Would putting the Ecoboost in the E-Series have made the van remain viable?

[zipnzap]

One of the biggest complaints about the Econoline has been its efficiency, especially it's efficiency-to-power output. Some have also considered the E-Series vans to be underpowered compared to the Express and Savana.

 

Would offering the 3.5 Ecoobost, as well as the new Power Stroke I5, in the E-Series have made it still remain viable, allowing it to carry on for a couple more decades and completely negating the need to bring the Transit over?

 

On that note, why wasn't the 6.7 diesel also included as an option?

[RichardJensen]

No.

 

Even if you put a more efficient powertrain in the E-Series, you would still have a less-than-ideal form-factor for transport.

 

The tall-box layout of the Transit is in many ways, a better package for light duty vans.

 

Ultimately, IMO, Ford made a decision to bifurcate the E-Series range: The Transit would take over and (possibly) expand the light duty range, while the heavier E-Series products would initially carry on status quo and ultimately migrate to a medium-duty related platfomr.

 

And the 6.7 wasn't included because it doesn't fit in the E-Series dog house.

 

IMO the Transit proved a better light duy option, and accommodating the 6.7 necessitated enough of a tear-up of the current E-Series to justify making it part of a fuller range of medium duty options.

Edited April 28, 2014 by RichardJensen

[bzcat]

I'm not sure new powertrain package for the E-series will accomplish. The 2017 CAFE is no joke and the measurement is based on a number of factors, but most important is this nebulous concept of "footprint" - this is also the same reason why short wheel base pickup trucks will be a thing of the past after 2016 model year. E-series has one wheelbase and the gross vehicle weight for the E-150 is too high to get good 2017 CAFE number and that is the problem.

 

So if Ford really wanted to stick with the E-series, it will either have to get the E-150 on a weight loss diet or work on longer wheelbase option, both of which are likely very expensive undertaking. Might as well as start with a clean sheet design on the T-150 class 2 van and just keep the E-series for the class 4 and above which has lower volume and won't impact the CAFE that much.

 

Also, everyone will have new vans on the market by 2017 so Ford is wise to lead this transition to a lighter footprint light duty van, rather than being reactive and wait.

Edited April 29, 2014 by bzcat

[Bob Rosadini]

I'm not sure new powertrain package for the E-series will accomplish. The 2017 CAFE is no joke and the measurement is based on a number of factors, but most important is this nebulous concept of "footprint" - this is also the same reason why short wheel base pickup trucks will be a thing of the past after 2016 model year. E-series has one wheelbase and the gross vehicle weight for the E-150 is too high to get good 2017 CAFE number and that is the problem.

 

So if Ford really wanted to stick with the E-series, it will either have to get the E-150 on a weight loss diet or work on longer wheelbase option, both of which are likely very expensive undertaking. Might as well as start with a clean sheet design on the T-150 class 2 van and just keep the E-series for the class 4 and above which has lower volume and won't impact the CAFE that much.

 

Also, everyone will have new vans on the market by 2017 so Ford is wise to lead this transition to a lighter footprint light duty van, rather than being reactive and wait.

bzcat-Please elaborate on your wheelbase comment. What does that have to do with 2017 CAFE? Also why will short wheelbase pick ups be a thing of the past after 2016. I don't see the connection between GVW and wheelbase. Axle loads are a function of number of axles and percentage front weight vs. rear axle weight. footprint??

[jpd80]

Intresting to consider the different strategy here, instead of funding a mid sized truck, Ford chose to make its Lower E Series more economical.

Targeting a lighter more efficient van line probably gives Ford much more bang for bucks over copying GM with a mid sized truck.

[zipnzap]

No.

 

Even if you put a more efficient powertrain in the E-Series, you would still have a less-than-ideal form-factor for transport.

 

The tall-box layout of the Transit is in many ways, a better package for light duty vans.

 

Ultimately, IMO, Ford made a decision to bifurcate the E-Series range: The Transit would take over and (possibly) expand the light duty range, while the heavier E-Series products would initially carry on status quo and ultimately migrate to a medium-duty related platfomr.

 

And the 6.7 wasn't included because it doesn't fit in the E-Series dog house.

 

IMO the Transit proved a better light duy option, and accommodating the 6.7 necessitated enough of a tear-up of the current E-Series to justify making it part of a fuller range of medium duty options.

 

 

I'm not sure new powertrain package for the E-series will accomplish. The 2017 CAFE is no joke and the measurement is based on a number of factors, but most important is this nebulous concept of "footprint" - this is also the same reason why short wheel base pickup trucks will be a thing of the past after 2016 model year. E-series has one wheelbase and the gross vehicle weight for the E-150 is too high to get good 2017 CAFE number and that is the problem.

 

So if Ford really wanted to stick with the E-series, it will either have to get the E-150 on a weight loss diet or work on longer wheelbase option, both of which are likely very expensive undertaking. Might as well as start with a clean sheet design on the T-150 class 2 van and just keep the E-series for the class 4 and above which has lower volume and won't impact the CAFE that much.

 

Also, everyone will have new vans on the market by 2017 so Ford is wise to lead this transition to a lighter footprint light duty van, rather than being reactive and wait.

 

But won't Ford end up ceding sales to GM as a result?

[lfeg]

CAFE is going to force major changes in the light truck market. And the Transit is the leading edge for the domestics. Before the Econoline there was the panel truck. Ford brought the Econoline out in '60 as they discontinued the F100 panel truck. There was moaning and groaning over that, but guess what? Good decision. My opinion is that it will be the same with the Transit. The E Series vans have drawbacks for many commercial purposes that the Transit corrects. Tall roof models will be better suited for certain cargo that will not fit through the doors of the E vans. Often an E van will "cube out" well before the payload number is reached. Transit will be better suited for such loads (and do not kid yourself, this not a small issue in the commercial world). A tall roof Transit can replace an E series cutaway with a box body for ease of loading and transporting bulky items, possibly at a lower cost. And it will be a factory order, not having to deal with a body upfitter. Form factor, fuel economy, and capacity all go together. Some joke about the Sprinter and its high cost, but it's fuel efficiency advantage and the impact on total cost of operation is opening eyes. If the Transit can get close to the Sprinter's fuel economy with a Ford price and Ford's dealer network, I see good things.

 

And do not forget, the heavy end of the Transit lineup exceeds the E vans GVW by about 800 lbs (van, not cutaway) and is said to offer DRW, something never available on an E van, so those that gross out before they cube out will be well served also.

[zipnzap]

In that case, couldn't Ford have just added a high-roof option to the E-Series?

 

The Transit also comes in low roofs. Just what exactly is the purpose of these?

 

[twmalonehunter]

Trust me, as someone who worked out of an E series for 12 years, it is a miserable layout and I welcome the choices the Transit will offer. The E series dominated because it was the best of 2 less than appealing choices, Ford or Chevy. The Sprinter would have gotten much more market share if it wasn't such a piece of shit, word travels fast.

[lfeg]

In that case, couldn't Ford have just added a high-roof option to the E-Series?

 

The Transit also comes in low roofs. Just what exactly is the purpose of these?

 

Expedited shipments for one. For loads that do not need the height, the low roof model will get better highway fuel economy than mid or high roof.

 

It is about fitting the van to the job, instead of fitting the job to the van as we have been doing for too many years.

[zipnzap]

Expedited shipments for one. For loads that do not need the height, the low roof model will get better highway fuel economy than mid or high roof.

 

It is about fitting the van to the job, instead of fitting the job to the van as we have been doing for too many years.

So once again, a high-roof option for the E-series (in addition to the better engines) wouldn't have helped?

[92merc]

So once again, a high-roof option for the E-series (in addition to the better engines) wouldn't have helped?

It would have only added weight and poorer fuel economy to a van that was becoming less competitive.

 

Name something the E Series has that the Transit doesn't? The things lost are far outweighed by the things gained...

[PREMiERdrum]

Name something the E Series has that the Transit doesn't?

 

Those groovy roofline gutters over the doors?

[RichardJensen]

 

 

 

But won't Ford end up ceding sales to GM as a result?

 

Probably not. The Transit is a better light duty option and the availability of the 6.7 in a revised medium duty E-Series will be an improvement as well.

[theoldwizard]

While fuel economy was a big driver in the decision to drop the E-Series Van, it was NOT the primary reason. E-Series did not meet some future crash standard (under 10,000 lbs IIRC) and would have required a fair amount of redesign. Transit was up for a redesign at about the same time. Big cost savings doing just one.

 

Of course as the story goes, the re-designed Transit was at least 1 year late because the boys on the other side of the pond had no experience designing for crash and after missing some key deadlines, a small team from Dearborn was sent across the water to get things back on track.

 

Bonus of course is that Ford now has a van with a turbo diesel engines again (okay it's only an I5) and the EcoBoost V6 should make all of your horsepower lover happy.

 

The interesting question will be, will Ford ever build the FWD Transit in the US ? IMHO, not likely.

[NLPRacing]

The only real advantage I can see that the old E-Series will have over the Transit will be towing capacity. An E350 could be equipped to tow up to 10,000 pounds. I bet the Transit won't be able to tow over 6000 pounds, if that much.

[bzcat]

bzcat-Please elaborate on your wheelbase comment. What does that have to do with 2017 CAFE? Also why will short wheelbase pick ups be a thing of the past after 2016. I don't see the connection between GVW and wheelbase. Axle loads are a function of number of axles and percentage front weight vs. rear axle weight. footprint??

 

CAFE for light truck is modified by a "footprint" measurement since 2010. Basically, to get to CAFE number for light truck, you take the EPA window sticker MPG and multiply it by the footprint multiplier. Thus, longer wheelbase and/or lower weight help increase the footprint modifier - this was designed to allow manufacturer that sells a lot of trucks (i.e. Ford or Toyota) to inflate its CAFE to "equalize" with manufacturer that doesn't sell a lot of trucks (i.e. VW or Honda)

 

The 2017-2025 CAFE "flattens" the modifier somewhat so short wheelbase trucks and vans will get hammered pretty badly, unless they also shed a lot of weight or drastically improve the EPA MPG.

 

This is why GM's new "midsize" pickup truck is only available in LWB extended bed configuration. And this is why E-series was doomed even if Ford updates the powertrain package and make improvements to crash safety.

 

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/standcomm/scenvir/Yoon_CAFE.pdf

[RichardJensen]

The only real advantage I can see that the old E-Series will have over the Transit will be towing capacity. An E350 could be equipped to tow up to 10,000 pounds. I bet the Transit won't be able to tow over 6000 pounds, if that much.

 

The E-350 isn't being replaced by the Transit.

[bzcat]

 

 

 

But won't Ford end up ceding sales to GM as a result?

 

You are assuming market demands a fullsize van like the E-series or GM's offering. When most likely, the reality is that those were the only (reasonably priced) options. The van market is literally all fleet sales and Ford is the 500lb gorilla of fleet sales in the US. Ford knows what their customers want... and I think Transit will be very successful replacement for E-150 and E-250 vans.

 

 

So once again, a high-roof option for the E-series (in addition to the better engines) wouldn't have helped?

 

As I noted in the previous post, E-series has a CAFE problem so adding more weight (which a high roof will surely require more beefy chassis reinforcement) is not a solution to the problem.

[bzcat]

 

The E-350 isn't being replaced by the Transit.

 

E-350 cab chassis will be around. I'm not sure if E-350 van will stick around?

[NLPRacing]

 

The E-350 isn't being replaced by the Transit.

I'm pretty sure the E-Series cargo van & wagon are being replaced by the Transit while only the E-Series cutaways continue until 2020 or so.

 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/04/ford-will-continue-e-series-cutawaystripped-chassis.html

Edited April 29, 2014 by NLPRacing

[PREMiERdrum]

I'm pretty sure the E-Series cargo van & wagon are being replaced by the Transit while only the E-Series cutaways continue until 2020 or so.

 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/04/ford-will-continue-e-series-cutawaystripped-chassis.html

 

Cutaways survive until 2018.

[RichardJensen]

 

E-350 cab chassis will be around. I'm not sure if E-350 van will stick around?

 

I don't think it will.

 

But I don't think there's a sizable niche that were looking for a van that can tow 10,000lbs.

[NickF1011]

Just how often do you see fullsize vans with trailers in tow anyway? The most I usually see are utility vans towing generators, which certainly isn't beyond the capability of the Transit. The only big loads I typically see are behind RV's, but those are cutaways which will still be around anyway.

[zipnzap]

Don't many people with Class B (as opposed to Class C) RV's tow with their vans?

 

Isn't that a major loss of capability in that segment?