All-New Ford Transit Courier Officially Launches in Europe

[ice-capades]

All-New Ford Transit Courier Officially Launches in Europe

https://fordauthority.com/2024/01/all-new-ford-transit-courier-officially-launches-in-europe/

 

 

The all-new next-generation Ford Transit Courier was officially revealed last April, with production kicking off a few months later in October. Since then, the new Transit Courier has racked up its fair share of accolades in van-hungry Europe, where the also-new Transit Custom just made its official debut. Now, it has been joined by the redesigned Ford Transit Courier as well, which has arrived in Europe offering customers a wide array of options.

 

The very first examples of the new Ford Transit Courier are now being delivered to customers after production began at the Ford Otosan Assembly plant in Turkey. However, only the gas and diesel-powered models are currently in production, as the all-electric E-Transit Courier won’t join them on the assembly line until later this year.

 

European Ford Transit Courier customers can choose from four trim levels – Base, Trend, Limited, and Active – as well as engines including the turbocharged 1.0L I-3 EcoBoost with outputs of either 100 or 125 PS, which are mated to either a six-speed manual gearbox or a new seven-speed dual clutch transmission. Transit Courier van and double-cab-in-van customers can also opt for the turbocharged 1.5L I-3 EcoBoost in a 100 PS variant, which is mated to a six-speed manual transmission.

 

“We’ve responded to customer demand with the all-new Transit Courier, delivering the capability of a larger van while keeping the footprint compact, and adding connected support including Ford Pro Telematics and uptime-boosting FORDLiive to accelerate productivity,” said Hans Schep, general manager, Ford Pro, Europe. “Ford Pro’s long-standing market leadership gives us unrivaled insight into customers’ needs and helps us squeeze even more productivity from our compact vans using innovative engineering and advanced connectivity.”

Edited January 15 by ice-capades
Additional Content

[Rick73]

That’s a tiny vehicle as vans go. ? 

 

Ford Authority got 1.5L engine wrong.  It is not 1.5L I-3 EcoBoost, but rather 1.5L EcoBlue inline-4 diesel.  The 100 PS from an EcoBoost that large made no sense, so looked up Ford Media directly.

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/en/news/2024/01/15/all-new-ford-transit-courier-boosts-compact-van-productivity-wit.html

 

Specs include a couple of interesting things.  The 7-speed dual clutch is new, suggesting Ford didn’t give up completely on DCTs.  It’s nice to see it has 7 speeds instead of some crazy higher number driven by marketing.  Gear ratios seem well spaced, and transmission should be more efficient than normal automatic.

 

Also interesting that 1.0L EcoBoost is shown on specs as having chain drive for cams, not belts as on recalled engine (other thread on recalls).  I don’t follow these EB engines closely and don’t know when change was made, or if it’s a brand new design to correct previous problem.

[Rick73]

BTW, also like the folding passenger seat — a very clever way to allow hauling longer items without requiring a larger vehicle, or having to load on a roof rack.

 

[GearheadGrrrl]

XL versions of the Transit Connect can do that fold down trick, but strangely enough the higher trim versions lost that ability.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

That’s a tiny vehicle as vans go. ? 

 

Ford Authority got 1.5L engine wrong.  It is not 1.5L I-3 EcoBoost, but rather 1.5L EcoBlue inline-4 diesel.  The 100 PS from an EcoBoost that large made no sense, so looked up Ford Media directly.

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/en/news/2024/01/15/all-new-ford-transit-courier-boosts-compact-van-productivity-wit.html

 

Specs include a couple of interesting things.  The 7-speed dual clutch is new, suggesting Ford didn’t give up completely on DCTs.  It’s nice to see it has 7 speeds instead of some crazy higher number driven by marketing.  Gear ratios seem well spaced, and transmission should be more efficient than normal automatic.

 

Also interesting that 1.0L EcoBoost is shown on specs as having chain drive for cams, not belts as on recalled engine (other thread on recalls).  I don’t follow these EB engines closely and don’t know when change was made, or if it’s a brand new design to correct previous problem.

So I'm curious, why would Ford keep their DCTs given the fairly appalling track record they've had with those? Why not use the far more durable e-cvts from the maverick? Ford's trying to improve their long term quality, the best way to do that is to reuse existing and proven components. I see Ford, all new, and DCT, and think, we're gonna see tons of threads of people having issues in the future. Hope I'm wrong, but whenever Ford introduces something all new, they tend to really struggle with the reliability. 

[Rick73]

35 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

XL versions of the Transit Connect can do that fold down trick, but strangely enough the higher trim versions lost that ability.

That’s good to know if I ever need a seat like that.  My Honda minivan’s second row seats also folded, but were quite heavy and bulky.  These look more compact, and also look like cushion drops down to lower height, whereas my minivan seats did not.  I’m guessing higher trim versions were not expected to carry long items like ladders.

 

Reminds me of a Ford (IIRC) patent sketch showing both driver and passenger seats folded like that to allow a camper’s bed to be added over the seats.  It’s a great idea if it doesn’t add too much cost or weight.

[Rick73]

25 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

So I'm curious, why would Ford keep their DCTs given the fairly appalling track record they've had with those? Why not use the far more durable e-cvts from the maverick? Ford's trying to improve their long term quality, the best way to do that is to reuse existing and proven components. I see Ford, all new, and DCT, and think, we're gonna see tons of threads of people having issues in the future. Hope I'm wrong, but whenever Ford introduces something all new, they tend to really struggle with the reliability. 

It’s a “new” transmission, so I expect not the same one that had problems.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with DCTs that I’m aware of, so if designed and built right, could be more reliable and certainly more efficient than a regular auto.

 

The eCVT works with hybrid requiring electricity for electric motors, while this DCT is for an ICE application.  Long-term though, I think DCTs hold a lot of promise if built right, even for hybrid vehicles.  The one thing I did not like driving a DCT was the poor launch, but fast shifting was awesome. For hybrid applications, initial launch could be handled by electric motor, hence eliminating jerkiness at launch.  I’m not sure if that’s how they do it, but hope so.  Hyundai has used hybrid DCTs for a while now and achieve very good fuel efficiency.  Mechanically it should be nearly as efficient as a manual stick shift. 

 

 

[akirby]

Ford never gave up on DCTs.  Europe used wet clutch versions in Europe with no problems.  It was only the dry clutch version that had problems because they exceeded the designed torque limit.

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

Ford never gave up on DCTs.  Europe used wet clutch versions in Europe with no problems.  It was only the dry clutch version that had problems because they exceeded the designed torque limit.

Weren't there internal documents stating those dry clutch transmissions weren't passing their durability tests? I know brands often want to get a product out there, rather than delaying the program over and over again to address issues, but I just don't understand why they let that slide. Mually seemed to care about quality for the most part, yet they didn't attempt to rectify those issues early on, boggles the mind. 

 

The market was already gravitating towards utilities and away from hatchbacks, but I'm convinced the appalling reliability of the focus and fiesta DCTs was the final nail in the coffin when it came to canceling them. 

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

Ford never gave up on DCTs.  Europe used wet clutch versions in Europe with no problems.  It was only the dry clutch version that had problems because they exceeded the designed torque limit.

Ford Media made it sound that 7-sp DCT is available with 1.0L EB but the higher-torque diesel comes with 6-speed manual.  Perhaps new DCT can’t handle the higher diesel torque, though it seems odd to me that there would be no auto at all listed with diesel.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Weren't there internal documents stating those dry clutch transmissions weren't passing their durability tests? I know brands often want to get a product out there, rather than delaying the program over and over again to address issues, but I just don't understand why they let that slide. Mually seemed to care about quality for the most part, yet they didn't attempt to rectify those issues early on, boggles the mind. 

Engineers told mgt that there would be problems due to exceeding the input torque limits.  But the wet clutch versions which could handle the torque couldn’t meet mpg targets.  So middle mgrs just ignored it.  What is even more mind boggling is a couple years later the euro version switched back to the regular 6F but they didn’t do it for North America.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

Engineers told mgt that there would be problems due to exceeding the input torque limits.  But the wet clutch versions which could handle the torque couldn’t meet mpg targets.  So middle mgrs just ignored it.  What is even more mind boggling is a couple years later the euro version switched back to the regular 6F but they didn’t do it for North America.

That's really unfortunate. How significant was the efficiency difference between the wet and dry clutch setups? 

[akirby]

8 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

That's really unfortunate. How significant was the efficiency difference between the wet and dry clutch setups? 

Not sure but apparently it was enough to make the mgrs miss their targets and probably cost them money.  Thats usually the root cause of these decisions.  That’s why it’s important to hold people accountable and make the penalty for that far worse than missing a bonus.  My old VP would have fired them for that on the spot.

[LSchicago]

Hopefully they bring a hybrid version of this to the US. That would sell like crazy. 

[Rick73]

18 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

Hopefully they bring a hybrid version of this to the US. That would sell like crazy. 

Had same thought until I saw just how small it is.  Also not sure how receptive US buyers would be to any van with 1.0L 3-cylinder EcoBoost.

 

Specs show total volume is only 2.9 cubic meters (100 cubic feet) which makes it much smaller than typical minivan.  It’s also too short to haul a sheet of plywood with rear doors closed (common measure of practicality).  IMO there would be some demand, but doubt it would be broad enough to import.  If Ford was going to import a van, the Transit Custom is the one I would personally love to see.  It already comes with 2.5L Hybrid like in Maverick and other Ford. 

[LSchicago]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Had same thought until I saw just how small it is.  Also not sure how receptive US buyers would be to any van with 1.0L 3-cylinder EcoBoost.

 

Specs show total volume is only 2.9 cubic meters (100 cubic feet) which makes it much smaller than typical minivan.  It’s also too short to haul a sheet of plywood with rear doors closed (common measure of practicality).  IMO there would be some demand, but doubt it would be broad enough to import.  If Ford was going to import a van, the Transit Custom is the one I would personally love to see.  It already comes with 2.5L Hybrid like in Maverick and other Ford. 

 

Well if it did come as a Hybrid, I doubt it would be the 1 L Eco. Plenty of small delivery vehicles needed here. Auto parts stores, Floral shops, Pizza and food delivery, and tons of other small businesses. No need to haul plywood for 90% of buyers. My Maverick can, but last time I bought plywood was in 2006. Still have a few new sheets in my garage. They can bring the Custom too. 

[HotRunrGuy]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

It’s also too short to haul a sheet of plywood with rear doors closed (common measure of practicality). 

 

 With 48.03" between the wheelwells, and 70.9" of floor length, I could easily bring 4x8 sheet goods home, as long as the rear doors don't block the opening.  No different than my Maverick with the sheets over-hanging the tailgate.

 

HRG

Edited January 16 by HotRunrGuy

[Rick73]

48 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

 

Well if it did come as a Hybrid, I doubt it would be the 1 L Eco. Plenty of small delivery vehicles needed here. Auto parts stores, Floral shops, Pizza and food delivery, and tons of other small businesses. No need to haul plywood for 90% of buyers. My Maverick can, but last time I bought plywood was in 2006. Still have a few new sheets in my garage. They can bring the Custom too. 

You may be right.  I assumed a hybrid version would use the same or similar powertrain as Puma Hybrid, which has the 1.0L EcoBoost and 7-speed, but adds 48-Volt mild hybrid starter/generator.  The larger Kuga offers 2.5L Atkinson Hybrid like Maverick, but I don’t know if it would fit in such a small vehicle as Courier.  I’m not aware of any Ford full hybrid smaller than 2.5L (except for 2.0L which was probably as large).  For much smaller vehicles a 1.4~1.6L Atkinson full hybrid would probably make sense, but I’m not aware of Ford having one.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

 With 48.03" between the wheelwells, and 70.9" of floor length, I could easily bring 4x8 sheet goods home, as long as the rear doors don't block the opening.  No different than my Maverick with the sheets over-hanging the tailgate.

 

HRG

Pictures make it appear that 4X8 would fit through rear doors, but leaving doors open may block rear taillights.  That’s an easy fix though.

[LSchicago]

12 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Pictures make it appear that 4X8 would fit through rear doors, but leaving doors open may block rear taillights.  That’s an easy fix though.

Yep, just bungie the doors to the plywood and roll. 

[DeluxeStang]

22 hours ago, Rick73 said:

It’s a “new” transmission, so I expect not the same one that had problems.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with DCTs that I’m aware of, so if designed and built right, could be more reliable and certainly more efficient than a regular auto.

 

The eCVT works with hybrid requiring electricity for electric motors, while this DCT is for an ICE application.  Long-term though, I think DCTs hold a lot of promise if built right, even for hybrid vehicles.  The one thing I did not like driving a DCT was the poor launch, but fast shifting was awesome. For hybrid applications, initial launch could be handled by electric motor, hence eliminating jerkiness at launch.  I’m not sure if that’s how they do it, but hope so.  Hyundai has used hybrid DCTs for a while now and achieve very good fuel efficiency.  Mechanically it should be nearly as efficient as a manual stick shift. 

 

 

That's right, my bad. I hope we never have issues with the electric motors on our maverick, I've heard you basically have to replace the motors and transmission all in one if that happens. Thankfully, electric motors seem to be fairly decent when it comes to longevity. 

 

How difficult would it be to take that planetary gear CVT, and engineer it to work without the electric motors for pure ICE applications? Would that even be doable, or would engineers essentially need to reengineer the transmission from scratch?

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

Not sure but apparently it was enough to make the mgrs miss their targets and probably cost them money.  Thats usually the root cause of these decisions.  That’s why it’s important to hold people accountable and make the penalty for that far worse than missing a bonus.  My old VP would have fired them for that on the spot.

Agreed, one of the worst mistakes a company can make when developing a complex product is to ignore the advice from their engineering team. Cheapening out when developing a product just means it's gonna come back to bite you later on in the form of recalls and lawsuits. 

[akirby]

23 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Agreed, one of the worst mistakes a company can make when developing a complex product is to ignore the advice from their engineering team. Cheapening out when developing a product just means it's gonna come back to bite you later on in the form of recalls and lawsuits. 

But companies often reward employees for making decisions that are bad in the long run because they only reward them for short term objectives.  Thats why the incentives have to change.

 

On Challenger all of the booster engineers said don’t launch below freezing it’s too risky.  One even guaranteed a catastrophe based on previous test data.  But the company executives and NASA overruled them and eight people died.  All because they didn’t want a week or two delay.

[DeluxeStang]

53 minutes ago, akirby said:

But companies often reward employees for making decisions that are bad in the long run because they only reward them for short term objectives.  Thats why the incentives have to change.

 

On Challenger all of the booster engineers said don’t launch below freezing it’s too risky.  One even guaranteed a catastrophe based on previous test data.  But the company executives and NASA overruled them and eight people died.  All because they didn’t want a week or two delay.

The company that designed the o- rings is close to where I live, that's a  common example we used around here of the dangers associated with negligence and short sighted thinking. 

 

Another example, my grandfather was a mechanical engineer, he spent essentially his entire career helping to develop propulsion systems at Boeing, working to develop aircraft like the original 737, and 747 among others. During his time at Boeing, safety and engineering excellence were key values for the company, they didn't rush anything. The company almost went under when developing the 747 because it was such a resource intensive project to design an aircraft at that scale in the 60s. 

 

Boeing's culture has fallen apart in recent years, and the planes along with it. The 737 max 8 was Boeing's pinto moment. A highly respected American brand rushing a product to market in a desperate effort to compete with foreign brands, who in their development frenzy, overlooked a critical safety issue that got a lot of people killed, even after the issue was addressed, it left an enduring mark on the company. 

 

The CEO of Boeing who ignored all those warning signs walked away with approximately 60 million dollars in compensation. It's not right, and it's not getting any better until we address core issues with corporate culture. Another brief example, the Oceangate submarine that imploded diving to the Titanic. Several engineers brought up significant concerns with the design, and their CEO fired them and sued them for it. 

[ice-capades]

25 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

The company that designed the o- rings is close to where I live, that's a  common example we used around here of the dangers associated with negligence and short sighted thinking. 

 

Another example, my grandfather was a mechanical engineer, he spent essentially his entire career helping to develop propulsion systems at Boeing, working to develop aircraft like the original 737, and 747 among others. During his time at Boeing, safety and engineering excellence were key values for the company, they didn't rush anything. The company almost went under when developing the 747 because it was such a resource intensive project to design an aircraft at that scale in the 60s. 

 

Boeing's culture has fallen apart in recent years, and the planes along with it. The 737 max 8 was Boeing's pinto moment. A highly respected American brand rushing a product to market in a desperate effort to compete with foreign brands, who in their development frenzy, overlooked a critical safety issue that got a lot of people killed, even after the issue was addressed, it left an enduring mark on the company. 

 

The CEO of Boeing who ignored all those warning signs walked away with approximately 60 million dollars in compensation. It's not right, and it's not getting any better until we address core issues with corporate culture. Another brief example, the Oceangate submarine that imploded diving to the Titanic. Several engineers brought up significant concerns with the design, and their CEO fired them and sued them for it. 

 

Former Ford CEO Alan Mulally must be shaking his head seeing what's been happening at Boeing and knowing first-hand from his own engineering background the critical importance of engineering quality and seeing again what happens when the Boeing CEO is a CPA willing to overlook engineering needs to cut costs and maximize profits.