Deanh Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I haven't seen any demand for the diesel at all....none.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I haven't seen any demand for the diesel at all....none.... To back up your point, I have seen exactly none on the road in production form. Only one with a PP sticker on the window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 To back up your point, I have seen exactly none on the road in production form. Only one with a PP sticker on the window. Hopefully I'll be buying 4 of them next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) @Biker...different colors so you feel like youre getting anew car every month?.....lol...I will come right out and say it...my impression of the diesel is its old tech and ancient, behind the times power and torque wise...my guess is theres a more modern replacement in the mix....which could quite possibly see usage in the F-150, F250 and expedition..... Edited July 29, 2015 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I haven't seen any demand for the diesel at all....none.... Not even with diesel being $2 cheaper than premium in SoCal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 ACROSS THE ROAD ITS ABOUT $1.50 CHEAPER....oooops, caps....anyways....nope, my bet is its the price jump, even running locates for $hits and giggles, shows other dealers didn't order diesel for inventory either.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 @Biker...different colors so you feel like youre getting anew car every month?.....lol...I will come right out and say it...my impression of the diesel is its old tech and ancient, behind the times power and torque wise...my guess is theres a more modern replacement in the mix....which could quite possibly see usage in the F-150, F250 and expedition..... You're probably right. Apparently, the new Duramax 2.8 puts out 181 hp and 369 lb-ft. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/05/2014-refreshed-sprinter-van-is-ready-to-take-all-comers.html http://www.autoblog.com/2015/07/28/2016-chevy-colorado-duramax-diesel-181-hp-369-torque-price/ Though, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to tweak the 3.2's numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 @Biker...different colors so you feel like youre getting anew car every month?.....lol...I will come right out and say it...my impression of the diesel is its old tech and ancient, behind the times power and torque wise...my guess is theres a more modern replacement in the mix....which could quite possibly see usage in the F-150, F250 and expedition..... for my use the Efficiency of the Power stroke will pay for itself in no time, we are generally putting 30,000+ miles on our vehicle per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 ACROSS THE ROAD ITS ABOUT $1.50 CHEAPER....oooops, caps....anyways....nope, my bet is its the price jump, even running locates for $hits and giggles, shows other dealers didn't order diesel for inventory either.... So that's the issue... no SoCal dealers even bother ordering any diesel. Chicken or egg first? I'm not an expert or anything but I know the E-series diesel when it was still available was precious commodity. Now that Ford finally has diesel van again, no one wants it? I find that a little hard to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 regular 3.7 seems to be the #1 choice, eco boost for the larger passenger variants.....I can see Bikers point, 30000 miles a year gives the diesel a leg up.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I haven't seen any demand for the diesel at all....none.... When there are good petrol alternatives, who would want a diesel ? Diesel engines have so many things against them. Higher initial cost, DEF, more expensive oil and filter changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Exactly. The beauty of the Transit is the improved fuel efficiency over the previous E150-350. The 3.7 V6 effectively replaces the 4.6 2V while the 3.5 EB replaces the 5.4 2V. It's similar to what happened in '10 F150 with then new 3.7 and 3.5 EB. engines is there a place for the 2.7 EB in Transit? Edited July 31, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 Exactly. The beauty of the Transit is the improved fuel efficiency over the previous E150-350. The 3.7 V6 effectively replaces the 4.6 2V while the 3.5 EB replaces the 5.4 2V. It's similar to what happened in '10 F150 with then new 3.7 and 3.5 EB. engines is there a place for the 2.7 EB in Transit? The question I would ask is there a place for the Ecoboost 2.3? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 When there are good petrol alternatives, who would want a diesel ? Diesel engines have so many things against them. Higher initial cost, DEF, more expensive oil and filter changes. We will see I am hoping to split 4 Diesel and 4 3.7 transit to compare the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 The question I would ask is there a place for the Ecoboost 2.3? I would say there might be room for both depending on the body configuration. 2.3 for the low/medium roof, maybe multiple wheelbases, and the 2.7 for the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure the 2.7 or 2.3 EB would be a good idea. Doesn't the 2.7 work for the F-150 because of the lighter weight aluminum body (which still has a steel frame)? Also, I'm not sure it would be a good replacement for the 3.7. They need a naturally aspirated engine for CNG and LPG conversions, don't they? Edited July 31, 2015 by zipnzap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I'm not sure the 2.7 or 2.3 EB would be a good idea. Doesn't the 2.7 work for the F-150 because of the lighter weight aluminum body (which still has a steel frame)? Also, I'm not sure it would be a good replacement for the 3.7. They need a naturally aspirated engine for CNG and LPG conversions, don't they? I don't think anyone is suggesting replacing the 3.7 with the 2.3 or 2.7, just an additional option for those that may want it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Exactly. The beauty of the Transit is the improved fuel efficiency over the previous E150-350. The 3.7 V6 effectively replaces the 4.6 2V while the 3.5 EB replaces the 5.4 2V. It's similar to what happened in '10 F150 with then new 3.7 and 3.5 EB. engines is there a place for the 2.7 EB in Transit? 3.5 EB replaced the V10... not the 5.4 V8. I would be shocked if 2.7 EB doesn't show up at some point because the output is a better fit for what Ford wants to accomplish (i.e. 5.4 V8 replacement) than the 3.5 EB. But 2.7 EB didn't make it in Transit at launch... probably because Ford wanted to prioritize 2.7 EB for F-150. 3.7 V6 (275hp / 260 lb-ft) ==> replaced 4.6 V8 (225hp / 286 lb-ft) 2.7 EB (325hp / 375 lb-ft in F-150) ==> would replace 5.4 V8 (255hp / 323 lb-ft) - in Transit, the 2.7 EB would be detuned to around ~ 300hp / 325 lb-ft similar to the 3.5 EB detune from F-150 to Transit 3.5 EB (310hp / 400 lb-ft) ==> technically replaced the 6.8 V10 (305hp / 420 lb-ft) - if 2.7 EB shows up, Ford will probably up-rate the 3.5 EB a bit and increase the GVWR for the T-350 and T-350 HD to close the gap with E-350, which can be gracefully retired at that point. Edited July 31, 2015 by bzcat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I don't think anyone is suggesting replacing the 3.7 with the 2.3 or 2.7, just an additional option for those that may want it 2.3 EB should be interesting... I think it will work very well in T-150 or maybe even a T-100 for people that need the volume but not the weight rating. But at that point, Ford may be better off just selling the midsize Transit Custom. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I don't think anyone is suggesting replacing the 3.7 with the 2.3 or 2.7, just an additional option for those that may want it 2.3 EB should be interesting... I think it will work very well in T-150 or maybe even a T-100 for people that need the volume but not the weight rating. But at that point, Ford may be better off just selling the midsize Transit Custom. Would this require some sort of weight reduction on the chassis itself, probably for the sake of engine longevity? 3.5 EB replaced the V10... not the 5.4 V8. I would be shocked if 2.7 EB doesn't show up at some point because the output is a better fit for what Ford wants to accomplish (i.e. 5.4 V8 replacement) than the 3.5 EB. But 2.7 EB didn't make it in Transit at launch... probably because Ford wanted to prioritize 2.7 EB for F-150. 3.7 V6 (275hp / 260 lb-ft) ==> replaced 4.6 V8 (225hp / 286 lb-ft) 2.7 EB (325hp / 375 lb-ft in F-150) ==> would replace 5.4 V8 (255hp / 323 lb-ft) - in Transit, the 2.7 EB would be detuned to around ~ 300hp / 325 lb-ft similar to the 3.5 EB detune from F-150 to Transit 3.5 EB (310hp / 400 lb-ft) ==> technically replaced the 6.8 V10 (305hp / 420 lb-ft) - if 2.7 EB shows up, Ford will probably up-rate the 3.5 EB a bit and increase the GVWR for the T-350 and T-350 HD to close the gap with E-350, which can be gracefully retired at that point. The problem is that Ford isn't even using the Ecoboost in the cutaways, for whatever reason. The replacement would probably have to be naturally aspirated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 3.5 EB replaced the V10... not the 5.4 V8. I would be shocked if 2.7 EB doesn't show up at some point because the output is a better fit for what Ford wants to accomplish (i.e. 5.4 V8 replacement) than the 3.5 EB. But 2.7 EB didn't make it in Transit at launch... probably because Ford wanted to prioritize 2.7 EB for F-150. 3.7 V6 (275hp / 260 lb-ft) ==> replaced 4.6 V8 (225hp / 286 lb-ft) 2.7 EB (325hp / 375 lb-ft in F-150) ==> would replace 5.4 V8 (255hp / 323 lb-ft) - in Transit, the 2.7 EB would be detuned to around ~ 300hp / 325 lb-ft similar to the 3.5 EB detune from F-150 to Transit 3.5 EB (310hp / 400 lb-ft) ==> technically replaced the 6.8 V10 (305hp / 420 lb-ft) - if 2.7 EB shows up, Ford will probably up-rate the 3.5 EB a bit and increase the GVWR for the T-350 and T-350 HD to close the gap with E-350, which can be gracefully retired at that point. My feeling is that GVWR limit on the transit is related to structure not engine. I think Ford was wise in there choice of engines on the North American transit. I think the Addition of the 10 Speed will open up more engine possibilities, right now I think the current lineup is best in class. 2.3 EB should be interesting... I think it will work very well in T-150 or maybe even a T-100 for people that need the volume but not the weight rating. But at that point, Ford may be better off just selling the midsize Transit Custom. Transit custom is an interesting vehicle for north america, the 2.3 would be perfect for it. Would this require some sort of weight reduction on the chassis itself, probably for the sake of engine longevity? The problem is that Ford isn't even using the Ecoboost in the cutaways, for whatever reason. The replacement would probably have to be naturally aspirated. The cutaways represent how that segment views perfromance, it doesn't care. OPEX is far more important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 2.3 EB should be interesting... I think it will work very well in T-150 or maybe even a T-100 for people that need the volume but not the weight rating. But at that point, Ford may be better off just selling the midsize Transit Custom. That's a good point. I forgot all about the midsize transit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Next up, we will test the towing prowess of the Cadillac CTS and ATS. Really?? They'll complain about the funky hitch on the CTS Coupe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 They'll complain about the funky hitch on the CTS Coupe. That's obviously a dual class XIV hitch with a 6" dual receiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 That's obviously a dual class XIV hitch with a 6" dual receiver. Sounds like something from the family truckster haha 1 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.