The other day we looked at the similar-looking Bedford and GM NA vans, and pointed out the Bedford came along two years before the American version, which it undoubtedly influenced stylistically. Thanks to this shot of a fine survivor gen2 Econoline (by Mike Hayes), let’s take a look at the situation with Ford vans on both sides of the big pond. It was quite similar to GM, where the European Mark1 Transit came out a couple of years before this generation of Econoline, and its influence can be seen here.
The Mk1 Transit arrived in 1965, and was a very important vehicle in a number of ways. It was Ford’s first pan-European vehicle, replacing the German Ford Taunus Transit and the British Ford Thames 400 vans, both of which were obsolete, narrow little vans with their engines between the front seats like the gen1 Econoline, which was also quickly becoming obsolete.
The Transit Mk1 being the first pan-European project was of course just a preview of the consolidation that would happen, since Ford of Europe was not created until 1967, two years after the Transit arrived. But it was very much a harbinger of things to come.
Not surprisingly, the UK and continental versions had engines from their respective home countries; either the Cologne V4s or the Essex V4s, in displacements from 1.3 to 2.0 L. Using these very short V4s allowed the hood to be short, and minimized intrusion into the cockpit.
Actually, it didn’t intrude at all; it was completely ahead of the firewall, which allowed three-across seating on a bench seat (buckets shown here).
This is vastly different from the American version, which had a massive dog house that intruded very significantly and obnoxiously. It was also offset to the right some, meaning that the passenger had almost no leg room. It was actually quite primitive in that regard, and helps explain why this second generation of Econoline did not last very long (1969-1974), and was replaced by the much-improved 1975 version, with its longer nose and less intrusive dog house.
In 1971, the Transit got a different grille, which actually makes it look quite related to the Taunus 12M. Or a Chevy Vega. Well, this look had rather become generic.
Since a diesel version was desirable, the Transit’s nose had to be significantly elongated to fit the Perkins 1.8 L inline four, which was later replaced by a Ford 2.5 L diesel. That also made room for the big Essex gas 3.0L V6, which then became the favorite of the Metropolitan Police as well as certain underworld users who needed a quick but roomy get-away vehicle. And in Australia, the 3.3 L Falcon six was even shoehorned in, perhaps with a bit of firewall bashing.
The Transit deserves a full write up one of these days, but here’s the face-lifted version that arrived in 1977 and carried it all the way to 1986. It was the beginning of an extremely important and profitable van franchise for Ford, which has become only more important to Ford than ever.
And Ford did well in the US, with its generations of Econolines, which has of course been replaced by the European-style Transit van. So the European Transit not only showed the way with engine-in-front configuration, but in the end replaced the more conservative Econoline all together.
Ultimately, that’s not surprising, since vans historically paid a bigger role in Europe than in the US, since there was no role for pickups to play in the mix of commercial vehicles. It’s always been all vans, and therefore the competition was greater, which drove more innovation. The European van market is now extremely diverse, with some 3-4 general classes/size ranges, and a number of variants in each of those classes.
As a result, there’s significantly more variations to the Transit in Europe than in the US.
I had a matchbox Transit van as a kid, which I found perplexing because I’d never seen one in real life.
Thank goodness the Econoline never emulated the stretched nose version of the Transit!
The Nissan NV cringeworthly proves your point.
“cringeworthly”?
Like DougD, I also had a Transit as a child, although mine was an orange pickup with drop sides. It was perplexing for me, also.
It is quite safe to say the Econoline’s engine was still offset a bit to the side for the generation which began in 1992. It is offset enough that we were really wanting a Chevrolet or GMC when van shopping in 2010. Our having bought a Ford was simply due to condition, timing, and location.
Would it be safe to say Ford was able to better realize economies of scale by introducing the Transit in the US? Unlike GM, in which their presence elsewhere was dwindling, Ford’s hadn’t and they could have one van instead of two. Never thought about that until now, but an economy of scale seems like it could have been one prime factor of many in the Econoline going away (or at least the smaller versions since a cab/chassis is still around).
Jason, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate here and argue that a “world van” would never have sold in the US. Until the US introduction of the Sprinter Van, (some) Americans wouldn’t consider it a “real” van unless it offered BOF construction and a big stonkin’ V-8. In fact, there are still some folks who feel that way, which is one of the reasons GM sells every BOF van they can manufacture, and there’s a waiting list (some sources say it will take you 6 months to get an Express Van!)
And also towing. While Johannes has showed us plenty of pictures of European vans towing large loads, tow ratings are calculated differently in the US, and again some American buyers want the highest tow ratings available, at which the current GM vans best the Sprinter/Transit/ProMaster class.
So I would argue that no, until Daimler-Chrysler introduced the Sprinter to the US in 2001, a European-style van would not have been viable in the US.
Evan, my point was about Ford realizing an economy of scale being a driving factor in why the Econoline went away, not whether it would have sold. Ford had seen the reaction of the Sprinter and the Econoline was ancient whereas they had another van in Europe…
I have had lots of exposure to the V8, body on frame mindset. If you heard a wait time of six months for an Express, that is an improvement. It is taking us a year to get them where I work and we buy multiples. We’ve been buying them due to being less expensive as equipped than a comparable Ford.
I don’t think most Americans insisted on body-on-frame construction for their vans (if they even understood the difference between BOF and unibody construction), especially considering neither the Dodge B series vans nor pre-Express GM vans were BOF and both were big sellers. I think part of what later made a single worldwide design for vans successful (especially at Ford) is the modern electronic communications and collaboration tools we take for granted now that didn’t exist in the 1970s or 80s, which make worldwide collaboration easy.
The wait list for the GM vans is a year, The 2021 fleet order books closed 12-30-2020. So demand is growing last year they didn’t lock orders until the beginning of March. Some of it their continued popularity is the customers that want BOF, some of it is due to the desire to transfer existing upfitting equipment some of it is because buyers are looking for a bargain and don’t want FWD or an orphan.
Evan, the majority of American vans were unibody for decades (Dodge, GM G, as well as this generation of Econoline).
The Chevy G-van that ran from 197x thru the early 90s did not have a full length frame.
I wonder how they menaged to get a frame for the Cutaway and chassis-cab versions of these vans who was used as camper or small school bus?
The same way it is done with the Transit and Sprinter basically by welding a top plate on the hat shaped frame rail as used on the unibody. Chrysler actually did a ribbed floor pan of sorts for the full length back on the old B-series.
Yup all about economies of scale. There is a reason why van generations have been so long and that is the profit margins on them are pretty slim. The vast majority go to fleets, with minimal options which is where the big profits are.
Vans have had some of the highest profit margins of any vehicle line. Which is of course not surprising, since demand exceeds supply. Economics 101.
In Europe, the Transit is Ford’s only vehicle line with any substantial profits, and they were at 10% last year, which explains a lot.
The US is not Europe. If you look at the list prices they do look highly profitable. However the majority of vans are sold to fleets. Those fleets demand and get deep discounts even with the current high demand.
Ford’s website is showing a base price of $34,510 for the base Transit Cargo
The winning bid for my state’s fleet is $25,424 and that includes $150 worth of extra PATS Keys and delivery. They will honor that price for any gov’t agency and select non-profits across the state.
That is more than a 25% discount. You can be sure Amazon, other big commercial and rental fleets as well as the RV builders are getting similar if not better discounts.
From Ford’s Q3 statement:
New Chief Financial Officer John Lawler said Ford saw strong top-line pricing as it increased sales of high-profit pickup trucks, commercial vans and SUVs.
I don’t care what examples you can show, the simple reality is that demand is very strong, ATPs are high, and the profit margins are fat. Obviously, it doesn’t cost all that much to build a van, big empty box on wheels with an off-the shelf drive train and cheap interior.
It seems very counterintuitive based on the prices that basic vans (as well as basic entry level contractor grade trucks) go for that they aren’t very profitable. In basic form they consist of little tech, cheap to produce but durable materials, minimal (down to zero on cargo areas) interior trim, and everything seemingly optimized for ease/speed of production. There’s more metal and maybe larger tires than in an economy car that sells for significantly less but that’s about it.
Perhaps not AS profitable as the King Ranch version of whatever, but hardly minimal or just over breakeven.
Economies of scale in manufacturing mean different things in different industries. You tend to think of discounts for volume based on purchasing more materials or reductions in labor costs by justifying more automation. The real differentiator though is assignment of fixed costs. Every company – even in the same industry – has their own system. Costs for things like design, testing, corporate overhead and even health care can be highly arbitrary. Few companies run true cost based accounting systems. Many fixed cost assignment formulas are based on production length. For commercial vehicles, production length of a design can span decades. I don’t pretend to know Ford’s formula, but as a salesman for manufacturing capacity, I know the project costs I use are often more heavily biased by accounting assumptions than actual product content or capital requirements. For an infinitely more complex product like a vehicle, I can only imagine how vast the differences might be for a truck design that is planned for decades versus a car design that may have planned revisions at much shorter intervals.
I recently purchased a 2020 US Ford Transit, which I may at some time chronicle in a COAL update. The US version is almost identical, except for powertrain and I suppose a few trim details, to the heavier duty British rear wheel drive versions The US AWD model, new for 2020, is this version with front drive a la Ford Expedition added on, whereas the European AWD is based on the FWD platform as far as I can tell.
What is more interesting to me than the physical similarity with the UK Transit, is that much of the documentation, both the commercial Body Engineering manuals as well as the owner’s manual, contain text which was either written by a British English author, or copied directly from the UK docs. There are references to “motorway driving” and even use of the word “whilst”, neither term being used in American English. And there are even notes on how the stop-start function operates with a manual transmission which is not offered in the US. On the other hand, we get the twin turbo 3.5 liter V6 and ten speed automatic which is simply the best truck powertrain I have ever driven.
At least in my parts of the US, “whilst” has become fairly common over the last 20 years (no doubt from across-the-pond intermingling on web forums and social media etc.) but what limited-access high speed roads are called varies by region. Here in the DC suburbs they’re “highways”, but on the left coast they’re usually “freeways”, and in some states north of me they’re “turnpikes” or “expressways”. I rarely hear “motorway” though except for racetracks, and never hear “carriageway”.
I went back to the online US Transit owner’s manual to find an example of the British English and got distracted by this math (maths?) word problem. Who says manual writers don’t have a sense of humor?
“Suppose your vehicle has a 1400-pound (635-kilogram) cargo and luggage capacity. You and one of your friends decide to pick up cement from the local home improvement store to finish that patio you have been planning for the past two years. Measuring the inside of the vehicle with the rear seat folded down, you have room for twelve 100-pound (45-kilogram) bags of cement. Do you have enough load capacity to transport the cement to your home?”
Probably not, unless the two of you together weigh less than 200 pounds (90kg). Or does cargo and luggage exclude people? Actually sounds like it does the way it’s worded, but I would have thought the weight of the people up front would have at least some effect on how much weight you could safely haul.
I found something like that in the cargo/towing section of my 2011 Ranger’s manual just yesterday!
We absolutely need to read about this one!
Transits landed here from the UK with the shaky 1.7 V4 engine later enlarged to 2.0 they proved very popular and much bigger inside than the then current CA Bedford then the CF came along to compete, Australian versionsalso showed up but they made the same mistake as GMH by staying with the 4 cylinder back axle ratio, I know they had the Zephyr range in OZ but nobody there clicked onto fitting MK3 Zephyr diff heads for decent road speed with the Falcon engine, the MK2 Transit thankfully dispensed with the V4 and used the 2.0 Pinto OHC four from the Cortina they were a much better van to drive and the Aussie ones had Falcon engines and the MK3 Zephyr diff heads bolted right in though the Aussies never found out.
Now we get Transits in all shapes and sizes most with a size advantage over the ibiquitous Toyota Hiace which now is built by Peugeot/ Citroen and comes in all 3 flavours.
Could be because the Mark 3 Zephyr was long out of production by the time we started shoving Falcon sixes in (1973).
There are still a couple of 2nd gen Econoline’s running around my area. I’ve always thought that they more resembled the Thames 400 series vans of the early 60’s.
This is the closest that I’ve been to a Transit over here….
Cat to scale.
What a beautiful cat!
Agreed.
More cat and dog and pet photos with car models would really spruce up the place.
Another cat, another Transit van!
Orange and white (“Garfield”) cats are typically very photogenic!
This is Pebbles, a 26lb Torbie, or as described elsewhere, an “absolute unit”. She is the ’76 Fleetwood of cats!
One photogenic tortoiseshell, doing what he does best.
Feline vehicle maintenance
I am another who remembers that toy Transit and being a bit confused by it – but then we got several English/German variants in the Matchbox line.
I remember Ford selling these 2nd generation vans’ short hoods as a “service center” where you could check fluids and such without opening the engine cover. That was great as far as it went. By the time the final version of the E series came out, the engine was substantially forward. Though, as an owner I wondered if that was really any better for service purposes, with so much of the engine hard to access from either inside or outside.
The 1975 redesign of the Econoline gave it a much longer nose than either the Chevy or Dodge competition, yet still, the engine doghouse managed somehow to take up a huge amount of the passenger’s foot room. (The photo below is a ’79 recently on an auction site). Somehow, Chevy and Dodge did better, or at least no worse, with a lot less added front overhang.
Wow, look at that skinny passenger-side floormat!
I know; the skinny mat just serves to accentuate how little space there is.
The doghouse on the Econoline certainly didn’t stop U-Haul from adding a third seat to their box trucks. That’s no fun at all to sit in, even for a short cross-town route.
I had around 70 various full size vans in the fleet I managed. Eventually standardized on the Ford Econoline. Dodges had tranny problems and general poor quality. Chevy brakes didn’t last and the front ends fell apart. Another issue was the dealers in the area for Chevy and Dodge were very poor support. The Fords did better, weren’t perfect. local dealer support was very good.
The Transits were just coming into the fleet the last few years I was here. We had some odd issues with the Transit Connects. Lost 3-4 transmissions in extremely cold weather. High temps for the day was -20F degrees. The other odd thing was rear brakes that froze up in extremely cold weather. 2-3 times, rear brakes are drums.
The Transit was a real game changer because of the range of sizes available. The vans are real nice for setting up, the squarer body works better for fitting shelving and cabinets in them. Use can get the Transit in a cab “chassis” configuration, either with an enclosed cab or open rear cab. There are many flatbed and contractor box versions running around here, more maneuverable and shorter than truck versions. We used the NA v6 engine and they preformed fine. The Twin Turbo 3.5L is a nice set up but I preferred to stay away from turbos in the light duty fleet. To many operators that don’t give a crap.
I stayed away from the Sprinter/Dodge/Freightliner vans. My son had three in his fleet and those vans were more expensive to operate and service than their Fords. Of the three vans, two burned to the ground and the last was dumped to get it out of the fleet.
Side note, I was watching a British TV show the other night and there was a Bedford van in several shots, what a homely looking thing.