Usually, this 2006 – 2014 model is referred to as the Ford Transit Mk7. It was merely a serious update of the Transit’s third (platform) generation, as introduced in 2000. From that year onwards, Ford’s legendary light commercial vehicle has been offered with a FWD or RWD layout.
This is a FWD Transit single cab panel van with a low roof and short wheelbase (2,933 mm/115.5”). It’s powered by a common rail injected, 2.2 liter turbocharged and intercooled diesel engine. The four banger’s maximum power output is 140 DIN-hp. With its six-speed manual transmission, the very blue van is perfectly capable of going with the flow.
Setting the Ford Transit Connect aside, this was the smallest Transit van one could buy. A direct competitor would be the contemporary Volkswagen Transporter T5.
Ford rates the van at a maximum GVM of 2,600 kg (5,732 lbs), hence the number 260 in the model designation. Given its curb weight of 1,645 kg (3,627 lbs), the payload capacity is 955 kg (2,105 lbs). If necessary, it can also pull a trailer up to 2,000 kg (4,409 lbs).
A new dashboard, revised powertrains, a grille treatment and bigger, vertical headlamp units were all part of the 2006 refresh. The evolution from the Mk6 into the Mk7, in other words.
In September 2006, Ford unveiled the AWD Transit Mk7. AWD panel vans will always be a niche product…
…unlike RWD chassis-cabs. Pictured a dually. The most powerful Transit of the series had a 200 DIN-hp, 3.2 liter TDCi engine (an inline-five); quite brutal in this segment, certainly in those days.
The head honcho of the whole Mk7-range was the Ford Transit T460 Jumbo 3.2 TDCi. The Jumbo was the largest panel van, either with a single or double cab. Some dimensions: wheelbase 3,750 mm (147.6”), overall length 6,403 mm (252.1”), overall height 2,624 mm (103.3”). More pictures of this jumbo-sized van in the sales ad.
The complete lineup of the current Transits, from left to right: the small Transit Courier, the compact Transit Connect, the mid-size Transit Custom and the full-size Transit. Not all of them went through a global transition yet, but the Transit name is here to stay. All over the world, for years to come.
Related articles:
Future Classic: 2015 Ford Transit 250 – A New Dawn For U-Haul
CC Global: Ford Transit Mk2 Phase2 – Mid-Eighties Blue And White Transit Bus
I didn’t realize that the different drive options (FWD, RWD, AWD) had been available that long in Europe, so weird that Ford just flubs it over here and didn’t bother with any of that until this year. Still no FWD option, but AWD was finally introduced very recently.
That Jumbo version is quite the beast and reminds me of the old dually first generation Transits, those were hulking beasts as well. if not nearly as large.
The last picture of the whole Transit “family” is great, shows everyone very well what all is available in the various segments. I could see the Tourneo doing some decent business over here potentially as well, there hasn’t been a minivan sized commercial van in a while (besides the current MB Metris).
GM did try the full size AWD van from 2003-14 and it never sold that well in the US. I’m guessing that played a part in Ford not offering it in the US from the beginning.
I personally don’t see any good reason to offer both RWD and FWD versions.
When volume prevails over weight (payload), buyers opt for FWD. Lower cargo floor, more sheer volume. If you have a mobile workshop or foodtruck, why should you prefer the RWD with less inner space and more curb weight?
Furthermore, any (as in really any) body can be mounted right behind the cab of the FWD version. Can’t do that with RWD.
RWD is for heavy duty applications, when weight (and towing capacity) matters, like the dump truck in the article. It speaks for itself that the heaviest versions are always the ones with RWD and dual rear wheels.
It’s also very common here that the RWD chassis with dual rear wheels are converted into tractor units, for towing a semi-trailer.
The cargo floor argument is huge. I noted it when reviewing both the Transit as well as the ProMaster and it’s likely one of the reasons why it does so well in the camper conversion market. It’s a big step up into the Transit.
And the lower the floor, then the lower the roof can be to still be able to stand up. We just saw the opposite effect in regard to the 4×4 Sprinter.
In general (in general!) people over here vastly underestimate what a properly engineered FWD vehicle can do and vastly overestimate what is needed to get a job done.
Johannes, do you know what passenger versions generally go with or are all configurations possible?
Absolutely Jim. Try to go this low with a RWD chassis (pictured a Renault Master, like many others, also available as FWD and RWD).
Passenger versions of the smallest three of the Transit family are all FWD, just like the panel vans.
The passenger (big) Transit equals a taxibus…
I did not say that there weren’t some advantages to FWD. I said it didn’t make sense to offer both FWD and RWD versions and I did mean for the US market.
Way too many unique body pieces needed to offer that 4″ lower floor. Then there is the actual power train itself. So it would cost a lot for all the extra tooling, not to mention compounding of permutations. After all of that is said and done will it actually result in a significant incremental sales increase or will it just cannibalize RWD sales?
In Europe it makes sense since they are frequently used where a pickup based vehicle would be used in the US and thus the volume makes it worth while.
In my opinion, the full size GMC vans of that era along with the full size E150 and the Dodge van suffered from generally poor driving dynamics, excessive weight, outdated tech, poor safety records, bad interior space utilization and terrible fuel economy. I can’t imagine the GMC 4×4 version improved on any of those parameters. Ford’s likely offering it now because they see that if Mercedes can sell it, then perhaps they can too and might as well flesh out the parts of the overall market that they are still in.
What I find most interesting is that GM insists on sticking with its old van when they could likely STILL offer the old van to those that want it but ALSO offer something to compete with the new offerings elsewhere for those that might not want the “Classic” series anymore, i.e. all those people buying camper platforms for starters.
I’m not sure what the fact that you believe the GM vans are outdated or noncompetitive has to do with the fact that the AWD version just didn’t sell in large enough volume to continue it.
Fact is the GM twins typically outsell the Nissan, Promaster and Sprinter combined. Fleets can’t get enough of them, before the pandemic it was a 1 year wait from the time the order was submitted until it would be produced.
Yes I think the fact that Mercedes showed that there was a market is what prompted Ford to bring it to the US. However fact is the market has changed in the time since GM tried their AWD vans as well as since the Transit was originally introduced in the US.
You left out the Transit though along with the Econoline, or at least what’s still being produced of the E-series. Those two alone almost double the volume of the GMC/Chevy duo combined with the others nibbling away and if anything becoming more formidable over the last few years, not less. (Except for the Nissan which is going away). Ford, smartly, is finally introducing more versions (4×4) to hopefully keep its lead.
Fleets are continuing to buy the Chevy and GMC but I think (and again that’s my opinion) that those are mainly continuation/replacement buys, not new customers in the market for the most part. That’s the reason I suggested they explore offering an additional choice in the market to get some of that volume. Ford obviously could have kept selling the E-series as well instead of the Transit but decided to hedge their bets by keeping versions of the E around.
Yes for years the market has been ~50% Ford between the two products, ~25% GM between the two brands that are the same product and ~25% for the rest.
Some of those GM buyers are new to GM since the E-series went away in full bodied form. Some did try the Transit and then to GM. Certainly a large portion are repeat buyers who want to unbolt the equipment from the old truck and bolt it in to the new.
For people buying vehicles for commercial use the two top and sometimes only priorities are Up-Time and TCO, two things the GM vans do well.
For Ford it did make sense to invest in a new van and consolidate their US and rest of the world van offerings.
GM’s vans on the other hand stay in North America, so it would be very hard to justify the development of a new van based on their NA volumes, particularly when customers are ordering the existing van quicker than they can build them.
I don’t see it so much as a “flub” rather they probably didn’t see any real demand for a FWD variant here. it wouldn’t really bring any other advantages i.e. wouldn’t lower the load floor or anything; plus they’d be trying to get customers to move over from Econoline so RWD and “V8 power” were probably more important.
the biggest advantage the Transit has over the old E-Series is the availability of three roof heights from the factory. No need to have an upfitter butcher the thing to put on a higher roof cap.
Yes the Euro, FWD, full bodied, version does have a 4″ lower floor than the RWD version. The Cab and Chassis are the same height FWD or RWD while the Skeletal (Cutaway) is available with the lower chassis height too.
Very interesting. The Transit line arrived in The U.S. late in its history.
Great vans, this generation. They were used for almost everything when I was in the RAF, from stores wagons to personell carriers to prime movers for ground equipment. They took a lot of abuse and were held in higher regard than the LDV/Sherpa vans we also had.
The featured van seems to be a direct competitor to the smallest Promaster/Ducate/etc. van, which has an 118″ wheelbase, and FWD, of course.
And the biggest Sprinter is quite a bit bigger than that Jumbo Transit, with a 170″ wb and 298″ total length.
Yes, but the Jumbo was the biggest of the Transit vans.
The Sprinter is odd. The biggest I could find on our Benz website is the L4H3 with an overall length of 7,367 mm (290”).
This has been the big daddy of the panel van world for quite some time now, the top model of the Iveco Daily lineup. Overall length 7,540 mm (296.9”).
I hadn’t realised until recently that there had been a ‘Taunus Transit’ prior to the launch of the Mk1 in 1965.
I was the ‘keeper’ of a Mk1 at the beginning of the 70s, with the 2-litre V4 and an auto ! I also had the odd jaunt with the LWB version, which could get exciting if you had too much weight in the long rear overhang.I also did many high-speed miles in a ‘smiley-face’ Mk5 in the 90s, which was a much better drive since it had independant front suspension.
I must have driven a Mk7 since we had one on the company fleet for some years, but only for the odd short run.
That last picture makes the Courier look like a toy compared to the big boy and even the Custom.
Maybe the Transit Courier will fit in the Transit’s cargo compartment.
Transit, like Corolla, seems to be one of the longest-lived global brand names that is applied to a range of vehicles with different specs. It’s still new here in the US, but with the popularity of the full size (RWD or AWD only here) and FWD Connect versions, I wonder if the Transit name will eventually achieve the iconic status of the F Series nomenclature.
By the way, the new-for-2020 US AWD version is I think unique to our (or at least North America’s) market, as it’s a hybrid of the RWD Transit, AWD Expedition and 4wd F150, only offered with the 3.5 twin turbo gasoline V6. And here in the US, the 3.2 5 cylinder diesel was dropped, and it’s replacement 2.0 4 cylinder was announced and then dropped without making it to production. By comparison, I think our Sprinters are diesel only, whether V6 or 2.0 four. And I think the “unicorn” 2.8 liter diesel GM Express/Savanna vans have faded away too.
There is a gas Sprinter available now but no more 4cyl diesel, just the V6.
I usually had 70+ vans in the fleet I managed. Mostly Ford Econolines. Really liked the Transits when they came around. Much easier to fit shelving in them then any of the other vans. Also love the different roof height options. We looked at the Spinters but they were way more expensive to buy and maintain and service was very poor. My sons fleet had three Sprinters and they got rid of them and went back to the Fords. We did look at the Ram Promaster when it first came out, most gutless under powered thing I ever drove, I would say a smart car would probably beat it in a drag race. I had one section request one and I insisted that they test drive one first, after the test drive they decided a Chevy or Ford was there choice. We did buy a fair number of the Chevy/GMC vans because of the 4×4 option. Here in Minnesota when you are an emergency responder a 4×4 is almost a requirement.
The 3.2 five banger is the engine Ford puts in its rebadged Mazda BT50 Piclup called Ranger good engines but nothing really special.
I just checked our Ford commercial vehicles website. The most powerful engine in the full-size Transit for our market is a 185 DIN-hp, 2.0 liter turbodiesel.
Same 2.0 liter engine in the Ranger, 213 DIN-hp for the most powerful version (a biturbo).
Mexico got the passenger version–the Tourneo–of this generation Transit to replace the Freestar (essentially an updated Windstar) when THAT van got discontinued in 2007. Meanwhile, the US never got a true successor–just a few “fill-ins” in the form of the Freestyle/Taurus X and Flex–until the Transit Connect was redesigned in 2014 with a longer wheelbase allowing for 7-passenger seating. It’s a shame b/c I actually prefer the styling of the Mk7 to the current model. I like that 115.5″ wheelbase too (for maneuverability), about the same as the current short-wheelbase Transit Custom and shorter than even the shortest full-size Transit (130″ wheelbase) in the US right now. The Flex is already gone, so we need more vans like this ASAP!
The compact and mid-size panel vans (like the article’s Transit) are the most popular here. Current mid-size panel vans are the Ford Transit Custom, VW Transporter, Renault Trafic, the PSA-Toyota van and others.
It’s the perfect mix between good maneuverability, cargo volume/payload capacity and cost efficiency (in the widest sense).
Compact and mid-size vans are rarely used to haul cargo from A to B. They carry tools and equipment that the owner uses for his job (house painter, electrician, carpenter, mason, mechanic, etc.etc.).
The LWB, full-size vans with a high roof are the preferred choice for parcel delivery services.