Last year, I drove up to Salina Kansas to drive one of our trucks back down here. My company rented me a "car" to drive up but when I got to the rental company lot, they had nothing left but one of those retard lookin Dodge front wheel drive vans, so I had to take it. That mother hauled *** ! I thought it had a Hemi under the hood. Nope! it was a big 4 banger. Put two of them together and it added up to a 500+ cube V8. It out performed the GT40 headed 351 in my 96 E150. Got better mileage too. Don't know how the engine holds up over time though. I just can't get past the styling (or lack thereof) in the newer vans. The Frieghtliner/Dodge/Mercedes full size delivery vans with the dual rear wheels look the best to me.

 

You need a better hitch. I had this problem towing with a van until I got a Hensley hitch. The Pro-Pride hitch is an updated redesign by the same guy that designed the Hensley.

 

Weight distribution in the trailer plays a bigger part than the hitch. Pull a poor weight distributed trailer with any bumper pull hitch and nothing will cure that going down the road. Too much weight in front or rear is a disaster waiting to happen. Adding that to the surface area of a travel trailer only makes it worse when being passed by a larger vehicle.

 

I towed my racecars with vans for many years. I started with a Chevy Astro and an open trailer, then upgraded to a '96 E150 Clubwagon XLT, 5.0, also with an open trailer. My last van was a 2001 E350 Clubwagon Chateau with the 7.3 PSD I bought to tow a 24' enclosed trailer.

I started with vans because I could lock my equipment (tools, spares, wheels/tires, etc..) inside the van where it was safe when traveling. Sure I could put a shell on pickup truck but those aren't very secure and is a PITA to get stuff in/out. Functionally, the vans were way better in that regard. By the time I bought the enclosed trailer I was a confirmed van guy. I typically tow very long distances and my girlfriend, and later my wife, could ride in the van and more easily move around in the van. She could move from front seat to back seat, get to the coolers for drinks and snacks and if we were taking additional people with us the vans were always easier.

Vans have other advantages. I liked the compact footprint of the van that didn't sacrifice interior room. It was way easier to drive in town and park than the longer trucks. Yes, the E350 7.3 makes less power than the trucks. As Mark noted, no intercooler and there was a downpipe difference. Mine towed the trailer fine and I never made any effort to upgrade it. The vans made great tow vehicles and there were a few of my friends that bought vans to tow with after seeing mine and loved them. But pickups are always more popular.

I put 300K miles on my E150 Clubwagon, and another 250K miles on my E350. I replaced the E350 with an F350 in 2010 to get the newer, more powerful engine and 5 speed transmission. I got the truck mostly because it was hard to find a diesel van and the 6.0 motors were exceptionally hard to work on in the vans. And the 6.0s required some work to make them reliable. I also wanted the new 5 speed automatic as the 4R100 in the 7.3 I had replaced once and it was on its way out again.

The F350 6.0 was recently replaced last fall with a '17 F250 6.7. Sadly, the Transit only gets the little diesel and its just not as nice a vehicle as the new Super Dutys, not to mention the 6.7 is an amazing engine.

 

Those dodge vans are plain fugly. The little one or the big one.

I'm a big fan of the 3.5L Ecoboost. It's a little beast. But there is a reason they don't offer it in Super Duty trucks. They need to offer a heavier/stronger version of the Transit. The old Econolines were offered in some versions that could handle some serious loads. You don't see anything close to those in the new Transit line.




I don't have any issue with the trailer moving around/ swaying. My trailers pull like a dream. But when a large vehicle blows by you pushing a lot of air you will feel it in the body of the van. Same way You notice it when driving into a clearing and get hit broad side by a strong gust of wind.





I've been hauling trailers for well over 20 years. So I've got the loading/load distribution & tongue weight deal down.

 

Agreed 100%. 'specially the fuggly part

 

I haven't studied the Transits, but they do have a high-roof/long body DRW 350... what are they using for motivation in there?

 

Same engine options. 5 cylinder diesel, or 3.5 ecoboost.

I really like the EB 3.5 twin turbo as a towing motor. I daily drove a '15 F150 with that motor and used it to tow a hand full of times. It does a great job but even in their most powerful form either the diesel of 3.5 EB makes half the torque of my 6.7 PSD.

 

Thanks Steve. Re-reading your other post there reminded me... we had a '95 Astro and then an '00 Safari (both awd) for our family vehicle/tow vehicle for a total of about 10 years (the Tiger on open trailer roughly at 4000#). We never racked up your level of mileage, but those were our long-term haulers.

 

I believe they also had a 3.7 V6 (non turbo ) .

I Like the extended Transit with the high top roof as far as the body goes. . What I don't like ( if I'm remembering correctly ) is their 350 "HD" isn't even rated to tow as much as the current F150. And for dual rear wheel HD van that's ridiculous!

 

That's my point! They should offer some kind of Super Duty version of the Transit that has either a large gas engine ( big V8 or V10 ) or the 6.7L PSD, or both options. You can't tell me the engineers and designers can't come up with something that would fit that bill. There are people that want the capacity/ability of the Super Duty trucks in a van form. And I'm not talking about a box truck.

I suspect it's not just the engine/drivetrain but also the chassis that is a limiting factor.

 

 

When transits first hit the market I was very interested in replacing my 7.3 PSD E350 with one. The 5 cylinder diesel looked promising and the EB 3.5 as an alternate. The reality was a disappointment. HP/TQ numbers were well below F150 numbers and tow ratings were also disappointing. I don't remember the exact number but I seem to remember the 350 rating was under 10K lbs. While 10K is a lot my F250 is rated for over 15K lbs. My trailer is about 9K loaded.

A 350 transit would probably pull the trailer but even the F150 was more capable with a higher weight tow rating and more HP/TQ in either of the engine configurations. My assumption is the transits' chassis was designed primarily as people haulers or light duty work/cargo haulers and isn't capable enough for heavy trailers. And there probably isn't room for a 6.7 PSD in the nose of that thing, although, if I could have bought a transit with a 6.7 (935 lbs/ft of torque), there would be one in my driveway now.

The final nail in the coffin of my van days came when my wife rode in one we test drove. It had all of the upscale interior options. As nice a van as Ford makes. It was also a 3.5 EB motor. It didn't ride or drive as nicely as the F250 and she felt like the interior was spartan compared to the truck. In all fairness, the truck is a nice as any Lincoln available and nearly as quiet, add to that the ability to tow my 9K trailer effortlessly and we were sold.

 

The biggest problem I see with these two (too) small engines is longetivity of the engine, The ecoboost may put out impressive numbers, but it's done at the cost of longetivity. It's maxed out. I've been driving trucks for 41 years and seen it all. The little displacement engines that put out big numbers simply don't last. A guy I know once told me there's two ways to get power out of an engine, you can do it all at once (small engine big output) or a little at a time (big engine modest output) He's been right everytime I've seen what comes down the pike in little high out put, high strung engines.

 

Isn't the Transit a unibody design ? That would be why it's not equipped with bigger engines.