My 2015 Ford Transit Experience
- Thread starter TheOGExpediterGuy
- Start date
LOL..you guys...Bills a Ford guy..he is going to buy it no matter what the numbers are.....
Actually not a Ford enthusiast, it's just that GM builds nothing in a big van. Unless you go with an after market body like Unicell. That's still on the table. Now that my Chevy van is fixed, I have time again to decide.
They all downshift on anything bigger than a driveway entry slope. My Chev 6.0 would downshift on any hills of note and even some freeway overpasses when running 62-64 mph, when on cruise control. When on foot control it downshifted less often but still did some of the time. It certainly had enough engine to pull far larger hills, especially when not under load. My car, a 2013 Ford Fusion, does the same thing. I think it's automatically programmed into all cruise control units.
Shifts into overdrive?
Ford guy? He drives his Suburban to Cleveland to fetch his Chevy van. Did you have a rough night?LOL..you guys...Bills a Ford guy..he is going to buy it no matter what the numbers are.....
I find that when you start to feel the engine losing rpm's or the gas pedal starts to move on hills etc. I just back off a couple of notches on the cruise one at a time or I turn the cruise off and go to manual for awhile. I consider cruise control about as important as round tires I have great kinetic sense; however, for long hauls you can't beat cruise for economical sense. ALWAYS TURN OFF CRUISE IF YOU'RE THE LEAST BIT TIRED !!!
Sent from my SCH-i705 using EO Forums mobile app
I have great kinetic sense; however, for long hauls you can't beat cruise for economical sense. ALWAYS TURN OFF CRUISE IF YOU'RE THE LEAST BIT TIRED !!!Sent from my SCH-i705 using EO Forums mobile app
or is that downshifts.....???>....I get the 2 confused...
called reading infarction....LOL
The small gas engines don't have that much low rpm torque, so any sight of a hill signals a downshift. If you want torque, and no downshifts, get a diesel. This is the reason I won't consider a gasser.
I wanted to go and test drive a diesel Transit, but changed my mind. What about if I like it?
I wanted to go and test drive a diesel Transit, but changed my mind. What about if I like it?
Murraycroexp
Veteran Expediter
Aren't super-long-geared 5-6 speed trannies supposed to downshift on hills? I imagine that "last gear" is designed to cruise on almost flat and downhill grades. Just giving the engine a lower RPM break. Hauling 2-4 tons of truck and freight takes power. High gear seems like it's only for the non-demanding HP periods. Just my opinion. But I'm just 1/4 into my first cup of Java this morning.
You're on the right track Murray even though you're only a ¼ of the way into your first cup of coffee. A 6 speed transmission allows a smaller engine to perform more like a larger engine while being more fuel efficient. If the small engine spends a significant amount of road time in 4th gear (which I believe is direct) then the benefits of overdrive are lost. Also I would think more shifting would equate to more wear on the transmission. Again, these vans aren't really designed for the over-the-road expediter.
The Transit Bill drove was a mid-roof, mid-length model with the 3.7L engine and 3.73 rears. There was no payload on board. The tall, extended length version is not available with 3.7L/3.73 combination. It comes standard with the 4.10 rearend. There must be a reason for this. Maybe the 3.7L with 4.10 rears will reduce some of the downshifting and still be fuel efficient enough to make it practical for expediting. I guess we will have to wait until the long, extended transits hit the dealerships and Bill reports back with another test drive.
The Transit Bill drove was a mid-roof, mid-length model with the 3.7L engine and 3.73 rears. There was no payload on board. The tall, extended length version is not available with 3.7L/3.73 combination. It comes standard with the 4.10 rearend. There must be a reason for this. Maybe the 3.7L with 4.10 rears will reduce some of the downshifting and still be fuel efficient enough to make it practical for expediting. I guess we will have to wait until the long, extended transits hit the dealerships and Bill reports back with another test drive.
The Eco-Boost and the Diesel both come will 3.31 gears standard, but can be optioned with 3.73 when ordered.
Had time this morning to go test drive a mid height, mid length Transit 250 with the 3.5 Eco-Boost engine.Much better feel then the base 3.7 engine. Had excellent acceleration, excellent freeway power and was actually fun to drive. It had the 3.31 rear axle. Power at 65-70 mph was amazing. The constant downshifting I experienced with the 3.7 was still partly there. You could accelerate pretty much without it needlessly downshifting. But give it just a bit too much throttle and zoom, downshift, turbos start spinning faster and its going 80+ before you know it. After driving both, I'll never buy a Transit for what we're doing with the 3.7 base engine. But the 3.5 Eco-Boost felt powerful enough to handle max weigh against anything you could throw at it. The base 3.7 is a great local city engine. Local contractors with employees driving the trucks will love it. Long haul at high speeds, maxed out for weight capacity, against head winds and up the steep mountain grades, the 3.5 Eco-Boost is by far the better choice, at least for me.
Next stop, go drive a new GM 159" van with the 6.0 and the 3.42 or 3.54 rear axle. Local dealer has a few in stock with the fiberglass cube van bodies installed.
Next stop, go drive a new GM 159" van with the 6.0 and the 3.42 or 3.54 rear axle. Local dealer has a few in stock with the fiberglass cube van bodies installed.
Is that from the old GM or the new GM ? LOL
Sent from my SCH-i705 using EO Forums mobile app
I see it is also Flex E-85 ....that would be great for fuel costs....even tho the gas version doesn't get close to the new 2014 Sprinter fuel wise....the E-85 sure levels the playing field....AND I don't think the Promaster is E-85 capable???? further making the Ford to look better when considering the price differences
With E-85 typically getting 30% lower mpg than regular fuel you'd need to see at least that difference in prices at the pump to even consider it. The current avg price difference is nowhere near that.
.70 to .90 a gallon difference?.....equals out maybe?......