When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I like this version and do not understand why it will not be available here, I think it would be good competition to the Chrysler minivans, this looks like it would slot between the transit connect and the transit, a lost opportunity!
I like it a lot--as a personal/recreational van user, the Connect is too small and as a garage owner, the big Transit is too big (and maybe a bit expensive). So this size would be perfect for me when my E150 finally leaves my life.
However, Ford offers only big pickups despite the call for a Ranger replacement, so I think it is unlikely that they would offer 3 vans....
On the other hand, Ford offers what, 5 or 6 SUV's, which seems like massive overkill, but people who need vans prefer wearing SUV's for the most part...
I like it a lot--as a personal/recreational van user, the Connect is too small and as a garage owner, the big Transit is too big (and maybe a bit expensive). So this size would be perfect for me when my E150 finally leaves my life.
However, Ford offers only big pickups despite the call for a Ranger replacement, so I think it is unlikely that they would offer 3 vans....
On the other hand, Ford offers what, 5 or 6 SUV's, which seems like massive overkill, but people who need vans prefer wearing SUV's for the most part...
George
The low roof Transit cost about the same as E150 and isn't really bigger.
The Connect firmly replaced the Ranger for 99% of business needs (same or better payload, and no need to add a cap FWD, low load height). For retail customers, so few sales were lost with lack of ranger there isn't a business point to be made for it as much as I love the Ranger.
Escape- Awesome small cross over with impressive fuel econ, just needs S model 4x4
Edge- very nice vehicle, and sells better than one would think given its closeness in price and size to 3rd row Explorer. Redundant IMO, but seemingly not to customers
Explorer- very popular 3rd row vehicle where adults can use all three rows! Trim from high $20s to low $50s
Expedition- For people who need a truck and to haul lots of people all at the same time
Other than Edge, not really redundant lineup. Considering crossovers have surpassed sedans as most popular vehicle segment I'd say it's a prudent offering. The US market is firmly interested in the more stylish and less useful SUV.
The low roof Transit cost about the same as E150 and isn't really bigger.
The Connect firmly replaced the Ranger for 99% of business needs (same or better payload, and no need to add a cap FWD, low load height). For retail customers, so few sales were lost with lack of ranger there isn't a business point to be made for it as much as I love the Ranger.
Escape- Awesome small cross over with impressive fuel econ, just needs S model 4x4
Edge- very nice vehicle, and sells better than one would think given its closeness in price and size to 3rd row Explorer. Redundant IMO, but seemingly not to customers
Explorer- very popular 3rd row vehicle where adults can use all three rows! Trim from high $20s to low $50s
Expedition- For people who need a truck and to haul lots of people all at the same time
Other than Edge, not really redundant lineup. Considering crossovers have surpassed sedans as most popular vehicle segment I'd say it's a prudent offering. The US market is firmly interested in the more stylish and less useful SUV.
You forgot the Flex. Overlaps the Explorer quite a bit and when added to your list above, we have to agree that this is a silly number of SUV's. You could make the same kind of differentiation between 3 or 4 different sized vans as well...although the different wheelbases and roof heights available do expand the model range. There is the Expedition XL which is based on the same principle.
I completely disagree that the Transit Connect fills the slot of the Ranger. There are contractors who need a bed to carry outdoorsy stuff. In fact, we are having a garage built right now and one of the main guys has an Explorer Sport Trac and routinely carries stuff like gas cans and masonry rubble in the bed. Another has a Ranger. I have not asked them but would bet they don't want vans. I am guessing that market pressures and fuel economy rules will make for a new Ranger soon.
Our garage will have a 7 foot high door; my E150 will fit under that. The big Transit is right at 83.6" I think, so if there is a bit of snow on the ground, I would not trust it and probably would not want to pay the price anyway. Having seen some big Transits on the road, have decided that they are ugly even though I don't usually base vehicle choices on beauty. I will probably shop the last year Grand Caravan, or move to an Odyssey, for a replacement for my E150 because of the height thing.
I'm going to contradict myself here, but hang in there....
I agree that van lineups are superior to SUV ones, but it's all about style for retail.
The Transit Connect is superior to 90% of Ranger tasks, and style shouldn't matter. A basic short wheel base TC has identical payload as Ranger, LWB offers better payload. Why wouldn't you put dirt in there? Gas cans, not always great smelling, but most of us have had them inside a vehicle. if you do it all the time, they make bulkheads for the Transit Connect to separate you, or get a hitch caddy. The only things the Ranger had was tow capacity (TC max is currently only 2k) and 4x4. Most businesses that bought Rangers did 4x2, making the FWD TC a superior traction choice. I completely understand that the Transit doesn't look cool at all, but from a function perspective it's hard to argue the Ranger was better for MOST applications and you have huge advertising areas.
Edit: On the big transits, there are three heights. The low roof is 1.5" taller than e150, at 83.6" and it starts at $32k. Check out the new Kia van for this year, it's pretty nice and Kia has come a long way.
I would not buy Korean on principle (and don't claim to be the King of Consistency in my auto buying "rules" for myself).
Given the number of pickup trucks sold vs the number of vans sold, I still argue that there is more available sales volume for small pickup trucks more than there is for redundant vans or small SUV's. Mfrs will do what they choose, but pickups serve contractors and landscapers who carry soil, gravel, manure, wood chips, lawn clippings or moldy leaf debris, etc. And as you said, tow stuff. (I don't and am not a pickup truck person.) I carry gas cans inside my vehicles occasionally but don't regard it as a good idea. How do you dump topsoil or gravel into a van with an excavator? Big sunroof?
I still prefer buying domestic vehicles, and would lean harder toward the TC if it was not built in Spain. For now I am good with my E150 but my wife retired early this year and the engine cover kills her left knee and spinal alignment during trips. And I have problems with my left knee and have a triple spinal fusion as well...
83.6" will leave me .4" under my garage door and that is not enough clearance given that some snow/ice pack, even if I clear it, could exceed .4"....and $32k is more than I want to spend as a retiree. A Grand Caravan can be had in the low 20's with a sticker around $25k with the good options like disappearing seats. An Odyssey would be maybe $28k in LX form.
I think Ford would sell more Ranger pickups than they sell Lincolns in total....
I don't disagree with any of what you said, and I also wouldn't be comfortable with .4"!
I still think the TC beats the Ranger for 90%. I'm willing to bet the number of Rangers that see excavators under the ownership of their original buyer is minimal (and part of the hard truth is that Ford doesn't build vehicles for the used market). I do agree 100% on the domestic build desires. I'd rather buy South Korean than Japanese from a historic perceptive and both offer US built options.
If I were buying a vehicle for myself I'd rather have a Ranger. I commute 14 miles to work but also live on a farm and am a DIY guy. I'm considering the TC anyhow on a new vehicle as the Ranger isn't an option. If I were buying for a business I'd rather have the TC. Ford did studies and found retail Ranger customers purchased Rangers primarily for cost reasons. The study actually suggested the Fiesta as an alternative. See I'm not quite as crazy as Ford! But I've noticed the local Autozone runs Fiesta hatches rather than their old small trucks. I think as cost go up, many companies are re-examining their "needs" and discovering alternatives to traditional American trucks. I would love to see an open bed TC. It would be perfect for open truck needs! Bongo trucks for everyone.
10-09-2014, 02:56 PM
Why dont we get the Transit Custom?
