That's all well and good, but we don't even know the finalized engine and fuel economy specs yet. That's kinda something I would want to know before buying one.

ZZZzzzzz!

Wow look at these ugly vans...one billion doesn’t buy you much these days. I don’t understand why Ford didn’t make these out of aluminum...I’m sure the Missouri based plant would have no problem finding highly skilled UAW workers to do the intricate, finicky riveting/gluing required when using aluminum....

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/editorials/article_be4e0882-9f3e-11e3-b23f-001a4bcf887a.html

Maybe Ford better stick with steel...lol.

Take a while to grow on me but rear wheel drive is awesome. Front wheel drive is bad enough on cars so thank God they didn't mess up with that. Utility vehicles should always be rear wheel drive. Front wheel drives for PANSIES.

I bet there 15% take rate in the diesel is way low! that is unless it's junk like all there other diesels.

Why don’t the boneheads 3.2-liter I-5 Power Stroke in the F150? It would be good for customers, but Oh yeah it will hurt profit and sales of the F150. And we all know that profit trumps customer satisfaction every time.

Anybody notice how small the tires are compared to the big size of the van?
Small tires greatly improve gas mileage, over the years tires have got much bigger on pickups and vans , now looks like they are going smaller.

Im a diesel fan by all means, but 6000 for the diesel option is way to much. Id just take the more powerful, faster ecoboost that's cheaper.

Exactly. 15% sounds about right. There is a 2015 Ford Transit Forum I visit and there are 2 posts on the diesel - both posts with no replies. In a work van I want the cheaper gas engine options.

Looks like a Sprinter with a Ford Badge, better looking than the Ram thing anyway. When is the 2015 F-150 starting production?

This story is ok, but the truck is five years or more behind the market. Typical of Detroit to be this far behind on product development.

Five years ago you could buy a Mercedes or Freightliner van of this sort. Did Ford come late to the game?

@papa jim
Ford isn't late with this van. As the article states these vans have been around since the 60s.

The chicken tax has prevented these vans from entering the US market.

@Dooms. Check the Ford website:

http://www.ford.com/trucks/transitvanwagon/specifications/

3.7 V6: 270HP/250 lb-ft
3.5 EB: 320HP/400 lb-ft (obviously detuned)
3.2 D: 190HP/346 lb-ft

Can't find the mpgs on there though, but that could be because there are too many variations to make the data reliable.

@alex
I'm surprised that the 3.2 diesel is slightly detuned compared to our 3.2 diesel.

Makes me wonder about the Chev Colorado diesel as well, will it have smaller numbers as well.

@Doom,

Vans, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) weighing more than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight are classified as heavy-duty vehicles. Fuel economy regulations do not apply to these vehicles, so they are not tested.

All the specs are out as Alex rightly said.

@Big Al

As usual, your interpretation is so skewed as to not resemble the truth.

The 1960s European Transit is the same in name only.

Ford could have built this truck here in the US at any point in time. The one that will be built in western Missouri is a new design that is years behind the Mercedes in getting to market here--as I said in my earlier comment.

@papa jim
No, this truck could not have been in the US at any time.

As the VW CEO pointed out (and you neglect to comprehend) the US requires 100 000 vehicles per year to make vehicle production in the US viable.

Up until recently there was not a market for 100 000 Transits a year in the US.

If there was the Transit would have been manufactured in the US.

Had a big day? Making it hard to think?

It's only behind in getting here to the US.

The modern style Transit started in the mid 1980's the Sprinter in 1995.

Second Gen Sprinter debuted in 2007. Comparable Transit in 2006.

2014: Sprinter got a refresh. Transit new.

So what. Where is GM? Nowhere.

@Alex
I would hazard to guess the Transit will get around 25-26mpg combined/average, with the diesel. In real life I would think the diesel will get around 20-23mpg average loaded.

The Eco Boost will get less than 20mpg average. In real life the Eco Boost might get around 16-17mpg, if that especially when workers drive the van 'flat out'.

A loaded van will destroy the FE of the Eco Boost van. The 3.7 V6 will chew up fuel in a loaded van as well and be marginally better than the Eco Boost.

It will be interesting to see what Ford's FE figures will be.

The diesel van will be the van of choice.

Jim's comment of being late is utterly meaningless.

Ford timed it right and waited for the new model and for factory and resources to open up.

What did GM do 5 years ago? GM went bankrupt took a massive govn't bailout.

Jim, Stick to what you know and don't just bash another company because GM isn't brining anything new to the table.

I went to build one and have to say, I was disappointed. You can't get a low roof T350 with a 3.2L diesel. Instead you have to go with a T250, which still only has a 4,600lb towing capacity.....barely more than my wife's minivan (3,800lbs).

Also, only a 25 gallon tank on the long wheelbase models? Didn't Ford learn from the F150/Ecoboost introduction when buyers screamed for a larger tank option?

The de-tuning of the engine in larger GVWR vehicles has more to do with emissions and EPA & CARB certifications than anything else. Engines in commercial vehicles above 8500 lbs GVWR, such as these cargo vans, are emissions certified under heavy-duty engine emission standards. Also, after doing some more resent research on the matter, I found out that the GVWR emissions classifications plays a big roll in why the payloads of the 150/1500s are rated the way they are in the US & Canada versus other countries.

As far as which one of these is right for a certain business will be determined by their needs. There is no doubt the 3.2L diesel will get the better fuel economy in mileage numbers, but may not be worth the added initial $6000 premium or higher gallon per fuel costs over the 3.7L for certain industries. There is also the 330 to 400lb hit in payload the 3.2L diesel has versus the other two engines depending on configuration. The 3.7L gas and 3.2L diesel would be ideal for those that are more concerned with fuel economy than needing more capabilities.

If more payload and higher towing capabilities is needed over fuel economy than the 3.5L Ecoboost engine would be the van of choice since it is rated to tow more than the 3.2L diesel in every configuration and it only takes a 50lb hit in payload versus the base 3.7L with the same configuration. It only has a $1,865 premium over the 3.7L. The 3.5L Ecoboost is also the only on available in every configuration unlike how the 3.2L is not in Transit 350 9,500lb GVWR LWB Van configurations.

Is there any frame or is it unibody?
The tire size is 235/65R16C
With "C" rated tires what's the payload of the van?
What's the GVWR ?
This new van won't have the weight rating as the older vans cause they use "E" rated tires

@Chris

Did you stop taking your medications again? READ.

I compared Ford to Mercedes. One specific model to another related model. Ford is late to the dance. Never mentioned GM or the bailout.

Their model could be a big success, who knows. Bell bottomed pants were popular once too.

You are either an idiot or a troll.

.
T-350 DRW is mine as soon as they show up on the lots.

Way better than Sprinter too.

In fact, best looking vehicle on the market today.

320 hp in a van? Excellent.

Not sure why you would want a diesel. Stinks. Noisy. Expensive. I do not buy the modern diesel hype.
.

@Tom#3 - IIRC - unibody but chassis cab variants will be available.

These vans have been used in Europe very successfully for decades. Most of them here are Diesel which is available at all gas stations, usually cheaper and better for MPG. You Americans are too used to driving overpowered and oversized vehicles. You end up needing a big engine because the cars and vans you drive are too big for their purpose. If you drove smaller work vehicles, you'd save a ton on fuel.

I was in Florida recently and noticed that tradesmen are driving huge pickups to carry a tool box and a few bits of piping. Seems like insecure schoolyard bravado and men compensating for a lack of something else ;)

Do you need a V8 to carry a toolbox? No. You don't.