"OPPOsaurus WRX" (opposaurus)
03/01/2019 at 07:38 • Filed to: None
1
17|
"OPPOsaurus WRX" (opposaurus)
03/01/2019 at 07:38 • Filed to: None | 1
| 17 |
you can still get an E series???
Why isn’ t the Transit being used?
TheTurbochargedSquirrel
> OPPOsaurus WRX
03/01/2019 at 07:59 |
|
Isn’t the Transit a unibody? That would make it kinda hard to do this style of conversion on it.
Edit: Google confirms that the Transit is a Unibody construction.
jimz
> OPPOsaurus WRX
03/01/2019 at 08:06 |
|
you can only get E-Series in a cutaway (chassis cab, no rear cab wall.) There’s simply way, way too much upfitter support out there for them to drop it yet. companies have been making stuff like ambulance bodies, utility bodies, boxes, etc. for decades and they’re not going to throw it all away overnight.
you can also get Transit in chassis cab and cutaway, but it’s going to take time for the market to build upfitter support for it. Plus, Transit can be had in more van wheelbase and roof height configurations from the factory, so in some cases buyers don’t even need a third party body.
|
jimz
> TheTurbochargedSquirrel
03/01/2019 at 08:07 |
|
not at all. It’s “unibody” in that there’s no discrete frame which the body bolts to, but there are full length frame rails. for van/bus configurations they’re welded to the body, for cutaway/chassis cab they’re boxed and extended past the cockpit.
|
OPPOsaurus WRX
> TheTurbochargedSquirrel
03/01/2019 at 08:09 |
|
404 - User No Longer Available
> OPPOsaurus WRX
03/01/2019 at 08:58 |
|
Payload’s way higher on the E-450, 9 000lbs for the dualie vs the only model for Transit does 6000lbs, probably that’s why. Not sure why the 350 with only 5000lbs so is still around though, maybe leftovers.
ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
> OPPOsaurus WRX
03/01/2019 at 10:17 |
|
While I like many things about the Transit, it just doesn’t have the payload capacity or power of the E-series in the upper ranges. It’ s a smaller class of vehicle. The E-series can be had with the 6.2l V-8 for 331hp and 356 ft/lbs or the old 6.8l V-10 for 310hp and 420 ft/lbs of torque. Your engine options in a transit are the 3.7l V6 for 275hp and 260 ft/lbs, or the diesel I5 3.2l with 185hp and 360ft/lbs. The Europeans might be fine tooling around in a smaller chassis, but I can’t imagine that trying to maintain the 80mph speed limit in a 20' box truck or a big class C motorhome is going to work well with either of those engine options.
shop-teacher
> OPPOsaurus WRX
03/01/2019 at 10:35 |
|
Because van upfitters want to keep using the same tooling, so there is still demand. The end users of those vans typically have no f#@%$ to spare about how old a platform may be. They just want it to work.
wafflesnfalafel
> OPPOsaurus WRX
03/01/2019 at 10:41 |
|
yeah - you can still get both, but the E is only 350 and 450, (Utility box, small bus, etc.) Still can get the old Triton v-10 even.
Mini Guy- Now has a 4Runner
> OPPOsaurus WRX
03/01/2019 at 10:45 |
|
somehow this is still being made. and v8 power yo
|
jimz
> ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2019 at 10:55 |
|
you’re forgetting the 3.5 Ecoboost, 310hp/400tq
oh, and in Europe many Transits are front wheel drive with a 2.0/2.2 diesel.
|
ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
> jimz
03/01/2019 at 11:25 |
|
I didn’t see the 3.5 ecoboost on the spec sheet for the Cutaway and Chassis cab models, which is the application where you would need it. That would be a reasonable motor, although the payload is still on the low side.
I have a hard time imagining a more useless vehicle than a FWD 2.0/2.3 diesel full-sized van, but I guess it would be a box on wheels that would move stuff around a city at 30 mph. You’re certainly not towing a boat interstate speeds behind a 30' class c motor home on such a set up.
|
jimz
> ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2019 at 11:41 |
|
ooh, good point. I was looking at the van/bus, and didn’t realize the CC/CA didn’t offer it.
|
ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
> jimz
03/01/2019 at 11:43 |
|
That seems like an oversight on Ford’s part (although there may be some good technical reasons why), because that seems like the transit application that really needs the 3.5 ecoboost (or the 2. 7).
|
jimz
> ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2019 at 11:45 |
|
if I had to take a WAG, I’d guess it’s due to cooling issues. the 3.5EB is already de-rated to 310 hp in the van. probably couldn’t get in enough radiator and grille area to keep a heavily loaded Ecoboost cool.
|
ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
> jimz
03/01/2019 at 11:49 |
|
That would make sense to me. I’ve rented a couple of transit vans and poked around under the hood. The packaging was certainly pretty tight.
|
jimz
> ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2019 at 11:58 |
|
yep. same situation as the Ranger. the V363 Transit was a moderately-redesigned V347 which was never intended to house vee-type engines. Same reason the Ranger doesn’t have a V6.
Chinny Raccoon
> ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2019 at 13:20 |
|
Our Renaults have 115 & 140 HP and box bodies. Quite similar to the transits in size.
One (the older 115hp)
usually runs quite close to the max weight as the body is quite heavy but
will quite happily cruise at the usual
motorway speeds.
The FWD aspect is great for custom bodies for a really low floor height.