1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174 
VEHICLE HISTORY
Page 150
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Ford Transit 100L/1201. Light Commercials The question posed at the beginning of the first road test report on the new-shape Ford Transit must have passed through the minds of many in the UK commercial vehicle industry over the years of market leadership that the original Transit range had enjoyed. "How do you replace such a vehicle?"
With the benefit of hindsight, the answer is easy. You do exactly what Ford did with the replacement in 1985. You keep the same name and build on the qualities that made the range such a success, improving specifications where possible without taking chances. And if you do it right, you maintain top position, as the "new" Transit has done with 66,000 produced in 1988.
The main change with the replacement model was on the body side and front end styling. The sloping front end could have attracted comments inferring ugliness.
Not many used this term, although it was used in the case of Renault Tiafic and Master designs, perhaps unfairly, as apart from a slight curve on the Transit front end there was not much difference between the basic styles.
One thing that can be said about the Transit design is that it makes the van look slightly smaller than its predecessor. A second is that the shape does not seem strange anymore.
When studying a new vehicle which is clearly destined to become a best seller in its class, it is quite common (and understandable) to be more critical than normal and look for aspects which may result in a design not fulfilling its expected destiny.
So it was with this double test of petrol and diesel-engined versions of the Transit, Points were raised in the CM test report which may have seemed unimportant on a model with less potential, but this is not strange and has to be accepted in respect of a design destined for major success.
In one particular area, though there was no room or reason for criticism — fuel economy. The results were extremely good for both petrol and diesel versions each giving the best figures by useful margins compared to similar weight models tested before, and since, the Transit tests. The 11.11it/100km (25.5mpg) returned by the petrol-engined van was more in line with what would be expected from a diesel model at the gross weight of 2,630kg for the test.
And even more surprising was the petrol's 7.51it/1001cm (37.4mpg) when empty. As expected, figures for the diesel were even better — more like those for a car than for a van — with 8.361it/100km (33.8mpg) when loaded (in this case to 2,6130kg gross) and 6.891it/100km (41.1mpg) when empty.
Checks of fuel consumption brought to light one weakness of the Transit van design — difficulty in completely filling the 67.5-litre (15 gallon) fuel tank. It was suggested that the way to overcome this was to "only three quarters fill it", which the report said was unsatisfactory.
While the Transit body has not experienced any major changes since the current design wa: launched back in 1985, there have been sorm changes underneath to the driveline. The (angina direct-injection 2.5-litre diesel has been rework ed to meet forthcoming emission regulations, an give a little more power. The changes include tin use of a redesigned combustion chamber to give higher compression ratio.
The old standard four-speed Tfansit gearbo: has also been replaced by a new and stronger five speed transmission — the M175.
Compared with the previous four-piece cat iron-cased five-speed car transmission it re places, the two-piece aluminium-cased MT7: has: a greater torque capacity (up from 230 tc 300Nm/169 to 221113 ft); is 134rnm shorter; am weighing 35kg, is 7kg lighter. It features large 78mm synchroniser rings, needle bearings on al gears and multiple ball race bearings supportim the two-rail gearshift mechanism. Gearchang travel has been reduced by 30% to cut down oi shift effort.
For the record the two-litre petrol engine i also capable of operating on lead-free petrol.
When tested, the net prices of the particula Transit ttodels (including the option of the five speed gearbox which is now standard) wen £7,079 for the 120L petrol and £7,944 for the 1001 diesel, With comparable specification curren prices would be £8,591.30 and £9,769.5' respectively which represents increases of 213t for the petrol and 23% for the diesel. Retail Prio Index has increased by approximately 16% in thi three years since the test.