New Ford Transit Van Pushes MPG and Torque Boundaries

15FordTransit II

At the recent introduction of the all-new 2015 Ford Transit full-size van in Claycomo, Mo., Ford released some key details about the power and performance of the new work van. Available with three engine choices, the new van will offer an EPA-estimated 14/19 mpg city/highway for both of the gas engines: the naturally aspirated 3.7-liter V-6 and twin-turbo 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6.

The all-new inline-five-cylinder PowerStroke turbo-diesel coming later for the Transit van does not have any official fuel economy estimates yet, but you can expect them to play in the same ballpark as its most direct competitor, the Ram ProMaster 3.0-liter I-4 EcoDiesel which we've heard is around 18/26 mpg city/highway.

If you are wondering why the 2015 Transit has EPA ratings and the Ram ProMaster does not, much of the reasoning has to do with the fact that Ford will be offering several types of passenger van models, very likely with gross vehicle ratings less than 8,500 pounds. All versions of the Ram ProMaster have a GVW rating at or above 8,550 pounds. 

To read the full Ford press release, click here.


Ford van




@DeverMike/Paul/Tom Lemon/Greg Baird/TRX4Tom/Dave/Hemi V8/Tom Terrific/sandman 4x4/lautenslager/zveria/Bob/US Truck Driver/Glenn/Jason/Hemi Rampage/smartest truck guy/Maxx/SuperDuty37/Ken/Ron/johnny doe/jim/ALL1/Frank/Idahoe Joe/The Guy/AD/Casey/papa jim/Young Guy/BeeBe/Steve/Chris/The truck guy/Alex/Mr Chow/Yessir/All Americans/Scott/Buy American or say Bye to America/Ram Big Horn 1500/Hemi Monster

Denim and Leather brought us all together!
It was HEMI V8 who set the spirit free!!!!!!!

@papa jim - The world is going to end. We finally agree on something. LOL

Hemi Monster, so you read about a couple of people having problems with ecoboost and many more talking about bad experiences with Dodges. What's your point?

Ford realy needs to offer the 5.0 thee vans...that ecoboost v6..will be on turbo and soak the fuel when loaded....and reaaly vans are loaded more that f 150....had six cyclinders in other vans....and better on v8....wish the EPA ...would have a loaded weight ...on its mpg ratings....

The 2009 F-150 with the 5.4 V8 got much better gas mileage than its 4.6 little brother cause the 5.4 didn't have to work as hard to pull the weight of the truck around.
The point I was making is when you put too small of an engine in a heavy truck that engine is no longer efficient cause you have to run that small engine at its max power to move that truck around.
Chevy and Dodge has a BETTER answer with "Active Engine Management" Like the Hoover Dam, it only makes power when it needs it!
Ford is going the wrong way and depending on turbocharging and going to a smaller engine.
I have a new F-150 and I want to see Ford be the leader in pickups and I am sure glad I picked the 5.0 V8 over the 3.5 EB cause I am well aware of the problems and complaints with the 3.5 EB.
Its also amazing to me how Ford ignored the problems with the 3.5 EB and now coming out with a smaller 2.7 EB, they should have perfected, fixed the problems with their current engine design BEFORE making a smaller engine.
Remember this: The new 2.7 EB will have loads of problems, you watch, I know I will be right!
The Ford Engineers are real people just like you and me, they make mistakes, but they need to learn from and admit their mistakes and accept failure and develop another engine design.

well i took a Fusion 2.0L EcoBoost from Idaho Falls to Vegas, then LA Highway 1 to San Fran, Redwoods, Astoria, Portland, Seattle, Spokane, Nelson BC, through Coeur d'Alene, Butte, and back to Idaho Falls. About 4500 miles of mostly highway driving. The Fusion 2.0 EcoBoost averaged 25.1mpg. How the hell is the 2.7EB F150 going to get 30mpg? I would love it if it did, but I have my doubts. What it really needs is a plug-in diesel hybrid.

Whoever linked to my quote in the Transit forum calls himself LB? Not me, is there really an LB here or is someone pretending to be me?

It's not going "to get 30 mpg." It will be "close to" 30 mpg. Estimates are anywhere from 25 to 29 mpg. And that means highway. Not mixed driving. And your results may vary.

Also, that's 4x2 for anyone following along. I will say the F-150 2.7 will match the Ram's figure and be rated at 28 mpg and they will trump the cheaper fuel prices. The Fusion is rated at 33 mpg hwy for the 2.0, 47 mpg hwy for the hybrid.

Also, the 1.5 EcoBoost is rated at 37 mpg hwy in the Fusion. With Auto Start Stop. The 2.0 doesn't have auto start stop.

I'm thinking we'll see in the 27-29 range for the F-150 with the 2.7.

The purpose of this blog is to discuss the Ford Transit, not Fusion or F-150.

Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.

The 3.2 Diesel will NOT have any EPA ratings The 3.2 diesel doesn't have EPA fuel economy ratings because it's for Transits with GVWs over 8,500 lbs.

Posted by: Tom | Jun 6, 2014 11:25:41 PM

You are correct. The fuel econ for the diesel should be listed like the ProMaster, "not available," not estimated. How did PUTC come to this estimate? No Fuel Economy Data is available for this vehicle.

Direct from Ford: 3.2-liter Power Stroke diesel available on Transit is not EPA-rated.

(Nor will it be rated.)

The Transit goes on sale soon, so may be PUTC should have the first ever full-size cargo van shootout. Is anyone interested?


"What it really needs is a plug-in diesel hybrid."


You act as if hybrid-diesel is something new. The technology has been around for over 50 years.

There are excellent reasons why it did not become a mainstream solution for auto propulsion.

Posted by: papa jim | Mar 11, 2014 6:24:00 AM

"There are excellent reasons why it did not become a mainstream solution for auto propulsion."


Do you understand why hybrid diesel is not mainstream today? I'll wait...

credit: papa jim

More from papa jim's greatest hits:

@Alex, don't worry. I'm here to help.

Hybrid diesel is a limited-scope solution that is perfect for less than ten percent of car/truck buyers.

Here's a great example of a good fit:

Orlando International Airport near Disneyworld has huge fleets of airport shuttles coming and going 24/7. These are the perfect application for that sort of technology. The diesel engines never get cold, the electric drivetrain is perfect for hustling guests to and from the airport. There is little polution. There is no engine idling while waiting for passengers. It's just a great big golf cart.

Here's an example of a bad fit:

Anyplace where it's so cold that the diesel engine spends most of its service life in Warm Up mode. Diesels are not efficient in such a setting.

Florida is so warm that even in winter the weather isn't a factor. In Toronto or Boston, no so much.

I'm trying to overlook your sarcasm, but these are the facts. There are many other reasons why my point was on target. If you'd like more information let me know.

thanks for listening.
papa jim



I'm not being sarcastic either:

Why not build nuclear powerplants in every region of the country to bring down the costs (and greenhouse gases) associated with power generation.

Next, give everyone a voucher to buy a plug-in electric car.

Even with the complete and eventual elimination of fossil fueled vehicles we will still have challenges to address with traffic management, congestion and fatalities from car crashes.

No solution for propulsion is ideal but the one I just proposed (nukes) will require fifty years of heavy investment in infrastructure and a huge reversal of anti-nuke sentiment to succeed. The current roads and bridges will be perfectly transitioned to the next generation of vehicles--a huge savings over rail and other alternatives.

Our fossil fueled vehicles can be very useful as a transition to the electric powered cars/trucks, but to make the cost-reductions work, we first have to get government out of the way.

The difference in cost-per-mile to the end-user is 2:1 in countries that have heavy layers of bureaucratic interference (EU countries, California).

We then need to privatize the management of modern electric generation infrastructure. The current scheme demands too much government approval. GE has the expertise to do this.

It now takes 20 years to build a powerplant (coal, gas or nuke) and at least half the cost/time needed to complete it is consumed by lawyers and bureaucrats--studies and approvals. We can cut that in half.

Are you ready?

Posted by: papa jim | Mar 12, 2014 5:54:42 AM

@Chris - maybe next time don't have duelling banjo's playing in the background.

Chris, you have way too much time on your hands. How long did that take you to do?

"How the hell is the 2.7EB F150 going to get 30mpg?" - Alex

Using 3 key technologies: lightweighting, displacement downsizing and aerodynamics.

Current F-150 is rated at 23 mpg. The new F-150 with the above three technologies will easily hit 27-29 mpg. Not 30 mpg. But close to and this was unfathonable years ago. Mike Levine has driven one and according to his twitter account it was easy to get great fuel econ around town. Take it on the highway it will be better.

@Dave, that wouldn't explain why the F150 will be more efficient than a Fusion. The Fusion is more aerodynamic, lighter, and has a smaller displacement engine. I mean, I really hope they do get there, don't get me wrong. But I don't care if the EPA rates the Fusion at 33 Highway, I have not been able to average 33 on the highway. Possibly if it were a highway with a 55mph limit, and it had zero inclines at any part of the drive. It would have to sit there on cruise control with no-one making me slow down and accelerate. It may get some ridiculous rating, but I will just need to experience it for myself to believe it.

There's an article on a 2WD Pentastar powered Ram on TTAC.

The owner is only achieving 16.7mpg.

So, I do think the 2.7 EcoBoost F-150 will only be similar to the Pentastar Ram for FE utilising the EPA test.

The 2.7 EcoBoost F-150 will not reach 30mpg.

A V6 Lion diesel F-150 will be very close to the 30mpg mark.

Regarding the Transit 3.2 diesel comment on it's FE can't be estimated is incorrect.

The 3.2 Transit isn't a new vehicle. It actually hit the showroom floor in the early 2000's in the EU.

So, it can't be that difficult to make a 'best guess' at it's FE.

I also run a 3.2 diesel pickup and it's FE is around 28mpg average, not highway.


Is Ford going to kill the E-Series van? Is this the replacement?

I can't imagine an RV with an eco-boost engine. I've got one in my F150, but my eco won't do so hot in my 33' RV.

Tom#3 even though I have issues with my Eco-Boost, mileage like you say? is NOT one of them! mine does get 22mpg on the hyw while just driving, and can get more while hyper-mileage is a factor! so do not start with all your BS about the mileage of the EB, and while towing? mine can get up to 15mpg towing my Airstream while doing the speed limits, and driving safely! I can, and do compare the mileage of the EB and the 5.3 Chevy, and they are compatible, but the amount of power available is higher with the EB over the 5.3!

@Tom#3 - do you actually own a F150 or were you using a Ram fanboy strategy of acting stupid to make Ford look bad?
Your true colours have emerged.

I owned a 1985 isuzu diesel pickup... No turbo. Always got around 38 was a great small truck....

The comments to this entry are closed.