I've never thought of my PM as underpowered. That was an interesting statement to make.
I could see how a 2.0 gas motor would be too small for a large van no matter what transmission is fitted. You need some displacement to make torque.

 

 

On the transit, did they move the emergency brake so you could swivel the driver's seat or is it still on the right of the seat?

 

Yes. It’s a big deal that 2020 Transit can get a swivel seat.

 

Business is slow this time of year so being bored and not wanting to watch any more Jerry Springer re-runs I decided to jump in the PM and checkout the 2019 Sprinter and Transits. Here what I found:

Sprinter:

1. New 2.0 gas engine with 9 speed transmission. Test drove you think the PM is underpowered this thing was a dog! Test drove the 3.0 diesel with the 7 speed transmission very smooth lots of low end power as usual but with the same problematic emissions crap no thanks! Cockpit updated nice and simple kinda of sparse looking typical German design/engineering looks simple but underneath a complex/complicated mess! Dimensions remain the same fit and finish very good. Expensive as expected.

2. Transit:

1. New I4 diesel didn't have one to test drive but I expect the same as most diesels feel slow to get going but once up to speed fine. Standard V6 Meh.... not all that great I think Pentastar 6 much better. Ecoboost V6 lots of power very quick but nothing extraordinary. Crew versions offered attractive but I don't have a need for this all the kids are grown and I generally don't like people. All wheel drive another attractive offering but living in Texas I really have no use for this. Front end re-fresh as well as the cockpit nice but once again meh... Dimensions stay the same.

Conclusion: Promaster still better even though no significant changes to exterior or engine. I will be ordering a new 159 extended today. Now the wait begins again!

Good Luck with your order. I read somewhere that the PM assembly line was shut down (at least temporarily) because of the numbers on dealer lots. Dealers for the ost part seem to be only interested in ordering PMs for the trades and not concerned for those of us that want to convert them into living quarters.

I am a 2019 Ext owner as well. The build is going slowly because of the cold weather here and mot likely will not pick up momentum until it is consistently in the 50s.

All the best!

 

Mine 2015 low roof seems to be underpowered. Downshifts on the slightest incline lightly loaded. When I haul my 2500# travel trailer its really struggling. Funny thing is, when I had a high roof 2500 as a loaner while some warranty work was going on it seemed like it had plenty of power and didn't downshift at all on the same roads/inclines? Weird!

 

P.S. — At Tampa RV SuperShow the ProMaster van was very well represented in Class B campers. The higher-cost luxury units were mainly on Mercedes Sprinter vans, but for lower-cost units the PM seemed to own much of the market. I didn’t count them but would bet there were more PM Class Bs than on Transit vans.

 

The PM has a claimed 0-60 of 8.1 seconds and that is pretty darn good in my book for what it is.

 

I have to agree. It's certainly not a 400 hp V8, but considering it's a V6 in a large van, it does ok for itself.
The only thing that leaves a little to be desired is how it runs out of torque in 6th and has to downshift to maintain or speed up. But it's not the end of the world and it gets going through the first 3 gears pretty good.

 

What’s hard to accept is that even if it had a 400 HP (naturally aspirated) engine, it would still downshift more often than most drivers like. The simple reason is that to get best possible fuel economy, engineers would be forced to gear highest transmission gear (6th) so that engine is working hard near maximum available torque. And as soon as driver needs more power to accelerate, fight headwind, or climb a hill, the larger engine would need to downshift anyway.

A turbo engine can get around this problem because it can be geared to operate at much lower torque compared to its available maximum torque while still having a good Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC). Instead of downshifting, increasing boost can get job done.

At present we can either waste some fuel by running at higher RPM (or having larger displacement) with greater torque reserve, get a turbo, or accept occasional downshifts. None are perfect.

 

I agree on the downshifting. I keep the van bare bones with nothing in the cargo area. I do find it annoying that on the flat roads it does downshift in and out of 6th. Worse with the cruise control as it will drop a few MPH before it accelerates. I got used to it chucking it off to crude technology. It certainly wasn't a 54k van.

 

My low top doesn't downshift all that much, mainly just on steeper hills or with a good headwind. I read the mid-top Ford Transits have over 20% more wind drag than the low top but I can't find the link. I'm sure it's a factor with the HT PM too but no idea how much.

I drove from the southernmost tip of the Everglades up to Florida City to Key West recently and got 24 mpg (computer read 25) on that flat terrain, even with all the stop and go along the way. Didn't notice much if any downshifting at all while cruising. Coming back out of the Keys and through Miami to north of Palm Beach there was a buffeting head/cross wind and it dropped to 20.5 mpg and there was some occasional downshifting due to the gustiness. For the whole 2400-mile mixed-driving trip ( 45-60 mph back roads, stop and go city driving around Atlanta and elsewhere, 65-75 mph interstates, construction zones and so on) I averaged 19.5 mpg so I can't complain.

 

I was hoping for somewhere around 20. I'm at 14 right now. So there's the 20% drop for the high top. I think it will go up once summer is here and probably up a little more for long road trips.
Hopefully.

 

You're way up near Buffalo so lots of cold and snow. Unless you get out for longer drives you may not even be getting up to full operating temperature so that all takes a toll. Even just driving into town here in the SE my mileage has been as low as 16.5 mpg with only a mile or two here, shut off for a half hour (cool off), a mile or two there, shut off, and so on.

 

Hi,
The high roof about 100 inches high vs 90 inches high for the low roof. That's a 10% increase in frontal area, so if the drag coefficient is the same for both, you would expect a 10% increase in drag at the same speed.

When traveling at highway speeds, normally about half the power is going into aero drag and the other into rolling resistance, so a 10% increase in drag would give about a 5% reduction in MPG.

My high roof routinely gets between 19 and 20 mpg on long trips. 14 MPG seems really low to me.

Gary

 

Hi,
The high roof about 100 inches high vs 90 inches high for the low roof. That's a 10% increase in frontal area, so if the drag coefficient is the same for both, you would expect a 10% increase in drag at the same speed.

When traveling at highway speeds, normally about half the power is going into aero drag and the other into rolling resistance, so a 10% increase in drag would give about a 5% reduction in MPG.

My high roof routinely gets between 19 and 20 mpg on long trips. 14 MPG seems really low to me.

Gary

That 19-20 mpg sounds really good for a high top, glad to hear it. I've found hilly terrain on the interstate can really take a toll as well. My PM doesn't seem to make up on the downhill what it loses downshifting to go uphill. In some of those cases mpg's been as low as 18. Of course wind is always a factor and it's impossible to accurately tell what impact it's having.

 

I thought drag increased exponentially with more speed.
I assumed it increased exponentially with added surface area as well.
Meaning, a 10% increase in area or speed, doesn't translate to an equal 10% of drag or fuel efficiency loss.

 

Hi,
Drag = (0.5) (air density) (Frontal Area) (Velocity squared) (Drag Coefficient)

So, drag increases with square of velocity -- so, aero drag at 70 mph is twice what it is at 50 mph

And, drag increases directly as frontal area. 10% increase in frontal area causes 10% increase in drag.

I think you will end up doing quite a bit better than 14 mpg once you get some long trip miles as long as you keep it to 70 mph or less.

Adding 1000 lb on the PM size vehicle cuts MPG by about 1 mpg according to this: http://www.drivealuminum.org/wp-con...-Vehicle-Weight-Reduction-on-Fuel-Economy-for-Various-Vehicle-Architectures.pdf

Tires can also make a significant difference.

Gary

 

I too get average 14 with my high top. Alot of it is highway too. So far about 2200 miles on van. I stopped driving it due to it being a hog on fuel and went back to my diesel pickup. I often drive the pickup very hard at times and even at that, returns me between 19-20. Something about 4 tons propelled and sucking you in the seat! Its by no means a racer, but the mass accelerating sure feels like it! I doubt weather will be such a factor. Our temps are in the high 40's at morning and high 60's by afternoon.

 

Thanks Gary.

 

One good thing about living on the Eastern side of the country is that when we travel out west, we'll be driving downhill with a tailwind all the way home.
That should help with road trip mileage.

 

When I bought my 3500 in 14 one of the main reasons I didn't buy a sprinter was because I thought I wanted a gas engine. Well even though the PM is quicker than the diesel sprinter I find that the lack in torque is one of the vans major weaknesses. I wish there was a good reliable diesel powered van available. Almost makes that turbo six in the ford sound good.

 

I never understood why the big 3 companies wouldn't just reverse engineer Japanese engines and copy them.
Unless they are trying and keep failing?
Or just don't want to invest the extra few $ in material and tooling?
I dunno, it's baffling to me.

 

The 3.6L V6 in PM isn’t that different in power or torque than the V6 in my Honda Odyssey.

Biggest difference is that a loaded PM can weigh twice as much. And aerodynamic drag is much higher also. So what can we expect?

Honestly, unless you double engine power and torque by installing a 7-liter V12, it’s not going to perform like a typical car.

 

Oh no, I wasn't talking about Japanese engines having more power. I was simply talking about how they seem to put a little more effort into how they're engineered and how they perform.
I'd have to look, but I'm pretty sure the Toyota 3.5 V6 puts out slightly higher numbers than the Chrysler 3.6 too. Can't remember off hand.
Anyway, I have no gripe with the power.
Although, it would be pretty cool to see someone shoehorn a sideways 4L V8 in the promaster.

 

Oh no, I wasn't talking about Japanese engines having more power. I was simply talking about how they seem to put a little more effort into how they're engineered and how they perform.
I'd have to look, but I'm pretty sure the Toyota 3.5 V6 puts out slightly higher numbers than the Chrysler 3.6 too. Can't remember off hand.
Anyway, I have no gripe with the power.
Although, it would be pretty cool to see someone shoehorn a sideways 4L V8 in the promaster.

For commercial vehicles, I think drivers generally prefer low-end torque, so I’d go a little larger in displacement. Maybe a compact 5L pushrod V8 with about 300 HP and 325 lb-ft of torque.would fit in a ProMaster.

GM installed small block V8s in a few FWD cars, so it is possible.

 

I can see it now... Special edition 5.7 Hemi powered Promaster thats slammed! ****, I'd be in line to buy one for my next tax deduction!

 

You could lift it, build a frame and throw in a rear axle and make it rwd.

 

Chop the middle out, shorten it like they used to do with the old VW vans and do wheelies with it

 

TL/DR; My 2019 159" got ~17 mpg stock, 15 mpg built, ~13.5 mpg city only

I bought my 2019 new in Boise, ID and drove it home to Austin, TX. 1,900 miles with a decent amount of city run-arounds and I got 17.2 mpg. That was with one person and very little cargo (mountain bike, cooler, suitcase, mattress)

Now that I've built it out fully (Fiamma roof rack and awning, two MaxxFans, a rooftop solar shower, etc.) I get 15 mpg as per the first 2,000 mile circular road trip around the Southwest. I've got no idea what the weight of the interior build is but I'd imagine it's about "standard" with all the cabinets and fridge, spouse, two big dogs and assorted gear. I'm not thrilled with 15 mpg but it's nice to have a rolling home.

Strictly city driving on short jaunts I get around 13.5 mpg. That's both before and after the build.

 

My mileage is 15.9 MPG hand calculated over 12K miles. Its a 2014 2500 high roof 159" gas.

I recently converted to larger 245/75R16 Michelin tires 2 tanks ago. Here is the data:

My ProMaster 2500 (Ram ProMaster 2500) | Fuelly

Back to the original poster's comparison though... I think Ford is going to grab a ton of the van life marketshare from Sprinter and RAM in 2020 and beyond.

I will likely end up with an AWD Transit in another 2-3 years. I like my Promaster for the price point, but AWD is a game changer for winter use in the mountains. Ford has a stronger dealer network and I think the fit/finish is better. I've owned several Fords, this is my first RAM/FIAT/Dodge, whatever this thing is. The Sprinter upfront cost, parts/service cost and limited dealer network is a non-starter for me.

A Transit AWD Crew Long Tall would be a great platform for my next Summer Motohauler and Winter Ski-mobile.

 

My mileage is 15.9 MPG hand calculated over 12K miles. Its a 2014 2500 high roof 159" gas.

I recently converted to larger 245/75R16 Michelin tires 2 tanks ago. Here is the data:

My ProMaster 2500 (Ram ProMaster 2500) | Fuelly

Back to the original poster's comparison though... I think Ford is going to grab a ton of the van life marketshare from Sprinter and RAM in 2020 and beyond.

I will likely end up with an AWD Transit in another 2-3 years. I like my Promaster for the price point, but AWD is a game changer for winter use in the mountains. Ford has a stronger dealer network and I think the fit/finish is better. I've owned several Fords, this is my first RAM/FIAT/Dodge, whatever this thing is. The Sprinter upfront cost, parts/service cost and limited dealer network is a non-starter for me.

A Transit AWD Crew Long Tall would be a great platform for my next Summer Motohauler and Winter Ski-mobile.