Since the Transit has been mentioned some lately around here, I thought of this last night. Which would you pick for business vehicle hauling goodness?
-
Sept. 9, 2009 7:47 a.m. dxman92 New Reader
-
Sept. 9, 2009 7:50 a.m. Grtechguy SuperDork
Are those really even the same category?
-
Sept. 9, 2009 8:01 a.m. blaze86vic Reader
Yeah I have to agree. One is designed for purpose, and the other is simply a chick car that's not really good at anything but looking different. (I might get bashed for saying that, but it's the truth.)
-
Sept. 9, 2009 8:11 a.m. maroon92 SuperDork
blaze86vic said:
Yeah I have to agree. One is designed for purpose, and the other is simply a chick car that's not really good at anything but looking different. (I might get bashed for saying that, but it's the truth.)
come on, the Transit Connect is NOT a chick car....
-
Sept. 9, 2009 8:45 a.m. blaze86vic Reader
maroon92 wrote:
blaze86vic said:
Yeah I have to agree. One is designed for purpose, and the other is simply a chick car that's not really good at anything but looking different. (I might get bashed for saying that, but it's the truth.)
come on, the Transit Connect is NOT a chick car....
Yeah your right, I guess it's more of a pedo bear vehicle.
-
Sept. 9, 2009 8:51 a.m. jrw1621 HalfDork
I think the HHR panel is a great choice if you need a big advertising space and have little interior needs. A good choice for HHR panel would be a Home Inspection business or Roofing Estimator. A ladder can easily be reached on the roof rack and the basic material will fit inside.
The Transit is more for people who could get by with a minivan but appreciate the "cargo style" interior. Not as good for a ladder on top because the reach is quite high. There is just short of 5 feet of interior height. The Transit would be great for Dry Clean delivery if you built hanging racks inside. I bet you could build a rack to stand up bicycles inside.
-
Sept. 9, 2009 12:34 p.m. DrBoost HalfDork
blaze86vic wrote:
not really good at anything but looking different.
Well different than anything except its twin, the PT Cruiser. I mean, I can just hear Bob Lutz "Hey, you designed the PT Cruiser? Love it! Can you come work for GM and design one for us?"
-
Sept. 9, 2009 1:23 p.m. patgizz Dork
c: Astro van
-
Sept. 9, 2009 4:08 p.m. integraguy HalfDork
Transit Connect and HHR are both available as windowless, "panel" vans and as full windowed "people carriers".
The BIG differences between the 2:
The HHR has "performance" options, and for that matter it's (supposedly) available with a choice of engines and transmissions. The T-C has one engine and one transmission. Road tests mention that the T-C gets lackaluster fuel economy becuse of the gearing required to push a heavy vehicle with a small/not so powerful engine (22 city and 25 highway).
The T-C is taller, and Ford offers 3 different computer software packages that work well with business applications. One is a GPS option, so you can keep track of where the "car" is at all times, and another is a software app. sort of like those used by FedEx/Ups to keep track of packages.
The T-C makes a better argument for a business with large or bulky objects to haul, and it can be configured for shelves/racks....the HHR can not.
For business, get a T-C XLT (van or wagon) so you can get roll stability control. (The XL van does not have that as an option.)
P.S. no, I am in no way connectted to FoMoCo...I just picked up the brochures last month because I thought it would make a different kind of SUV.
-
Sept. 9, 2009 4:38 p.m. maroon92 SuperDork
The HHR Panel comes in SS flavor.
/thread...
-
Sept. 9, 2009 5:08 p.m. Karl La Follette Reader
HHR = turd on wheels , hard to wrap and advertise , the new transit funky cool , probaly wait and price will go down . easier to wrap and more head room .
-
Sept. 9, 2009 6:48 p.m. integraguy HalfDork
Don't count on the price on a T-C going too low. Why? Think about it, this vehicle has been in production since 2005 so it may not be around all that long before it's replaced (hopefully, with a newer model). But more importantly, will dealers have "tons" of them in stock? Something tells me that a truck(?) this radical will be special order, unless you want a white panel van version. Do you see Sprinters in the position of being heavily discounted? Not until they have accumulated some serious miles.
For those unfamiliar with the T-C....only 5 colors and your "choice" of a grey/charcoal interior. The van has 2 seats, the wagons have seating for 4 or 5. There's a shelf over the driver and front passenger that appears to be tall enough for a small microwave over....tho of course you wouldn't put one there. Or maybe a very small child could be put there? Sorry, bad joke.
Key specs: length...........15 ft 7 in. width 7 ft (with mirrors extended) heigth 6 ft 8 in inside/load heigth 5 ft
driver's headroom........51 in. legroom 40.5 (in contrast, a Civic has 42)
-
Sept. 9, 2009 7:50 p.m. Hal HalfDork
First a nit-picking point. What we get in the US is the Transit-Connect. Ford has a van they call the Transit which we do not get. It is similar in size to the Sprinter.
Current T-C has a 2.0L Duratech with an automatic. I would not be suprised that in two years it will be available with one of the Eco-Boost turbocharged engines.
Also FSWerks in CA has a turbo kit for the 2.0L Duratech.
Since it is available in Europe with the MT-75 manual trans (same as used in the Focus) you might be able to get the bits to do a conversion. All the mounts are probably there already.
Swapping in a 2.3L Duratech shouldn't be too big a deal since it is physically the same as the 2.0L.
If I wanted a T-C and was ambitious I would swap in the supercharged 223WHP Zetec drivetrain out of my current Focus
-
Sept. 9, 2009 9:15 p.m. Toyman01 HalfDork
Ford E Series.
-
Sept. 9, 2009 9:22 p.m. Woody SuperDork
Damn, I was hoping to find crash test photos.
-
Sept. 9, 2009 11:11 p.m. DirtyBird222 Dork
-
Sept. 10, 2009 8:12 a.m. CrackMonkey HalfDork
The only problem with the T-C (as a normal consumer, not a business) is the Element does everything better for less money.
Stand bikes inside upright? Check. Flat load floor for boxes of chit? Check. Seat four in relative comfort? Check. Lots of cubby-holes and storage areas? Check. Mediocre gas mileage? Check.
The only advantage of the T-C is sliding side doors (vs suicide half-doors) and better rear door design (barn doors vs a top/bottom wagon setup). And the T-C can seat 5 in it's top trim level.
-
Sept. 10, 2009 11:14 a.m. integraguy HalfDork
I'm not sure I can get an Element for LESS than a T-C, but other advantages the Honda has over the Ford?
Choice of transmission, choice of FWD or AWD, a more powerful engine....yet about the same gas mileage.
SCC, before they went bust, had a short article about "the ideal" Miata engine. To use Hal's post as a springboard....use the block from the T-C and swap parts with a 2.3 Mazda engine. (sorry, I would have to find the article to get the parts involved right) It wouldn't be easy, but would "liberate" a few more horsepower. Going with the whole 2.3 and it's related manual tranny would be interesting.
-
Sept. 10, 2009 12:12 p.m. RossD HalfDork
I think cosworth recommends using the rangers crank since its lighter (or their own=$$$$$$$).
-
Sept. 10, 2009 12:28 p.m. CrackMonkey HalfDork
integraguy wrote:
I'm not sure I can get an Element for LESS than a T-C, but other advantages the Honda has over the Ford?
MSRP for an Element LX FWD autotragic is $20,275.
MSRP for a T-C XL wagon is $21,830.
The only advantage the T-C seems to have is easier loading/unloading via more practical doors. And possibly a beefier chassis that will hold up to commercial use better over time. At the cost of $1500 (MSRP) and "cheaper" interior (hard to do, the Element is pretty spartan and plasticy). Of course, that's assuming dealers won't discount the Ford (no clue if they do on commercial trucks).
But, build a consumer-grade T-C wagon (interior on par with Mazda5 and Element) and sell it for $21,000 out the door and I'll add it to the list as a bike and chit hauler, camp base vehicle, etc.
