I don't know if I put this post in Ugliest Cars or Prettiest Cars so I'm putting it here. Why are the commercial vans in America hideous while the city/passenger vans are not. Two examples from Ford and RAM. Ford Transit. Commercial: City/Passenger (Transit Connect): RAM ProMaster. Commercial (Fiat Ducato): ProMaster City (Fiat Doblo):
Maybe because... European commercial vans are ugly? Our vans weren't ugly until the manufacturers/CONgress decided that the good old ways of RWD, big V8s and body-on-frame construction had to give way to FWD, inline 4s and unibodies. And people just sit there, not even raising an eyebrow, watching America become Europe 2.0.
Then again the Ford Transit is the greatest van there ever was, anyone whose seen that James May documentary will know what I mean.
The transit isn't a bad van at all. I've sat in them at dealerships. They're roomy up front and the range of configurations for the cargo space in the rear is pretty impressive. I was in one of the bigger passenger models and the room in the back was astounding. It was huge. That being said, I'm not a fan of the transverse i4/v6 paired with the front wheels at all. The E-series were and still are great vans. They shouldn't have been killed off. I also don't like how Ford is pushing all of their euro crap on us. Give us V8s, rear wheel drive, body on frame, and solid rear axles. This is America, dammit.
Correct. Although it is sold in FWD and AWD models in europe. The promaster does make use of being FWD unibody though. When running unibody rather than body on frame you can get away with a lower floorpan, plus with no need to provide for a driveshaft, you can actually get away with more cargo space within the same vehicle due to a lower floor. Makes alot of sense for a van.
Which is cool. I think the old model was like that to. The only issue with FWD in a vehicle that carries cargo is that there isn't increased pressure on the drive wheels when loaded. This makes me wonder how the ProMaster would do fully loaded in the snow or other situations where the traction isn't there....
I say that Ford made a huge mistake killing off the Econoline/E-series line. Just think, how many E-series Vans do you see in a day? Now Ford decides that "Hey, you know that van that we have been making since '61 and that we sold millions of? Yeah lets kill it off" There is a medical equipment delivery company that a friend of mine works for that has used Ford Vans since the early 80's and now they started buying Chevy Vans since they can't get Fords anymore. Then there is the fact that the Transit is a horrendously ugly thing.
it did sell pretty well but just because it sold well dosen't mean its good. The base engine back in '74 only had 88hp but then most american engines were sluggish during that era. Also i'm not really fond of the styling. I prefer the fox body over a mustang II any day
*Warning Incoming "Nobody saw that coming" moment* I prefer V6 engines to V8's. There isn't an application I can think of that a V6 isn't amazing at. Need it to be fuel-efficient? Make a small one. Need big power? Make a big one with turbo chargers. Need torque? Make an even BIGGER one with pushrods or SOHC (Like the Ford 4.0L or the GM 4.3L). This is a complete 180 from where I would have been last year, when I worshiped the V8 engine. But, I still think that they're one of the best configurations, purely because of the sound they produce. I even like the new EcoBoost I4 Mustang.
pushrods and SOHC have shit all to do with torque produced. Quite possible to build 3 engines, one pushrod, one SOHC and one DOHC and all 3 have exact same stats. If anything, its easier to get cams positioned for good airflow using a DOHC configuration. As a typical rule of thumb. Its the stroke to bore that makes a bigger difference. A long stroke but a narrow bore typically leads to an engine with pretty insane torque output but little ability to rev, a shorter stroke but wider bore leads to higher rev limits but less torque output for the same displacement. There are other factors at play, alot more, but thats a good starting point. Many of the old gasoline truck engines would have pretty long strokes versus their bore. Whereas other end of the spectrum, superbike engines have incredibly short strokes but a wide bore. The trucks were typically low revving torque monsters, the bikes super revvy but without any torque to speak of (but then they dont need it). I recall there being a debate on some older jeep model or something coming in a torquey i6 and less torquey but more powerful v8, people using that as evidence that i6's have more torque, yet the v8 had a perfectly identical stroke and bore, the i6 was a lower rev limit with a longer stroke than bore. Like I say though, there are alot more factors at play than just stroke versus bore alone, but its a damn good starting point. Whether its OHV/SOHC/DOHC is not, although DOHC allows some optimisations towards producing more torque that the others do not.
Back on the van topic. I am really hoping that Chevy doesn't drop the Express line since they have a City Express line out now, and it looks similar to the Dodge and Ford vans in terms of how it differs in look from the old RAM and E-Series models respectively. At least according to their website they have the 2016 model out and the City is still on the 2015 model. One nice thing though, the E-Series chassis is still out there so you'll see it being used as buses and box trucks and the like still. It looks like they're that way because they're bigger to actually be used commercially, and they are bigger compared to the passenger. But what I don't get is why the wheels are so small.
