Biker16 Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 http://www.autonews.com/article/20160502/RETAIL/305029958/fast-growth-for-a-showroom-ghost It's one of the fastest-growing, most lucrative vehicle segments -- yet you'll almost never see one prominently parked in a dealership's showroom. U.S. sales of full-size vans are increasing eight times faster than the industry average so far in 2016. Combined with their compact siblings, com-mercial vans are on track to top half a million sales for the first time this year. While the pace of overall industry gains is slowing, the improving economy means demand for work vans is actually heating up. Newcomers to the market from Nissan and Ram are surging, while Ford, the dominant player by far, enjoyed its best March van sales since the Carter administration. Ford replaced its aging E-series van, also known as the Econoline, with the European-bred Transit in 2014, just as many businesses had recovered enough from the recession to start upgrading their van fleets. "You won't see it on the cover of Motor Trend, but it's certainly a great addition for Ford, said Marc McEver, the owner of Olathe Ford outside Kansas City, Kan. About 20 percent of the dealership's sales are now Transits, which come from a plant 30 miles away. "It's really light years different between the Econoline and the Transit," McEver said. "And profitability versus the Econoline is much better." Commercial vans are a big reason fleet sales rose 14 percent in the first quarter. Many vans are sold in bulk to utility companies, cable providers and other big bus-ines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 "And profitability versus the Econoline is much better." I'd like to know how they quantify that...yeah its a shared platform, but the tooling etc on the Econoline has been LONG paid for...I think the last major update was in the late 1990s to the platform, outside of sheetmetal changes to the grill and changes in engines...which are at least a decade old. I'd also assume the MPGS on the Transit are much better also, which is a big draw too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 If this uptick continues, I think it would be good for Ford to bring over the FWD and AWD versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 The statement "tooling has long been paid for" can be deceiving. Diesets wear out and need to be repaired or replaced. And as they wear, it is harder to keep part quality where it needs to be. And worn tooling often needs to be run slower. Old tooling only saves you money when you have dwindling production with ever lower units produced on the way to phaseout of a product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
03 LS Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 I'd like to know how they quantify that...yeah its a shared platform, but the tooling etc on the Econoline has been LONG paid for...I think the last major update was in the late 1990s to the platform, outside of sheetmetal changes to the grill and changes in engines...which are at least a decade old. I'd also assume the MPGS on the Transit are much better also, which is a big draw too. It's a quote from a dealer. There shouldn't be any doubt that dealer "profitability versus the Econoline is much better." Look at the ATP changes Sales increase Avg. trans. price 2011 20% $27,433 2012 12% $28,703 2013 6% $28,637 2014 14% $27,971 2015 19% $32,366 2016* 23% $32,913 * Through March Source: Automotive News Data Center, Kelley Blue Book Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 2, 2016 Author Share Posted May 2, 2016 I'd like to know how they quantify that...yeah its a shared platform, but the tooling etc on the Econoline has been LONG paid for...I think the last major update was in the late 1990s to the platform, outside of sheetmetal changes to the grill and changes in engines...which are at least a decade old. I'd also assume the MPGS on the Transit are much better also, which is a big draw too. There is also cost of delaying upgrades, the older a products the more you have to keep older less efficient parts and components in production. With the Transit you are using common electrical systems and parts shared with volume products like the focus, and F-150. there is a cost to keeping older technology in production. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 (edited) Most of the world uses large vans instead of pickups, which makes allot more sense since you have far more cargo carrying capacity (which is also sheltered and secured). Up until now, vans in the US have been space inefficient despite their overbuilt nature. This is a class of vehicle the US has badly needed for decades. Instead, we've relied on pickups with their VERY high load height, exposed beds, and relatives low cargo volume. The full-size pickup truck really is a curiosity unique to the US and it doesn't make much sense from a utility perspective which is why most of them are sold as personal vehicles. I'm glad Ford finally took advantage of this fleet-only market. Edited May 2, 2016 by BORG 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 How is an E-series van "space inefficient"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt in blue Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 As someone who has packed many extended length conventional vans and also box trucks with production equipment (sound, lights, etc), I can tell you the legacy design full size vans are a pain to pack because of the low interior height. The Fords were the easiest to pack, but the difference between an E350 and a small box truck on an E350 cutaway chassis is night and day in terms of ease of packing for the same amount of gear. The box truck costs a lot more though. A high roof Euro van would probably work great for that in between space - where a van is large enough but a pain to load. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 2, 2016 Author Share Posted May 2, 2016 How is an E-series van "space inefficient"? low Roof, and high floor compared to Vehicles like the transit. Also because of the Location of the Driver related tot he engine, there is more space wasted in the nose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 The massive approval / sales increase for Transit is full vindication for its adoption in North America. those predicting its failure with fleet buyers and trades people obviously had no grasp of reality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 and yet we haven't been able to sell wagon versions for a couple of months now...STOP SELL....all because of safety belt concerns............seriously, how long have safety belts been manufactured?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordowner Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Another person happy about the uptick is the below Mr. Kim who sold the property his 40 year old restaurant sat on to Hennessy Ford in Atlanta who right now is using it house their expanded commercial truck/van sales. "Mr. Stanley Kim, pictured below, has been operating Oga's Restaurant for over forty years. With the help of the ALG staff, the deal closed for $1,260,000 and the site will be no longer be known as a family-style diner. Instead, the site will be part of a future Hennessy Automotive group development. " http://brookhavenpost.co/a-farewell-to-ogas-in-chamblee/37276/ As for me I wondering when the shag carpeting and porthole window options will be on the order guide for the Transit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 ironically the main competition seems to be coming from Sprinter....and even though we ( Ford ) hold a significant price advantage, with non mandatory Diesels....Mercedes has subsidized lease programs, Fords lease programs on the Transits, Wagons as well....is seriously non competitive.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 (edited) It seemed like quite a gamble considering the popularity of the E-Series, but they obviously made it work and it's a gigantic success worth trumpeting. It's also one of the reasons why Ford's fleet business is so big compared to others. Edited May 2, 2016 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 How is an E-series van "space inefficient"? . Stand up in one, and the sides bowed in as it met the roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 The new Transit is pretty awesome, it sold me on driving dynamics alone, and they had their homework done 9 my guess is being in Europe for as long as it was helped ) the Low Roof fits into a majority of underground paring structures ( The Ram is 3 inches too high!!!!!!!!!! ) the mid roof is a great all-rounder and the High is there for those in need...then theres 3 lengths.....and engine choices, although I still think the 2.7 would be a good fit.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StangBang Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Another person happy about the uptick is the below Mr. Kim who sold the property his 40 year old restaurant sat on to Hennessy Ford in Atlanta who right now is using it house their expanded commercial truck/van sales. "Mr. Stanley Kim, pictured below, has been operating Oga's Restaurant for over forty years. With the help of the ALG staff, the deal closed for $1,260,000 and the site will be no longer be known as a family-style diner. Instead, the site will be part of a future Hennessy Automotive group development. " http://brookhavenpost.co/a-farewell-to-ogas-in-chamblee/37276/ As for me I wondering when the shag carpeting and porthole window options will be on the order guide for the Transit. I'm all for the new Transit Cruising Van! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 because of the Location of the Driver related tot he engine, there is more space wasted in the nose. While you could conceivably fit a V8 in less space than the E-Series, it would be extremely difficult and would not yield a significant increase in space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 I can see the load floor being inefficient, but not roof height. That's a conscious decision not to use that space, not an inefficient use of the space. But I'm circumcising fleas here - agree the Transit has better cargo options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 (edited) It seemed like quite a gamble considering the popularity of the E-Series, but they obviously made it work and it's a gigantic success worth trumpeting. It's also one of the reasons why Ford's fleet business is so big compared to others. I didn't think it was that big a gamble. While Ford dominated the market with E-series, it was an incumbent advantage... meaning Ford won by default for having the distribution network and a large existing customer base. Fleet buyers were not choosing E-series on merit for the most part... they were forced into it by default. Contrast that with the dynamics in the F-series market where you have strong competition forcing Ford to bring the "A" game every year. The bigger gamble would have been to sit on the E-series without change and risk someone coming in with a better product and take away your lunch. Edited May 2, 2016 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 (edited) It makes perfect sense because this is also a global product replacing a VERY obsolete regional product with poor fuel economy. You gain economies of scale and a vastly better product. But at the time, without doing the research that Ford I'm sure had done, it seemed a little dangerous to go in such a new direction after decades of sameness. But in terms of cleaning house, I was really excited when Ford globalized its entire van lineup so that everything was finally on a maintenance schedule with an actual product lifecycle. Edited May 2, 2016 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) How is an E-series van "space inefficient"? I can see the load floor being inefficient, but not roof height. That's a conscious decision not to use that space, not an inefficient use of the space. But I'm circumcising fleas here - agree the Transit has better cargo options. As others have pointed out, there'e the load heights and higher roofs, but I think it also may be, even when comparing low-roof versions, that traditional American vans have suffer from a case of tumblehome, while European vans are more boxy and have upright walls, therefore being more efficient with their usable space. Edited May 3, 2016 by zipnzap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 How is an E-series van "space inefficient"? My company switched from E series to Transit and the difference is Earth shattering! The height is the most of it, but you have to see both side by side to see how much better it uses the space as well. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 It makes perfect sense because this is also a global product replacing a VERY obsolete regional product with poor fuel economy. You gain economies of scale and a vastly better product. But at the time, without doing the research that Ford I'm sure had done, it seemed a little dangerous to go in such a new direction after decades of sameness. But in terms of cleaning house, I was really excited when Ford globalized its entire van lineup so that everything was finally on a maintenance schedule with an actual product lifecycle. You said it! The E series is VERY obsolete. After driving both, I was impressed by the fact the space, and how well engineered the Transit is. It drives like a car (almost), handles extremely well (better than even many CUV models), much more pep in the engine than expected, excellent fuel economy. In fact, next to the Transit, the E series at half price would still be a tough sell. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.