Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ford Launches Econoline Replacement With T-Series  
User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 6
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7590 times:

Ford Transit Van (USA version)


The new 2013 T-Series line (T is for Transit)of full-sized cargo vans - the replacement for the iconic and evergreen Ford Econoline van - has broken cover and details are beginning to become public about Ford's much anticipated (and highly profitable) commercial vehicle.

As the official Ford photo (above) shows, the T-series commercial van is definitely NOT related to the current front-wheel drive U.S. Transit Connect van. The T-series is based on a rear-wheel drive only platform, and will be powered by Ford's 3.5 liter V-6 (in normal and Ecoboost versions) as well as an expected 3.2 liter FIVE cylinder turbo diesel that should give the T-series excellent fuel economy for a large van. The van will be produced at Ford's Kansas City assembly plant, which will soon also produce (according to UAW documents) the smaller current Ford Transit Connect, which was previously imported from Europe. Ford has not released complete details on the T-Series as of yet. The T-Series line will compete with the Nissan NV, GMC Express, and Mercedes (previously Dodge/Freightliner) Sprinter cargo van models. Fiat is also importing some of its European cargo vans for sale in Ram dealerships shortly, so the Transit will have lots of competitors. The T-Series should be on sale at U.S. Ford dealers by next spring.

Source: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/05/f...ica-as-kansas-city-built-t-series/

[Edited 2012-09-08 21:07:07]


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12218 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7544 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Interesting design.....is it just me but does its front look to girly?

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39907 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7534 times:

They mine as well give it a retro look and call it the Model T.


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7566 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7531 times:

Quoting stasisLAX (Thread starter):
The T-series is based on a rear-wheel drive only platform

If the T series is anything like the previous V347 V348 series Transit whose chassis is designed to be produced as FWD, RWD and AWD, I'm sure you will be able to get in any drivetrain configuration you want, just maybe not in the US.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7078 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7469 times:

The US always had unique cars, vans and trucks but now they get more and more European style, don´t know if this is good or bad......


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7566 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7464 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 4):
The US always had unique cars, vans and trucks but now they get more and more European style, don´t know if this is good or bad......

Well it's good for Ford, it means they don't need to design different vehicles for different markets. Europeans will get a much larger range but won't get the 3.5 V6.


User currently offlineKLASM83 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 631 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7415 times:

It sure is a sharp lookin' van. My only lingering question is what will replace the E-Series in terms of a passenger van? If this T(1000)-Series is wide enough as the Econoline, than it's fine, but insofar as I understand it, if it's as wide as the Transit, many will have issues with capacity.

But that's just my   



Don't you want to hang out and waste your life with us?
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7566 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7408 times:

We have a company transit at work that seats 12, it's not the longest wheelbase version either.

User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12742 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7404 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 2):
They mine as well give it a retro look and call it the Model T.

We'll have to see if someone offers a trim kit more to your liking:




Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5676 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7409 times:

Quoting KLASM83 (Reply 6):
It sure is a sharp lookin' van. My only lingering question is what will replace the E-Series in terms of a passenger van? If this T(1000)-Series is wide enough as the Econoline, than it's fine, but insofar as I understand it, if it's as wide as the Transit, many will have issues with capacity.

I read that the van is designed with the "standard US requirement" of being able place a 4x8 sheet of plywood flat on the floor in the back. With that it will be essentially the same interior width as current vans. Also this new T-Series is not related to the Transit Connect beyond its name.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/tags/ford-transit/

As far as it looks.... come on, it's a freekin' van for goodness sake! It is pretty basic, a box with the now standard rounded corners to maximize fuel economy. It looks fine. Of course it looks different than E-series, it's not like the E-series was all that great or good looking. It has simply become "iconic" because it's had the same basic form for 27 years.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2261 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7374 times:

Quoting KLASM83 (Reply 6):
It sure is a sharp lookin' van. My only lingering question is what will replace the E-Series in terms of a passenger van? If this T(1000)-Series is wide enough as the Econoline, than it's fine, but insofar as I understand it, if it's as wide as the Transit, many will have issues with capacity.

It is about the same width as the Econoline. Don't confuse the Transit (which currently isn't sold here) with the Transit Connect (which currently is), which btw, is also getting a nice makeover for the fall. Despite the similar name they are two completely different vehicles based on two different platforms.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8329 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7321 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 4):
The US always had unique cars, vans and trucks but now they get more and more European style, don´t know if this is good or bad......

Personally I think it's a good thing. They add interest to driving around town. I also think that the European designs are doing a decent job at leading the way on some small car designs.


User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7289 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 7):
We have a company transit at work that seats 12, it's not the longest wheelbase version either.

I know it probably won't happen, but a 2013 version of the classis "Ford Chateau Wagon" would be very cool (think of a Country Squire wagon, but in a van version)!  



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7277 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 2):
They mine as well give it a retro look and call it the Model T.

'Fly, Ford just needs to offer a "Chateau Wagon" passenger version of the T-series (with a two-tone paint job, or woodgrain siding, and swivel "captain's chairs" up front in the Eddie Bauer Edition!   



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8641 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7194 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 1):

Interesting design.....is it just me but does its front look to girly?

That is a good point. The buyers of these things are men. It shouldn't necessarily have these female eyelashes on it. That's a little weird.

They did the same thing with 2013 Escape, too. It used to be a little bit butch. Now it's just another jellybean CUV. What do you bet they lost a lot of their fan base.


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7534 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 9):
It has simply become "iconic" because it's had the same basic form for 27 years.

You're about 10 years off; the basic platform for the current E-series dates back the 1975 model year.

As far as the upcoming T-series is concerned; IMHO, the front end on the European version (from the OP's link) looks a little bit better than the one for the U.S. market. Note to Ford: slapping on a Taurus-like nose on everything isn't necessarily a good idea.

While the smaller engine sizes were to be expected; I am a tad surprised that there's no available V8 listed... not even as part of a tow package. In addition to hauling inside cargo; I've seen some large vans (E-series and/or equivalent) used for towing.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1275 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7165 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 9):
I read that the van is designed with the "standard US requirement" of being able place a 4x8 sheet of plywood flat on the floor in the back. With that it will be essentially the same interior width as current vans. Also this new T-Series is not related to the Transit Connect beyond its name.

It's not related to the Transit Connect, it's related to the Transit - which is the standard international van in Ford's lineup and the best selling van in Europe since 1965.

Ford's been planning this replacement for awhile.

Indeed, the writing has been on the wall for the E-series and the Savana/Express since DaimlerChrysler brought over the Sprinter to replace the ancient Dodge Ram Van ten years ago.

The Euro-style vans can haul alot more and use alot less fuel. They're better to drive and more stable when loaded, too. You might not be able to tow a yacht with one, but there's plenty of pickups for that.

The question now is not whether or not the Transit/T-series will do well here - because I think it very much will - but when will GM respond and with what? GM has vans like this in the international lineup, but they are produced in a JV with Renault. That means that Renault-Nissan might try to prevent them from being sold in the US, as they would compete with the Nissan NV, itself a weird amalgam of pickup and big van.

...And... will Fiat/Chrysler want to get in on the action with the Ducato, which is sold in Mexico but not the US, where Dodge dealers have been without a big van since 2009.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7566 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7165 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 15):
In addition to hauling inside cargo; I've seen some large vans (E-series and/or equivalent) used for towing.

The diesel should provide more than enough poke for towing.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 15):
the front end on the European version

That's the current Gen 7 transit, not the new one.

If you take a look at the Ford UK transit website you can see just how many bodystyles, wheelbase, roof height and drive line configurations the Transit comes with, there should be a version here for pretty much everyone.

[Edited 2012-09-10 09:58:49]

User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7534 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 17):
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 15):
In addition to hauling inside cargo; I've seen some large vans (E-series and/or equivalent) used for towing.

The diesel should provide more than enough poke for towing.

According to Ford specs. (see below link for the 2012 models), the base E-150 version of the E-series w/the 5.4L V8 can tow up to 7000 lbs. (passenger version), 7400 lbs. (cargo version).

The larger, beefier E-350 w/the 6.8L V10 can tow up to 10,000 lbs.

http://www.new-cars.com/2012/ford/specs/e-series.html#weights


The new T-series, in The States, needs to offer a package that allows for equal or better towing capacities than the E-series.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3103 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7165 times:

Well if you squint just right at the corners, then Apple may be suing any day. 
Quoting tugger (Reply 9):
I read that the van is designed with the "standard US requirement" of being able place a 4x8 sheet of plywood flat on the floor in the back

Exactly.
Absolutely the first requirement for a commercial vehicle, van or pick-up truck in the US and the first thing thrown to the wayside by those who do not have a clue, making the vehicle useless piece of metal work.

Apparently Ford sees a future for the "Transit". Is GM still "asleep at the wheel" or will they just drop out of the van market altogether?

Okie


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7534 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7166 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 19):
Is GM still "asleep at the wheel" or will they just drop out of the van market altogether?

Both Chevy & GMC still make full-size vans; their platform is 20 years younger than the Ford E-series. They could actually exploit any towing-related shortfalls that the Ford T-series or Dodge Sprinter may have encountered, promote V8 reliability and/or grab former E-series owners that might be put off by the newer, taller vans offered by Ford & Dodge.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinelarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7166 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 18):

According to Ford specs. (see below link for the 2012 models), the base E-150 version of the E-series w/the 5.4L V8 can tow up to 7000 lbs. (passenger version), 7400 lbs. (cargo version).

The larger, beefier E-350 w/the 6.8L V10 can tow up to 10,000 lbs.

The current Transit with the largest tow capacity in Denmark right now have 2,2l TDCi with 155hp and can tow 3000kg, thats ~6600 pounds.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6730 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7162 times:

Quoting cargolex (Reply 16):
...And... will Fiat/Chrysler want to get in on the action with the Ducato, which is sold in Mexico but not the US, where Dodge dealers have been without a big van since 2009.

Apparently they do, for 2013. But the Ducato is a JV with the other French carmaker, PSA Peugeot Citroën, in which... GM has invested !

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 18):
The new T-series, in The States, needs to offer a package that allows for equal or better towing capacities than the E-series.

If it can make money, they will.

Quoting larshjort (Reply 21):
The current Transit with the largest tow capacity in Denmark right now have 2,2l TDCi with 155hp and can tow 3000kg, thats ~6600 pounds.

I'm guessing they don't use the same formula for towing in the US because they always end up with ridiculously large engines. Or maybe it's because they're not diesel, or because of the automatic transmissions.

Considering most small trucks and vans I see on the roads here are driven by maniacs, always over the speed limit (130Km/h), I wonder what would happen if they had V8 engines !



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7136 times:

GM made a similar van for years. I learned to drive on one just like this, 292ci straight 6, 3 speed on the column....


Appliance repair truck by day, my lair by night.

[Edited 2012-09-10 17:05:40]

User currently offlineKLASM83 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 631 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7095 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 9):
Quoting Polot (Reply 10):

I stand corrected, thanks!   I regularly drive the E-Series 15 pax vans, so I look forward to something a bit more stable (or as stable as something that big can be).



Don't you want to hang out and waste your life with us?
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12742 posts, RR: 25
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7140 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 23):
Appliance repair truck by day, my lair by night.

Shaggin' Wagon? 

In the 70s my dad bought something like that from a hippie. It was partially outfitted to be a camper inside, and my dad was going to finish the job. However it never was a good idea, since the truck wasn't reliable and since it wouldn't be safe to drive it with the family loaded in back. In retrospect he would have been better off putting the money into some sort of poptop trailer he could drag behind the badass Ford station wagon he was driving at the time.

Unfortunately for me, it was long gone before I could use it as a Shaggin' Wagon, although I can imagine my brother and his pothead friends probably got stoned in there a few times before my dad finally got rid of it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7566 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7131 times:

Transits can be pretty badass, take this one for example, it's the one TWR used when developing the XJ220.

http://www.supercars.net/gallery/119513/2446/940352.jpg


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39907 posts, RR: 75
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7137 times:

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 13):
'Fly, Ford just needs to offer a "Chateau Wagon" passenger version of the T-series (with a two-tone paint job, or woodgrain siding, and swivel "captain's chairs" up front in the Eddie Bauer Edition!

That would be nice!
A friend of mines has a 1978 Ford "Chateau Wagon" in the brown & beige tu-tone. It's the same color combination as his 1978 LTD Landau. He also has a 1984 AMC Eagle wagon limited. His wife thinks he's nuts but those are his toys.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
We'll have to see if someone offers a trim kit more to your liking:

  


As far as the looks of this T-series, I'm not impressed.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 25):
badass Ford station wagon he was driving at the time.

What kind was it?
1970 Torino Squire wagon?
429cu" V8 that put out over 400HP.  
...
http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj96/Rush8track/1970FordTorinoSquireWagon.jpg

I know a particular member that is an L1011 fan that has the coupe version of this car.



or was it the full-size Mercury Colony Park wagon?

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj96/Rush8track/1974MercuryColonyPark.jpg

[Edited 2012-09-11 02:57:15]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineidealstandard From France, joined Apr 2009, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7095 times:

It never ceases to amaze me the stupidity of the engines that Americans demand in their vans.

We run a fleet of vans here in the UK, 2.5 litre diesel Vauxhall Movanos - similar size to the econoline/transit. There is NO NEED for a V8 or V10 petrol in a van, it's just stupid. A van isn't about performance, it's about hauling goods, which means torque, which means diesel.

I know that the US Govt has an irrational hatred of diesel, but for industry, it makes so much more sense.

The 3.2 diesel transit we have here at the moment does about 26 UK MPG, which is about 30USMPG. Let me guess. An econoline Triton V10 doesn't get 30mpg?

IS.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6730 posts, RR: 12
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7094 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 20):
former E-series owners that might be put off by the newer, taller vans offered by Ford & Dodge.

You can get a low roof one :




New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7083 times:

Quoting idealstandard (Reply 28):
We run a fleet of vans here in the UK, 2.5 litre diesel Vauxhall Movanos - similar size to the econoline/transit. There is NO NEED for a V8 or V10 petrol in a van,

Hate to break it to you but the only manufacturers using V10s or larger in anything are Europeans. And now one Chrysler.


User currently offlineidealstandard From France, joined Apr 2009, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7070 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 30):

Really? http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/

E-Line:
"4.6L EFI Triton® V8 with 4-Speed Automatic Transmission with Overdrive
5.4L EFI Triton® V8 with 4-Speed Automatic Transmission with Overdrive
6.8L EFI Triton® V10 with 5-Speed Automatic Transmission with Overdrive and Tow/Haul Mode "

Let's not get sad and pedantic here about where companies are from (although last time I checked, Ford were an American company) - we are talking about what the market wants here.

The europeans want diesel and frugality. The Americans want V8 and V10 for "torque" 8-)

And this new Transit is being offered with a 3.5 litre V6 petrol as it's standard engine. That makes sense.... Still a move in the right direction I suppose.

IS


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7534 posts, RR: 24
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 7057 times:

Quoting idealstandard (Reply 28):
I know that the US Govt has an irrational hatred of diesel, but for industry, it makes so much more sense.

It's not just the US Gov't per say but also several states that have since adopted CA's more restrictive emission laws and standards (aka CARB) over the last 20 years or so. CARB laws alone have made diesel-powered offerings (unless one buys a super large truck) essentially not marketable.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 7057 times:

I stand corrected on the Ford.
But lets talk about this engine size thing. The old van I pictured above was a 292 straight 6 (4.8l). It was a torque monster, really a very good engine with huge cylinders and a long life. The problem was fuel economy stunk but that grunt was needed to haul loads in a very hilly city (Seattle). It is very inconvenient to not have enough power to get going at a steep downtown stoplight. Maybe we could have had a smaller diesel, but lost in the constant Euro haranguing about diesel is that we now know that all those diesel particulates kill people - as Europe has now discovered - after the fact. In hindsight, it has been very fortuitous that we did not hop on the diesel bandwagon.

Ford also offered a straight 6 in it's trucks until a decade or so ago. It too was a good engine, simple and strong but sucked fuel (see a theme here?). The notion that a motor is automatically more efficient because it is smaller was never true, at least not until the advent of direct injection, turbos and variable timing. Even today, a full sized Ford truck with a small V8 rivals the fuel efficiency of the smaller 4 and 6 cylinder trucks which has sadly helped kill the small truck market here.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8641 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 7053 times:

Quoting idealstandard (Reply 31):
The europeans want diesel and frugality. The Americans want V8 and V10 for "torque" 8-)

Agree with your general point. Technology has changed. Just as with aircraft. Ford just came out with a great 1.0 liter 3 cylinder with 125hp. With today's transmissions, that is plenty as long as it is torquey and quiet - which the 3 apparently is. I'd like that motor in my cars. And I drive fast. But when do you need 300HP on public roads... Never, that's when, unless you are a poor driver.


I tend to believe gasoline is still moving forward here. Diesel requires very expensive emissions controls here. You would expect full size vans here to be diesel, but it is not always so. And these are profit-seeking enterprises buying them. Diesel vehicles are $5-10,000 more expensive.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6730 posts, RR: 12
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7022 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 33):
diesel particulates kill people - as Europe has now discovered - after the fact. In hindsight, it has been very fortuitous that we did not hop on the diesel bandwagon.

We knew that for a long time, why do you think particulates filters are mandatory ? But it's not like gasoline engines only emit water, and if every moving vehicle has poor fuel economy, the resulting emissions are far worse. All in all, I doubt California can claim to have great air quality thanks to CARB.

On the other hand I do think that small cars shouldn't have a diesel engine, here even the smallest "quadricycles" (350Kg cars you can drive without a license, limited to 45Km/h) are powered with a 2 cylinders 400cc diesel engine.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12742 posts, RR: 25
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7012 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 27):
1970 Torino Squire wagon?
429cu" V8 that put out over 400HP.

Close: 70 Ford Country Squire with 400 cu in (6.6 L) Cleveland V8:



Dad's had the exact same green color, but for some unknown reason he didn't have the wood trim!

When my dad would give that thing the gas it'd really go!

I also recall it got really bad gas mileage, around 12 mpg or so, even though the wiki description says it was efficient:

Quote:

The mid block FE engine family was getting outdated, and the big-block 385 family could not meet the efficiency requirements of the time. At the same time, the small-block Windsor engines were too small and high-revving for Ford's fullsize car and truck applications. So the company developed a new small-block to meet the desired levels of economy while still providing the kind of big-block torque that was needed to move 2+ ton vehicles.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3284 posts, RR: 6
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6970 times:

Quoting idealstandard (Reply 31):
And this new Transit is being offered with a 3.5 litre V6 petrol as it's standard engine. That makes sense.... Still a move in the right direction I suppose.

According to Ford, the new T-series will get a minimum of 25 percent better fuel economy when compared to the F-series (Econoline) models.



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlinePhatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6944 times:

Interesting to see a left sliding door option will be available. I wonder why the Econoline never offered this option - even the GMC/Chevrolet Express offered this and was a huge selling point when it first debuted.

User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6934 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 35):
All in all, I doubt California can claim to have great air quality thanks to CARB.

Huh? I think they get way carried away with some things but if you knew what the LA basin used to look like, you could not say that. We have far more cars on the road today producing (I read somewhere) 99% less pollution.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4900 posts, RR: 16
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6928 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 27):
What kind was it?
1970 Torino Squire wagon?
429cu" V8 that put out over 400HP.

Awesome car, used to drive in my grad school days. More fun to drive than an SL500...


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39907 posts, RR: 75
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6908 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 36):
Close: 70 Ford Country Squire with 400 cu in (6.6 L) Cleveland V8:


I thought that came out in 1972. The 1970 model would have been a 429 or a 390.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 36):
for some unknown reason he didn't have the wood trim!


Was he afraid of the wood?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 36):
I also recall it got really bad gas mileage, around 12 mpg or so, even though the wiki description says it was efficient:


Yep, that is about what they get.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 39):
Huh? I think they get way carried away with some things but if you knew what the LA basin used to look like, you could not say that. We have far more cars on the road today producing (I read somewhere) 99% less pollution.


mham001 has a point and yes I remember the smog in Los Angeles back in the early 1980s and it was bad. They haven't had stage III smog alerts in a long time. However I'm not so sure I'd give too much credit to CARB.
Car efficiency has been constantly improving over the year not to appease CARB but it's a selling point for consumers.

Quoting comorin (Reply 40):
Awesome car, used to drive in my grad school days. More fun to drive than an SL500...


Now THAT is saying a lot!   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineidealstandard From France, joined Apr 2009, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6880 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 34):
Ford just came out with a great 1.0 liter 3 cylinder with 125hp. With today's transmissions, that is plenty as long as it is torquey and quiet - which the 3 apparently is. I'd like that motor in my cars. And I drive fast.

Yes I've driven the ecoboost Focus, it's fine. Just as powerful as the outgoing 1.6 motor but it gets about 40% better mileage.

Petrol in small cars is the way forward. Diesel in larger cars/industrial vehicles is also the way forward.

Small petrol turbo engines are more frugal than diesel now, and require less stringent emissions bolt ons than Diesel.


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7534 posts, RR: 24
Reply 43, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6861 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 36):
but for some unknown reason he didn't have the wood trim!

Did your father's wagon have the concealed headlights? If not, 1970 his wagon was either the Country Sedan (which was based off the mid-level Galaxie 500 trim) or the Ranch Wagon (which was based off the bare-bones Custom or Custom 500 trims). The Country Squire was based off the upper-level LTD trim.

The pic you posted is a '72 model BTW and Superfly's correct regarding the engine choices. The '70 Country Squire featured concealed headlights (see below-pic.).



1970 Country Sedan


The first LTD wagon without the simulated woodgrain rolled out for the 1974 model year.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6730 posts, RR: 12
Reply 44, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6857 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 39):
Huh? I think they get way carried away with some things but if you knew what the LA basin used to look like, you could not say that. We have far more cars on the road today producing (I read somewhere) 99% less pollution.

I just put "los angeles air pollution" in google and found that it's still the 2nd most polluted city in the country. The Californian standard is stricter on NOx emissions than European standards, this is what makes it complicated to have diesel cars. The other emissions are looser.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 45, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6846 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41):
However I'm not so sure I'd give too much credit to CARB.

If not CARB, then who exactly forced emission controls on cars?

Quoting Aesma (Reply 44):
I just put "los angeles air pollution" in google and found that it's still the 2nd most polluted city in the country. The Californian standard is stricter on NOx emissions than European standards, this is what makes it complicated to have diesel cars. The other emissions are looser.

Second worse or worst, it does not negate the fact that LA is much, much cleaner today than the early 70's. I'm sure your google search will reveal that in spades.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6730 posts, RR: 12
Reply 46, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6841 times:

Sure, but it's the same in most (developed) countries. What I'm discussing is the relevance of what the US is doing compared to what Europe is doing. An indication could be that no US car is sold here while more and more euro cars (and now vans) are sold in the US.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6840 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 46):

Sure, but it's the same in most (developed) countries. What I'm discussing is the relevance of what the US is doing compared to what Europe is doing. An indication could be that no US car is sold here while more and more euro cars (and now vans) are sold in the US.

It's interesting how Euros claim full responsibility when an American company (eg Ford) does well there but when they fall (eg Opel), it's all the Americans' fault.

Anyway, back to what you really said, which got my response, CARB has had a profound effect on the air quality in California over the past 30-40 years. There is no factual debate about that. And this is coming from a guy who mostly despises them.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6730 posts, RR: 12
Reply 48, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6833 times:

What I said is that California doesn't have great air quality, and that still stands.

I'm not German and I really don't know anything about Ford and Opel management, in France those two brands sell far less than the French ones (and VW). Well, as a kid my parents had a Ford Orion for a while, the engine died and it was too costly to repair, the car had something like 5 years.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 49, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 6821 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 48):

What I said is that California doesn't have great air quality, and that still stands.

It's all relative, the air was much, much, much dirtier before CARB. You also have to understand that California also suffers from the jetstream bringing in Asian pollution. But LA is not even the dirtiest in CA, the Central Valley, which has relatively little population (mostly farmland) is much dirtier.
As to the present state, all I can say is that when I travel overseas, generally Asia, I fully appreciate pollution controls. Just eliminating 2 strokes (which CARB has done) would have an immense effect on SE Asia.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19954 posts, RR: 59
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6789 times:

Does anyone know why they would shape the front end in this way? It's obviously not for looks.

Does it provide better visibility? Some mechanical or aerodynamic advantage?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15781 posts, RR: 27
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6791 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 50):
Does anyone know why they would shape the front end in this way? It's obviously not for looks.

It keeps the overall length down for a given cargo area size (like how cabover trucks were very common during the days of length limits) and gives the driver better visibility. Aerodynamically it's probably better than the Econoline, but with a van it's all relative. Mostly it's the cleanest and most compact way to package it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7534 posts, RR: 24
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 36):
Close: 70 Ford Country Squire with 400 cu in (6.6 L) Cleveland V8:


I thought that came out in 1972. The 1970 model would have been a 429 or a 390.

Actually, I double-checked. The 400 was available on the 1971 models alongside the 390 & 429; according to the 1971 Ford (full-size) catalogue.

Appearancewise, aside from slightly different grilles and rear decks/taillights (non-wagons only); the '71s and '72s were essentially identical.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently onlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26617 posts, RR: 75
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6242 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 15):
While the smaller engine sizes were to be expected; I am a tad surprised that there's no available V8 listed... not even as part of a tow package. In addition to hauling inside cargo; I've seen some large vans (E-series and/or equivalent) used for towing.

This surprises me as well. I would have at least expected a turbo-diesel.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently onlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2056 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6220 times:

Nice looking van. Gives the Nissan NV line a run for it's money...


As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5488 posts, RR: 13
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6193 times:

That is one Fugly truck! Ford seems to be devolving with their styling. Their current Explorer is ugly and the next generation Mustang (see threads on this) looks like a bland jelly bean that European "Football Hooligans" would buy like hotcakes.


I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19954 posts, RR: 59
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6184 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 54):

Nice looking van.
Quoting zippyjet (Reply 55):
That is one Fugly truck!

  

I guess you two will have to agree to disagree.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6730 posts, RR: 12
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6124 times:

Well, I don't know if it's good looking or bad looking, it's just a van. Every van in Europe looks the same.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6098 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 57):
Every van in Europe looks the same.

Which actually makes the demise of other styles a little saddening. I was thinking this the other day with the great 'world car' push. One of the great things about travelling is seeing different designs that different cultures have developed and adopted. Modes of transportation is generally the first thing I notice.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19954 posts, RR: 59
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6098 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 58):
Which actually makes the demise of other styles a little saddening.

Yes, but in the end, it's a van, not a car. It's a working vehicle that is basically supposed to be a box on wheels with an engine. This design is meant to be functional. They tried as hard as they could to make the exterior as inoffensive as possible, I suppose, but that wasn't really a design priority.

Most of the people actually purchasing these vans will be looking at spreadsheets and specs and might only actually see a picture of the van once or twice. That's because most of these vans will be bought by delivery companies and the like and not by private individuals for personal use, much like airliners.

Now, the Econoline and its GM competitor have a passenger version often used as shuttle buses (especially at airports). It appears as if this model is meant to have such a version, as well.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6730 posts, RR: 12
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6086 times:

Neighbors of mine have a Renault Traffic to haul their 6 kids :




New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6084 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 59):
Yes, but in the end, it's a van, not a car. It's a working vehicle that is basically supposed to be a box on wheels with an engine.

Thats right, which means they make a big impression on the streets. I'm only talking about what I see, and I enjoy diversity in the world, don't you?


User currently onlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2056 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6059 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 56):
I guess you two will have to agree to disagree.

Yea.. but my opinion is largely based on the fact that I'm in the delivery business. And the Nissan NV and this new Ford are really nice for what they are designed to do. Deliver stuff. Sure, they are boxy and high, but as I've said before there are plenty of things that you can do with that box including massive marketing. You don't buy a van for looks. You buy a van to make money with. And both of these make deliveries and cargo easier to work with.

I guess when you all boil it down between the two, the Ford looks much easier to park in tight spaces which is an everyday thing for most deliveries, however the Nissan has a full size hood which makes maintenance much easier and somewhat cheaper. I guess pick which is more important to you.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 59):
Yes, but in the end, it's a van, not a car.....

Your entire post was spot on.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6730 posts, RR: 12
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6026 times:

Having worked with such a van a few years ago as a mailman, being able to stand in it was really nice.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ford Unveils Likely Replacement For Crown Vic Taxi posted Wed Feb 10 2010 15:38:47 by stasisLAX
Mating A Dodge Cumings Diesel With A Ford C6 Tran posted Wed Aug 15 2007 07:30:18 by L-188
Ford's Mulally Talks With Toyota posted Tue Dec 26 2006 22:23:36 by Zone1
I Am In Love With The New Ford Thunderbird posted Thu Oct 25 2001 07:14:24 by Superfly
Child With Facial Defect Dies After Dental Work posted Sat Sep 8 2012 08:06:04 by SmithAir747
A Little Help With A German Idiom posted Fri Aug 31 2012 18:14:27 by Derico
What's Up With Your Defintion Of "American"? posted Tue Aug 21 2012 18:51:04 by AA7295
Do The New MacBooks Come With OSX Discs? posted Mon Aug 6 2012 03:20:52 by ajd1992
Vt Farmer Crushes 7 Cop Cars With Tractor posted Fri Aug 3 2012 05:33:36 by Revelation
Fishing With A Hand Grenade... posted Thu Aug 2 2012 22:11:58 by AirPacific747