What a fugly looking thing, I'll take the Nissan NV 2500 over this one. Where the moter in the front seat?

I think if pickuptrucks.com want to rate vans thats fine, but it should not be on this site. Maybe Vans.com could be a sister site?

Wow that looks bad. The sprinter looked 100times better. Looks like ford wins for best looking European van.

I remember the first new truck I bought looked about as ugly.It was a 1974 Dodge B100 van.225 slant 6 with 3 on the tree.That vehicle was almost bullet-proof,and I was getting 22+mpg.Those were the days....

@Brian, why not look to see if that domain is already taken? I'm pretty sure Vans might have something to say about your idea. Anyway, it's not like there's so much news in trucks and vans that they can't share this website.

RWD Transit with EcoBoost V6 FTW! Hopefully it has a limited slip diff and optional AWD.

Oh man this thing is ugly. Hopefully it works better than it looks. I would hate to be the company employee driving down the road in this. I can hear the snickers and laughs from fellow motorists.

@ rich,

I would have to say the Nissan is uglier than this ,the Nissan is ugly from every angle,this with a nose job wouldnt be as ugly ! I have seen one Nissan on the road and it is very square and very odd looking ,very,very boxy and just about the ugliest vehicle besides the Kia's,Scions,Honda Fit/Element/Crossover well truth be told there are alot of very ugly vehicles today !

@ mike,

The Sprinter and Transit are just as ugly !

GM wins in the full size van market,I dont know why they went to European vans.Even Ford is all European except its full size trucks and Mustang.

RAM is making another van to compete with the Transit/Sprinter/Nissan Vans,the ProMaster is a step below the new RAM coming out.

Work vehicles are not supposed to look good, function is the main objective. Looks useful to me.

@ lohchief ,

The 70's-90's Dodge Vans were top sellers...

And the 70's Dodge Street Van was a good looking van !

Did you know with a 360 4bbl those vans ran 15's 1/4 mile right out of the factory when not equipt with all the smog stuff no lean burn ect..Some years didnt have it ,like Mopars in the mid-late 70's the carb was set for emissions and a carb change and removal of the lean burn computer(first car computer) you gained alot of hp/torque and 2-4 seconds quicker in the 1/4 depending on engine ! Ford/GM you had to change the cam/heads to gain as much improvements as they made all internal changes,Mopar added a geniuos idea,and you could easily turn it back to a hot rod.

With these vans Headers,exhaust,carb jetting/change were running in the 14's with 3.21 rear axle ! Pretty Good I would say and the 400 4bbl and 440 4bbl were better yet even though they were shadows of their former selfs lower compression than the 60's early 70's models but still moved good ! I know we had a few and took one 1979 360 4bbl to the track back in the day because it just felt pretty quick and would dust off 6.6 403 ci Trans Am's of the day !

@HEMI'RAM
GM loses the full size van segment because they are stuck in the past with an old out dated gas hog. The Transit and ProMaster will blow it away (at least so far if you listen to all the marketing spin)
In regards to Ford being all European at least it is still "all Ford".
Name a dodge/chrysler car that isn't based off a Mercedes or alfa-romeo or fiat plat form.
It seems dodge/chrysler is only as good as the company that owns them at the moment.

The biggest thing that surprised me looking at these (at the show) was how high up the drivers seat is- its like a 5ft climb to get your butt up there. Probbaly OK if you're coming from the back, but I'd hate to make deliveries that way all day long.
To that end, the NV2500 is the one you want if you need to get in and out a lot, but its thirsty.

I do think it's appropriate for PUTC to cover all vehicles that are considered light commercials.

These styles of vehicles do sometimes compete with pickups.

From a technology perspective, some of the technologies used in these vehicles probably will transfer over to pickups, like small diesels.

That's how it started out in Australia in the very late 70s and early 80s.

If anything is ugly, it is that Nissan.

Lol, the Ford vans are small and don't compare to this one. And Ford will give you a turbo engine that gets so so real world mileage, while you pay extra for higher octane fuel. Atleast Ram gives you a diesel option, instead of a built up gasser. It cost more for the diesel yes, but it will return better mileage.

@lohchief: My opinion (is just that) that the 70s Dodge vans looked pretty good! I happen to have an RV based on a 72 Dodge B-300. The GM and Dodge vans looked way better then the fugly Ford vans! Many a trips in my familys 76 GMC van, and some in our F-350 maxvan, the biggest one you could get, with 460, A/C on the roof, all that.

Thanks Mark, nice review. I think since both Ram and Ford are hitting the market together with these Euro styled vans, they will catch on really fast. They are both similar in having so many configurations, and both Ram and Ford will offer diesel engines. I love the tall vertical walls, really giving lots of room.

I doubt you could tow a trailer with one of these eurovans, I love my big full framed Nissan NV, some think its ugly but I think it looks more American with a big chrome grill and American pickup truck like front end.

@Richard: with the 3 liter diesel it has a max GCWR of 12,500, or a max of about 5,100 pounds of trailer tow.

I think Nissan and Chevy are battling for ugliest new vehicle. Some lots sell them both!

TRX4, not to bad, but its still not a real truck, you won't see Quigley doing 4x4 conversions like they do on the NV.

http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/performance/163_1212_nissan_nv_quigley_4x4_conversion/photo_04.html

Looks like a train coming at you. Gonna be one expense windshield to ever have to replace.

@HEMI'RAM - you need to join the 21st century.

@TRX4 Tom - the Transit will come with a 3.2 L diesel option as well as the 3.5 EB. The 3.7 L V6 will be the base engine.

It does appear that Ford will have a power advantage over the ProMaster vans.

@Lou: I stand corrected!

Now where is 3L VM Motori.....

No, really, they will have to see how they do.

That does seem like that 3.2 would be hella power in the smaller Ford. But I doubt alot of them will need it all.

Almost like it's backwards, as they should swap. The current Ford van is small

I have driven a small 23ft Class C Motorhome based on the Ducato. It drives like a Intermediate car, very easy/ stable to drive around bends. The vehicle roughly 10,000lbs GVWR cruised along effortlessly at 60mph. It was powered by the 3 Litre Diesel

@Richard,
You would be surprised. All Ducato based.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/RobRyan7/Jaycotowingcar.jpg

http://www.smart-trailers.co.uk/img/2012/smart/P0909.jpg

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width_scaled/hash/d4/27/d427a808e3d5ff1e4c4e3c9f5b2d67e5.jpg

@Ford850
To keep up the momentum I would not be surprised for Dodge to bring out a Diesel RAM and GM to bring out a Diesel Colorado.

I think the transit will be better suited for towing as it is RWD instead of FWD.

ugly as sin, appears to be functional though. Unlike trucks I really dont think apperance matters to most consumers if at all only as a very secondary considration. Lets hope this thing sells well and our relationship w/ fiat continues to do well and not go the way of daimlerchryslers relationship

UGLY! UGLY! UGLY!

@AL951 The Transit is as effective as the Ducato both are rated to tow about 5000lbs

@TRX 4 Tom, why do you keep saying the Transit is a small van? It is a direct competitor with this Ram, hauls and tows similar weights, and will likely be marketed as having more available interior space. Are you thinking of the smaller Transit Connect?

@ Hemiram: At that time in my life all thoughts of street rods/vans was gone.had a wife and 2 kids to take care and money was tight.I always liked the Dodge vans.Out of 3 muscle cars that I owned prior to getting married,LOL, 2 were MoPars.Tons of fun back in the day.

@ Trx4 Tom: I took my family everywhere in our little B100,and we really had a good time too.Vans like that were a lot of fun,easy to maintain,and in my case was easy on gas.Like I said,'those were th' days' ;}>

to compare this to a nissan is crazy, you could put twice as much cargo in this than any nissan, and the nissan has soo much wasted space in front of the firewall, and I bet this Ram with the small diesel, will get almost twice the milage as the nissan V-8!

@sandman4X4 - I think that the Nissan with its long snout would be easier to maintain and service than this kind of van. The doghouse can be very intrusive as well. It probably won't be as big an issue due to the smaller engines taking up less space. I'm actually seeing more Nissan vans around.

I cant believe how many people are talking about the looks of this van... who cares about the looks. It is going to be the most utilitarian van on the market. This thing is gonna fly off the shelves.

No you don't buy a van for looks, but with so many options it factors in for most people.

Sure looks do decide on a sedan... but the fact that you can fit a 4' pallet on a fork lift through either side door or the rear door is going to be a big factor.

The gas mileage that this engine will produce will be a big factor.

The payload and towing capabilities will be a big factor.

The low entry doors and no interior wasted space will be a big factor.

It's easy to bash the looks but whos driving these things typically? The lowly workers of the company. The $12 an hour delivery guys. And they are bumping into stuff and getting into fender benders.

That big front bumper will keep all of the body damage on one piece of plastic, and away from the very expensive headlight assemblies. When the driver does inevitably hit a loading dock or Burger King drive through window, it's only one part that has to be fixed, and that part doesnt have to be painted for it to look factory new.

Nissan or Ford are going to cost you a fortune to get it looking professional again after a small fender bender.
http://www.autoweek.com/storyimage/CW/20110308/CARNEWS/110309919/AR/0/nissan-van.jpg

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1221913.1355760335!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/ford-transit-connect.jpg

For a business owner things like this are a lifesaver, and if they bump into a half way decent salesman at a Dodge dealer that salesman will make the point to remind them of these cost of ownership savings. This is the smartest build in it's segment at this point. From a logical standpoint there is nothing to object to on the whole van.

Lou: I have only had a quick look at the nissan van, but when I did, and opened up the hood, most of the engine was under the dashbord/winshield, I was not able to see if there was any other accessability like a dog house inside though, but it would come in handy! as it is in the regular American vans, yes it is a hassle, but once you have the dog house off, service of some items are easier than on a pickup, have you looked under the hood of a new F-150 lately? on some of the HD Fords, you have to remove the cab to remove the turbos and heads! and some other type of repaires. When I went to the Ford dealer that fixed the head gasket on my F-150, you should have seen the pile of stuff thay had to be removed to get the head off! no wonder th 1st dealer wanted $2500 to fix it!

That Nissan is yet another example of old tech being sold to good old boys who are now comfortable with Japan and don't realise the 'truck' thing just makes them out to be the half wits they are