New Ford Transit ecoNetic rated at 32.6 mpg (U.S.) and 189 g/km CO2
How many business owners that use full-size vans would love to have something that gets upwards of 30 mpg combined? Odds are, most of them. Ford has just added an ecoNetic version of its big Transit van that is sold in Europe. This isn't the compact Transit Connect that is coming to the U.S. this summer but a full-size cargo hauler. Like the ecoNetic cars Ford is already offering, the van gets a tweaked high efficiency diesel, low rolling resistance tires, low drag wheel covers and an upshift indicator light. The Transit ecoNetic also gets a 70 mph speed limiter.
With the 2.2-liter diesel engine, the van gets 32.9 mpg (U.S.) on the EU combined cycle. Before all you diesel haters start complaining, yes the EU cycle tends to rate vehicles higher than the current EPA cycle. Although the EPA cycle is closer to real world for gas engines, it actually tends to underestimate real world performance of diesels. Conversely, the EU numbers tend to be closer to what diesels actually achieve in use.
The 115 hp diesel is available with a particulate filter that allows it to meet EURO V emissions standards.
PRESS RELEASE:
ICONIC FORD TRANSIT 'GOES GREEN' WITH NEW ECONETIC MODEL
- Low CO2 Ford ECOnetic technology joins versatile Transit range
- Based on Transit 280 SWB Van with 2.2-litre 115PS Duratorq TDCi
- Combined fuel economy of 39.2mpg*, (average 189 g/km CO2)
- Transit is first Ford commercial vehicle to achieve Stage V emissions
- On sale Autumn 2009. Prices revealed nearer on sale date
BRENTWOOD, Essex, April 23, 2009 – Ford's ECOnetic low CO2 technology is coming to Ford's most popular commercial vehicle icon, the Ford Transit. On sale later this year, the new Transit ECOnetic is based on the front-wheel drive Transit 280 panel van with short wheelbase and 2.2-litre 115PS Duratorq TDCi engine. Target fuel economy is 39.2mpg*, while average CO2 emissions are a best in class 189 g/km.
Following the launch of ECOnetic models in Ford's Fiesta, Focus and Mondeo passenger car ranges, the company is now committed to continuing this affordable low CO2 approach in the commercial vehicle market. In addition to the new Transit ECOnetic, an ECOnetic version of its compact workmate, the Fiesta Van, will also go on sale later this year.
Steve Kimber, commercial vehicles director, Ford of Britain, said: "We appreciate that our commercial vehicle customers have a clear interest in saving fuel and lowering their cost of ownership. At the same time, environmental friendliness is also growing in importance for them, and with the new Transit ECOnetic they can achieve both."
Transit ECOnetic – what's different?
- Optimised rolling resistance tyres (215/75R16) and low friction oil
- Green shift indicator light
- Modified engine calibration
- Standard 70mph speed limiter
- Improvements over the standard 115PS 280S of 24 g/km CO2
- New low-drag wheel covers
Available as an option, a closed-loop, coated Diesel Particulate Filter (cDPF) enables Transit ECOnetic to satisfy the Euro Stage V emissions standards. The 115PS engine reaches its peak power at 3,500rpm, and delivers a maximum torque figure of 300Nm at 1,800 to 2,000rpm.
The Transit ECOnetic features the Durashift six-speed manual transmission (VMT-6). This offers a wider range of available gear ratios over the prior Durashift five-speed transmission, allowing better fuel economy at all speeds, while the power and torque upgrade offers rewarding performance on demand. The 'shorter' gearing in first gear allows for improved pull-away performance, while the 'longer' gearing in top provides improved highway fuel economy (around 10 per cent better compared with the combined NEDC figures), with reduced engine revs for a range of speeds and loads for the standard Transit configuration. For the ECOnetic version, longer gearing has been achieved through the fitment of a 4.36 final drive ratio.
Standard on Transit ECOnetic is Ford's Electronic Stability Program (ESP) system, including Hill Launch Assist (HLA). It also has a generous array of standard equipment, including the Ford Audio 6000 unit as well as load box safety equipment, including a full steel bulkhead and solid tie down hooks. Additional features, such as a trip computer (to monitor fuel performance), rear parking sensors and a new rear view camera with overhead seven-inch colour display, can also be ordered.
The Transit ECOnetic is as practical as any Transit. It offers 1,097kg gross payload (the standard Transit 280S van is 1,092kg), and the same load box volume of 6.5 cubic metres – using the SAE method of volume calculations.
Detail engineering for the Transit ECOnetic included reducing the availability of the heaviest options such as a second sliding door. However, all standard and optional safety and comfort features are available.
(* Fuel economy figures quoted are based on the European Fuel Economy Directive EU 80/1268/EEC which may differ from fuel economy drive cycle results in other regions of the world)
# # #
Ford Transit ECOnetic Technical Specifications
| Engine data | |
|
Engine type |
Duratorq TDCi 2.2-litre |
|
Displacement – cc |
2198 |
|
Fuel type |
Diesel |
|
Bore mm |
86 |
|
Stroke mm |
94.6 |
|
Max power PS/kW |
115/85 |
|
at rpm |
3,500 |
|
Torque ISO Nm |
300 |
|
at rpm |
1,800 to 2,000 |
|
Emission level |
Stage 5 ** |
|
Fuel Economy* |
|
|
Urban |
31.74/32.47** |
|
*Fuel economy figures quoted are based on the European Fuel Economy Directive EU 80/1268/EEC which may differ from fuel economy drive cycle results in other regions of the world. |
|
Suspension |
|
|
Front |
Independent MacPherson struts, variable rate coil springs, stabiliser bar and gas pressurised shock absorbers. |
|
Rear |
Single leaf springs, gas pressurised shock absorbers |
|
Brakes |
Dual-circuit, with self-adjusting servo-assistance. Front and rear discs. Standard Electronic Stability Program (ESP) with Active Yaw Control (AYC), Roll Over Mitigation (ROM), Hydraulic Brake Assist (HBA), Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) and Hill Launch Assist (HLA) |
Steering |
Rack and pinion, power-assisted steering |
Wheels and Tyres |
5 ½ J 16" steel wheels with 215/75 R16 lower rolling resistance tyres |
|
Fuel tank capacity litres |
80 |
|
Weights* |
|
|
Payload (gross) |
1097 kg |
|
Kerb weight |
1743 kg |
|
Gross Weight |
2840 kg |
|
* All weight data refer to base version assuming full fluid levels and 90% fuel levels. |
|
|
Exterior Dimensions (mm) |
|
|
Overall height – laden |
2082 |
|
Overall height – unladen |
2089 |
|
Overall length mm |
4863 |
|
Overall width (with/without mirrors) |
2374/1974 |
|
Wheelbase |
2933 |
|
Front overhang |
933 |
|
Rear overhang |
997 |
|
Turning circle kerb to kerb (m) |
10.8, wall to wall 11.4 |
|
|
|
Loadspace functionality (mm) |
|
|
Load length (max) |
2582 |
|
Load width (max) |
1762 |
|
Cargo floor to roof |
1430 |
|
Cargo floor to ground – laden |
538 |
|
Cargo floor to ground – unladen |
609 |
|
Rear door height |
1370 |
|
Rear door width |
1540 |
|
Sliding door height |
1352 |
|
Sliding door width |
1030 |
|
Cargo volume (cu. m) |
6.5 (SAE) |
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
PowerCell 5:51PM (4/23/2009)
Would love to see this Van make it to the states...
Reply
jharlan 6:19PM (4/23/2009)
I'd like to see some small RVs on this little diesel chassis.
Reply
brn 6:20PM (4/23/2009)
"Before all you diesel haters start complaining, yes the EU cycle tends to rate vehicles higher than the current EPA"
I'm not a diesel hater, just an EU Cycle hater. I am glad to see you pointing out the differences between the EU Cycle and the EPA estimates. Kudos on that.
"it [EPA] actually tends to underestimate real world performance of diesels"
Says who? I've asked for evidence and I've read what people have pointed me to. None of the evidence is substantial enough to draw that kind of conclusion.
The EPA designed it's new cycle to better estimate real world driving conditions. They do it better than they did before and certainly better than the EU cycle. It's not perfect and can probably be subverted. However, it is the best cycle available today.
It's my belief that you see better "real world" reports is because people who buy diesel are more concerned with mileage. As such, they're going to be more diligent about their driving behavior.
Reply
wxman 10:28PM (4/23/2009)
@ brn –
I think we’ve discussed this issue before, and I’m not sure why you find the EPA technical support document for the revisions of the fuel economy estimates to be unconvincing. According to EPA itself (as expressed in the document) diesel vehicles tended to exceed the OLD (previous) fuel economy estimates by over 4%, based on the ORNL database, and will exceed the NEW estimates by over 18% based on their own (EPA’s) calculations. Diesel vehicles were the only vehicles that exceeded the “old” fuel economy estimates, which is why EPA apparently decided to change the methodology (diesels make up a very small percentage of the LDV mix after all).
This is anecdotal I know, but my experience with our 2002 Jetta TDI pretty much mirrors the EPA analysis. The old (previous) estimates were 42/49/45 for this vehicle, revised to 35/44/38. It was relatively easy to beat the old estimates; it’s nearly impossible NOT to beat the new estimates. I’ve kept a fuel mileage log on this vehicle and we’ve never gotten as low as 44 mpg (the “highway” estimate under the new procedure) on any tank, much less the 38 mpg combined estimate (overall average is 47.3 mpg mostly on B20).
I have no idea why diesels perform so poorly relative to other vehicles. I used to think it was because the fuel economy tests were conducted before the diesel engine was “broken in”. However, the 2009 Jetta TDI is exceeding its estimate by over 20% per fueleconomy.gov even though most of them are probably not fully “broken in” yet (although the relative highway/city usage would have to be analyzed).
You may be correct about diesel owners being more diligent about fuel economy, but it doesn’t seem likely that they would be any more so than hybrid owners (hybrids did the poorest relative to the “old” estimates according to EPA).
meme 6:36PM (4/23/2009)
The real number to look at is g/km, since those numbers are always EU cycle and are thus comparable, and they also take into account the differences between diesel fuel and gasoline. One should just remember a couple comparison vehicles: Prius: just over 100g/km; Typical midsize gasoline sedan: ~150g/km; gasoline SUV: 200-400g/km
I just find it kind of funny that whenever you see "mpg(U.S.)" on this site, it means that you *can't* trust those numbers as being what you're used to in the US, while if it just says "mpg", you probably can. ;) I mean, I know what they mean -- US gallons -- but it's a red flag that the vehicle isn't being done on FTP/US06. And is probably a diesel, so it's emitting more CO2 per gallon.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 8:47PM (4/23/2009)
You can say the EPA figures are underestimates for Diesels, but the EU figures are not accurate either.
It is very difficult to make the stated ratings on things like a BlueMotion.
Reply
Snowdog 10:12PM (4/23/2009)
Where is the proof EPA underestimates diesels any more than regular gas engines? What is the possible reason for this?
EPA underestimates Highway MPG for just about everyone, because people tend to call highway mileage when they do a pure highway run, while EPA still has stops/starts/slowdowns etc...
EPA City cycle isn't likely to match hardly anyones cycle as this is extremely variable in the real world.
Reply
brn 10:59PM (4/23/2009)
If I recall the document correctly, they stated that there have been statistically significant reports of diesel vehicles exceeding their estimates by up to 18%. They did not take that information as indicate any inaccuracies in their testing, merely a variance. If I recall correctly, gasoline powered vehicles also had double digit variances.
As to the diesel vs hybrid, I generally agree. I think diesel owners are more fickle, but hybrid owners aren't far behind. I don't recall what the numbers looked like on hybrids.
As long as we're having fun with anecdotal evidence, I manage to exceed the revised EPA estimates by 24% (17% over the old estimates) in my gasoline powered vehicle. I'm not a hypermiler, but I am light in the foot (not the same as light in the loafer).
Reply
brn 11:01PM (4/23/2009)
I KNOW I replied to my post above, but it showed up down here.
*sigh*
why not the LS2LS7? 12:28AM (4/24/2009)
You recall what people say about the document correctly.
But that's only a single figure in the document. And that information is derived from an internet poll. The same chart says that "high mpg" gas cars (>30mpg) also exceed their rated figures by almost as much (something like 13%).
The document in question was published before the adoption of the new mpg ratings. If the EPA really felt that Diesels would be better represented by a different mpg calculation don't you think they would have set the new figures to match that calculation instead of the one they did choose?
why not the LS2LS7? 12:31AM (4/24/2009)
Oh, I don't feel like typing it all again.
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/18/diesel-rush-begins-vw-jetta-tdi-now-being-delivered/2#comments
There's my comments, if you go to the page before, you can find a link to the actual PDF with the numbers in it.
brn 8:36AM (4/24/2009)
Thanks whynot. It's been a while since I skimmed the document. I forgot as to where they got the "real world" numbers. I wanted to give them more credit than simple internet feedback.
I take issue with a publication (ABG) to claim internet feedback as being more accurate than EPA testing.
wxman 4:01PM (4/24/2009)
You guys appear to want to completely dismiss the "real world" mileage data that ORNL has been gathering (I've been contributing to that database since 2004, so I know that at least what I've contributed is reliable). However, I don't think anyone (including EPA) is suggesting that this database be used in lieu of the "official" figures that are derived from the controlled testing procedures mandated by EPA. Rather they can be used as a "reality check" of how well the official figures compare to real world.
I don't disagree that the ORNL data are unreliable due to uncontrolled conditions under which they're obtained. On the other hand, it's a much large data set than what is used to obtain the "official" mileage data.
At the very least, would you not agree that the parameter "effects of ethanol in gasoline" is not applicable to diesel vehicles? This does introduce an erroneous factor in the new (mpg-based) mileage calculations for diesel vehicles. The "5-cycle" methodology will not be used until the 2011 model year according to the tech support document - the "mpg-based" figures currently being used are just the old methodology with additional "correction factors" applied to the resulting mileage data. Perhaps the "5-cycle" methodology will more accurately reflect the actual mileage, at least relatively.
I don't see why the bloggers on ABG should be continually criticized for using European figures converted to mpgUS. I don't think the EPA mileage figures are clearly any more reliable than the European figures for reasons discussed, plus they really don't have any other data for vehicles that are not available in the U.S.
Michael Hippenhammer 3:08AM (4/24/2009)
I don't think that the testers know how to drive a diesel. It is a little different but, can make a huge difference. Most people rev the engine much higher than they should in a diesel. You don't need rpm to get power in a diesel. My shift point is usually 1800 - 2000 rpm and you don't have to down shift. Also I can cruise 45 mph in 5th at around 1300 rpm with no load. Most new diesel drivers make the same mistake, rev the engine too high. With a mixture of a lead foot and some sensible diesel driving I average 40 mpg with roof racks, lift kit and truck tires and a performance chip and larger injectors. Fun fun fun! My TDI Beetle also pulls a utility trailer that I constantly load up with 2000 lbs and never complains.
Reply
Michael Hippenhammer 3:07AM (4/24/2009)
I forgot, I love that Ford makes this vehicle and could save contractors so much money on fuel. The 2.7 L Turbo-diesel Sprinter is a great choice too and we can buy it here.
Remember WASTED FUEL IS A TAX
Reply
Mattias 2:47AM (4/24/2009)
Speed limit at 70mph? This car would be unable to sell in germany. Drivers of those express delivery verhicle tend to go 100+mph. Since most Sprinters, Vianos, Transits, Ducatos or Dailys are quite aerodynamic top speeds of 110mph with their 180hp to 210hp diesel engines are just normal.
Reply
Cellien 12:25PM (4/24/2009)
I want that engine in my lifted Ranger. :)
Reply
brockway 9:49AM (6/23/2009)
EPA...EU cycles.....I don't care if they are off a few mpg's here and there - If I can have a delivery van with that much cargo room that's anywhere NEAR 30 mpg I'd be thrilled. Please Ford, give us the diesel options in the US that are available in Europe! We need these diesels NOW, not a year or two from now. And we need to see this full size transit here asap too!
Reply