I am driving a 2009 E-250 work van. The last 2000 E-250 had the same rack set-up, same place to put in the key, same fuel filler location, same seats, similar A/C controls, less 12 volt electrical sockets, same position for cruise control, same cargo area, and I think the same wheelbase.
I would guess it had a 5.4L engine, and this one is 4.6L. Not much has changed since the mid-90's when the hood shape changed a little bit, the cargo space stayed the same, with both long and short cargo areas.
By a big change, the 65 to 1970 changed a lot, in that the engine was moved forward to in front of the driver. In 75, all thoughts of a manual transmission where dropped, and the engine compartment enlarged to accommodate the 460" engine.
While the dashboard does change a little bit each year, and in 2005 they went from a throttle cable to electronic throttle position sensor, many things stayed the same.
I even think that a engine cover cup holder from 1975 will fit up to about 1987, while the 1990 will probably fit fine in my 2009 van. They did not change things to drastically. Sure they went to coil on plug engine, and improved the transmission, but grandma is not going to notice anything about that. The cargo box stayed the same.
Yes I am looking forward to a nice tall cargo box, like sold in Europe. It will also be very popular with the ambulance and delivery groups, as well as the HVAC crowd, who will like being able to stand up inside the van, while looking around at the racks for parts.
Fred.
Amidst all this "change", including the option to order the old rectangular headlamps vs. the aero ones...
I don't think a single one of these changes materially affected upfitters.
Upfitter switch locations are still where they should be.
Seat anchors stayed the same (for aftermarket seats), holes in the ribs / frame stayed the same for mounting anything from shelving to machinery.
Ladder racks all fit where they are suppose to, so do the provision for mounting "cone" holders and wiring for the emergency vehicle lights.
Larger (and dual) alternators go where they are suppose to.
rear AC and heater (both factory and after market) fit the same.
Now... that is change I like!
Even if I can't stand up without ordering an aftermarket top.
I did wonder why Ford didn't offer an option for a factory high top on this one.
Quote "
I did wonder why Ford didn't offer an option for a factory high top on this one."
Ford has to plan on how they will transport the vehicles from assembly point to the dealership, sometimes several hundred miles away, via delivery trucks, and they need to fit more than 4 vehicles on a truck, that might have to drive 400 miles from a train depot to the dealership out west.
While in Germany, it is easy enough to deliver 2 or 3 high top vans on a truckload carrier the 50 miles from the nearest rail depot to the dealership, it is a bit more difficult in the western states, so they make the vehicles short enough to fit up to 12 compact cars, or 9 full size cars onto a standard car carrier.
I saw a picture of a car carrier made specifically to transport full size Dodge vans across from Canada to Detroit, making several trips a day, carry 4 vans. High top vans will not fit.
They will also have to do something special to make the high top vans fit into the triple level rail car carriers too. Perhaps make them double deck? they are 15' tall overall, so it might work.
I was asking "If the supercab is so popular, why not make a supercab version of the Crown Vic?" Well they sort of did make a extended length version of the Crown Vic for a while, but shipping was the answer I got. Making the cars longer increases shipping costs. I don't know if any of the big three made a limo from the factory since the 60's.
I also asked about a 6 door version of the Sierra, and got a computer image of what it would look like if produced. (easy enough, photoshop the front 3/4 of the vehicle to the rear 3/4 of another picture of the same vehicle). I thought it would be a great idea for a 8 passenger car, but again, to long for the car carriers, and shipping costs would have to go up.
carringb wrote: A fully loaded Sprinter will not hold 75 up a 7% grade. That's max grade we see on Interstate Freeways here, and is the speed Medic units travel at in Oregon. Yes, cars pull over, but only if the Emergency unit is going faster. I've seen older fire trucks getting past by much faster moving traffic, since it couldn't keep up. Most of the US offerings now have no trouble cruising at 100MPH, and at least on Ford, one feature they remove on the Ambulance prep package is the 100 MPH speed limiter.
If you see an Ambulance running 100 MPH or more the driver needs to be pulled over, arrested, fired and loss their drivers license. STUPID plain and simple!!!
That is exactly what would happen here in Ohio. Every year the OSHP would conduct an emergency vehicle drives class at the station. It was mandatory for every person operating EMS vehicles. The two things that they would drill into your head was, DON"T SPEED, DON"T RUN RED LIGHTS (traffic lights) or you will get a citation! Ohio law states that ALL EMV's MUST stop and clear the intersection BEFORE entering it! If you hit a vehicle or a vehicle hits you you can and should get a ticket.
Have you ever rode in the back of an ambulance? At 35 MPH it is hard to preform CPR, start an IV if needed, collect vitals and everything else needed for keep a critical person stable. At 65 it is near imposable but at 100 MPH, it would be absolutely imposable.
Don
ON EDIT: There where times that the police would escort and clear the intersections for us (fire EMS), but it was very rare and we never ran over 60 MPH on surface streets if that. It has been a long time since I was on the department, however I will ask a friend that specs out the Perrysburg EMS vehicles if they can make 100 MPH. My bet is NO.
On crowded surface streets, or on a highway where the next 45 MPH curve is only a few hundred feet away, then driving over 75 MPH is not prudent.
However in places like Montana, where the hospital is 35 - 100 miles away, and you can look down the interstate 10 miles to the next curve in the road, and see it is pretty much clear of traffic, then driving 100 MPH is prudent, and might get you to the hospital 20 minutes faster than driving 65.
Heck there are Texas interstates rated at 75 MPH for passenger cars, some want to go back to the 90 MPH speed limits in the day time.
I have a non-turbocharged 3.5L V6, and it will do 110 going up a 6% grade, in fifth gear at about 4,800 RPM in a small Ford Edge. My guess is the Ecoboost with 100 more horsepower will move a all wheel drive ambulance at 100 MPH easy enough. Still a speed restriction of 110 would be prudent. You don't want a blowout at that speed.
As far as CPR at that speed, the automatic defibrillators used today really don't care the ambulance speed.
Fred.
Fred! How do you like your Edge? My wife has decided that is what she wants, and we are likely going to pick the new 2.0 ecoboost. Sure is a quiet, smooth riding, roomy CUV. Not many 2013 Edge's on the lots yet, so we will likely be ordering it.
02 Ford Explorer 4.6 V8 4x4, prodigy and equalizer
07 Crossroads Sunset Trail ST19CK
and no payments
I really like the horsepower. Problem is all that horsepower - I like to drive faster than $4.27 gas permits. I have a difficult time keeping it under 70, and that will save a lot of fuel.
I have a 2007, and don't have the keyless entry problems that some have stated due to being 2011 or later. I guess they have it all worked out, and you can still tow the Edge 4 wheels down. I put the hitch on mine, a Roadmaster with removeable brackets. IT was not that difficult, except to use a bench grinder to adjust the width of the last 4 bushings that have to be ground down to a certain width, depending on how wide the chassis is at the end of it's frame opening to the bumper. My sister had a bench grinder, so it was easy enough once at her house to finish the installation, and put the front valance back on.
I have the factory class 2 tow package, with larger radiator, trans cooler, and hitch that I use to carry my bicycle rack.
150 HP and 12,000 GVWR - Just the kind of vehicle I do not want to be stuck behind! And when loaded to it's 18,000 GCVWR it must be just fine to follow up a hill. I have as much torque and more horsepower in my Ford Edge! And it is only 6,000 GVWR.
150 HP and 12,000 GVWR - Just the kind of vehicle I do not want to be stuck behind! And when loaded to it's 18,000 GCVWR it must be just fine to follow up a hill. I have as much torque and more horsepower in my Ford Edge! And it is only 6,000 GVWR.
The van in the picture is not the van Ford is talking about building here. The van in the picture is a European scale "full size" minivan. Until this one, what Ford had was a joint-venture with VW.
As soon as Ford releases some pictures of the van, and anounce a date it will start production, I will post the pictures and dates.
Right now it is all a big guess. One person who posted said he works in the Kansas City plant, and they are still building the building where the Transit will be produced, so hope of it coming out this summer is dashed, but it looks like next summer they will have the building done, tooling installed, and ready to go.
And of course Ford does not want to tell GMC what the van will look like, and keep them guessing, and trying to decide to update their GMC van or not. I would not look for pictures to be released until perhaps November at the big SEMA show, or Louiville RV show. But remember that Ford will still be manufacturing the dually Econoline for the next 3-4 years in Ohio, so they might not show anything off at the RV show.
tatest wrote: The van in the picture is not the van Ford is talking about building here. The van in the picture is a European scale "full size" minivan. Until this one, what Ford had was a joint-venture with VW.
What was that? I cannot remember Ford having a joint venture , Mercedes did with VW
Offline
the driver needs to be pulled over, arrested, fired and loss their drivers license. STUPID plain and simple!!!
