For Transit Connect or Ram Promaster City?

Anyone have experience with either of these? They seem like they'd be a good option to haul around some $h1t. ~2,000 towing capacity and very roomy, in the cargo capacity department.

I'm specifically thinking about the passenger/wagon model...and yanking out the rear seat (in the long wheel base Transit Connect) and making the rear area cargo only.

I can't make up my mind about what I want. I just know that I want something more roomy and capable (as far as hauling crap around). From what I've read...the RPC is the more "cargo" oriented (not quite as good in the road manners department), which the TC is supposedly better driving and more comfortable for passengers. Thoughts?

Both good vehicles. The Ram PM City has the 9-speed automatic, which has taken flak, but I've had that powertrain in a Chrysler 200 rental car and I didn't have any issue with it - and supposedly the 2016-on has been sorted out. Only one way to find that out ... test-drive.

Passenger or window versions of both of these seem to be pretty rare.

On www.promasterforum.com owners seem to like them. I'm on that forum - I have the big van, though, which is entirely different from the City. (Mine has been very good)

GoFaster said:

Both good vehicles. The Ram PM City has the 9-speed automatic, which has taken flak, but I've had that powertrain in a Chrysler 200 rental car and I didn't have any issue with it - and supposedly the 2016-on has been sorted out. Only one way to find that out ... test-drive.

Passenger or window versions of both of these seem to be pretty rare.

On www.promasterforum.com owners seem to like them. I'm on that forum - I have the big van, though, which is entirely different from the City. (Mine has been very good)

Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback. The window versions are pretty rare. The van vs. wagon ratio is at least 10:1 in my area.

When I went to a Ford dealer recently, in sounded like they would have all but given the one away that I was looking at (XLT wagon with cargo doors, tow hitch, and roof rack).

It's a shame that Ram doesn't make a passenger version (2nd row seating...at least) of the small wheelbase Promaster (non-city). I could have my firewood (palletized) put right in the back of that thing.

Edit: The full size vans are good looking vehicles, too.

One downside of the RPMC over the TC is that the windows for the second row can't be rolled down. My Greyhound would have a problem with that.

.....i have nothing to add other than: why the hell are the full size promasters FWD??

The boss kicked around replacing one of our sprinters with one, until that little flaw came to light

j_martell said:

.....i have nothing to add other than: why the hell are the full size promasters FWD??

The boss kicked around replacing one of our sprinters with one, until that little flaw came to light

Click to expand...

It allows the loading floor to be lower ... much, much lower than your average full-size pickup truck loading floor nowadays. For me, it's easier to get motorcycles in and out.

It makes it easier for custom body builders. The Fiat Ducato (which is really what the big ProMaster is) is the most popular vehicle for motorhome conversions in europe because of this. There is literally nothing aft of the B pillar other than a big metal box and a simple dead-beam rear axle. Fuel filler neck, exhaust system (on the Ducato), all main electrical systems are ALL at or ahead of the B pillar so a custom body builder doesn't have to worry about any of that stuff or find a place for it. There are a few cables for taillights, brake lines, etc and those are easily routed.

The traditional argument for rear drive is "you need the weight of the cargo over the drive wheels". Well, when empty, the weight of the powertrain is over the front wheels, and the powertrain is ALWAYS there. There is a break-even point. Below that (which is somewhere near 3000 lbs of cargo) the front wheels still have more grip than the rear. Only above that does the weight disribution become rear-biased. My van will never see 3000 lbs of cargo inside it.

Handling, stability, ride quality are all better with front drive. The rear axle has much less unsprung weight. It drives much like a minivan, just bigger. Ride quality is much closer to minivan than cube van (chuck wagon).

Fiat has been building front-drive vans for 30+ years, and selling them in places that have mountains and winters (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, etc). They have a thing or two figured out.

I bought the ProMaster BECAUSE of the front wheel drive.

Good info. Thanks

What's interesting is, in Europe, you actually get a choice of FWD or RWD on the full-size Transit.

FWD gives you 100 mm taller load height. That's four inches basically.

In addition, comparing the top engine in each form factor, for 2015 Transits (the newest brochure I could quickly find) in the UK, the 2.2 liter 155 PS Euro V diesel, FWD is rated at 7.3-7.4 l/100 km combined, versus 7.8-9.0 l/100 km combined (depending on final drive ratio) for the RWD model, and 9.7 l/100 km for the AWD model.

In 350 L2 H2 configuration (basically, not the shortest config (but the shortest available in the UK), medium roof (H1 I believe only exists for the US market, for Econoline replacements?), 3500 kg GVWR (the most that a European can drive on a normal license)), a FWD model has 1422-1442 kg of payload. The RWD model of that configuration has 1294-1316 kg of payload - so, lightest model versus lightest model, 126 kg less payload.

Granted, the payload standards aren't a big deal for the US market (this is well below 26000 lbs GVWR), and the RWD model can have higher GVWR limits - there's a 430 (4300 kg) and a 470 (4700 kg) version of the L4 (longest body) H3 (tallest roof) Transit in Europe, only in RWD form. And, moving above 8500 lbs GVWR does increase registration costs, but reduces emissions requirements.

tl;dr: Significantly lower load floor, significantly better efficiency (transverse powertrains have a lot less drivetrain loss), more payload within legal payload limits (although that's not a big deal here).

As an aside, I suspect the reason why this brochure isn't listing L1 H1 configs is because the Transit Custom exists for Europe, due to the full-size Transit getting bigger to be a suitable Econoline replacement.

Here's a data point for the advantage of front drive on the big ProMaster.

One of the members on www.promasterforum.com has done a camper conversion on a high roof 2500 diesel 159" wheelbase. The camper conversion is like carrying 1500 lbs of cargo ...

"I weighed my van this AM and came up with these #'s:
3680# front axle
2840# rear axle
6520# combined."

56% front weight bias with the camper conversion in place ...