I’m going to keep this as short as I can since I only spent a bit over an hour driving this van and I don’t want to spend any more time writing this than I did driving it. So here goes: My sister lives in Chicago about 25 minutes from the Home of the Magnum. She and her husband used to live in Madison while she was going to grad school and I crashed at their place on several occasions, usually to catch a good rock show. When I stayed there, I was grateful for their trusty red couch, a cheap-but-impossibly-comfortable piece of furniture that put people to sleep on it faster and more thoroughly than three shots of Nyquil and a Netflix streaming queue filled with all nine (!) season of According to Jim.
Several years ago, my wife remarked that she’d like to have that couch if it were ever replaced and when my sister told me last week that it was marked for replacement, I immediately said yes. Visions of Sunday afternoon naps sprawled out on the now-a-bit-dingy couch are undeniable. Lacking the time to borrow a truck, I instead rented a van from the local rentalry. I had thought nothing of it and figured I’d get a run-of-the-mill Econoline, but I was excited to be greeted instead by a low-mileage Ford Transit 250.
That’s a long introduction, I suppose, but it’s a way of explaining that I was only moving a 60-pound couch and needed a van because borrowing a truck on short notice was probably going to be more of a pain in the ass than shelling out $50 for Ultimate Napping Furniture (UNF). There was no exploring the capacity of this van’s cargo space, which seemed roomy and was a completely usable rectangular box. It was, as you can see, completely up to the task of moving a couch.
Ergonomically, the Transit 2500 was laid out in a familiarly ill-fitting way for those short of stature like myself. The column-mounted shifter was nice and nearby, but the arm rest sits too high for me (I’m 5’5″ if I’m generous about my height). Sightlines are actually fairly excellent forward and to the side, although I found rear views a little less inspiring compared with Econoline and full-size GMC vans I’ve driven. I suppose the typical work-van user is a bit bigger than me.
The center console is functionally laid out, though, with two 12-volt charging inputs so that a two-person work crew can simultaneously charge their phones. Once upon a time, I wrote a review of the ridiculously silly and overpriced leather-wrapped USB phone charger that you see above. It will probably never see the light of day because even I think it makes me look a little crazy.
Like all rental (and press) cars, the 7,700 miles on the odometer are hard miles. People who rent vans tend not to beat on them so much by flogging them s they do pushing the limits of the posted 3,400-pound capacity (That’s U-Hauls’ number; Ford says 3,600; I suspect the difference has to do with U-Haul’s company-wide additions to the fleet or with trying unsuccessfully to keep people from overloading the vehicle). Either way, the drivetrain seemed strong-enough and the ride was bit harsh but not overwhelmingly so.
Speaking of the drivetrain, the first thing I noticed when driving was the tachometer showing a 6,800 RPM redline. I’d not really looked into the Transit Van ever so I assumed a V6 was under the hood since most of the haggard Econolines I’d ever rented had a lugging V8 that bleated its distaste for you at being revved over 3,500 RPM.
I was curious so I popped the hood to see it was indeed a 3.7-liter V6. With an empty van, it pulled adequately though unspectacularly, but good lord does that engine enjoy revving. I just now read that it’s the same dual overhead cam engine used in the Explorer and F-150, putting out 275 horsepower. I was pretty impressed with it, although my brief attempts at defeating Traction Control with it were unsuccessful. However, I found the manual-shifting mode on the six-speed automatic transmission to be pretty responsive as far as such things go.
The engine sounds like a typically blatty V6, but nobody in the real world care show a work or moving van sounds. So what do people who would buy one of these care about? Well, two things: cost-per-mile and ease of driving.
Let’s take the second item first, although it correlates to cost-per-mile. If you’re renting these out to any Joe Schmo Q. Public, you really need the van to be easy to drive and in that, the Transit succeeds. It drives not unlike a big car and actually probably drives better than many old cars. There’s enough power to get away from stop lights and the forward seating position means you can see exactly where you are, especially when cornering or maneuvering into a driveway. If you happen to own a business and have a couple of these with employees driving, having ease of driving matters so that you’re not shelling out cash for repairs when someone smashes a side mirror or worse.
And that brings us to cost-per-mile; as I don’t own a relevant business, I can’t really say what efficiency is. I suspect the fuel tank wasn’t completely full when I took the keys because I put in 3.5 gallons of gas after logging just 31 miles of combined highway and city driving. Since the rated mileage is 12 city, 19 highway, 16 combined, I think the tank must have been short a gallon or so. Either way, this is a—
[Timer goes off]
Ah, well, I’d love to go on, but my hour is up and I have a nap that isn’t going to take itself.
[All photos hastily taken by iPotato and copyright 2015 Hooniverse/Eric Rood]
Rotten Rental [Van] Review: 2015 Ford Transit 250
About
19 responses to “Rotten Rental [Van] Review: 2015 Ford Transit 250”
-
-
-
If only the interior were as interesting and as contemporary as the exterior. I think there are many fans here of the Transit Connect. We need a fresh review of that.
-
Thanks for the review. I’ve been looking for an opportunity to try driving a Transit to see what it’s like in comparison to my trusty Chevy Express. In particular, I’m curious if the rumored improvement in vehicle dynamics is true. The Express is basically a derivative of the GMT400 trucks from the late 80s, which is at least far ahead of Ford’s old front swing-axle design on the E-series.
The Express has some deficiencies–too much tumblehome makes the cargo volume much smaller than newer boxy designs–but it also blows away the Transit in truckish metrics like towing capacity. I do have serviceability concerns with the Transit’s lack of an openable doghouse as well. But in the end, the Transit does look like a pretty compelling product that will breathe some life into the full size van segment. -
Gotta admit, was much more excited to hear about that couch than the Transit – was left somewhat disappointed. Is that suede? Did you get throw pillows to go with?
-
Throw pillows are a reasonable aftermarket upgrade. My sister didn’t check the Suede option on the checklist.
-
-
3.7 litre V6. Mmmmm. Be interesting to test that against the shitty little diesel that Eurofolk have to tolerate.
-
I’ve heard multiple people (Europeans) complain that vans nowadays are too (wait for it) fast. And, judging from the amount of loaded up vans tailgating on the left lane on highways in continental Europe, the idea that European market vans are always underpowered is clearly false.
Anyway, the multiple ‘shitty little diesel’ options you have in Europe very, very easily beat the 3.7L V6 when it comes to the cost-per-mile metric. If not we’d have a 3.7L V6 in the Euro market Transit. Can you even get gasoline engines in vans in Europe?-
It’s not that our vans are slow; our outside lanes are crammed with van drivers whose mentality is to aim to cruise at 90 and pretty much everything on the road today can do that. And the factor of economy is completely lost on any driver with a fuel card who isn’t paid to drive frugally.
My “shitty little diesel” refers to physics. A big V6 petrol engine is simply much nicer to sit behind than a rattly diesel. You’re right, though- the European market for such a thing would be tiny.-
Agreed, twohundredandseventyfive horsepower is still very (!) powerful, seen with European eyes. But in Germany, it is not uncommon to see vans like this do 170kph. It’s actually a real-life-meme, and I know a couple of people who just refer to them as “cannonballs”. Considering the load capacity, brakes and speed, this might be very appropriate.
The diesels are pretty torquey though. I drove an empty Hyundai H1 with a pretty meaty diesel once, and it was almost hard to avoid chirping the tires. No traction control though.-
Yep, the white van, that sits in the overtaking lane with the foot to the floor slowly accelerating to as fast as space will allow is as much a Euro cliche as tailgaiting VAG product driver
-
-
-
-
-
I ordered and waited almost a year for my transit. I have the 350 hd long and tall with 3.5 ecoboost and dual rear wheels. The van is such a pleasure to drive. It averages about 13mpg with all my tools in her. (about 5k of tools)
See you at Joliet?-
I will be there, yes.
-
-
How precise is it on the highway? I find the Express and E-series a little unnerving past 65, but assume something a little more modern would be a little nicer. That said, I do appreciate the Express’s V8 (yes, including the sound), although I wouldn’t be shocked if the Transit is still legitimately more economical.
Also, for the sake of cost of operation, the lower plastic cladding is great – a huge number of Silverados and Expresses in my organization’s fleet have been damaged there, by drivers not paying attention in tight parking lot corners. Just a matter of time until someone installs side radar sensors, or Nissan’s 360-degree camera catches on.-
It was pretty solid on the highway for a wheeled billboard. It was quite a bit better than 9′ Express I rented a couple years ago and so far ahead of any E-Series I’d ever driven. It cornered much, much better than any van or truck I’ve ever driven, though I wasn’t throwing it around acute angles at 35 mph or anything. I’m curious, more than anything, about how well they age and how durable that V6 is while lugging around a full load constantly in commercial applications.
-
All commercial vehicles have a reputation for being disposable in my neck of the woods. Early rust on “private car variations” like the Transit Connects “Flex”-theme, the VW Caddy and such is very common. The PSA family of Berlingos and such have a mind-boggling depreciation. The Mercedes Sprinter and V have destroyed any chance of a further Mercedes purchase for two people I know, falling apart and rusting the instant the car dealer waves goodbye.
-
The great thing about older Citroen Berlingos is it’s largely based on the Peugeot 306, great potential for a 306 GTi6 based sleeper.
-
-
-
My take on high-speed dynamics of the E-series and Express vans is that they have divergent behaviors in the 350/3500 configuration. The E-series gets less predictable when heavily loaded, which I suspect is a consequence of the weird geometry of that twin-I-beam swing-axle design. The Express, on the other hand, gets more stable as the rear springs move toward the middle of their travel.
I have a 3500 MWB Express, and it’s rarely loaded anywhere near its GVWR. Its superstiff rear springs adversely affected my ability to drive in straight lines. It was not a problem with the smooth roads in California, but the bumpy roads in Houston made it totally unacceptable. I put in rear springs from a 2500 MWB Express and the problem was solved. As it turns out, front suspension is identical between 2500 and 3500, so I effectively now have a 2500 van.
So if your fleet’s usage is generally lightly loaded and you have Express 3500 vans, I’d suggest trying 2500 instead.
Going back to the Transit, I suspect that its lower weight and lower GVWR means that Ford can get away with more compliant rear springs in order to help with dynamics. The front is MacPherson strut, I believe, so the twin-I-beam deficiencies should be resolved.-
That’s entirely fair – most of my exposure to Expresses have been unloaded (or close enough), but they probably do a better job of meeting the average needs of the fleet.
-
-
Leave a Reply