jpd80 Posted April 3, 2020 Share Posted April 3, 2020 (edited) 47 minutes ago, SoonerLS said: If you look at the EB35 in Transit and F-150, you'll see that it's seriously down-rated in the Transit. I'm thinking it's because of packaging issues--the Transit's engine bay is tiny compared to the F-150's, which can't help with heat extraction, so you'd most likely wind up losing performance from the 3.3, too. FWIW, we have mostly EB35s in our fleet of Transits, but we have a few of the NA 3.5s. Those NA 3.5s are not particularly popular with our drive teams. The down rating could be in alignment with Heavy Duty, the figures corresponding with the drops seen previous engines used across F250 and F150 of course I could be dead wrong on this with Transit 150, maybe it’s just a truck calibration and nothing more than stopping overly rich mixtures under full load Edited April 3, 2020 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted April 3, 2020 Share Posted April 3, 2020 10 minutes ago, jpd80 said: The down rating could be in alignment with Heavy Duty, the figures corresponding with the drops seen previous engines used across F250 and F150 That's possible, but the Super Duty figures specifically list the SAE standard to which they're tested. The Transit figures don't, and the figures I was using for comparison came from the passenger version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 3, 2020 Share Posted April 3, 2020 1 minute ago, SoonerLS said: That's possible, but the Super Duty figures specifically list the SAE standard to which they're tested. The Transit figures don't, and the figures I was using for comparison came from the passenger version. Agree and as I added above, probably no more than a truck calibration 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted April 3, 2020 Share Posted April 3, 2020 (edited) 15 hours ago, SoonerLS said: That's possible, but the Super Duty figures specifically list the SAE standard to which they're tested. The Transit figures don't, and the figures I was using for comparison came from the passenger version. You are talking about horsepower rating. JDP was talking about EPA testing. Transit is a medium duty vehicle for EPA purpose (like F-250) so it is tested in a different cycle vs. F-150. This is why they have different engines and different power ratings. It's much easier to pass the medium duty emission than light vehicle emission. This is also why Transit was offered with 3.2 I5 diesel from the get go... medium duty emission standards are less stringent. That same 3.2 I5 will not pass emission in F-150 and Ranger in the US without a lot of money. Transit 150 has GVWR of 8,550 lbs... 50 lbs higher than the cutoff for EPA light duty vehicle. This is done on purpose of course. Technically, Transit 150 is mislabel name plate... like selling a low end low payload F-250 and calling it F-150. And further more, as I had explained in a different thread, Ford (and others) have resisted introducing midsize vans for this exact reason... Midsize (GVWR below 8,500 lbs) will put it in light duty and make it more expensive to pass emission. Mercedes is the only one to take the plunge with Metris but only because it doesn't have a true light duty van to compete with Transit Connect. Edited April 3, 2020 by bzcat 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 3, 2020 Share Posted April 3, 2020 1 hour ago, bzcat said: You are talking about horsepower rating. JDP was talking about EPA testing. Transit is a medium duty vehicle for EPA purpose (like F-250) so it is tested in a different cycle vs. F-150. This is why they have different engines and different power ratings. It's much easier to pass the medium duty emission than light vehicle emission. This is also why Transit was offered with 3.2 I5 diesel from the get go... medium duty emission standards are less stringent. That same 3.2 I5 will not pass emission in F-150 and Ranger in the US without a lot of money. Transit 150 has GVWR of 8,550 lbs... 50 lbs higher than the cutoff for EPA light duty vehicle. This is done on purpose of course. Technically, Transit 150 is mislabel name plate... like selling a low end low payload F-250 and calling it F-150. And further more, as I had explained in a different thread, Ford (and others) have resisted introducing midsize vans for this exact reason... Midsize (GVWR below 8,500 lbs) will put it in light duty and make it more expensive to pass emission. Mercedes is the only one to take the plunge with Metris but only because it doesn't have a true light duty van to compete with Transit Connect. Thanks for the clarification on the Transit 150, I suspected that Ford pulled a sneaky and it with the 250 and 350 to avoid CAFE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 (edited) I mean yes, it's a trick. But sneaky? Everyone does it. Mercedes Sprinter, Nissan NV, and Ram Promaster 1500 are all magically 8,550 lbs GVWR as well ? And GM just stopped selling Chevy Express 1500 rather than up the GVWR to get it over the 8,500 lbs threshold. (Express 2500 GVWR starts at 8,600 lbs) Edited April 4, 2020 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, bzcat said: I mean yes, it's a trick. But sneaky? Everyone does it. Mercedes Sprinter, Nissan NV, and Ram Promaster 1500 are all magically 8,550 lbs GVWR as well ? And GM just stopped selling Chevy Express 1500 rather than up the GVWR to get it over the 8,500 lbs threshold. (Express 2500 GVWR starts at 8,600 lbs) Maybe "sneaky" is a bit harsh, Ford clearly doesn't want T150 subject to CAFE but on the other side, there is sound logic for dealing with all Transits as technically heavy duty vans, it makes sense. Edited April 5, 2020 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 15 hours ago, bzcat said: And GM just stopped selling Chevy Express 1500 rather than up the GVWR to get it over the 8,500 lbs threshold. (Express 2500 GVWR starts at 8,600 lbs) That and they needed the extra factory capacity for Canyorado production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 (edited) Interesting that Chevrolet offers a 2.8L I4 "Duramax" / 8 speed automatic in Express 2500 van. Edited April 6, 2020 by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 1 hour ago, twintornados said: Interesting that Chevrolet offers a 2.8L I4 "Duramax" / 8 speed automatic in Express 2500 van. There's a rumour that GM might offer the 6.6 gasoline V8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 5 minutes ago, jpd80 said: There's a rumour that GM might offer the 6.6 gasoline V8 Lol I bet that would be a joy to work on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 40 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said: Lol I bet that would be a joy to work on Compared to an Ecoboost 3.5 in a Transit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 2 hours ago, jpd80 said: Compared to an Ecoboost 3.5 in a Transit? Honestly I couldn't personally compare the 2, I've never worked on a Transit but I have worked on an Express 3500 with a diesel and it was a damn nightmare. A bigger engine would be even worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said: Honestly I couldn't personally compare the 2, I've never worked on a Transit but I have worked on an Express 3500 with a diesel and it was a damn nightmare. A bigger engine would be even worse. Well, it looks like GM have already done it, replacing the 6.0 V8 with the new 6.6 V8 in the Express. All vans are mongrels to work on, inline engines are bad enough but a Few engine in a "dog house"? Forget it. 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.