Jump to content

C&D: 2015 Ford Transit 350 Wagon EcoBoost V-6 Review


Recommended Posts

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/full-review-of-the-2015-ford-transit-xlt-van-review

 

 

 

Confidence Is High

With confidence at the wheel established, we had no qualms exploring all 310 horsepower and 400 lb-ft of torque provided by the Transit’s 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine. This EcoBoost lives up to the latter part of its name, with peak torque available from 2250 rpm, and, honestly, it’s much faster than it needs to be. The zero-to-60 run consumed 7.5 seconds with just a driver onboard, while the Transit slipped through the quarter-mile in 15.9 seconds at 88 mph. That’s six-tenths quicker than the 16.5-second time we recorded in the significantly lighter, front-wheel-drive, V-6 2014 Ram ProMaster 1500 Cargo Van. If van drag-racing is your thing, the Transit deserves your consideration. (On a semi-related note, the Transit will do a burnout with traction control disabled.) Drivers have the option of calling their own gear swaps via a smallish button on the shifter, but unless you are traveling through mountainous regions, the automatic transmission does a pretty good job on its own.

 

Key takeaways:

 

6451lbs Curb weight

0-60 in 7.5 seconds

22mpg observed Fuel Economy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... 22 mpg... in a van? Observed fuel economy too instead of window sticker. Even empty, that's much better than I expected. I expected the observed fuel economy to be 15-17 with an auto journalist drag racing it everywhere.

compared to the MKZ driven by the same irrelevant bunch of morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't give their rationale for testing a high roof version, but think of the weight and wind resistance that adds. Given the acceleration numbers and mpg numbers of the test vehicle, think of what those numbers might be in a low roof version. And perhaps think of what the next higher axle ratio would do to MPG? Who needs 7.5 seconds in a van. And given the EB's ability to put out torque at low RPMs, a taller ratio should not be an issue in terms of its ability to maintain reasonable speed on grades.

 

Talk about a home run! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whats more impressive is its a WAGON not just a shell...its either a 12 or 15 passenger.........LOTS of curbweight....and someone ( Bob ) stated who need that in a vehicle like this....add 10 or so 180 -200 lb people...THEN its needed.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whats more impressive is its a WAGON not just a shell...its either a 12 or 15 passenger.........LOTS of curbweight....and someone ( Bob ) stated who need that in a vehicle like this....add 10 or so 180 -200 lb people...THEN its needed.....

No argument-agree IF in fact it is an airport/hotel shuttle- I was actually thinking of the vehicle as tested as a family hauler-perhaps a bad assumption on my part.

 

And if it was an airport/hotel shuttle I would imagine the diesel might be a better option given the mileage/high idle hours of such service.

 

Either way- the numbers in the test are great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is the lightest you could option a Transit and still get the EB? It has the potential to be a real sleeper.

 

I had time to look up the specs from Ford's fleet site. The base curb weight for a standard wheelbase, low roof Transit Cargo van with 3.5 EB is 5000lbs. Knock 1500 lbs off and that 0-60 in 7.5 probably becomes close to 6.0 seconds with a quarter mile time in the mid 14s. High 13s seem reasonable with a tune and traction.

Edited by jpvbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, problem with diesel...$6000 premium, take rate is low and its only avail in certain configurations....and sorry, im not spending an hour researching which ones ( YES its THAT frustrating )

 

I thought the Diesel was only $4,000 premium over the Ecoboost's $2,000 premium?

 

the Diesel is trending about the 30% better in fuel economy than the V6, even more when loaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

compared to the MKZ driven by the same irrelevant bunch of morons.

Are they still irrelevant after being successful in their market for something like 50+ years?

 

I find their opinions to be at least as relevant as those with clear-yet understandable-biases on any given brand fan site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

0.67 G on the skidpad? Why would you even take a van like that onto the skidpad?

 

And the 22 mpg does not mean anything to me because, just like the MKZ hybrid, they're not scientific tests.

You take any vehicle on a skidpad to determine grip/cornering limits. Just because some vehicles are far less likely to be pushed near said limits, doesn't mean that it's responsible to simply skip that part of the test.

 

It's laughable how some will chide the "entertainment", yet also chide the measureables just because they're not interested in the categories. Seriously folks.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find their opinions to be at least as relevant as those with clear-yet understandable-biases on any given brand fan site.

 

Do you not grasp the difference between fans on a website and paid professionals who work for a for-profit media publishing company?

 

Or to put it another way - yes, I give both of those groups the same consideration of their opinions. Which is to say - not much when it comes to actually evaluating a vehicle I want to buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...