It does look nice, I'm interested in the details too.

 

I think I read somewhere in Ford sales documents that the track is slightly narrower than the Econoline, but I'm not sure about the body or interior width. Parked next to the Express we traded, it was the same length and it appeared and felt the same width. The high roof does not make it feel bigger from the driver's seat. In fact, the steering wheel is smaller and more comfortable, steering effort is lighter, it tracks down the road like a good car, with good on-center feel, it corners better, has a tighter turning radius, is more comfortable, and quieter. The overall feeling is of a much more nimble vehicle.

I'll give you all the details you want, but you'll have to ask about specifics. Here's a few more tidbits:

The high roof makes a HUGE difference in feel. It feels so much more spacious inside and most people can stand straight up. It also comes with taller windows all around, which give wonderful visibility to passengers, as well as out the front and sides from the driver's seat. The rear air is ice cold and powerful, but the recirc intake in the rear is very noisy at the top two fan speeds. Rear heat comes through registers under the seats that run down the middle of the floor. I like that, but won't test the effectiveness until cold weather returns. The shelf above the driver/pass seats is really nice for storage. My wife tends to throw mail and papers on the dash, and with the shelf, she just puts it up above. (The crap on the dash drives me nuts.)

All seats are far superior to the Express and Econoline (Although I liked the Econoline seats better than the Express, too.) These seats are fabulous. The rear seats are particularly nice, with each having an adjustable headrest, and all but the last row reclining just enough to make a road nap comfortable. Leg room is fine, and at least as good as the old vans, maybe slightly better. It doesn't have quite as much cargo room behind the last row as the Chevy, but it is close. It is probably the same, or slightly better than the Econoline. Only a couple of seats in the last row look easily removable, so that's probably the tradeoff for better seating. I'm fine with it. I've got an F150 for hauling appliances and oversize cargo. This van is a people mover, for me. (This also means they don't rattle like previous van designs.)

It has side curtain airbags that go all the way to the last row. The Express didn't cover the last two rows, and I'm not sure the Econoline did, either. In fact, I'm not sure the Econoline had side curtain air bags, at all. I just don't know.

Interior lighting is really nice.

The ride in the rear, especially over the axle, is MUCH better than the old vans. It isn't as good as a car, but it has much less jouncing and bouncing than the old vans.

Headlights are good, although I'd like just a little further distance on the high beams. The spread of light is great, though, on both low and high beams. The only noticeable wind noise is by the radio antenna or passenger side A pillar. I haven't figured it out, but it is minor.

Interestingly, the battery is under the driver's seat. That helps with space and access under the hood, which isn't bad, again, compared to the old vans.

Thank goodness, the oil filter is reasonably easy to access from underneath, although it will drip all over some suspension components. It won't hurt them, though. I haven't checked exactly where the oil fill hole is.

Let me know what else you'd like to hear about, or if you want some pics. I'm out of town for a couple days, but can get pics around the end of the week.

 

 

I'll look forward to more photos myself. Because this is a people mover and not a cargo van as I need/want it's still nice seeing the inner volume in that configuration.

I sincerely "hope" Ford's version of this Euro-van doesn't rust apart in a few years like the MB err Chrysler's do. I say "hope" because that's one weak word in the English language, says we have no control or input to the outcome of a situation.

 

IndyFan,

Thank you for taking the time for that comprehensive write up on the Transit.

 

Thanks for the comprehensive info IndyFan, great insight.
Here are a couple of "specific" details that I'm curious about:

1.) What powertrain did you go with? ... and what were the other choices?
2.) Any idea how "tall" (overall) that is? I'm wondering if one would fit in my garage?

 

Ah, another inaccessible engine I see, people don't worry about mechanical aspects when buying new, before problems arise it'll be someone else problem, but I do, that new Ford looks no different in engine arrangement. The ride/steering are better because it doesn't use I-beams, and I'm betting that now, when they get into a front collision, it will total them out, something that hasn't been happening, to put one in the junkyard it took a lot, I've seen a good share of GM vans that were retired with what appeared to be a light hit, but no real frame cost them, Fords were tanks.

 

I don't know what experiences you have, but my wife's Express totaled two cars and had minimal damage. One of the two cars rear ended her and was devastated, with the engine laying out on the ground. The driver was hurt, but all in the van were fine, luckily. Lack of beef was never an issue with that van. Lack of refinement was.

I've got 9 kids and a wonderful wife, and I'm more concerned with how they make out in a wreck, and the Transit is a thoroughly modern design. If the van structure is totaled in taking the energy of the crash and sparing the precious cargo, then it has done its job. As for access under the hood, it is a van. No full size van makes access easy. Id' buy a large SUV if I were worried about it. Our Express lasted 140k miles with no major underhood work being necessary. I'm confident it could have gone significantly longer. I fully expect this van to do its job reliably, also not requiring more than regular maintenance. It served us very well. In fact, it was the second Express we owned, ant the other went 150k and served us very well, too. amazingly, I never replaced a set of brake pads on either van. They just didn't wear out!

Aside from reliability, and towing ability, there's no comparing the Econoline and the Express to the Transit, in my humble opinion. They just can't compete with the comfort. I've driven all three, and I'll take the transit EVERY time.

 

1. 3.5 Ecoboost with a 6 speed auto. I am pretty sure it has a 3.21 axle ratio. It feels much more powerful than the Express, from right off the line up to redline. It pulls hard all the way through the powerband. The transmission seems to have nice ratios for this setup and is smooth and very quiet. I rode in two 2012 Econolines this week, and I couldn't believe how noisy the transmissions were compared to the Transit. Not even close. The Express was noisier, too.

2. I believe it is about 8'1" tall. It definitely won't fit in my garage, but the trade off of space inside is well worth it, to me. Washing it will be a pain in the butt, though. I've got to figure out a way to wax the top.

 

I go by the yards that hold vehicles after accidents before they go to scrap, and sorry, but GM gets totaled fast, a friend drove a wrecker, the service he worked for had a contract with the city, was part of the impound, he marveled over the totaled vehicles, used to buy them to repair and resell, I remember a nice Chevy conversion van, loaded, leather, was hit in the front, they were arguing with the insurance company, new van, you don't want a salvaged title, it finally went off to the junkyard.
I am very concerned with access for repairs, I'm in a wheelchair, and SUV is not an option, I'd drive a car if I wanted the hassle of breaking down my chair to get it in. I did play on the Ford build your van site, expensive, I was going with a cargo with the 3.5 ecoboost, had 373 gears, you should feel the power difference geared that way with twin turbos, not impressed with the complaints from people on that engine, but I believe the problem with theirs is they like to spool it up constantly, I'm not really sold on the high strung ecoboost engines, go small and boost the crap out of it, don't seem right.
We aren't really left with a choice with vans now, the high tops are hideous, just no way to make that look good, all brands are like a rolling billboard, yuck!
You talk about noisy transmissions, if they make noise there is something wrong with them.

 

I'm sorry you are stuck with limited choices. I've got a friend in a wheel chair who drives a really nice Chrysler mini van, so maybe that would help with the looks. It won't do anything for you for engine access, because it is worse than a full-size. I won't debate the Chevy thing, because your evidence is anecdotal, and mine is first-hand, but with only two vans, thus also making it anecdotal. All I can tell you is they served me reliably. I towed a 7500 lb deck boat and hauled 9 kids and gear with one, and it muscled it around just fine. I don't see anything weak about the front end or front suspension, either. I've driven rented Econolines a number of times, and they were fine, too, but I didn't like the way the steering wondered on the highway with horrible on-center feel. Great vans, though. But still both basically updated 50 plus year old designs.

As for looks, well, I don't think any of the full size vans acutually look great, but isn't the purpose function and not form? The Chevy looks like an ice cream truck, the Ford looks like a brick with a rear section welded on behind the axle, and the new ones look like modernized UPS trucks. From the inside, however, the Transit is really nice, and the seating is wonderful. The head space makes it feel much more roomy. Besides, my daily driver is a Jeep Wrangler, so function certainly seems to be my priority over looks, anyway! You can get the transit in a low roof, but I haven't seen one in person, so I can't render an opinion on the looks.

I don't have many choices, either, by the way, with 9 kids and a mother-in-law. Big vans are the only game in town, so I make do.

As for the Ecoboost, I'm betting the problems some may be having are to do more with idling and short trips. Direct injected engines tend to dilute the oil with fuel, which is very common with the Ecoboost. All the Ford torture tests I've seen have run the engines HARD, with high RPMs for long periods of time. I've not seen them simulate short trips that don't fully heat the engine and oil. They've got a video on YouTube where they run one to 140k or so on a dyno, then put another 10 or 20k on it towing, racing through the Baja 1000, and driving across the country. They then dyno it again and it gives new-spec power. They then tear it apart and inspect for wear, and it meets spec for a new engine. I'd like to see what would happen if they gave it to an old man who goes to the grocery or hardware store 4 times per week, never fully heating the engine. I'm not too worried about it, though, because I've got several friends with Ecoboost 3.5's in their F150's, and none have had trouble. As for 3.5 liters, it was built from the ground up for this configuration, with strengthening in the appropriate areas. Also, the turbos are small, and cooled by water jackets. It appears to be designed from the get-go for durability. We'll see. I plan on running it awhile and I'll certainly post back here if I encounter issues. The version in the van is de-tuned, which I expect is to further enhance durability. It has 55 fewer horsepower, and less peak torque than the F150.

Are you sure 3.73 axle ratio was an option? I did not see that anywhere. I can't imagine how lively that would be. The 3.21 feels downright snappy.

I hope you are able to find something you like, that works well for you. GM is supposed to be working on a new full size van, as well, but I don't think you'll see it before 2016, and maybe even 2017 or 18. I can't find anything on it except vague references.

 

Thanks for all of the details. I'm really appreciating your posts. It is refreshing to read about someone who really thinks things through (that is what I try to do, and sometimes people think I'm crazy).
FWIW, the "mobility shop" where we take our van for service (for the lift, etc) claims that the Ford vans are far superior to the GMs in durability. The guys especially cites the transmissions as a weak spot. Pretty tough to argue with your actual experience tho.
On the other side, my '04 Expy 5.4 (actually the company's vehicle) is at 158.5K pretty much trouble-free miles. I've had it since 40K, the only repair has been 1 ball joint. Yes, it has been maintained "by the book". I'd say Ford has this truck powertrain thing figured out. Once again, all anecdotal info.
Also good to know about the low-roof Transit. We're may years (I hope) away from needing our next mobility van, but still was concerned about height as I only have a 9 ft high door (clearance somewhat lower?) on my garage.
Will look forward to further updates

 

Until you've had the pleasure of driving a van with a lift, lift requiring less room to operate than a ramp, ramp being steep enough to require room to get momentum to climb, I'll never buy a minivan, I push my chair, those ramps are steep. If you have a power chair, go for it, but beware, when wet, they have been known to spin the tires and require help in bad weather entering. I am old school, learned that all this electronic crap winds up being a bother with age, I love my 73 E100.

 

I was toying with the commercial version, thats how I got the 373 gearing, I hate passenger and conversion vans, I want a cargo van, so I can make it truly wheelchair friendly, anything else is just accessible to an extent.

 

shouldn't the transit portion of this thread be moved to a the other section? with the "transit" vans..............................