Here’s a somewhat unusual pairing of matching euro-vans I’d gladly have. The Sprinter, with a Sportsmobile camping conversion, would be the ideal vehicle to replace the tired old Chinook. Ideally, it would be the long-wheelbase version, but in a pinch , this one would do. And the Transit Connect would make a viable replacement for the Xb, although it’s a bit bigger than I really need. One a bit too small; the other a bit too large….picky, eh?
The blue TC is being used as a family hauler, with the full rear seat (with kiddie seat). As many families in Europe have discovered, this class of vehicle makes a rather ideal and practical alternative to the minivan, although the US-bound TC doesn’t have a third seat option. Is it cheaper than a comparably-equipped minivan?
I drive a Transit Connect for work and it’s not a terrible vehicle but it’s gutless and I DESPISE the automatic trans in it.
Here in France you can see tons of (ugly plastic) cars like the Ford Transit… I am tired of these things… ! I am tired of these diesel 4 bangers… Sounds so bad…
Looks like you could load the Transit Connect into the Sprinter and drive away. 😛
You really don’t want a Sprinter in addition to the high initial cost they are expensive to maintain and repair and they don’t really get any significantly better MPG than a gas powered Ford or GM van. Certainly not enough to offset the higher fuel and maintenance costs.
Wanting one and paying for one are two different things. I still want one, because they have the option of much longer/taller bodies, and they really do drive nicely. I’ve heard that the early 5-cyl Sprinters before they had to add EGR or something like that for tighter emission regs are pretty good.
I’m also interested to see how the new US Ford Transit vans stack up.
I’ve only had experience with the V6 versions and I’ve always wanted to look under the hood of a Freightliner version to see how they managed to fit it in there, as there isn’t a lot of room in front of, or behind the V6. Alas the Freightliner badged versions didn’t sell that well and have disappeared from the streets.
I’m also interested to see how the Transit works out. Quite the risky move considering the Econoline’s reputation and sales history. Personally I’d think that they would be better off keeping the Econoline name, and continuing to bank on that successful name.
Freightliner Sprinters were identical to Dodge Sprinters except for badging.
The Frieghtliners were only available with the 5cyl while the Dodge version went to the V6 before the became as popular as they were for awhile.
No; the gen1 Sprinter (903) sold until 2006 came only with the diesel five cylinder (in the US), regardless of whether badged a Freightliner or Dodge.
Its replacement, (906) the current version, came only with V6, gas or diesel, regardless of whether badged Dodge, FL, or MBZ.
Transit is the biggest selling van name in the world Econoline is an obscure US model
I’ve also seen a lot of Sprinters that are showing rust in various places on the body.
I have been spoiled by the Econoline/Club Wagon. Last summer, I saw a guy at a Sam’s Club trying to fit a long box (looked like some shelving) into a Transit Connect. It was too long to go in. Those are really not very big vehicles if you need length.
The Transit Connect must be a hit, if the number I’ve seen is any indication. Sure they’re gutless, but that might be forgiveable if they’re reliable. Besides, it discourages employees tearing around in them. I give credit to Ford for recognizing & filling an evident market need.
They’re imported in passenger form in order to dodge the 1960s so-called Chicken Tax (25%) aimed at imported commercial vehicles like VW Microbus variants. It was a political gift to the UAW. They must be torn up stateside & turned back into plain vans if that’s what a buyer wants. An MB Sprinter salesman told me that theirs are imported incompletely assembled, for the same tax-evading reason.
The Chicken tax was part of a trade war with France and Germany, in retaliation for them imposing a high tarriff on chicken imported from the US.
That it’s still around is the gift, but it’s more to GM than the UAW.
A neat pairing, esp. given the matching colors, and the “wagon” version of the TC with the windows isn’t a common sight. I purchased one last October after a hard year during which my mom died, I was abruptly laid off two weeks later, and I felt sorry enough for myself to decide that I’d buy a new vehicle for the first time in my life. I’d seen pictures of the upcoming TC revision and knew that getting a 2013 model would be my last chance to purchase an honest vehicle with painted metal showing in the interior and a flat beltline.
So far I love it because the visibility, easy of ingress/egress, and carrying capacity just make everything so easy. And the dated four-speed transmission was an issue well-known to me from reviews, and I knowingly decided to live with that.
Until the new version shows up, though, the TC won’t really be a minivan competitor, esp. since it seems overpriced at $25K. I wanted the wagon version for the extra visibility that the windows give, not the extra seating, so I pretty quickly removed the rear seats, but not before noticing that legroom is pretty tight back there. Passenger space is compromised for carrying capacity, which is why Ford does offer a taxi version where the rear bench has been relocated.
To me the stubby length helps “Buster” look cute and Euro, but I agree with jpcavanaugh that another foot would be quite welcome. Esp. since at 6’2″ the only way I can sleep back there is diagonally, and the passenger seat doesn’t fold forward (for shame, Ford) to allow carrying longer objects. It’s also true that in my many trips carrying loads to a new home, I’ve found it difficult to get the most out of the vehicle’s height. Piling heavy loads up to the roof in the wagon feels a little unsafe, so it’s hard to get the most out of the TC unless you’re carrying around the likes of empty cardboard boxes or bags of plastic peanuts (hmm, I do have plenty of those things).
MPG has improved a little over the 5000 miles I’ve done, but is still only 26-28 highway. Having come to this vehicle from a TDI VW, I feel the pain and join the chorus of those wishing that Ford had offered a diesel version in the U.S.
With no disrespect meant to Adam, I wouldn’t call the TC “gutless.” It’s peppy around town and freeway cruising is easy until and unless a hill triggers a downshift from the dreaded tranny. Having previously owned such high-powered vehicles as a Citroen 2CV, a Renault 4, and a non-turbo Jetta diesel — all of which were pressed into service moving full carloads of stuff at times — I’m constantly amazed at the amount of power Americans think they need, yet they still can’t seem to bring their cars up to speed on a freeway onramp!
For comparison, 26-27 mpg is about what our bigger 2004 Sienna can do on the hwy. The TC’s boxy design might explain this, though I think it’s very pleasant. Ford probably traded cruise efficiency for optimal space in a small package, thinking perhaps of urban users. I agree they should Dieselize it.
I guess I came across a little harsh.
I did only list my annoyances with the vehicle and not the positives.
It seems to be pretty well built and handles rather well for a vehicle of this type and I really like how very utilitarian it is. I see it fulfilling a market niche that has been empty for far too long.
I can also say that despite me driving it with a heavy foot sometimes, it seems to deliver 25mpg at every fillup, which I think is pretty good for something that can haul as much as it can.
The transmission is really the achilles heel of the vehicle. However, I’m unlike most in that I’d prefer a manual.
I’ll get flogged for this one but I leave the TC at work and get in my VW Bus to drive home and it really doesn’t feel much slower…..
I guess I’ve just come to expect more out of a modern car.
Thanks for the MPG comparison,Neil. As you say, the boxiness of the TC shows that it was obviously aimed at European users who need to move a lot within a small footprint. I’m really surprised there turned out to be such an apparently large market for it here in the States — with normal buyers, that is, not just Europhiles like me who like to be weird. I’ve read that the upcoming revised version will be available with a longer wheelbase for those who want it, just as the full-size Transit will. But it’s too styled and minivan-like IMHO!
Yes, why can’t boxy cars just be left unmolested? But the longer wheelbase version will be handy.
We sure didn’t buy our Sienna for its looks. A van is just a wheeled box; Europeans seem to understand that better, yet with good results. Many recent minivans have very strange & arbitrary lines, as if stylists are running out of new ideas, like writers for long-running TV series.
I looked at a Transit Connect for family use ala Citroen Berlingo but it prices out very close to a new Mazda5 which makes a better family hauler. However it is noticeably cheaper than Toyota Sienna.
I’m actually more interested in a full size Transit or Ducato set up like a bike shop van.
Many years ago when Ford was producing the Escort vanlet (the one with the raised roof behind the driver’s compartment, similar to a late 30s Dodge panel) in England I wrote the Ford Motor Company urging them to bring it stateside. I actually got a very nice letter back from a middle manager at Ford. He had been trying to get them to do the same thing. He said my letter “made his day” and gave him some much needed ammunition to further his fight.
Not enough ammunition tho, seeing as how they never sent it over.
It does raise the point. however, that a letter addressed to management can matter.
So, if we want those diesels . . . . . .
Those particular Escorts are a mixed bag my BIL had several as company cars some were ok 1 grenaded @100k kms he works for the biggest dealership in Australasia a Ford agent and he wouldnt recomend one to me when i was looking at a new diesel car. He seemed to think you might get lucky but most people didnt.
Although the Transit Connect is slow (one review described acceleration as ‘glacial’, similiar to an old VW Microbus), it fills the void for a low-priced, rudimentary, short wheelbase (SWB) minivan which was left when Chrysler discontinued the SWB minivan that had actually been quite a staple for decades and started the whole thing back in 1983. Some believe that Chrysler’s (actually Daimler’s) strategy of cancelling the SWB minivan and trying to replace it with the Journey was not a good decision, and I’m inclined to agree.
The Transit Connect comes off as very similiar to the original 1983 Chrysler minivan in many ways (both good and bad), and its strong sales is a testament to the lasting appeal of the original small minivan concept. Nearly all of today’s minivans are tanks that really aren’t ‘mini’ but much closer to being full-sized vans.
I probably wouldn’t buy one of the current made-in-Turkey Transit Connects, but the new, improved 2014 model due to arrive soon might be worth a look (even though it looks like a stretched Kia Soul with a Fiesta front end tacked on).
Yeah, I think the automatic sucks so much of the life out of the TC, as it does in many other cars (in fact, I’ve never owned an auto before in my life, except of course in my Crown Vic wagon, which is another story!). Of course “we’d like to see it with a diesel and stick, but how many would they actually sell if they certified one” is becoming a very old meme on auto websites — but still, someone should try it and find out. Something with TC carrying capacity, 40 mpg highway, and a little more fun-to-drive would be nice to encounter.
Addendum: I pulled the MPG figure above out of a hat, but a 2007 test of a diesel TC by the UK’s What Van magazine said the van averaged 40 mpg Imperial overall, adding this about its performance:
“Floor the throttle and the engine’s maximum torque kicks in with a vengeance. You can feel it pushing you hard between the shoulder blades as you hurtle forwards, and it seems to dismiss as inconsequential any weight you might have in the back.”