When I was at the dealership I totally forgot to get measurements on the truck.

KBB says the truck should be 83.4" tall with 225 size tires. I did remember to get the tire size off the van before I left and they are 265 so I guessing it would be .75" taller, which would disqualify both of my garages I think, UGH!

Need to debate the pros and cons of leaving a vehicle outside.

 

I have had 4 big vans since 1986 and they have always spent their lives outside. The white paint on my '02 E150 (out in the yard for 10 years) is flaking off in the rain gutters on the roof, and the creases in the roof have some imbedded dirt. My old '86 GMC van, which I kept until 1997, also had some paint falling off the roof when I got rid of it...

One advantage of a van in the snow is that the side and rear glass really don't accumulate snow much because they are near vertical. I use a big push broom (in my garage, where the cars live) to clean off the windshield and hood, and usually create a snow storm on the freeway when the snow on the roof blows off.

My '91 BMW 318is is a garage queen that has almost never spent a night outdoors. IMO vans are like appliances and it doesn't faze me to leave them out in the weather.

George

 

FORD specs for '06 show E-Series overall lengths of 212" & 232" for extended. FORD's "big vans" for 2013 have OAL specs of 216.7" & 236.7"

For '98 FORD F-150 regular cab pick up "truck" the OAL listed are 203.7" & 222.3".

For '09 FORD F-150 the OAL listed for the various configurations range from 213.1"-250.3" for 4 door CrewCab & 8' box.

My '92 FORD standard length Club Wagon is actually LONGER than my '98 FORD F-150 Pick Up "truck" - NOT "way shorter".

 

Don't know about the 'mid size' Transit but the big one looks to have plenty of normal foot room. Saw it at the Chicago Autoshow a few weeks ago. They had a couple complete/runners that were locked up "for our protection" (so said the signs on them) and one bare shell. You can see there is no longer a removable engine cover, just a hump like regular vehicles, not even all that large. Of course without a complete dash and seats we can only guess the distance of the seat to the firewall. Though I do recall looking inside the complete vans and thinking the dash/center console didn't even touch the floor, almost enough space under the dash you could put a 3 accross bench seat up front.

 

I guess what he meant was they are not "really" long in comparison to other vehicles.
That 212" is less then most rear wheel drive full size sedan ever built, my '67 Galaxie at 212" (probably would have been 6-8" longer if it had the big ugly federal impact bumpers like the '74 to current cars have), the last Country Squire in 1991 at 216", the last Caprice's at 214" and 217" for wagons, '90-'97 Town Cars 219", then there are the mid '70s Lincolns and Caddys well into the mid 230" range.
For the people and cargo capacity they aren't nearlt as beastly large as a crewcab F-series with full size bed.

 

Meet "Club Wagon". He often "posts" in the "van forum" using too many "quotation marks" for "unknown reasons" and usually providing little "useful information" but always "posts" with lots of "quotation marks". Mostly his "quotation marks" make his "posts" seem "belittling" and "condescending" even though it has been "brought up" many "times". Now I just find it "funny" because he is "clueless" about how "other people" perceive his "quotation marks". Or he "enjoys" "projecting" a "passive aggressive" character when "posting". A current "regular cab F150" is 213" long which is longer than my "full size van" and nobody drives a "regular cab F150" these days anyway except "Club Wagon" who drives his "daddy's" very "old" F150 "truck" because he can't find a "full size van" with a "sliding door". I think it would be "fun" to "play" a "drinking game" where we had a "drink" every time "Club Wagon" used a "quotation mark".

Look up the "statistics" if you don't know "how long" a vehicle is. "Vans" are "shorter" than most "pickup trucks" that "people" actually "buy" and "drive".

"George"

 

Sorry, I'm not here to try & "guess what" anyone may have "meant" & replied to what was actually posted. Prefer to quote posted comments, cite FORD's published specs & relate my actual experience. Have parked my E150 & F150 side by side, revealing the ordinary van "is actually LONGER" than the common pick up "truck".

With all due respect, the OP was not comparing an '06 E-350 to any "full size sedan ever built" let alone any 40+ YO sedan, or any GM vehicle.

The only alternative "truck" mentioned by OP was FORD Excursion. The OAL of that vintage Excursion is published as 226.7".

This does make a standard length E-Series "way shorter" than "the largest SUV ever made". And I already posted FORD spec for "crewcab F-series with full size bed".

 

If the big Transit is comparable to the Sprinter, it should have a considerably wider front passenger leg area than an Econoline. A dinky 3-liter 72* V6 is the biggest engine in the Sprinter line so there's no need for an oversized doghouse. Stuffing a 90* V8 into the Transit could change things but it seems Ford is moving away from cubic inches. I don't see anything of a doghouse in these pictures -

2014 Ford Transit Work Trucks | View Full Gallery of Photos | Ford.com

What I remember from early Sprinters sold by Dodge is the floor angles upwards towards the bulkhead. I don't know if that means it's comfortable like a barber seat or awkward.

Sixto
93 E150 Chateau 5.8 185K miles

 

Thanks Sixto. I will likely hold off replacing my E150 until my wife is retired and we decide what our ultimate travel vehicle will be. I don't want to be an "early adopter" of the new Transit or Transit Connect. I think almost everything these days has a longer hood and either a shorter V6 engine or a transverse engine, so the footwells are left more to the people in the van.

I've had big vans for 27 years and am totally spoiled with regard to space, but when my wife isn't comfortable, it destroys the day or the whole trip. And my son is grown so it's just the two of us and the 100 lbs of stuff my wife brings for each day we are away from home Plus we carry a couple bicycles, a guitar or two, etc. as a bare minimum.

We could probably be fine with something like a Honda Odyssey but really try to buy American if I possibly can. One problem is that the Transit Connect will be made in Spain... The other problem is that the big Transit will probably be domestic but I'm guessing it will cost a LOT.

George

 

Relocating the passenger seat further aft will buy some legroom but you'll have to reposition the seat belt attachments and you'll reduce rear doorway usefulness. Raising the seat might be a better compromise since Econolines have no end of headroom, if that benefits her situation. Or find a right hand drive Econoline

Sixto
93 E150 Chateau 5.8 185K miles

 

I'm there, Sixto. Replaced both of the front seats in my mild conversion E150 (factory windows) with OEM Ford captain's chairs (bought from a converter on Ebay) many years ago, and the driver's seat is mounted on the manual base I got with the Ford seats (because the Ford power conversion base does not fit OEM Ford seats), with holes drilled about an inch and a half to the rear and washer stacks on the front and rear of the seat mounts, taller ones on the front. Old trick I learned from a Ford engineer (my ex-wifes cousin) in the 70's.

Passenger seat has the washer stacks but the base did not allow drilling (no metal in the rear) although I could work something out to get it an inch rearward, maybe. Problem is that my wife has knee and spinal alignment issues and this still won't get her symmetrical. Hell, I hate spending a half hour in the passenger seat myself

One problem is that I LOVE the OEM Ford captain's chairs with my bad back but had a triple spinal fusion in 2011 and I can now tolerate more car seats. For a while the van was the only thing I could drive.

Thanks again for the input,
George

 

Ah yes, I "now see that". He is "one of those" types, clearly "illustrated" in his very next post.

 

Are you sure or is that "your guess"?

 

Gentlemen this is a technical forum, not a grammar class. If you'd like to impugn someone's facts or statements about something relevant to this thread feel free, but otherwise leave the grammar alone. I thought about cleaning this one up, but I would then be accused of bias.

Stick to the issues, not the person posting them.

 

Very very few here would accuse anyone of bias during a clean up sweep---it would be more than welcome every time!

I was somewhat amazed at Crazy001's observation of the Excursion vs an E-Van relative to interior volume, one of those things I knew but never gave much consideration. I've often thought of the larger SUV's as very large, heavy capacity people haulers, a sedan on steroids so to speak. Can haul people, tow large trailers and comfort not found in the standard OEM configuration of people mover vans. Rear environment control, DVD or other entertainment equipment, luxurious seating---things found mostly on the up-scale converted vans.

Having ridden in both types the van would be my preference if I were in the market for such a vehicle. Would just seem more practical to me. Since the E-Vans would have the benefit of a more stout driveline it seems nothing but a great choice. Also mentioned by Crazy001 is the quick depreciation of the V10 equipped models---certainly a benefit to a second owner!

As for that right front seat----good gosh is that ever a tough place to sit for any length of time. Since '97 or so I've almost never ridden there, prefer to drive and have all that room!

So did the OP ever buy this thing or what?