anybody else surprised by the 5100 lb towing capacity? Since the Transit will be RWD and have an available 3.5EB and 3.2 Diesel, it should be capable of towing quite a bit more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Uh, the E-Series isn't truck based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97svtgoin05gt Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I do not like the positioning of that fuel tank. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) The fuel tank is located just aft of the front axle, below the driver's area. I do not like the positioning of that fuel tank. I agree, it seems like the tank was positioned where it is as a cost savings measure....it reminds me of the bad old days when pickup trucks had their fuel tanks mounted behind the seat of the truck in the CAB!!! My dad had a 1975 F-250 4X4 "high-boy" and I remember riding with him in the truck and listening to the gas slosh around in the tank right behind me. I was 12 years old at the time and thought even then, "Well, thats a dumb place to put the tank...." Edited October 10, 2013 by twintornados 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted October 10, 2013 Author Share Posted October 10, 2013 I agree, it seems like the tank was positioned where it is as a cost savings measure....it reminds me of the bad old days when pickup trucks had their fuel tanks mounted behind the seat of the truck in the CAB!!! My dad had a 1975 F-250 4X4 "high-boy" and I remember riding with him in the truck and listening to the gas slosh around in the tank right behind me. I was 12 years old at the time and thought even then, "Well, thats a dumb place to put the tank...." Many cars today, including the current Mustang, have gas tanks mounted under the rear seats. Having the tank mounted under the floor, near the driver's area in vans like this & the Transit allow for lower cargo floors and for the filler neck to be closer to the driver door making fill ups easier. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97svtgoin05gt Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 It will also make sure that the fuel supply is right where the people are in the event of an emergency almost guaranteeing death to the occupants. Okay, maybe not but still, I don't think I want to be close to the fuel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) It will also make sure that the fuel supply is right where the people are in the event of an emergency almost guaranteeing death to the occupants. Okay, maybe not but still, I don't think I want to be close to the fuel. Check out the 2014 Ford Transit, the fuel door is located in the driver's door cutout (see that little door at the bottom of the driver's door?). I think you are making a lot out of nothing. Edited October 10, 2013 by Intrepidatious 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Check out the 2014 Ford Transit, the fuel door is located in the driver's door cutout (see that little door at the bottom of the driver's door?). I think you are making a lot out of nothing. It's only ok when Ford does it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) There are a few points to consider in this, Manufacturers are smart enough to know that the location of the fuel tank is dependent on the location least likely to suffer a rupture in the bulk of accidents, that would tend to be near the safety cage. A lot of trucks and vans have their fuel tanks located under or near the passenger compartment but consider this, most trucks and vans in rest of the world are diesel powered with less likelihood of ignition after a crash and incineration of occupants. Bottom line to this, what looks dangerous to us is most likely the safest of all possible places, managing risk of rupture and fire engulfment is key here. Edited October 13, 2013 by jpd80 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted October 13, 2013 Author Share Posted October 13, 2013 There are a few points to consider in this, Manufacturers are smart enough to know that the location of the fuel tank is dependent on the location least likely to suffer a rupture in the bulk of accidents, that would tend to be near the safety cage. A lot of trucks and vans have their fuel tanks located under or near the passenger compartment but consider this, most trucks and vans in rest of the world are diesel powered with less likelihood of ignition after a crash and incineration of occupants. Bottom line to this, what looks dangerous to us is most likely the safest of all possible places, managing risk of rupture and fire engulfment is key here. There was way too much common sense in this post. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 A lot of trucks and vans have their fuel tanks located under or near the passenger compartment Like school buses. Those large vehicles that carry millions of children to school every day. Again, the only reason it was brought up is because it's a Dodge product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) Like school buses. Those large vehicles that carry millions of children to school every day. Again, the only reason it was brought up is because it's a Dodge product. I thought it was brought up because someone commented on the position, and then it was pointed out that almost every other maker does it . by which time we both chimed in.. I see the gas tank position it as a non-issue as highlighted by your bus example. The position is probably the safest considering all potential situations. Edited October 13, 2013 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) The Transit looks like the tank is positioned aft of the driver area whereas the Promaster is positioned directly under the driver....as long as it "crash tests" OK, fine...just the way it was presented in the article as "in the nose" seemed reckless indeed. After seeing the layout of the tank, it would seem that the author of the original article should restate its position since it really is NOT in the nose of the vehicle....that description made it sound like it was right behind the front bumper.Oh, and for EBFlex...yup, its a Dodge, so, in my opinion...it is pile of crap....but then again, I don't like Dodges to begin with..... Edited October 13, 2013 by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 It's not a dodge though, right? It's a Ram. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 It's not a dodge though, right? It's a Ram. It's all semantics. It's like like using 'crossover' or "utility" to describe a SUV. Or Ford calling their police version of the Taurus the Police Interceptor Sedan or the Explorer the Police Interceptor (sport) Utility (vehicle). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) It's all semantics. It's like like using 'crossover' or "utility" to describe a SUV. Or Ford calling their police version of the Taurus the Police Interceptor Sedan or the Explorer the Police Interceptor (sport) Utility (vehicle). Utilities actually covers the whole segment where SUV and CUV are specific types. Re Taurus/Explorer Vs PI Sedan and PI ute, The difference there is that Ford actually made a lot of changes to taurus and Explorer to make them LEVs. even though they still look like the civillian versions on the outside - it's their choice to make and it means that civillian Taurus and Explorer resales won't suffer because of the LEV's influence, they're different enough.. Edited October 13, 2013 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.