TRANSIT TO THE US?

[Furious1Auto]

the thing about that is .... the customer would still have to redesign their product to fit the GM Vans or to fit the transit, Ford would have to offer a better product than the GM vans do.

The Econoline is the class leader not the other way around, and the Transit has the benefit of a high top roof with bigger rear entrence (wich is only rivaled by the Sprinter, and is perfect for contracting,service, and expediting work.) Dodge makes junk drivetrains so the choice between the Transit and the Sprinter is a no brainer. Also all the equipment is available already for the Transit they have been building it in EU for several years now, that eliminates all the guess work that comes with a new platform. It's a proven capable utility van, with a new market to fill!

Edited February 21, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[Biker16]

The Econoline is the class leader not the other way around, and the Transit has the benefit of a high top roof with bigger rear entrence (wich is only rivaled by the Sprinter, and is perfect for contracting,service, and expediting work.) Dodge makes junk drivetrains so the choice between the Transit and the Sprinter is a no brainer. Also all the equipment is available already for the Transit they have been building it in EU for several years now, that eliminates all the guess work that comes with a new platform. It's a proven capable utility van, with a new market to fill!

 

 

lets do it now!

 

 

eventually I foresee the archtectures being merged. with the only E-series remaining being the Cab chassis market. of course all-new frame Derived form the lessons learned from T1 (F-series , expy) but I could see the Transit Cab being dropped on it.

[RichardJensen]

Architectures will likely never be merged. Markets are different. False economy.

[NickF1011]

and the interior redesign is already being run on a limited basis to get ready for the 09' model. The new interior is a vast improvement and mocks the Expedition. You guys will like the changes. I would snap a PIC and post it if I did not value my job, as soon as we change model years I will post some PICS. Oh yeah, they added a passenger glove box to the new design which has been absent since the last total redesign!

 

New interior?!?! :happy feet: About time.

[Biker16]

Architectures will likely never be merged. Markets are different. False economy.

 

 

oh really I do remember them planning to do just that 3-4 year ago.

 

It ain't that hard.

 

it will happen, we will have more Euro trash than you can shake a stick at soon enough.

[RichardJensen]

oh really I do remember them planning to do just that 3-4 year ago.

They've been "planning" to do that for THIRTY YEARS.

 

And you know why they haven't? Because it doesn't make sense.

 

Ford has been, for decades, the commercial king in both the US and Europe. It's the one aspect of their business that they have CONSISTENTLY gotten right, and that's because they have CONSISTENTLY listened to their customers, and their customers have CONSISTENTLY told them that they DO NOT WANT the TRANSIT to replace the ECONOLINE, and they DO NOT WANT the ECONOLINE to replace the TRANSIT.

 

Think first, then type.

[RichardJensen]

Dodge was hoping that Sprinter volume would replace Ram Van volume. They were even (back in the good ol' DCX days) planning on building a Sprinter plant here in the US.

 

They haven't done one and have canceled the other. Why?

 

Because the demand for the Euro-style box is NOT what the isolated paper pushers ASSUME it is.

 

I mean the "let's merge the Econoline and Transit" argument is about as stupid as combining your in box and out box because one box is obviously tidier, simpler, and more efficient than two.

[Edstock]

Because the demand for the Euro-style box is NOT what the isolated paper pushers ASSUME it is.

 

I mean the "let's merge the Econoline and Transit" argument is about as stupid as combining your in box and out box because one box is obviously tidier, simpler, and more efficient than two.

 

I agree. The big Transit might not be much more successful than the Chryco models, but it's worth a try. When loads get dual-axle heavy, the Econoline does just fine, and will continue to do so.

 

However, the Transit's little brother, the Connect, has a significant market potential for those who just don't need an E-150, but want something more "commercial" than a minivan, with better fuel economy.

[Deanh]

I agree. The big Transit might not be much more successful than the Chryco models, but it's worth a try. When loads get dual-axle heavy, the Econoline does just fine, and will continue to do so.

 

However, the Transit's little brother, the Connect, has a significant market potential for those who just don't need an E-150, but want something more "commercial" than a minivan, with better fuel economy.

just watched a Ford speel on the Connect...very cool little vehicle....durability tested to 150k PLUS...my only question is its use of a 4 speed tranny.....one thing that we talked about was a "hybrid" version with regenerative braking...foe a stop and go delivery type vehicle imagine THAT potential ( course that is a ficticious wish so don't get too excited, just seems like the ultimate application )

[Biker16]

They've been "planning" to do that for THIRTY YEARS.

 

And you know why they haven't? Because it doesn't make sense.

 

Ford has been, for decades, the commercial king in both the US and Europe. It's the one aspect of their business that they have CONSISTENTLY gotten right, and that's because they have CONSISTENTLY listened to their customers, and their customers have CONSISTENTLY told them that they DO NOT WANT the TRANSIT to replace the ECONOLINE, and they DO NOT WANT the ECONOLINE to replace the TRANSIT.

 

Think first, then type.

 

I mean the "let's merge the Econoline and Transit" argument is about as stupid as combining your in box and out box because one box is obviously tidier, simpler, and more efficient than two.

Ok dick welcome back.

MY edit

Ford has been, for decades,selling C-cars in both the US and Europe. It's the one aspect of their business that they have CONSISTENTLY gotten wrong, and that's because they have CONSISTENTLY notlistened to their customers, and their customers have CONSISTENTLY told them that they DO NOT WANT the euro Cars to replace the US Shit boxes, and they DO NOT WANT the US shit boxes to replace the best selling Euro cars.

 

 

my edit.

I mean the "let's merge the Fusion and Mondeo" argument is about as stupid as combining your in box and out box because one box is obviously tidier, simpler, and more efficient than two.

 

 

Fine, more of the if it ain't made here bullshit.

 

gimme numbers and specs, not opinions on why We can't or can.

 

spec wise a the transit only lacks a large Gas engine to replace the Club wagon, and lighter duty E-150 and E250.

 

Again Why Can't the transit Replace the lighter duty E-series? Because you know Mulally is going to replace the E-series.

 

BTW when was the last time Ford had a ground up redesign of the E-series????????????

 

or even a new interior???

 

the old ford would never change it until the competition decided to enter this profitable market. the new Ford is doing what should be done replace aged products with newer, improved and better products.

 

What about CAFE???

 

why couldn't the Transit replace the < 4000lbs payload E-series?

 

how much much money should we spend to replace the transit and E-Series? even if you don't wholesale replace the E-series with the transit you have a tremendous opportunity to share components, interiors, switch gear ETC.

[Biker16]

just watched a Ford speel on the Connect...very cool little vehicle....durability tested to 150k PLUS...my only question is its use of a 4 speed tranny.....one thing that we talked about was a "hybrid" version with regenerative braking...foe a stop and go delivery type vehicle imagine THAT potential ( course that is a ficticious wish so don't get too excited, just seems like the ultimate application )

 

or as a hybrid Taxi cab to replace the CV.

[RichardJensen]

gimme numbers and specs, not opinions on why We can't or can.

Over a 50% share of the US fullsize van market and, IIRC, a similar share in Europe. Both the E-Series and Transit have had dominant shares of their respective markets since before I was born.

 

Those statistics combined with the rather poor showing of the Sprinter argue that the US commercial market is in NO RUSH to switch to Euro-style vans. Heck, Dodge's loss has been GM's gain in the fullsize van segment.

 

But feel free to discount those numbers, specs, and the true to life "this will replace the Ram Van and we're building a factory for them" example of the Sprinter.

 

Just continue to espouse combining two very different products (as opposed to the within fractions of inches Mondeo & Fusion).

[RichardJensen]

Hey. Let's combine the Ranger, F150, and Super Duty as well!!!!

 

All E-Series can be ordered with a gas engine that offers a significant hp and torque advantage over the Transit (Transit's best all new 3.2L I-5 diesel offers only 350 lb-ft of torque). And all E-Series can be fitted out with a 6.0L diesel that outperforms the 6.8L gas engine.

 

Why on EARTH would customers switch to a less powerful less capable vehicle for anything other than passenger hauling?

[CarShark]

It is kind of funny, though. Discounting styling, which is always subjective, you would think that the wants of someone in America wouldn't be that much different than one in...England, let's say. They'll want a well-packaged vehicle with plenty of space, a good interior with comfortable seating and logical ergonomics, an engine that gives decent fuel economy and performance, and reliability. The American will get the autobox, likely, while the Englishman takes the stick. The feature content is adjusted easily enough.

 

It appears that vans are the exception to the rule. Funny enough you guys mentioned the Sprinter. You know, I've heard so much positive press about it, I'd just assumed it was doing well.

[RichardJensen]

It appears that vans are the exception to the rule. Funny enough you guys mentioned the Sprinter. You know, I've heard so much positive press about it, I'd just assumed it was doing well.

Well, work vehicles in general are built to a more capable/robust as opposed to fuel efficient model in the US for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is cheaper fuel and more severe duty. (cf the "fullsize truck", and the extensive use of Class 8 trucks for transport in the US vs. the Ranger and rail transport in Britain).

 

Another factor is the body-builder industry which is, I believe much bigger in the US (the RV industry alone, I would imagine, dwarfs that of the EU).

 

You also deal with generally larger roads in the US and a less competitive rail freight network, which, in combination with the established body-builder industry creates less demand for continual improvement of space efficient packaging. What is preferred is a vehicle that will stand up to heavy use over long hauls at 75+mph, with sufficient power for freeway acceleration, etc.

 

Consequently, in the US you get a demand for ever increasing capacity/robustness and consistent basic architecture. Conversely, the EU market places a much higher premium on fuel efficiency and footprint efficient packaging.

Edited February 23, 2008 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

Hey. Let's combine the Ranger, F150, and Super Duty as well!!!!

 

All E-Series can be ordered with a gas engine that offers a significant hp and torque advantage over the Transit (Transit's best all new 3.2L I-5 diesel offers only 350 lb-ft of torque). And all E-Series can be fitted out with a 6.0L diesel that outperforms the 6.8L gas engine.

 

Why on EARTH would customers switch to a less powerful less capable vehicle for anything other than passenger hauling?

If you could fit the big diesel in the transit why keep the E-series?

 

They would choose the less powerful vehicle because it a) weighs less (needs less power) B) better fuel economy.

 

what about payload?

 

Cargo volume?

 

how is it less capable?

[RichardJensen]

If you could fit the big diesel in the transit why keep the E-series?

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

 

Why would you wreck the space efficient Transit by cramming a huge V8 into it that its home market does not want?

 

Why would you reinforce the Transit to add another three tons of GCWR, when its home market does not want that much capability?

 

Why would you demand that E-Series body builders adapt to the thoroughly different Transit architecture and offer them no increase in GCWR, GVWR, or durability? I mean you're asking them to spend millions on tooling and R&D in order to keep offering the same stuff they've been offering.

 

All you're doing is tidying up paper on your desk at this point.

Edited February 23, 2008 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

Over a 50% share of the US fullsize van market and, IIRC, a similar share in Europe. Both the E-Series and Transit have had dominant shares of their respective markets since before I was born.

 

Those statistics combined with the rather poor showing of the Sprinter argue that the US commercial market is in NO RUSH to switch to Euro-style vans. Heck, Dodge's loss has been GM's gain in the fullsize van segment.

 

 

Ford at one time had 23% market share, that was a great reason not to improve our products. We have 50% toady and therefore no reason to improve the product. awesome idea do nothing and hope that things will never change. worked great for the Taurus CV, ranger, etc. leve it be it will be fine. Reactive as opposed to proactive.

 

the sprinter sells everyone they can and build, I would not take the production limited sales for that Van as a representation of what the transit could do.

[RichardJensen]

Max GCWR for the biggest Transit: 14,500lbs.

 

Max GCWR for the 6.0L PSD E-Series: 20,000lbs.

 

Think about that.

[RichardJensen]

the sprinter sells everyone they can and build, I would not take the production limited sales for that Van as a representation of what the transit could do.

Then the reason for not building the plant here was?

 

Sprinter sales last year were 16k, 3k below the levels for their first year on the market.

 

In three years, they have sold 19k, 21k, and 16k Sprinters.

 

Demand has neither been strong nor steady for this vehicle.

[RichardJensen]

a great reason not to improve our products

What you are suggesting is no improvement to either product. At least not from the customer's perspective.

 

Don't go clothing change as 'improvement'. Not all change is good.

 

The E-Series now has a 10 ton GCWR. It did not have that rating in '91. Do NOT judge improvement by what you can SEE on vehicles like this.

[Biker16]

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

 

Why would you wreck the space efficient Transit by cramming a huge V8 into it that its home market does not want?

 

Why would you reinforce the Transit to add another two tons of GCWR, when its home market does not want that much capability?

 

Why would you demand that E-Series body builders adapt to the thoroughly different Transit architecture and offer them no increase in GCWR, GVWR, or durability? I mean you're asking them to spend millions on tooling and R&D in order to keep offering the same stuff they've been offering.

 

All you're doing is tidying up paper on your desk at this point.

 

They fit a I5 TDI in the transit, Why would they go through the trouble of fitting FWD, RWD and AWD to the Same van???? the market demanded it, if the market demanded a Large V8 we could do it. Damn Richard the New diesel V8 doesn't even fit in the E-series

 

The Transit has a maximum GVM = >10,000 lbs.

 

I would demand no such thing, from body builders, you can keep the E-series for them of put a transit cab on an all new frame that could offer better GCWR, GVWR, and durability. This is an opportunity.

[Biker16]

Then the reason for not building the plant here was?

 

Sprinter sales last year were 16k, 3k below the levels for their first year on the market.

 

In three years, they have sold 19k, 21k, and 16k Sprinters.

 

Demand has neither been strong nor steady for this vehicle.

 

the official reason was the economic conditions were not right, and you forget that this was a Mercedes decision not to replace the Ram Van. because they did not want to invest the resources needed to make the Sprinter a challenger to the E-series. when was the last time you saw ad for the sprinter, in print or on TV?

 

The 16k was due to the redesign, something Foreign to the E-series.

[RichardJensen]

They fit a I5 TDI in the transit, Why would they go through the trouble of fitting FWD, RWD and AWD to the Same van???? the market demanded it, if the market demanded a Large V8 we could do it. Damn Richard the New diesel V8 doesn't even fit in the E-series

 

The Transit has a maximum GVM = >10,000 lbs.

 

I would demand no such thing, from body builders, you can keep the E-series for them of put a transit cab on an all new frame that could offer better GCWR, GVWR, and durability. This is an opportunity.

This is nonsense and does not deserve rational response aside from the following pertinent points:

 

1) the EU market does not WANT a big V8, therefore bastardizing the Transit to hold the 6.0L PSD or the 4.4L Lion constitutes a degradation of the vehicle for its primary market in order to make it palatable for a secondary market. If this makes even an ounce of sense to you, you belong lumped in with mlhm5, TStag, Ford?-LOL! and a whole host of people who are bent on seeing only what they want to see.

 

2) the Transit is by no means whatsoever a valid starting point for a vehicle with a greater GCWR & GVWR than the E-Series, as the E-450 already carries a 5,700lb advantage in GCWR.

 

The idea that you would start with some hybrid of Transit and E-Series and end up with a vehicle that has more capacity than the E-450 is, without doubt, one of the most preposterous suggestions that has ever appeared under your signature on this board.

 

I'm sorry, but your insistence that some bastard child of the E-Series and Transit would be better than both does not deserve further rational opposition.

Edited February 23, 2008 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

the official reason was the economic conditions were not right

Yeah. And yet E-Series sales have been steady.

 

And we also have the, "but they didn't do it RIGHT" line of reasoning that is always ready to hand when a suggested course of action fails to pan out.

 

Fact is, if the Sprinter was such a knife-edge deal, then it couldn't possibly have been as good as you're saying it was.