Ford shows dealers a Maverick-based Transit Connect replacement

[Sherminator98]

The head lights look a bit odd, but overall I like it.

 

And I like the current TC front end...the first gen not so much. 

[02MustangGT]

5 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

Transit Connect

Nah.  Transit Sport seems more likely.  

[Rick73]

19 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

This design would do quite well here, especially if the roofline was lowered by like an inch, just to make it look a little less awkward while still being practical. But this body, almost suv like shape has shown promise on other vans in the U.S. market. I dig it personally, it's one of the few vans that actually looks like it has a unique style to it. 

For a van, I like above looks quite a bit, and no doubt a good looking vehicle is better than an ugly one, but in my opinion as a long-term van owner, function and utility are far more important to van owners whether it’s a work truck, camper, or whatever it was purchased to accomplish.  If they wanted to move people in style, they probably buy a 3 row SUV or minivan.  The article stated that the van was Maverick based, not necessarily that Ford stated it was a Connect replacement.  I hope that’s more Ford Authority conjecture than reality.

 

For utility I think a small van needs to accommodate 4X8 sheets of plywood flat on cargo floor.  It’s a basic utility standard.  To maximize cargo length, it helps to have cab as forward as practical, and that’s what I don’t like about latest Transit Connect.  By comparison, one of the latest vans Ford designed, Transit Custom, has doors forward and partially over front wheels, as is the case with most larger vans.  It may not look as good, but is more cargo friendly and utilitarian. 

 

Another variable that adds a lot of utility to a van is interior height in cargo area.  I certainly hope Ford offers such a van with standard and also high-roof option.  I expect regular vans will remain low enough in height to be garageable, but a taller high-roof version making it easier to move around inside could improve sales considerably.

[LSchicago]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

For a van, I like above looks quite a bit, and no doubt a good looking vehicle is better than an ugly one, but in my opinion as a long-term van owner, function and utility are far more important to van owners whether it’s a work truck, camper, or whatever it was purchased to accomplish.  If they wanted to move people in style, they probably buy a 3 row SUV or minivan.  The article stated that the van was Maverick based, not necessarily that Ford stated it was a Connect replacement.  I hope that’s more Ford Authority conjecture than reality.

 

For utility I think a small van needs to accommodate 4X8 sheets of plywood flat on cargo floor.  It’s a basic utility standard.  To maximize cargo length, it helps to have cab as forward as practical, and that’s what I don’t like about latest Transit Connect.  By comparison, one of the latest vans Ford designed, Transit Custom, has doors forward and partially over front wheels, as is the case with most larger vans.  It may not look as good, but is more cargo friendly and utilitarian. 

 

Another variable that adds a lot of utility to a van is interior height in cargo area.  I certainly hope Ford offers such a van with standard and also high-roof option.  I expect regular vans will remain low enough in height to be garageable, but a taller high-roof version making it easier to move around inside could improve sales considerably.

A compact truck based van will not be able to hold a 4X8 sheet of plywood on the floor. Over the wheel wells? Most likely. The Maverick only has 42" between the wheel wells in the bed. Plywood is laid on top of them, and the gate at a midway point. I've been thinking Ford should build this since the first Maverick prototypes were shown. If they can build it to seat 7 in the window van version, with the hybrid drivetrain under $35K base, I will order one. 

[DeluxeStang]

42 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

A compact truck based van will not be able to hold a 4X8 sheet of plywood on the floor. Over the wheel wells? Most likely. The Maverick only has 42" between the wheel wells in the bed. Plywood is laid on top of them, and the gate at a midway point. I've been thinking Ford should build this since the first Maverick prototypes were shown. If they can build it to seat 7 in the window van version, with the hybrid drivetrain under $35K base, I will order one. 

This, it's a compact van. While this will appeal to businesses, the very nature of it's smaller design means it's not gonna be as practical as a larger transit or something. But a cool looking, affordable 5-7 seater van? That could appeal to younger families who need something a little more affordable, and easy to park. 

[Sherminator98]

3 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

 That could appeal to younger families who need something a little more affordable, and easy to park. 

 

I know minivans are radioactive to generation X, but we are also out of our childbearing years too. Not sure how younger generations would take to it. 

[DeluxeStang]

4 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I know minivans are radioactive to generation X, but we are also out of our childbearing years too. Not sure how younger generations would take to it. 

It depends on the consumer. I've found that a lot of millennials and gen z, even if they don't have a lot of kids, or any, do still like the whole van life thing. An interesting looking van that had a lot of utility, and was easy to customize could find some love amongst younger consumers. 

[Sherminator98]

3 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

It depends on the consumer. I've found that a lot of millennials and gen z, even if they don't have a lot of kids, or any, do still like the whole van life thing. An interesting looking van that had a lot of utility, and was easy to customize could find some love amongst younger consumers. 

 

Yeah I know those old Toyota vans are popular for that. but it seemed niche to me. 

[Rick73]

21 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

This, it's a compact van. While this will appeal to businesses, the very nature of it's smaller design means it's not gonna be as practical as a larger transit or something. But a cool looking, affordable 5-7 seater van? That could appeal to younger families who need something a little more affordable, and easy to park. 

No need to reinvent the wheel in my opinion.  The Ford Transit Custom is already designed for Maverick powertrain, and can accommodate 4X8 sheets.  The width between wheel arches is listed at 1.392 meters, or 54.8 inches.  Rear doors are 1.4 meters wide, so van can haul a standard pallet or 54-inch drywall.  Even if Ford wanted to make a new van smaller and narrower than the Transit Custom for North America, it shouldn’t be much of a challenge to provide +/- 49 inches for 48-inch-wide plywood.

 

The real question is which size van would sell best and most profitably, and I think the old Connect is too small for American mass appeal.  There is a reason the Custom sells best in Europe, and why it has been photographed in US being tested.  I can only speak for myself (granted sample of 1 is useless) but I would buy a Custom yet won’t even consider the smaller Connect.  And I’m biased towards smaller vehicles, so imagine how quickly average American would reject a tiny van.  All small vans have failed in marketplace recently for one reason or another, so maybe time to try a midsize again but with modern design.  IMO many buyers want hybrid, AWD, garageable and as much standup headroom as can be provided.

 

 

 

 

[MGolden]

I think the Custom would do well in the US. I am expecting a new explorer any day now but would have bought the Custom if available.  AWD-Hybrid would be a winner IMO. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

As to minivans not appealing to folks without kids, mom chose a Mopar minivan to replace a totaled Taurus wagon when she was 70, and I was all of 71 when I bought my Transit Connect. After mom passed my brother inherited her minivan, liked it enough that he traded it in for a new Mopar minivan at the youthful age of 65. All our minivans have 3 rows of seats and they're rarely all used, as we haul everything but passengers in them. As for 4x8 carrying ability, had a bunch of 4x8 signboards show up at an event last week. All the pickups there were short bed, fortunately one of us had a Mopar minivan with stow 'n' go seats that easily swallowed them. 

[Sherminator98]

19 hours ago, Rick73 said:

No need to reinvent the wheel in my opinion.  The Ford Transit Custom is already designed for Maverick powertrain, and can accommodate 4X8 sheets.  The width between wheel arches is listed at 1.392 meters, or 54.8 inches.  Rear doors are 1.4 meters wide, so van can haul a standard pallet or 54-inch drywall.  Even if Ford wanted to make a new van smaller and narrower than the Transit Custom for North America, it shouldn’t be much of a challenge to provide +/- 49 inches for 48-inch-wide plywood.

 

The real question is which size van would sell best and most profitably, and I think the old Connect is too small for American mass appeal.  There is a reason the Custom sells best in Europe, and why it has been photographed in US being tested.  I can only speak for myself (granted sample of 1 is useless) but I would buy a Custom yet won’t even consider the smaller Connect.  And I’m biased towards smaller vehicles, so imagine how quickly average American would reject a tiny van.  All small vans have failed in marketplace recently for one reason or another, so maybe time to try a midsize again but with modern design.  IMO many buyers want hybrid, AWD, garageable and as much standup headroom as can be provided.

 

The Transit Custom is too expensive for the NA market for a purely work vehicle-the Maverick was designed to be cheap to build, thus why using it as as starting point.
 

It been bore out for the past 25 years that people in NA aren't as demanding as other markets when it comes to certain things

 

Edited August 18, 2024 by silvrsvt

[Rick73]

Cost is relative and thus depends on what new van is compared to.

 

If compared to tiny vans manufacturers could not give away, then of course a larger van is likely more expensive to manufacture.  On the other hand, if compared to full-size Transit, ProMaster, and Sprinter, a new somewhat-smaller FWD 4-cylinder mid-size van should cost less to manufacture.  I look at price from that perspective.

 

In UK Transit Custom sold better than all other vans in H1 and July 2024, so I don’t see lack of demand as a huge risk for North America.  That size van should offer a lot of value in NA as well. Smaller vans are a higher risk IMO since they already failed.

 

If Ford can’t build a FWD 4-cylinder Transit-Custom-sized van (whatever it is called) based off Maverick at a much lower price than the full-size RWD Transit (for buyers who don’t need the higher capabilities), then maybe they should stick to previous Connect size.  I think it would be a mistake, but fortunately it’s not my decision to make.

 

From financial standpoint a concern would be that new van, if made too large, could cannibalize full-size Transit sales which probably have higher profit margins.  But even margin is a guess.  A FWD Ford (like smaller version of ProMaster) built in Mexico may be quite profitable if done right.

[ausrutherford]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Cost is relative and thus depends on what new van is compared to.

 

If compared to tiny vans manufacturers could not give away, then of course a larger van is likely more expensive to manufacture.  On the other hand, if compared to full-size Transit, ProMaster, and Sprinter, a new somewhat-smaller FWD 4-cylinder mid-size van should cost less to manufacture.  I look at price from that perspective.

 

In UK Transit Custom sold better than all other vans in H1 and July 2024, so I don’t see lack of demand as a huge risk for North America.  That size van should offer a lot of value in NA as well. Smaller vans are a higher risk IMO since they already failed.

 

If Ford can’t build a FWD 4-cylinder Transit-Custom-sized van (whatever it is called) based off Maverick at a much lower price than the full-size RWD Transit (for buyers who don’t need the higher capabilities), then maybe they should stick to previous Connect size.  I think it would be a mistake, but fortunately it’s not my decision to make.

 

From financial standpoint a concern would be that new van, if made too large, could cannibalize full-size Transit sales which probably have higher profit margins.  But even margin is a guess.  A FWD Ford (like smaller version of ProMaster) built in Mexico may be quite profitable if done right.

 

I would not say the Transit Connect was a failure. It was the chicken tax that hurt it financially.

 

The Nissan NV200/Express City was a failure for be too small - mainly too narrow. And Stellantis killed off the ProMaster City since the 3rd generation Fiat Doblo ended production for a rebadge of the newer Peugeot Partner/Citroen Berlingo/Opel Combo that was not made for North America. 

[twintornados]

On 8/16/2024 at 6:58 PM, 02MustangGT said:

Nah.  Transit Sport seems more likely.  

 

Nope. Sounds silly and not within the Transit family linage

[Rick73]

19 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

 

I would not say the Transit Connect was a failure. It was the chicken tax that hurt it financially.

 

The Nissan NV200/Express City was a failure for be too small - mainly too narrow. And Stellantis killed off the ProMaster City since the 3rd generation Fiat Doblo ended production for a rebadge of the newer Peugeot Partner/Citroen Berlingo/Opel Combo that was not made for North America. 

You’re correct that word “failure” is a bit harsh.  I wasn’t suggesting they are bad vans, just that demand potential is limited, hence why  manufacturing in NA was probably too difficult to justify.  They also have more competition in that some of their applications could be met by minivans from Honda, Toyota, etc.  I think the sweet spot is to target between minivans and full-size vans, where competition in NA is not as crowded.  It should be as large as possible while still garageable, economical, maneuverable, etc.  That essentially describes Transit Custom; at least low-roof variant. 

 

i realize Custom is more expensive than smaller vans, but according to Ford UK prices, Custom is cheaper than full-ice RWD Transit, as should be expected.  The same should apply in North America.

[AM222]

On 8/17/2024 at 3:40 AM, DeluxeStang said:

It's bold for sure, but more attractive than the gaping trout face of the current U.S. transits 😆. 

Front end kind of reminds me of the supposed "next gen EcoSport" we saw on the patent drawing.

A version of that front end styling was first seen on the Edge L.


 

Edited August 19, 2024 by AM222

[bzcat]

Sounds like V758 program (Maverick panel van to replace Transit Connect) is back on track after being cancelled in 2023.

 

 

 

[bzcat]

On 8/18/2024 at 5:57 AM, silvrsvt said:

 

The Transit Custom is too expensive for the NA market for a purely work vehicle-the Maverick was designed to be cheap to build, thus why using it as as starting point.
 

It been bore out for the past 25 years that people in NA aren't as demanding as other markets when it comes to certain things

 

 

Not too expensive per se... but it doesn't offer any real savings over Transit 150. Based on GVWR, Ford would be selling Transit Custom as a "150" model in the US too which is obviously a duplication with Transit. 

 

Transit Custom is in no man's land when it comes to GVWR. The US truck classification cutoff for Class 1 is 6,000 lbs. Transit Custom will land around 6,500 to 7,500 lbs depending on spec which means fleet buyers will treat it like a Class 2A van that it is - and Ford already sells a far more capable Class 2A van. There is basically no penalty for fleet buyers to buy Transit 150 and "abuse" it for lighter duty that is still too big for Transit Connect. 

 

This is also the reason why no one else offers a midsize van in the US. VW and Mercedes both tried before and stopped. Toyota never even attempted to sell Hiace here for the same reason (well, 2 reasons: GVWR and Chicken Tax) 

 

Class 1 van (<6,000 lbs GVWR): Transit Connect

Class 2a van (<8,500 lbs GVWR): Transit 150

Class 2b van (<10,000 lbs GVWR): Transit 250

Class 3 van (<14,000 lbs GVWR): Transit 350

 

You can see why Transit Custom doesn't make much sense for our market. Add to that, Custom will have shorter wheelbase vs. Transit which is a miserable place to be for CAFE purpose (you want a long of wheelbase as possible). To make Custom more palatable for CAFE, you would need to make it longer, which will make the van less acceptable to buyers outside the US. A longer Transit Custom made just for US market sounds a lot like a low roof Transit 150 which is pretty much sold in the North American market only.

 

In most markets outside the US, van class is dictated by physical size not GVWR so Transit Custom makes sense... fleet buyers are concerned about length in particular as longer vans are more logistically challenging to operate (thus taller van is preferred to gain extra volume if needed). 

Edited August 20, 2024 by bzcat

[rmc523]

Ford Maverick Based Van May Closely Resemble Pickup: Report (fordauthority.com)

 

According to Automotive News, dealers that attended this meeting noted that the new compact van “resembled a regular Maverick pickup with a tall bed cap,” signaling that it may share more than just a platform and potentially mechanicals with the pickup. Otherwise, it’s unclear what the new van will be named – it could potentially use the Ford Maverick nameplate, revive the Transit Connect moniker, or perhaps be called something different altogether.

In either case, the Ford Maverick based van is expected to debut as early as next year, and it could be offered with both hybrid and regular gas powertrains. It is expected to be built alongside the Maverick and Ford Bronco Sport at the Hermosillo Assembly plant in Mexico

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

According to Automotive News, dealers that attended this meeting noted that the new compact van “resembled a regular Maverick pickup with a tall bed cap,” signaling that it may share more than just a platform and potentially mechanicals with the pickup.

In other shocking news - water is still wet and firs is still hot.

[ausrutherford]

What's old is new again:

[bzcat]

Assuming Maverick van will be FWD only, you can see that it has a lot of upside here without making any heavy duty suspension upgrades. 

 

2023 model stats (using 2023 because 2025 model the 2.0 EB FWD was dropped)

Maverick 2.0 hybrid FWD: curb weight 3,674 lbs. + payload 1,500 lbs. = GVWR 5,174 lbs.

Maverick 2.0 EB FWD: curb weight 3,562 lbs. + payload 1,500 lbs. = GVWR 5,062 lbs.

 

For comparison with Transit Connect

Transit Connect Van 2.0 FWD LWB: curb weight 3,752 lbs. + payload 1,550 lbs. = GVWR 5,302 lbs.  

Transit Connect Wagon 2.0 FWD LWB: curb weight 4,000 lbs. + payload 1,420 lbs. = GVWE 5,420 lbs.

 

Class 1 max GVWR is 6,000 lbs.

 

A Maverick without rear interior and less glass should easily shed 200 lbs. of curb weight. Some of that weight loss will be offset by bigger/heavier rear cargo doors and longer roof. Sheet metal is a lot lighter than glass and passenger rear doors so let say there is net 60-70 lbs. of weight savings. 

 

Hypothetic Maverick van stats

Van with 2.0 hybrid FWD: curb weight 3,600 lbs. + payload 1,600 lbs. = GVWR 5,200 lbs. 

Van with 2.0 EB FWD: curb weight 3,500 lbs. + payload 1,600 lbs. = GVWR 5,100 lbs.

Wagon with 2.0 hybrid FWD: curb weight 3,800 lbs. + payload 1,500 lbs. = GVWR 5,300 lbs. 

Wagon with 2.0 EB FWD: curb weight 3,700 lbs. + payload 1,500 lbs. = 5,200 lbs. 

 

The new van will be more powerful and more fuel efficient than the discontinued Transit Connect. With potential for more payload. Local production should also open up the option list for fleet buyers which was the limitation when it was imported from Spain. I expect it will be a big hit. 

 

 

 

[rmc523]

14 hours ago, akirby said:

In other shocking news - water is still wet and firs is still hot.

 

Lol.  Well, the question is whether it's Maverick's front clip with a taller cab, or if it's more unique.  This seems like it's closer to the former.

[akirby]

1 minute ago, rmc523 said:

 

Lol.  Well, the question is whether it's Maverick's front clip with a taller cab, or if it's more unique.  This seems like it's closer to the former.

I don’t see any reason to change it much.  Save the money.