Transit Opinions Appreciated

b. rock

Active member
@86scotty was that a high top or standard height van? But a extra couple MPG is about what I figured would be the net benefit of going to a Transit vs E-Series, although some Transit class C drivers report 8-12 on the highway which is right in line w/ the V10. Not enough of a reason alone to make the change. It'll ride smoother and has some newer features though. The E-series has that solid axle, rugged, simple aspect to it that has appeal in certain environments. I struggle with that knowing it won't be a rock crawler in my use case, so the time spent crushing miles on a highway will be significantly higher than time spent bumping around in 4 low. Although while I've enjoyed the E-series and Sprinters I've driven, I just haven't driven a Transit yet that felt 'right'. Can't place it, something just felt off. Could be the small tires, seating position, who knows. I'm sure if you own one you get used to it and then the other 2 feel strange.

Probably worth noting that there are several companies that sell interior kits for the Transits as a compromise between a full DIY interior and a professional build. AFAIK there's only one company that does that for the E-series.
 

86scotty

Cynic
Which one? I've only ever had one Transit and it was a mid-roof LWB, 2016 ecoboost. I've had 2-3 AWD Chevys and 2 were stock height vans, one was a Fiberine fixed high top. Mileage was about the same on all of them IIRC.
 

Farfrumwork

Well-known member
Someone above mentioned 33's on an AWD Transit. I'm not sure you can fit a tire that big without cutting metal. One of the limitations that would hinder the offroady-ness... 31"s should go easy, 32"s (?not sure)

As far as MPG - I've read the same thing with the ecoboost, that is that they fall off the cliff once built-out and used as a freeway flyer. But they have LOADS of power.

For comparison, my 4x4 Sprinter on 33's (with a spare 33" in the OEM spare location), sees 17-18mpg in travels around the mountain west with my family of full sized people on board. I've had several tanks in the 20-21mpg range too (and one tank that was 13mpg - doing 80mph across Wyoming into a headwind at 4*F)

My build is pretty 'light' (for a camper van), and is what I would consider a 'Weekender' that comfortably sleeps 4.


But, I think AWD Transits are good for a van camper and they should be a good hwy traveler and light off-roader. Not to disparage Eseries vans, as they are bada55, but I think the Sprinter and Transit win for drivability (tracking, turn radius, etc...) and interior space. Others may disagree.
 

b. rock

Active member
Right. I don't think the US ever got a gas 4x4 sprinter. I was just curious if that was the 6 or the standard output OM651 4 cyl. I bet that tune really wakes it up too.

I'm super curious how the new HO 4 cyl does with mpg once it gets 33s and a camper build. I always thought the perfect engine for that size van was a ~3L 6 cyl diesel, but if the little 2.0 gets 30% better mpg and pulls the passes the same, I'm sold.
 

rruff

Explorer
I'm super curious how the new HO 4 cyl does with mpg once it gets 33s and a camper build. I always thought the perfect engine for that size van was a ~3L 6 cyl diesel, but if the little 2.0 gets 30% better mpg and pulls the passes the same, I'm sold.
It's surely the best MPG if the lack of power, MB cost and maintenance, and price of diesel fuel don't bother you.

But the bottom line is that a big engine is getting into its efficiency band once the "demand side" gets bumped up by a lift, big tires, tall roof, high speeds, etc... and the little engines that have a big advantage when demand is less (like EPA cycles), lose most of it.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
188,225
Messages
2,904,085
Members
229,805
Latest member
Chonker LMTV
Top