Ford shows dealers a Maverick-based Transit Connect replacement

[Rick73]

12 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

What's old is new again:

Wouldn't that essentially limit sales to only commercial?  Can’t imagine Ford taking that approach with Maverick.  If attractive, a mid-size van could have great sales, especially with Maverick-hybrid-like price and fuel economy.

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

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

 

I imagine they'll use Maverick's interior too, like they did with Escape/TC on the second gen model.

 

8 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Wouldn't that essentially limit sales to only commercial?  Can’t imagine Ford taking that approach with Maverick.  If attractive, a mid-size van could have great sales, especially with Maverick-hybrid-like price and fuel economy.

 

I doubt it'll be that ungainly.....that said, I don't see it really appealing much to non commercial customers either way.

[Rick73]

1 hour 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.

Pickup front clip with taller cab sounds a lot like the atrocious Nissan van, just smaller.  In a very low roof van that ends up looking somewhat like a station wagon it may not look as horrible, but with higher roof to make it practical as a van, I expect proportions would resemble the Nissan.  Some guys on Maverick Truck forum have photoshopped a Maverick low-roof van.  I personally hope Ford builds an actual van because I need to replace mine but don’t like the full-size Transit.

 

[HotRunrGuy]

57 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

....that said, I don't see it really appealing much to non commercial customers either way.

I remember back in the "Cash for Clunkers" days, being at a local dealer and people were buying TC's just because they were the only vehicles left on the lot,,,,,

 

HRG

[Rick73]

It appears that the 2.5L hybrid powertrain used in Ford Transit Custom van in Europe is now rated 230 HP.  That is higher than Maverick (191 HP IIRC).  Maybe it’s the PHEV versus HEV benefit of larger battery, but hopefully a new Maverick-based van will also get the extra HP.  For what it’s worth, the Nugget camper looks great.  Hope we get a similar choice in NA at reasonable cost if van is built off Maverick.
 

 

https://fordauthority.com/2024/08/ford-transit-custom-nugget-lineup-gets-new-variants/

[AM222]

23 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I personally hope Ford builds an actual van because I need to replace mine but don’t like the full-size Transit.

 

The Transit/Tourneo Custom would have been a good right-sized passenger van for North America.

The standard-length Custom model is 198.8 inches long, 78.8 inches wide, and 78.3 inches tall. 
The shortest US-market full-size Transit (Low) is 219.9 inches long, 81.3 inches wide, and 82.2 inches tall.

 

Edited August 28 by AM222

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, AM222 said:

The Transit/Tourneo Custom would have been a good right-sized passenger van for North America.

The standard-length Custom model is 198.8 inches long, 78.8 inches wide, and 78.3 inches tall. 
The shortest US-market full-size Transit (Low) is 219.9 inches long, 81.3 inches wide, and 82.2 inches tall.

 

As vans go I think it also looks great.  For me the smaller Custom size compared to full-size Transit means it’s a much better fit as a daily driver.  Greater fuel efficiency due to 2.5L Atkinson hybrid 4-cylinder would be a plus as well, though a V6 Transit could work, just not as thrifty.  The PHEV with ProPower Onboard is what elevates Custom on my list — if only it was available here and at reasonable price.  Maybe Maverick-based van will be similar.

 

By the way, Ford Authority stated weeks ago that Stellantis announced they were planning on bringing back a compact van smaller than full-size ProMaster to North America.  The article was dated before the Maverick-based van announcement IIRC.  Sounds like interest in smaller vehicles of all types is not limited to Ford for obvious reasons.

[Biker16]

I wonder if this one will have a 3-row option? 

[MGolden]

We had a short transit wagon, 10 passenger, low roof. It was awesome! It replaced a suburban and was WAY better for our family. You cannot buy a short/passenger transit anymore so the custom could fill that void.

[Rick73]

On 8/29/2024 at 2:34 PM, MGolden said:

We had a short transit wagon, 10 passenger, low roof. It was awesome! It replaced a suburban and was WAY better for our family. You cannot buy a short/passenger transit anymore so the custom could fill that void.

There are Mopar rumors that RAM is bringing back the ProMaster City, except this time based on Fiat Scudo.  I had to look it up, and it appears Scudo is Transit Custom competitor, and roughly same size.  The Scudo seats up to 9 but I’d guess a US variant would be limited to 7 or 8.

 

These vans are only a bit larger on the outside, but interior cargo volume is much higher than discontinued Transit Connect which Ford specs indicated was around 3.6 cubic meters.  By comparison, low-roof long-wheelbase Scudo and Custom are up to 6.1~6.6 cubic meters.  For cargo that’s a huge difference, and I’d guess for 7 passengers they probably feel much more spacious.  Hopefully a Maverick-based van is also in that size range (at least 200 cubic feet of cargo volume).

[rmc523]

8 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

There are Mopar rumors that RAM is bringing back the ProMaster City, except this time based on Fiat Scudo.  I had to look it up, and it appears Scudo is Transit Custom competitor, and roughly same size.  The Scudo seats up to 9 but I’d guess a US variant would be limited to 7 or 8.

 

These vans are only a bit larger on the outside, but interior cargo volume is much higher than discontinued Transit Connect which Ford specs indicated was around 3.6 cubic meters.  By comparison, low-roof long-wheelbase Scudo and Custom are up to 6.1~6.6 cubic meters.  For cargo that’s a huge difference, and I’d guess for 7 passengers they probably feel much more spacious.  Hopefully a Maverick-based van is also in that size range (at least 200 cubic feet of cargo volume).

On our trip, we have a competitor to Transit Custom, a Renault Trafic, and saw a few Customs at the rental place….yes, it’s much larger inside and outside than a Transit Connect

[Rick73]

22 hours ago, rmc523 said:

On our trip, we have a competitor to Transit Custom, a Renault Trafic, and saw a few Customs at the rental place….yes, it’s much larger inside and outside than a Transit Connect

How do you like driving it?  Does it seem too large?  Specs show it also comes in two lengths and two roof heights with similar dimensions as Ford Custom.  After seeing your post, I found pictures of a high roof Trafic which is also very tall, and it doesn’t “look” as top-heavy and disproportional as I thought it would.  Still pretty bad though.

 

Size wise the Trafic and Custom (around 6~9 m3) seem to be right in the middle between Connect (3.6 m3) and full-size vans (Transit, ProMaster, and Sprinter) that go up to 15 cubic meters or higher.  Maverick-based van may just reach an untapped market in most of North America. 

[rmc523]

21 hours ago, Rick73 said:

How do you like driving it?  Does it seem too large?  Specs show it also comes in two lengths and two roof heights with similar dimensions as Ford Custom.  After seeing your post, I found pictures of a high roof Trafic which is also very tall, and it doesn’t “look” as top-heavy and disproportional as I thought it would.  Still pretty bad though.

 

Size wise the Trafic and Custom (around 6~9 m3) seem to be right in the middle between Connect (3.6 m3) and full-size vans (Transit, ProMaster, and Sprinter) that go up to 15 cubic meters or higher.  Maverick-based van may just reach an untapped market in most of North America. 

well, aside from an obvious adjustment to RHD and driving on the left side of the road, the van has driven pretty well.  It has some odd controls that take getting used to (for instance the audio controls are on their own steering wheel stalk with volume up and down buttons with a knob like thing for next songs).

I also now completely understand why Europeans have smaller vehicles.  Roads are tiny here.  And in upper Scotland, some are one lane only with multiple extra “lumps” of pavement for passing areas that operate on the honor system of letting each other pass.

cities aren’t much better…highways at least in Scotland don’t seem to be bigger than 4 lanes (2 each way).

[bzcat]

On 9/2/2024 at 7:29 AM, Rick73 said:

How do you like driving it?  Does it seem too large?  Specs show it also comes in two lengths and two roof heights with similar dimensions as Ford Custom.  After seeing your post, I found pictures of a high roof Trafic which is also very tall, and it doesn’t “look” as top-heavy and disproportional as I thought it would.  Still pretty bad though.

 

Size wise the Trafic and Custom (around 6~9 m3) seem to be right in the middle between Connect (3.6 m3) and full-size vans (Transit, ProMaster, and Sprinter) that go up to 15 cubic meters or higher.  Maverick-based van may just reach an untapped market in most of North America. 

 

US van market goes by GVWR not size which is the problem I pointed out before. The market you think is untapped is just tiny - people who need the payload but not the size of fullsize vans.

 

Trafic, Transit Custom, Scudo, Transporter are all Class 2A vans (GVWR 6,000 to 9,000 lbs) which overlaps with Transit 150 in the US so they are not competitive as cargo vans. And as passenger vehicles, they can't compete with traditional minivan or fullsize SUVs. This is why Mercedes can't get any traction on selling the Metris van here. The GVWR of Metris is 6,834 lbs. so cargo van buyers would rather just get a Transit 150 (8,670 GVWR) which gives you 1,836 lbs. of "free" payload without any significant increase in operating costs. And to make room for Metris, Mercedes had to discontinue Sprinter 1500. I'm just guessing here but Ford selling one van that covers Class 2A and 2B (Transit 150 and 250) is much more effective and profitable than Mercedes selling two different vans. 

 

The Maverick van will be kept below 6,000 lbs. GVWR for sure to stay in Class 1. So it can't be as big as Euro mid size vans because someone will try to overload it.  

Edited September 5 by bzcat

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

US van market goes by GVWR not size which is the problem I pointed out before. The market you think is untapped is just tiny - people who need the payload but not the size of fullsize vans.

 

Trafic, Transit Custom, Scudo, Transporter are all Class 2A vans (GVWR 6,000 to 9,000 lbs) which overlaps with Transit 150 in the US so they are not competitive as cargo vans. And as passenger vehicles, they can't compete with traditional minivan or fullsize SUVs. This is why Mercedes can't get any traction on selling the Metris van here. The GVWR of Metris is 6,834 lbs. so cargo van buyers would rather just get a Transit 150 (8,670 GVWR) which gives you 1,836 lbs. of "free" payload without any significant increase in operating costs. And to make room for Metris, Mercedes had to discontinue Sprinter 1500. I'm just guessing here but Ford selling one van that covers Class 2A and 2B (Transit 150 and 250) is much more effective and profitable than Mercedes selling two different vans. 

 

The Maverick van will be kept below 6,000 lbs. GVWR for sure to stay in Class 1. So it can't be as big as Euro mid size vans because someone will try to overload it.  

I don’t follow your numbers or why you think mid-size Transit Custom-size  van would have a tiny market compared to smaller Transit Connect-size van.  Data I’ve seen suggest Transit Custom GVW ranges from just under 6,000 to just over 7,000 pounds.  Competitors are in similar GVW range.  

 

I also don’t see cargo volume versus payload being a huge problem for numerous reasons.  The Custom has up to around 3,000 pounds of payload and about 6 to 9 cubic meters of volume.  That’s comparable in proportion to a much larger FWD ProMaster for example.  The other reason is that any van can be easily overloaded with heavy pallets.  A larger cargo volume IMO just adds additional flexibility for some applications.  I like the new Custom but the high-roof H2 is simply too tall for a smaller van.  I would consider the Maverick van if large enough, but not if tiny like Transit Connect.

[silvrsvt]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 I would consider the Maverick van if large enough, but not if tiny like Transit Connect.

 

Transit Connection LWB 190″ L x 72″ W x 72″ H

 

Maverick: 200″ L x 73″ W x 69″ H

 

Not sure what your expectations are, but the Maverick Van will not be dramatically bigger then TC and I think your going to be sorely disappointed if you think a minivan style vehicle is coming from it, its going to be geared towards Ford Pro, not the customer market. 

[Rick73]

Transit Custom L1H1 is 5.05 meters long, or 199”; essentially same as Maverick.  It’s just a bit wider and taller while holding overall height under 2 meters (~79”) to make it garageable.  Custom and competitors are big enough without being too big for many buyers, which make size very popular in Europe.

 

The longer Custom stretches wheelbase by 0.4 meters resulting in ~215” length.  Given it’s under 18 feet long and American roads and parking spaces are larger than Europe’s, I’d bet most NA buyers would choose the longer version if given the option.  My opinion is that going smaller than Custom L1H1 is going in wrong direction.

 

I get Connect had price disadvantage, but size was too small for North America anyway.  Picture below shows how limited cargo space was, particularly if they added equipment along walls.  Being able to move around inside a van is indispensable for many buyers whether passenger or cargo.  Volume matters.

 

[silvrsvt]

Just now, Rick73 said:

Transit Custom L1H1 is 5.05 meters long, or 199”; essentially same as Maverick.  It’s just a bit wider and taller while holding overall height under 2 meters (~79”) to make it garageable.  Custom and competitors are big enough without being too big for many buyers, which make size very popular in Europe.

 

The longer Custom stretches wheelbase by 0.4 meters resulting in ~215” length.  Given it’s under 18 feet long and American roads and parking spaces are larger than Europe’s, I’d bet most NA buyers would choose the longer version if given the option.  My opinion is that going smaller than Custom L1H1 is going in wrong direction.

 

But your completely forgetting about the EPA Footprint issues with a vehicle like that, just because you want something doesn't mean it makes business sense for Ford to do so in this country. 

[blazerdude20]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Transit Connection LWB 190″ L x 72″ W x 72″ H

 

Maverick: 200″ L x 73″ W x 69″ H

 

Not sure what your expectations are, but the Maverick Van will not be dramatically bigger then TC and I think your going to be sorely disappointed if you think a minivan style vehicle is coming from it, its going to be geared towards Ford Pro, not the customer market. 

We have Transit Connects at work and this year started moving over to Mavericks with canopies due to the lack of availability of Transit Connects. They may be the same size but the load floor being lower on the TC gives a lot more cargo space.

 

The Maverick is much preferred by technicians due to its comfort, noise, and driving position. It also gets better mileage to boot. I see a van based on the Maverick as win-win.  Give it AWD and a Hybrid and it’ll be a great seller 

[bzcat]

4 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Transit Custom L1H1 is 5.05 meters long, or 199”; essentially same as Maverick.  It’s just a bit wider and taller while holding overall height under 2 meters (~79”) to make it garageable.  Custom and competitors are big enough without being too big for many buyers, which make size very popular in Europe.

 

The longer Custom stretches wheelbase by 0.4 meters resulting in ~215” length.  Given it’s under 18 feet long and American roads and parking spaces are larger than Europe’s, I’d bet most NA buyers would choose the longer version if given the option.  My opinion is that going smaller than Custom L1H1 is going in wrong direction.

 

I get Connect had price disadvantage, but size was too small for North America anyway.  Picture below shows how limited cargo space was, particularly if they added equipment along walls.  Being able to move around inside a van is indispensable for many buyers whether passenger or cargo.  Volume matters.

 

 

Volume matters, yes. Which is why most van buyers would just get a Transit 150; or if they want a smaller van they stick with Transit Connect. 

 

LWB Transit Custom is about 5" shorter than Transit 150 shorty. They are practically the same size so why would any fleet operators in the US opt for the Custom and accept lower payload? 

 

SWB Transit Custom is even less practical. Because it was designed as midsize van platform, it has higher designed structural weight to support higher payload that cannot be taken out. So it cannot be made more fuel efficient than something that started as a Class 1 vehicles (e.g. Maverick). And the relative short wheelbase and Class 2A weight means it is a CAFE nightmare. 

 

The reason why Ford is developing a new van based on Maverick instead of just making the Transit Custom in Ohio should be obvious. The market in the US is bifurcated due to GVWR divide at 6,000 lbs between Class 1 and Class 2A. Either you have a small dimension requirement (go with Class 1 small van) or you have a payload requirement (go with Class 2 large van). There is basically no middle ground because of regulation and market forces. This is not how vans are classified in Europe which why the market developed there differently based entirely on length and roof heights.

 

For Transit Custom especially the SWB version to make sense in the US, it has to hit a niche where the operator cannot operate a fullsize van due to dimension but still need Class 2A payload rating. There were many attempts to make a Class 2A-lite midsize van in the US market - VW Transporter hang around for many years but was mainly a passenger vehicle - it failed very miserably as a cargo van. GM and Ford both tried with Astro and Aerostar cargo. Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Nissan all attempted cargo version of their cab forward vans here in the 1980s. Chrysler flogged Caravan C/V for nearly 30 years with very low volumes. Mercedes is trying right now with Metris, with very limited success. The demand for something like this is limited in the US.

[Rick73]

48 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

Volume matters, yes. Which is why most van buyers would just get a Transit 150; or if they want a smaller van they stick with Transit Connect. 

 

LWB Transit Custom is about 5" shorter than Transit 150 shorty. They are practically the same size so why would any fleet operators in the US opt for the Custom and accept lower payload? 

 

SWB Transit Custom is even less practical. Because it was designed as midsize van platform, it has higher designed structural weight to support higher payload that cannot be taken out. So it cannot be made more fuel efficient than something that started as a Class 1 vehicles (e.g. Maverick). And the relative short wheelbase and Class 2A weight means it is a CAFE nightmare. 

 

The reason why Ford is developing a new van based on Maverick instead of just making the Transit Custom in Ohio should be obvious. The market in the US is bifurcated due to GVWR divide at 6,000 lbs between Class 1 and Class 2A. Either you have a small dimension requirement (go with Class 1 small van) or you have a payload requirement (go with Class 2 large van). There is basically no middle ground because of regulation and market forces. This is not how vans are classified in Europe which why the market developed there differently based entirely on length and roof heights.

 

For Transit Custom especially the SWB version to make sense in the US, it has to hit a niche where the operator cannot operate a fullsize van due to dimension but still need Class 2A payload rating. There were many attempts to make a Class 2A-lite midsize van in the US market - VW Transporter hang around for many years but was mainly a passenger vehicle - it failed very miserably as a cargo van. GM and Ford both tried with Astro and Aerostar cargo. Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Nissan all attempted cargo version of their cab forward vans here in the 1980s. Chrysler flogged Caravan C/V for nearly 30 years with very low volumes. Mercedes is trying right now with Metris, with very limited success. The demand for something like this is limited in the US.

All good points but nothing you state precludes a new Maverick-based van from both being larger than Connect and also with under 6,000-pound GVW.  That is the middle ground.  A new van can do both.

Maverick-based van, particularly with hybrid 4-cylinder, will be far more economical than full-size RWD Transit.  That will be the incentive for some buyers who don’t need the full-size Transit.

 

We seem to be talking in circles because some of you think the new Maverick-based van “MUST” be small because it’s replacing the small Connect.  Some like me are saying a new van can be larger and closer to Custom in size which would give it greater buyer appeal, yet maintain many of the advantages of downsizing from full-size Transit.  We’ll know soon enough what Ford comes up with.

 

bzcat, based on Maverick weight, the new van could easily haul around 2,000 pounds and still be under 6,000-pound GVWR if done right.  I just think it needs a lot more than 127.4 cubic feet of cargo space to be successful.

 

Below for reference are Ford specs for NA Connect, showing volumes and weights.  Middle column is LWB Cargo variant.

 

[bzcat]

21 hours ago, Rick73 said:

All good points but nothing you state precludes a new Maverick-based van from both being larger than Connect and also with under 6,000-pound GVW.  That is the middle ground.  A new van can do both.

Maverick-based van, particularly with hybrid 4-cylinder, will be far more economical than full-size RWD Transit.  That will be the incentive for some buyers who don’t need the full-size Transit.

 

We seem to be talking in circles because some of you think the new Maverick-based van “MUST” be small because it’s replacing the small Connect.  Some like me are saying a new van can be larger and closer to Custom in size which would give it greater buyer appeal, yet maintain many of the advantages of downsizing from full-size Transit.  We’ll know soon enough what Ford comes up with.

 

bzcat, based on Maverick weight, the new van could easily haul around 2,000 pounds and still be under 6,000-pound GVWR if done right.  I just think it needs a lot more than 127.4 cubic feet of cargo space to be successful.

 

Below for reference are Ford specs for NA Connect, showing volumes and weights.  Middle column is LWB Cargo variant.

 

 

I was responding to your point that you think there is an untapped market for midsize van with more than 6,000 lbs. GVWR. (e.g. Transit Custom etc.)

 

I agree with you the Maverick van will be longer than Transit Connect and have higher payload than Maverick pickup. Longer is better for CAFE. Read my posts on this on the previous page. 

 

 

The outgoing Transit Connect was not well received in Europe because Ford made concession to the US market and made it too long and not tall enough. This was the major reason why Europe went with rebadged VW Caddy. 

 

Europe likes short and tall vans because it is easier to operate in tight urban spaces. 

 

US requires longer and wider van due to CAFE.

 

 

Edited September 6 by bzcat

[jpd80]

Consider the new Maverick Connect is probably going to be

200” long x 73” wide x 72” high (give or take)

 

The current SWB Low height Transit F150 is around

215” long x 81.3” wide x 82” high.

 

For most businesses, it’s an obvious choice whether to go for the smaller more 

fuel efficient van or go slightly larger and get a lot roomier vehicle that can 

carry those wider, bulkier  loads. A lot of Ford’s choices is also about improving

profits, so if a small Transit Connect works, you’re looking at about $27,000

but if the larger Transit 150 works, then it’s about $47,000. 

 

What this boils down to is whether there  is a true market need for a ‘tweeter,

a van that’s between 73” wide and 81” wide? Ford doesn’t think so.

 

would it be easier to make the new Connect van a little wider at say, 76”?

Is that something businesses are actually asking for?

Who buys small vans and why…..

[ausrutherford]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Consider the new Maverick Connect is probably going to be

200” long x 73” wide x 72” high (give or take)

 

The current SWB Low height Transit F150 is around

215” long x 81.3” wide x 82” high.

 

For most businesses, it’s an obvious choice whether to go for the smaller more 

fuel efficient van or go slightly larger and get a lot roomier vehicle that can 

carry those wider, bulkier  loads. A lot of Ford’s choices is also about improving

profits, so if a small Transit Connect works, you’re looking at about $27,000

but if the larger Transit 150 works, then it’s about $47,000. 

 

What this boils down to is whether there  is a true market need for a ‘tweeter,

a van that’s between 73” wide and 81” wide? Ford doesn’t think so.

 

would it be easier to make the new Connect van a little wider at say, 76”?

Is that something businesses are actually asking for?

Who buys small vans and why…..

 

I work for a City, we have several serving many needs both in utility van and passenger van specs. Our parking department has a couple to service our parking garages  (you don't want a tall van for parking garages), public works has several, and our parks department as well. 

 

 

[blazerdude20]

1 hour ago, ausrutherford said:

 

I work for a City, we have several serving many needs both in utility van and passenger van specs. Our parking department has a couple to service our parking garages  (you don't want a tall van for parking garages), public works has several, and our parks department as well. 

 

 

This^. If you do work in a downtown core, you’ll want to run as small a van or truck as you can for parking. A high roof transit doesn’t work in these situations.