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 
FORD TRANSIT FWD 300 LWB HIGH ROOF
Page 30
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ilif hen Ford introduced the latest generation of Transit it was a rearwheel-drive design, like every Transit before it. But the Transit was intended to suit the vast majority of van operators, so front-wheel-drive models were always on the cards. These have finally appeared. although surprisingly the first one we've seen is a relative heavyweight—a long. wheelbase, high-roof van at 3,00okg GVW that is not far off competing with its own RWD siblings.
The engineering of the Transit is quite brilliant: almost all the components are shared between the front and rear-wheel-drive versions, even down to the engine ancillaries— although the FWD version has a transverselymounted 2.0-litre engine, while the RWD model has a longitudinal 2.4-litre unit. At the UK launch Ford even demonstrated that a RWD Transit could be turned into a FWD model in less than zo minutes by a couple of practised mechanics. Try getting that sort of service at your local Ford dealer...
Front and rear-wheel-drive Transits are not offered at the same gross weight, so it is not easy to compare payloads, but we reckon that a RWD (and 2.4-litre) Transit weighs around 130kg more than a similar FWD van.
The Transits we have tested so far have been competent enough, with a superb chassis and excellent cab, but the engine has failed to shine: its distributor-pump design, despite direct injection and four valves per cylinder, lacks the impressive urge (and fiiel economy) of the latest common-rail units from Mercedes-Benz and Renault. Perhaps the change in displacement—and the different characteristics of front-wheel drive—will make a difference.
Productivity
Since the launch of the latest Transit, Ford has maintained that front-wheel drive would reduce fuel consumption, thanks to the more direct driveline, as well as reducing the kerbweight of the van, Well it seems to have done the trick: the Transit 30 o' s fuel consumption is excellent, the laden figure just about matching the Volkswagen Transporter 1200 TDI despite 2 ookg more all-up weight and around 5o% more load volume. The unladen figure is even better: 38.8mpg round our Kent test route, at a respectable average speed, is impressive for such a big van.
And yes, the Transit is a pretty big van: the loadspace is 3.4om long and 1.98m high internally—plenty tall enough for most people to stand upright— and the finicky VDA measurement of load volume is 9.m3. The more generous SAE measure (quoted by less scrupulous rnanufac hirers) is a whopping 11.3m3. However, tht loadbed is around 66 omm from the grount unladen; that's nothing special for a front wheel-drive van. The rubber mat on the lox floor is useful, but it's part of the "load are protection kit"—a f150 option. And the stan dard steel half-bulkhead is only the start of range of bulkheads which allow varyiq amounts of loadspace length and seat adjust merit. The rear doors only open to 18o° as stan dard; 270° doors will cost you a stunning 25c but that includes body side mouldings. Th+ side loading door is not full-height, though th+ aperture is a decent 1.56m tall.
The Transit manages to combine its larg+ loadspace with a very respectable payload— over a tonne, even with a couple of big-bonet people on board. In the UK there is little rea son to stick to the 2.8-tonne GVW limi favoured in Germany, so the extra 20019 comes in handy—there is enough axle toler ance to make practical use of it, too.
On the road
You would be hard pressed to tell whether thi was a front or rear-wheel-drive Transit purel] from its handling. The van is neutral in jus about all conditions, though it perhaps has bit more stability on the motorway than tilt RWD version. Ride quality is good too, despit, the fitment of i5in wheels and 195)70 tyre: rather than the i 6in wheels and 215/75 tyre: of the 3.5-tonne RWD models.
It's fair to say that the perforniatice from he 99hp engine is hardly sparkling, but it loesn't struggle at motorway speeds and is lexible enough for most conditions; we could be in a position to tell you a lot more bout the engine if only it had been fitted with . rev-counter, but this is a £50 option. The :earshift is fairly sharp, despite the long lever, rid the ratios are sensible. Quite admirably or a front-wheel-drive van, the fully laden lansit managed a restart on a 25% slope, Theft with a load of wheelspin.
The Transit's brakes are more impressive: teak retardation of as much as 85% was thieved, and each of the ABS-assisted stops vas accomplished without drama; lockup was listributed evenly among all four wheels, and he van stopped dead straight each time.
The Ford comes fairly well equipped, but nu can spend a lot on options before you get chat you want—and that has pushed the price if this example well above L20,000. Still, welome standard features include excellent hielded door locks with remote central lockng, and a driver's-side airbag. The cab is well lesigned as a whole, and visibility is terrific. ;towage is an example to most other manufacurers with deep door bins, under-seat space nd even a handy "bin" for a mobile phone. One real surprise with this Transit was the nterior noise. Though it only had a hal1rullchead. it beat the Sprinter 311 tested last veek by a few decibels. Also, this van suffered ..ss from wind noise around the side window rame than other Transits we have tested.
Summary
The Transit is at last showing signs of fulfilling its promise. The 2.0-litre engine is as characterless as the 2.4-litre one was, but it has delivered excellent fuel consumption. Combine that with a good payload and an even better loadspace, and you have a very productive van. Driver comfort is good, service intervals are long (now 15,000 miles) and there is a three-year/mo,000-mile warranty. The only catch is perhaps that high purchase price. But for some customers, only a Transit will do and, even with frontwheel drive, this van is all Transit.
Eby Toby Clark