[GuyT]

I read it a lot, some people find the Promaster ugly, at least from reviews I read. Personally, I don't, to me it looks like a big toy van with a big smile on its face, coming out directly from the Disney film "Cars". But I bought this van specifically to carry windsurfing toys, so the look meets the needs.

But what the do construction workers think?

Well, the other day, I was driving off my driveway. There was a bunch of construction workers. They all stopped working as they watching me go. My wife was outside and one of them told her "It's about time they start to make vehicles that make sense". It's not the first time I get positive feedback, including some on the looks of the PM.

One may argue that I live in Québec and because of the French language we have some kind of European taste. I would tend to disagree since I feel that I am a North-American that speaks French. But hey, I might have leftovers from my ancestors that crossed the Atlantic more than 400 years ago.

So, what do you think? Is the Promaster ugly?

 

[Dwight]

Not ugly! The body is beautiful. The bumper is practical.

 

[keithwwalker]

The headlights are awkward, but nothing else IMO!

 

[jakelydick]

I was a sprinter owner for 6 years. Sprinters are ugly. I just bought a promaster yesterday. It is uglier than a sprinter. the headlights, the bumper and mirrors. UGLY!! horribly UGLY!

I couldn't care less how ugly it is or if everyone on earth thinks its the most hideous looking thing they've ever seen. These vans are built to serve a purpose and I think mine is going to serve it very well

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

 

[30 Ounce]

Form follows function in every respect with this vehicle. I think as a practice industrial design it's awesome. I always wondered why Europe got these fantastic work vans while the US was stuck with GM and Fords idea of a good work van. It's because of the "chicken tax". I have always wanted to grab a GM or Ford engineer and take them to work with me to show them how inadequate their vans are for what I do. You won't see them selling American vans in Europe.

 

[Chris]

Yes, the ProMaster is ugly, very ugly. The high-mounted headlights and their strange shape play a big part in the ugliness. It's even got some good competition in the ugly department, such as the Nissan NV. But, since it's intended as a practical vehicle, I can try to turn a blind eye to the looks. Also, to the ProMaster's credit, its basic architecture (FWD, transverse engine, low floor height) is brilliant!

Perhaps ironically, I think the best-looking van out there is the 1992-up Ford Econoline (PRIOR the face-lift it got in 2008, which made it ugly). It has the best proportions and detail styling. If I were buying a van twenty years ago, it would have been a no-brainer decision to buy the Econoline. Of course, when considered today, it suffers from the disadvantages of the old-skool design architecture (12mpg engine choices, big engine-hump in passenger compartment, high-floor)

Even though it is a commercial vehicle, the ProMaster doesn't have to be that ugly. I have high hopes that the ProMaster will be getting the face-lift of the 2015 Ducato. From the spy-photos floating around on the Internet (wearing camouflage), it looks promising (headlights of a lower profile, and moved slightly lower). I'm putting off my purchase of a ProMaster until North America gets that.

 

[GuyT]

The 2015 Ducato spy shots can be found here:

http://www.autoevolution.com/news-g-image/spyshots-2015-fiat-ducato-citroen-jumper-peugeot-boxer/155023.html#sjmp

But I bet the new body won't make it to America next year.

 

[Caveman]

Ugly as sin, but so are all the big vans.

 

[30 Ounce]

The 2015 Ducato spy shots can be found here:

http://www.autoevolution.com/news-g-image/spyshots-2015-fiat-ducato-citroen-jumper-peugeot-boxer/155023.html#sjmp

But I bet the new body won't make it to America next year.

That's funny! Big changes coming.

 

[Obrian]

I think the headlights are awesome looking. Front bumper? Maybe could be improved on.

 

[miked]

It may be ugly to some people but I plan on driving it and not staring at it in my driveway but if I am that will be a very sad day since it means I have no work. I will take function over aesthetics for a work vehicle every day of the year.

 

[carryon]

i dont find cargo vans to be all that great looking in general... but i wouldnt call them ugly

 

[randy]

well i wound't call the promaster attractive. But I suppose if you look at beauty through a practical sense the PM could be pretty. As in beautiful for what i need it for. Or maybe its a case of campy, so ugly its actually beautiful

 

[Chris]

Here are some new spy pictures of the face-lift:

http://www.motorvision.de/fiat/ducato/fiat-ducato-2015-facelift-neue-erlkonig-bilder-fotos-innenraum-neuen-380876.html

The article speaks of some changes to the interior, but no mention of a tilt wheel (The current lack of one seems to be a complaint).

 

[GuyT]

Here are some new spy pictures of the face-lift:

http://www.motorvision.de/fiat/ducato/fiat-ducato-2015-facelift-neue-erlkonig-bilder-fotos-innenraum-neuen-380876.html

The article speaks of some changes to the interior, but no mention of a tilt wheel (The current lack of one seems to be a complaint).

"the Fiat Ducato Facelift 2015 will include a LED strip daytime running lights and a heavily revised front."

Personally, I am not too fund of LED strips on headlights, it makes a car look like a Xmas tree.

 

[Chance]

The 2015 Ducato spy shots can be found here:

http://www.autoevolution.com/news-g-image/spyshots-2015-fiat-ducato-citroen-jumper-peugeot-boxer/155023.html#sjmp

But I bet the new body won't make it to America next year.

The Ducato looks much cleaner than PM to me; yet they are essentially same vehicle.

The main problems I have with PM aesthetics are the five lights on roof at front and back, which Ducato don't have, and also the massive rear door hinges mounted on outside. The 2015 Ducato pictures show very small hinges by comparison because the standard only allows doors to open about 180 degrees. What appears to be door bump stops can also be seen. The 270 degree hinges must be optional. I'd pass on those if possible -- don't need to load pallets.

 

[Chris]

Yeah, I totally agree that the five lights on the roof front and rear (so ten total) look ugly, and add to the commercial appearance of the vehicle (they make me think of a Class 8 truck). This could be a disadvantage for a personal-use application, and for small-business use where the vehicle goes home with the driver, in terms of blending in with a a residential neighborhood. Also, I'm sure those lights will be a great place for water to get in after ten years when the gaskets harden up. Not to mention they can't come for free.

Although I like the idea of the 260-degree rear doors, that could be an option as well, just like on the Ducato. I'm sure those double-articulated hinges cost more to manufacture than simple hinges do.

By making these two features optional, Ram could lower the advertised base price for a competitive advantage. I must be missing something here. Please explain it to me, Ram.

 

[Dwight]

Those lights are required by US law. When a vehicle is over a certain width, the CFR regulation requires the lights.

 

[30 Ounce]

The lights are federally mandated. Any vehicle over 80" wide requires them.

 

[Chance]

The lights are federally mandated. Any vehicle over 80" wide requires them.

That's my understanding also, yet haven't seen them on any 2015 Ford Transit picture even though the van is supposedly over 80-inches wide.