Ford Commercial Touts Van Lineup and MPG

2014 Transit Configurations II

Ford just announced that the coming Transit van will come in different shell configurations to accommodate the diverse needs of the commercial van users.

After recently announcing the introduction of a brand-new 3.2-liter I-5 baby Power Stroke turbo-diesel — to go along with the already-announced 3.5-liter EcoBoost and 3.7L V-6 gas choices — Ford is now rolling out the details about exactly what the bodies and wheelbases will be. 

We should note that no announcements were made about the possibility of the smaller Power Stroke going into the Ford F-150 anytime soon, but with possible power and torque numbers in the 200 hp and 400 lb-ft ballpark and the coming EPA and CAFE numbers ready to make their staggered jumps in 2016 and 2018, the powerful, fuel efficient 3.2L turbodiesel would be a good fit.  

The eventual replacement for the E-Series van, the Transit will come in two wheelbases, three roof heights and three body lengths and offer three engine options. It will eventually be offered in van, wagon, chassis cab and cutaway body styles in XL and XLT trims. The chassis cab and cutaway models will use a unique unitized frame section (starting just behind the cab) that allows for a stiff, strong, and adaptable rear section. There's no word on whether a Titanium option package will be available.

Obviously, Ford Truck is hoping the economy makes a strong push in the next several years, with businesses looking for exactly the right work truck or van for their specific business needs. No exact fuel-economy figures have been given for any of the powertrains in the Transits, but Ford representatives say the full lineup generally, and the Transit van specifically, will offer the best-in-class gas mileage and cost of ownership. 

In other downsized commercial van news, Ford also just announced that its smallest commercial van option, the Transit Connect, will be fully redesigned from the ground up and also offer best-in-class fuel economy. In fact, the press release specifically calls out the Ram Cargo Van, stating the Transit Connect will likely beat its competitor by 5 mpg on the highway once EPA figures are finally released. Likewise, the Transit Connect will offer more payload capacity (rated at 1,600 pounds) than a Ram 1500 pickup truck. 

The Ford Transit Connect Van will be offered in two wheelbases with two different four-cylinder engine options: a new 2.5-liter and a 1.6-liter EcoBoost, the latter likely to be rated above 30 mpg on the highway. The gas engine will be available in other alternative-fuel configurations (compressed natural gas and liquid propane gas) by Ford-certified upfit specialists, which means it all remains under warranty. 

Look for more details about both of the commercial vans as they are made available next year. 

2014 Transit Connect LWB_09_HR II

 

Comments

I'd bet that 3.2L Diesel will make it's way to the F150.

If they can undercut the price that the old Sprinter cost then they should havea winner. $40k+ was pretty pricy for a lot of folks although most of my customers who had them liked them.

The main complaint I heard was they were slow when loaded and lead footed employees never realized the fuel economy benefits of diesel. the 3.2 "power stroke" will likely be in this same category due to low power figures (I know, they are still higher than the sprinter was). I was hoping for the Lion series of motor since this competes more with the VM motors that Fiat will bring over. I am sure they are great commercial motors but they likely won't translate into the F-series or other applications like the VM motor will for Chrysler/Dodge/Ram.

i am betting that the next F-150 is the global ranger everyone keeps whining about that they want. sooner or later the F-150 is going to downsize bucause mule man (ford's CEO) wants one global ford and the e series has started its downsize. if they downsize the F-150, the 3.7, 3.5, and 3.2 diesel make perfect sense for its future. Ford is trying to kill the V8!

Give me the E-Series over this Eurotrash anyday. Even the Express or Nissan. I don't like this and I don't like the Sprinter.

Transit Connect will offer more payload capacity (1600 lbs) then a Ram 1500???? You can,t even load 10 bags of concrete in a Ram 1500??? LOL. I put 20 bags in my 2000 Silverado 1500!

(ford's CEO) wants one global ford

-Nothing wrong with global One Ford. It's a good idea for a brand and company. It's stupid on a product like this. A global Focus, Taurus, F-150? Sure. Why subject American workers to this trash? Just change the E-Series name to Transit or viceversa. Leave the vehicle itself the same. They will lose sales over this and then what good did it do them? I'm about to start backing Chevy and that's a travesty. The only good American van maker left. Then again, they have that global POS Colorado they're trying to pawn off here. Damn thing looks like an Equinox with a bed from Taiwan.

Good looking van.
I'll take 8 in medium for my business.
Have a salesman call me.
I want 2 with the mini diesel and 6 with the electric motor.

Were expanding, Thanks,

I'll take one long wheel base with the high roof for my business.

@Dave,

What type of Business are you running?

Carl,

As much as you may not like it the E-series chassis and cab design cannot meet future safety requirements. Neither could the Ranger or the panther platform. That is why they are all going away.

The Transit has been Europe's best seller for years and has gotten high praise. You may not prefer the looks (really though even a 5 year old Econoline looks like a molester van from the 1980's) but the platform is very stout and should be an excellent all around performer WHILE being more efficient for the owner/user. Sounds like a win to me.

I speculate that some version of a truck will be based off the smaller transit connect over the next few years to replace the Ranger that did pretty well in fleet sales. There are still companies that need a bed not a van and I think Ford will eventually try to get back into that market.

Hopefully you can still get it in a long wheelbase, short roof, 1 ton like the E350 used to offer. A high roof won't work around here, but we still need the added payload and towing of a 1 ton.

I'm also glad to see the return of a diesel, as our fleet is entirely diesel. Hopefully they'll see fit to put a diesel in the smaller Connect too.

So glad to be moving on from the POS E-Series. Love the euro design and can't wait to switch to the Transit for my Plumbing business

Frank, Home furnishings. Go to Google right now and do a google news search for 2015 F-150 and Detroit Auto Show. GM fans are going to flip!!!

That's much better than the rattly old E-series. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just thinking about it from the old muscle car mentality that bigger engines are always better, and they have no intent to buy one anyway. Good move Ford!

There is some bad news coming regarding GM's reveal at the Detroit Auto Show. Go Ford! Always one step ahead. Stay tuned to pickuptrucks.com for more info as it develops.

Is it just me or does the snout on this van resemble the grill on the 2014 Sierra?

the ram cargo van gets 25mpg highway so the Ford would have to get 30MPG highway

that's great but not trying to down play it but 200 hp is not going to give the f-150 10,000 towing yes i understand 400 tq is nice but it will only tow 6-7,000 in the f-150

the engine is going to still cost more at least 5,000 dollars


A cab chassis with the 3.2 diesel will attract many current buyers of 1/2 ton right up to 1 ton buyers. The added advantage is you will better fuel economy than a half ton pickup.

The single cab chassis can take a 12'-13' tray on the back, carry at least 4 500lbs - 5 000lbs and still tow a couple of tonnes when required.

This vehicle will benefit US businesses.

I would think the 3.7 gasoline and 3.2 diesel will be the cheapest.

We have the 2.5 litre gas engine in the most basic of our new Rangers, I actually haven't seen one yet, most people prefer the 3.2 diesels.

This is wonderful. 1 Van with multiple configurations (Short & Tall) and its interior capacity should be atleast 3 times as much as a pickup and yet it has much higher mileage.

It also offers CNG & LPG. If you put this in P/U, it will occupy 20% of the capacity, but in Van, the cylinder will take only 5% capacity.

Go Ford Go. I guess the vans are also available in passenger version.

@Volume Van
We get them as a mini bus, but it looks like a short wheelbase. We also only get them with the 2.2 diesel now, that includes the Jumbo vans. I think they dropped the 3.2 diesel in Australia because it doesn't meet Euro V emissions that we will be using or are using right now.

I think it is odd that you guys will be getting the 3.2 diesel. It's a very good and proven engine with more torque down low than a V8.

I went for a ride in one of the our work mini buses, the seats were uncomfortable, but we sat on 130kmph on the highway and it only had the 2.2 diesel.

I don't think they will be traffic light dragsters though.

http://www.ford.com.au/commercial/transit/models/transit-bus

@woopud: I guess your 2000 Chevy must be stronger then my 2006 Chevy 4x4 ext cab 1500 was. I put two 360 Dodge blocks with cranks, maybe 475/500 pounds total in it and from then on it sat unlevel.

The Ram payload is rated light, but atleast it handles it. I can sit here and tell you how I work mine, and it does a good job even without air in the air bags, but for heavy payload and towing I go air up the $80 air bags. But you say 500 eh? It handles 1,000 pounds fine. But smack talkers like you will never believe that, so here is the word from an actual test with actual numbers:

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2008/11/squat-test.html

WOW! The Chevy squatted only 1/8 (one eighth) less then the Ram! BFD! What does that mean, the Chevy squatted over 96% as much as the Ram. The Ford wasn't that much better. What's really funny is the Chevy gets 1000 pounds in the bed and your stopping distance goes to crap, see the 30K challange, the Chevy went from bad to worse. So if that's what it does with two in the cab and 1,000 pounds in the bed, what's it gonna do with more weight since it's payload RATING is higher? It's going to suck more! Embrace the suck, lol!

Since they want to talk about the Ram, it's payload RATING is lower, but it does decent. Of course if you buy a 2013 air suspension Ram, you won't have any squat, but they need to raise the LEGAL payload. Hope they do a squat test on the next shootout! How about max payload braking too?

The 1.6 in the Fushion requires premium gas, and the one in the Motor Trend's latest test was way off on mileage.

Ford will get their van butts kicked again.

3.2 Diesel is never going to make it in to f150.
It's anemic 7 years old engine. Very good for Europe, but not for power demanding US citizens.
RAM with VM MOTORI is going to RAM them all.

@ Alex,
Bigger engines are better,you get more power and more longevity..The old musclecars had big engines and ran 11-13 seconds in the 1/4 when they could get traction Hemi cars,440's,383 Mopars,455,454GM's,429-428-427 Ford/Mercs...Recorded times were with skiny 215 -70- series 14' tires most had..I have an old magazine with a 440 Cuda brand new with skiny tire smoking sideways down the 1/4 mile in 14 seconds added skiny 8' slicks of the day (new tires hook better) the car ran low 12 seconds with a 440 4bbl all stock brand new from back in the day..And the engines were pretty mild,you can get 1000 hp properly done with no superchargers or Turbo's.Case in point a Mopar 426 Hemi they use today have more than 8000 hp with a supercharger,and even over 1000 with no supercharger just motor ! Our shop built a Super Bee with a built 426 Hemi dyno'd at 824 hp with fairly low compression 11:1 runs on pump gas,no super or turbo charger..That was 14 years ago and the guy drove it every other day put on 30,000 miles and weekend racer the engine is still strong..We just upgraded the cam for more power not reliability issue and changed the tranny gearing ,not yet dyno'd.We also do turbo cars small 4 bangers,6 bangers and when you make alot of power on those you need more mechanical work as more break downs happen..

When you have a bigger engine you can get more power and torque without much radical design,no turbo's no high compression..So you dont have a high strung high comression small motor running turbo's ect ,bigger is better and thats been proven..small motors can make power but wont be as reliable,as proven,with blown head gaskets,waterpumps,blown turbo's,superchargers ect...Bigger engines that make power with no turbo's and not high compression last longer and are more reliable,require less maint.. that is proven time and time again..

dsklfjja; You sound clueless.

Ford's 3.2 liter I5 Turbo diesel is rated to tow 9000lbs in the international T6 Ranger and still makes 25MPG unloaded in that configuration.

Assuming they turn the power up on the 3.2 liter I5, I would expect a 8000lb tow capacity. In typical diesel fashion as you turn up the power, your tow capacity goes down. It's a EGT temperature problem. Towing places a load on the engine. The same thing occurs in the over one ton truck market. The over 1 ton version usually has less HP, but is rated to tow higher loads.

Bigger engines also weight more, have more rotational mass, friction..and thus have a bigger thirst for fuel.

You can build powerful small engines, but you have to be smart about it. Ford's 3.5 liter has 6 bolt mains, a windage tray and a pile of other race engine standard tech features built in. The 3.5 liter costs more to build but in return gives more power output than what was possible 10 years ago without sacrificing longevity.

Old school methods such as "This are no substitutes for cubic inches" are only true if everyone is using the same methods for power efficiency. Otherwise it's suggesting that the only rule is More Air+ More Fuel=More Power

While its a true statement... don't forget that Power is give off in torque and heat.

If you can waste less energy as heat and turn more of the fuel into mechanical energy THEN you can shrink the engine.

Then it turns into a longevity issue. With ceramic block inserts. Compact Graphite Blocks and other exotic options, longevity is just another consideration in the design process.

@Dave - The gall of Ford is unprecedented. Ford should show GM a little professional COURTESY and wait. It is the right thing to do. There should be no F150 reveal in Detroit this year. Ford can do it next year. NAIAS should be GM's day to shine!!!!

@Carl,
Someone has seen an Opel Van running around the US with a GMC badge. A case of watch this space.

I meant NAIAS should be GM's time to shine!!!

@Mechanic-Drag racer-Car Nutt - Time to leave the 1960's behind. Almost all of the currrent small block engines on the market put out comparable power and torque to most of the '60's and early '70's engines you are bragging about. 7 litre engines of the '60's ie. 426,427,428,429 or larger displacements up to 7.5 litres ie.460 are currently being outclassed by 5-6 litre engines. Even the EB 3.5 mounted into a "60's Mustang would probably out perform the 7.0 litre engines of the day. The benefit is also better mpg.
IIRC, how they test for HP and torque changed several decades ago. A 400 hp engine from that era doesn't put out that kind of HP by todays test standards.
I'm just talking pickup engines. If you looked at the current "performance" V8's in the Mustang, Corvette, Challenger, Camaro etc., they all would kill any muscle car from the "60's or '70's even if you put modern rubber on the older cars.


You guys are talking tow ratings. The larger Transits we have have a 6 600lb tow rating, but we have government tow standards. Tow ratings aren't everything, especially if you own business. Owning a business you wouldn't want to tow as it reduces efficiencies in most cases. You buy a vehicle that suits your requirements more so than buying a 1/2 ton SUV style pickup for weekends and private use.

@Mackintire
I own a BT50 with the 3.2 Diesel and I'm getting about 30mpg average, not highway mpgs. Around urban areas 28mpg would be closer.

@Zveria
I think the other day you were big mouthing about the 3.0 VM V6 diesel (its a good engine), the 3.0 V6 Ford Lion diesel has more power and torque. If they were to put a diesel in a F-150 they would use a Lion. But the 3.2 would probably last longer and give better low down performance especially in a four wheel drive off road.

Also I pointed out to you that they are 2 different diesels for differernt applications ie one's a truck engine and the other is designed as a passenger/SUV engine.

I'm not sure if it is because we've seen these sneak peaks for so long, or if Ford has changed the design, but these both look good to me now. I can't imagine how dated the E-series will look sitting side by side with a Transit.

@Big Al, that is excellent fuel economy. I hope the Transit gets close to that.

@Alex
Since buying the BT50 I've become a diesel fan. I do know there is significant "push back" in the US about diesels, but as more diesels come into the US market people will realise they aren't that bad or costly and they definitely aren't in the same league as hybrids.

When Ford brings out the cab chassis version of the Transit you will see them slowly canabalise sales from HDs. Why drive a truck around using twice as much fuel.

I can see the 3.5 Ecoboost Transit chewing up fuel.

The pickup fraternity can only compare HD diesels and haven't really seen the smaller diesels work.

I also don't think a Transit will achieve the same fuel economy figures as a Ranger/BT50.

@Zveria
A better engine Fiat would use to compare against the 3.2 Ford diesel is a Cummins 2.8 diesel. These two engines are designed to be used for the same applications.

As much as Ford talks up the 3.2 diesel it isn't a "state of the art" diesel. As you correctly pointed out a smaller VM diesels produce much more power and torque, but Ford makes a similar engine that is more powerful and torquey.

Remember diesels designed for commercial applications are built to a cost and to be cheaper for operators to use. Commercial diesels seem to be a generation behind passenger/SUV diesel technology.

"Owning a business you wouldn't want to tow as it reduces efficiencies in most cases."

Huh? As a business we tow with our vans all the time. Scissor lifts, compressors, welders, skid steers, and so on. Being able to tow with our vans saves us money, because we only have to send out one guy to do a job. If you need another vehicle just to tow, that means more jobs which requires two guys, two trucks, and more fuel.

If the heavy duty diesel Transit can't tow as much as the diesel E-series (9,500lbs) or somewhere close to it, it's a complete no-go for us.

@Big Al from Oz
I was never talking bad about VM MOTORI .You are mistaken. I am watching this engine journey from2009 hoping they bring it to NA market. I don't care anymore, because I drive a Hemi.First one in Durango for 6 years and second one in RAM Laramie . It works very well in cold Canada. Right now -17°C no problems to start, ,heats up faster than any diesel.The problem with diesel in cold weather is, they are very efficient so they don't heat up at all. My auxiliary independent automatic heater was running all the time in cold weather on 2.0L VW TDi engine to keep up with 21°C setup at automatic air conditioning. The problem you didn't come across in Australia.
I have personal experience with many small diesel engines from Toyota,Ford, Peugeot, Renault, Fiat and of course VW with TDi.
Ford was the worst one.
The 3L Lion is even older. 9 years to be more precise.
It won't compete with VM MOTORI 630 which is new modern engine and inline5 is anemic suitable for van, but not for pickups. This market is different in here than in Europe or Australia. People doesn't like 5 cylinders in here. Specially in trucks. It's either 6 or 8.
But Ford might bring it here, just to disgust people and push them for egoboost.

@Paul810
I'm sorry I wasn't referring to floating. I do understand the need to float. Also I stated "most" not all cases. To others that do tow, I didn't state "all" but I'm alluding to "most" of the time.

I used to have my own business and towed. It was a pain in the butt most of the time. Trailers are an added responsibility. Most people if they can, will not tow unless it is necessary, especially business operations.

@Vig Al from Oz
3L Duratorq is more powerful than VM, but also less reliable and it will never make it to the NA market, because it's 9 years old design and doesn't meet NA standards which VM MOTORI is certified for already and will be installed in Jeep next year and it has been tested in RAM 1500 extensively now.

Sad, the American V8 and car culture more and more disappears ! No more full size american cars, no more American
Scooby doo vans, next victims the American Pickups with v8 engines? Eco engines are ok, but why only this Euro Japanese Style in new American vehicles?

@macintire- in what market is a T6 Ranged rated to pull 9000#???
@Big Al- the Ecoboost will probably be the cheaper than the diesel here, since it doesn't need extensive aftertreatment, just regular cats. The Diesel will need SCR, so that ads to the cost. It will still be the one to have for high mirage fleets, but with the premium we pay for diesel over RUL, it will have to return at least a 20% fuel economy advantage. We currently don't have fuel economy ratings on HD hand and pickups, so it is challenging to market any economy advantage.

I bet this turd on wheels doesnt get the mpg Ford claims...Ford is in troubleabout its wild high mpg rating on its new cars.The 1.6 ecoboost has had several recalls already,the new Ford is about as bad as Toyota millions and millions of recalls..

This isnt even a new van,its from 1989 ,a european Ford,what a complete joke ! Screw Ford !

The Ford 3L V6 diesel doesn't need replacing, it's got a CGI block like the 4.4 and 6.7, as long as it has the latest version of common-rail injection technology and uses the newest emissions hardware, there should be no reason to get rid of it.

@Alex
There is much more in to itthan CGI.
TheVM MOTORI 630T has the potential to make more than 600 hp in race trim. —Matt Trainham, Banks Powertrain Engineer
Read more: 
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/1208dp_banks_vm_motori_630t_v6_diesel_engine/#ixzz2F9Qp3kQN

A van with no frame. It will be great for the flower shops. It may be built in the US but everything about it and the engines and drivetrain are coming from another country I bet. Wrong direction for Ford but I would not buy a Ford for any reason.

@zviera - when people talk about needing a new engine, most of the time they are talking about needing a new engine block. I am saying the engine block can handle the any anticipated power and torque upgrades to match the competition. All these engines have "potential" for a crap load of power.

@Alex
Not really.

@Alex
GUTS
GLORY
CLSS LEADING HEMI V8
RAM!

@Dave, http://www.allpar.com/mopar/transmissions/ZF9.html

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2012/03/9-speed-timeline-revealed

MORE GUTS
MORE GLORY
MORE RAM!

@Zviera, the awesomeness of the VM engine doesn't remove any awesomeness of the Ford engine. I think they are both great engines. Anyway, thanks for the link. I sent it to my dad who drives the new Jeep Grand Cherokee with that engine, which he loves.

@Alex
Show this to your dad.
GUTS
GLORY
RAM!

http://www.ramtrucks.com/gutsglory

@Alex
Like I said, I'm watching this engine for so long, every year hoping it would get in to the RAM this year, but in early spring I pulled trigger at Laramie with HEMI again.
Your dad must be in Europe I guess.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com