IL Track Tested: 2010 Ford Transit Connect

It's funny that you would go to D.C. to drive a van that's sitting in the lot of the dealer down the street.

The 2009 Lincoln MKS did 60-0 in 130 ft; this van does 60-0 in 128 ft.

Thats funny.

Yes, and the MKS weighs 800 lb more, so its brakes are working a lot harder to achieve essentially identical distance. What's the Transit Connect's stopping distance with an 800 lb load, I wonder?

Yeah you guys should've loaded it up with cakes and other assorted pastries to test the real-world limits of the car

I love the concept and see a lot of these TC's in England serving commercial duty.
Ford shot themselves in the foot with the pricing if they expect to get a foothold in the consumer market. Ain't gonna happen. No mom is going to drive around in a $25,000 delivery van.

It looks like a great product for small businesses and delivery liveries.
I would love one for activities, but not at that price.

Might as well buck up for a diesel Sprinter and get something that will last forever and get better mpg's than the TC with five times the capacity.

The 2009 Lincoln MKS did 60-0 in 130 ft; this van does 60-0 in 128 ft.

Really? If you look at the braking performance of cars the size of the MKS you will find that the braking is on par for a vehicle that size. Apples to oranges...

"it's a normally aspirated, 2.0-liter gas engine -- you know, the one that's only so-so in the lighter Ford "

I assume you mean the perfectly adequate super reliable 2.0? Not every car is a sports car and little cargo vans dont need 300 horsepower.

Oh and why no full write up? This van is a lot more interesting than another super-uber-ugly-sedan-coupe-germano 500 horsepower AWD thingy that nobody is going to buy vehicle.

"...Yes, and the MKS weighs 800 lb more, so its brakes are working a lot harder to achieve essentially identical distance. What's the Transit Connect's stopping distance with an 800 lb load, I wonder?"

I haven't checked the specs but I would think the MKS would have much larger and better brakes and wider, grippier tires then a delivery van. It should be able to stop much better considering it's role in life and it's much higher price.

I woke up this morning lusting for one of these. Imagine leaving the bar with some chick and telling her to hop into that thing. That's a moment I have to experience.

My expectations for Ford brakes have been met: They did not burst into flames when activated or otherwise shoot sparks AND stopped the vehicle in less than 5,000 feet, all while keeping the thing shiny-side up. Well done, Ford.

But seriously, not bad braking and handling numbers for a delivery van. Acceleration I suppose is to be expected - hopefully the little mill can handle the expected payloads. I recall reading the preview drive and several bystanders commented to Edmunds that they felt the engine was too small to lug around much weight.

Just as I say "No mom is going to drive around in a $25,000 delivery van."

I see an attractive woman driving one exactly like the photo on the 105W this morning!
It's a cute looking van on US roads. I could see it becoming a cult vehicle like the old vw microvans or subaru (before it moved upmarket).

The outfitting possibilities and low-key, functional appearance are pretty cool. They need to offer a bit more for the money or lower the msrp a bit.

Are the underpinnings really beefed up compared to consumer Fords? How does Edmunds see the value scale of the TC?

remember that Top Gear episode during which JC's time on the 'Ring with a Jag was essentially embarrassed by SS in a Transit?

bodyblue: Hooray! We finally have a Ford defender around here. With all the GM fanboys, the Mazda fanboys and even that crazy Jeep Compass fanboy nutjob, I was waiting for someone to come to the defense of the Blue Oval. Though I'd say they need the least amount of defending, the Transit Connect is yet another strong step forward.

Stay tuned in a week or two for a new Edmunds blog, which'll feature us having some fun with the Transit Connect.

J to the Riz

Load it up with cakes
Hit up some bars

Easy

"I haven't checked the specs but I would think the MKS would have much larger and better brakes and wider, grippier tires then a delivery van. It should be able to stop much better considering it's role in life and it's much higher price."

I suppose these cars have inferior braking too:

A6 - 121 ft (lighter vehicle)
Genesis - 124 ft (lighter vehicle)

I'm not denying the fact that Ford's brakes have been the weakest link time and time again, but if you're going to complain at least do your homework. The MKS has +1,000 pounds over this vehicle.

Jriz,

No multi-billion dollar company needs defending and I dont defend anybody...I like almost any practical well built machine and dislike and make fun of super expensive stupid and badly built cars. That being said I think GM should have been allowed to die without taxpayer support. Chrysler is a bit of a different story...they were raped and pillaged by Daimler then sold to a bunch of wall street idiots and left to rot. Ford deserves respect for not taking any public money and for building the best American cars and trucks.....as such they deserve my respect.....not my defense. My point above is that the 21 century horsepower race is completely stupid. I dont think that family sedans need 250+hp and be able do under 7 seconds 0-60.......140 hp in the Focus was perfect for that size of car.......350 hp in a Flex is so silly as to defy belief.......all that power in the MS3 that the chassis can barely handle is just as silly. Now I dont want to return to under 100 hp humps like the old Tercel or Datsun 210 or such things.....but I do get tired of auto writers saying that any car that does not do under 8 seconds to 60 as "slow" or "pokey". A Camry that can do 60 in under 7 seconds is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

"I would love one for activities, but not at that price.

Might as well buck up for a diesel Sprinter and get something that will last forever and get better mpg's than the TC with five times the capacity."

@ cruiserhead1: Really? The Transit Connect has a starting price of $21,475. The Sprinter? $36,190. That's 69% more money! And that gets you the short wheelbase Sprinter with the standard roof, not the extended wheelbase mega roof that has five time the TC's capacity for $45k+. And the combined MPG for the TC is 23.3 MPG, which is better than the Sprinter's 21.0 MPG. The TC is over 50 inches shorter and 9 inches narrower than the smallest Sprinter, and also has a turning radius 6 feet tighter. For small businesses that operate in an urban environment that just don't need a mega van, the TC is an outstanding choice.

not really, but I think the TC is pricey for what it is. When the novelty wears off, the relatively high msrp is going to be a deterrent for casual consumers.

For businesses, I think it's a perfect niche vehicle. It will do well there for sure.

It was neat to see a TC (I was on the 105 and it went off the 405 north) I like it in white.
The styling is nice. The front is attractive and the ribbed bodyside looks a bit more stylish.

It immediately made me think of putting shelving in it and equipping for my bikes and getting on a road trip!

If they pushed the msrp under $20K w/rear seats and auto trans, I think they would have something more attractive to the layman. Am I being unreasonable on price?

gdmstrb

It's not a matter of homework. A premium vehicle should easily out brake a humble delivery van. Perhaps the Transit just has better designed or balanced brakes while the MKS is just average.

Weight is not valid excuse here either. If that were true then the best braking vehicles on the road would always be the lightest subcompacts... and they are not.

Brakes are designed for the weight of the car. At equal price points they should all stop in about the same distance. However premium cars like the MKS should have premium brakes and thus should stop faster.

It's really just an observation of how good the Transit is more then a complaint about the MKS.

gdmstrb:

I'm done arguing in length so we'll keep it short.

Hyundai and Audi, with the cars you just listed, put brakes on the cars that stop them better consistently than the Lincoln. No matter the weight, if you up the weight, up the brakes. Very simple. No excuses for Ford please.

So our big argument is that a vehicle that's meant to perform lightweight city deliveries...
1. Isn't well targeted for families.
2. Has average highway stopping distances.

Got it.

firstwagon

It is a matter of homework, because let's face it the MKS isn't the only vehicle with braking performance similar to that of the Transit. If those posting here would have bothered to compare the MKS' braking performance to other luxury vehicles, they would have noted that.

There's a lot more to a vehicle's braking performance than brakes themselves. It aint that cut and dry.

inlinesix

Right, which is why IL had the following complaint related to the A6 3.0T:

"Less consistent distance than I'd like, but no pedal fade. Good confidence."

Give it a rest. I merely pointed out that the MKS isn't the only offender, which was not an excuse for the vehicle's braking performance. Yeah, we get it some of you don't like the MKS.......but if you are going to present facts, don't half do it.

"If they pushed the msrp under $20K w/rear seats and auto trans, I think they would have something more attractive to the layman. Am I being unreasonable on price?"

Price is so hard to judge right now... everything is in flux, and as new vehicles are being introduced, their prices are jumping especially if it's imported. Looking at other minivans out there, none start below $20k except for the Mazda5, which is really more tall wagon than minivan. It is roughly $4k cheaper than its closest competition in cargo form, which is the Chevy Express/GMC Savana Cargo.

I guess you could say it is a bit overpriced compared to conventional minivans for passenger wagon versions. However, if you're looking for the high roof advantage that the TC offers over the current minivans, they're the only game in town without taking the big step up to the Sprinter. If there was going to be a high volume of the passenger wagon, Ford could probably bring down the price, but I think the only reason they're selling the passenger version here is because that's how they're imported to get around the work truck tarriffs, and then stripped down stateside to create the cargo version.

For reference:

Dodge Sprinter 2500: IL Track Tested

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2009/05/il-track-tested-2007-dodge-sprinter-2500.html

Slow and ugly must be Job #1 (and #2) at Ford now. I don't see this vehicle making much of a dent in the market beyond pizza and flower delivery.

@bodyblue: So all Daimler did was rape Chrysler? Chrysler had terrible vehicles before Daimler purchased it. With some parts help from Daimler such as the old E-Class platform which the 300 and Charger ride on, Chrysler began making cars that were better overall. Under Daimler's watch Chrysler became much better than it had been for a long time.

I like the Transit, I think it's great to have in large cities over a Dodge Sprinter which is too tall for many parking garages and cumbersome on really tight streets. A diesel would be preferred over the 2.0L gas engine and hopefully one does come out which I doubt. It's quirky looking but it's far more practical for small and big businesses alike than the Sprinter and in many cases even the Ford Econoline vans which are gigantic.

rallyandbosox, When Daimler bought Chrysler, Chrysler had turned around. They were cash positive. They were producing competitive vehicles. Chrysler was in very good shape and Daimler knew it.

Daimler did do a few things for Chrysler. They worked together on their diesel engines. They did help them produce some decent vehicles like the 300 and the Sprinter. Chrysler did something for Daimler as well. They brought their production techniques to Daimler. Believe it or not Daimler's quality control was pure junk compared to the recently improved Chrysler. The quality of Daimler products improved dramatically as a result. Aside from the a few vehicles, Daimler ignored Chrysler. They didn't allow them to keep progressing to stay competitive. They took resources from Chrysler and directed them toward Daimler. Did they rape Chrysler? Maybe that's a bit harsh. However it was their actions that allowed Chrysler to plummet. I believe it's more than fair to blame Daimler for Chrysler's downfall.

gdmstrb:

OK here are the "facts" according to IL. We like to do our homework right?

2010 Lincoln MKS:

Consistently "good" stopping distances up to four stops when the pedal began to go soft. Extreme fade set in after just 3 quarter-mile runs when the pedal went all the way to the floor and brakes began to vibrate and hum. I stopped running accel runs, because it felt unsafe to continue.

Audi A6:

"Less consistent distance than I'd like, but no pedal fade. Good confidence."

I think the MKS costs too much for for what it offers and this van is just fine.

"@bodyblue: So all Daimler did was rape Chrysler? Chrysler had terrible vehicles before Daimler purchased it. With some parts help from Daimler such as the old E-Class platform which the 300 and Charger ride on, Chrysler began making cars that were better overall. Under Daimler's watch Chrysler became much better than it had been for a long time."

WOW, do you always talk about stuff you dont know about?

Anyway rape is the correct word. The grabbed all of Chyrslers cash and advanced design and production techniques (witch were snagged from AMC when it was bought) (read the history at allpar.com) then except for the 300 and Charger left Dodge to die on the vine. Cash and production techniques ARE the reason Daimler bought Chrylser. As brn stated above, Daimler was the one with crappy quality.

"Slow and ugly must be Job #1 (and #2) at Ford now. I don't see this vehicle making much of a dent in the market beyond pizza and flower delivery."

DUH......Delivery is EXACTLY what the TC is for. OMG are you for real??

I would have to see one next to a comparable Econoline to see if the transit is really worth it but so far the only two things I can see that would bother me is FWD and drums in the back.