Ram Promaster Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

Looked at the new offerings from MB and Ford.

Jump to Latest
41 - 60 of 69 Posts
#42 ·
ProMaster has more power than Mercedes Sprinters, at least at lower elevations. ALL Sprinters are turbocharged, so won’t lose as much power at high elevations.

Ford new 3.5L and older 3.7L naturally aspirated V6 are about the same power as PM, and come with higher GVWR. If PM are underpowered so are others.

Transit has some advantages, particularly the 2020, however, for a camper van build the narrow interior width should be considered.
 
#43 ·
Another thing worth mentioning about the transit,...
People often complain about the low rear axle on the promaster.
I've been directly behind several transits recently, both on the interstate and stop n go traffic at low speeds.
The rear shock mounts and rear differential are very low on the transits. Looked like they had even less clearance than the promaster beam axle.
 
Discussion starter · #44 ·
Chance said:
ProMaster has more power than Mercedes Sprinters, at least at lower elevations. ALL Sprinters are turbocharged, so won’t lose as much power at high elevations.

Ford new 3.5L and older 3.7L naturally aspirated V6 are about the same power as PM, and come with higher GVWR. If PM are underpowered so are others.

Transit has some advantages, particularly the 2020, however, for a camper van build the narrow interior width should be considered.
Click to expand...
 
#46 ·
Fair enough. Being “underpowered” is so highly subjective that it shouldn’t be discussed with others since there is no common point of reference for what a driver considers acceptable.

That’s why in the real world of science and engineering we use measurable quantities like horsepower, torque, mass, aerodynamic drag, gearing, etc. I don’t have to drive a heavy Ford F-600 truck with a 150 HP engine again after many decades to know that it’s underpowered compared to a ProMaster. We can also estimate whether a vehicle can go uphill at 30 MPH or 60 MPH. Which is good-enough is up to driver.
 
#48 ·
Obviously, a lot of the under-powered feeling is due to cargo and/or build weight. I don't think there's a significant difference in weight between the 'low-top short' (LTS) and 'high-top long' (HTL) versions of the PM but you can sure fit a LOT more stuff in the latter. With my sparsely-finished LTS van loaded with what is basically 'tent-camping' gear, plus all my other $hit, I'm running about as light as can be so it feels pretty snappy to me. The shorter wheelbase also corners a bit sharper when zipping around through town, which just adds to the 'sports car' feel that the LTS clearly exudes. ;-)
 
#49 ·
my subjective opinion after driving my 159 PM for 2.5 years in the mountains in Colorado: the PM has adequate power for driving in the mountains at high elevation and is what I would expect for a large cargo van, its even an improvement over my last van (ford e-150 with 4.2l V6).

I think this all comes down to comparisons. If you are comparing the PM to a 450hp pickup truck with no load, big surprise, you'll be disappointed.

Its also quite remarkable to me that Im driving this giant van up and down mountain passes all over CO and consistently getting an average 17.5 mpg. My ford e-150 struggled to get 15 mpg and was much smaller and much less powerful. I think its appropriately powered.
 
#50 ·
I have an old Mustang with a 302 cubic inch V8 that only has ~ 140 Horsepower @ 4,000 RPM and 239 lb-ft @ 2,000 RPM, so makes its limited power and torque at relatively low engine speed. I once towed a fully-loaded twin-axle U-Haul (4,000+ pounds) and it handled it fine except for launching from a start (1st gear is way too tall for towing).

Once moving at highway speed it easily held top gear in large part because it doesn’t have overdrive, and around 60 MPH the engine is spinning around 2,600 RPM which is above maximum torque speed. Because of this gearing, it subjectively “felt” like it pulled the trailer easily. When I encounter a hill, slowing down made engine operate with higher torque, so it compensated nicely. I didn’t need to shift to a lower gear except to cross steep bridges and Mobile Tunnel on I-10. Basically, engine pulled similar to a present-day low-power and low-speed diesel like that in a Sprinter. Still remember it like it was yesterday.

Anyway, my point was that a PM (or similar Transit) has plenty of “power” available if driver needs it, provided one is willing to rev up in 5,000 RPM range. The problem is that it’s geared to cruise around 2,000 RPMs so there’s not much power at that low engine speed. And to get up around 5,000 RPMs, it requires a couple of downshifts.

I completely understand why most drivers would perceive that as being gutless or underpowered even though the power is there waiting to be tapped.
 
#51 ·
Good point as 280 HP with 260 ft/lb of torque is nothing to sneeze at. Partly why I feel my PM has plenty of zip is that it quite simply 'takes off' when I punch the throttle - passing trucks and slow pokes is a breeze. Those first 3-4 gears are great for flying up mountain passes too.

Before buying the PM I drove the low top, short version of the Ford Transit and it felt like driving a turd. Lackluster response although making lots of noise, cumbersome steering, just really disappointing overall. I did like the lower (convex) part of the side view mirrors a little better. Taking the PM for a test drive afterward was a joy by comparison and I knew almost immediately it was the vehicle for me.
 
Discussion starter · #52 ·
Mine PM is underpowered. Look, I have had almost every van out there from a VW Westy/Ford E250/Chevy van/Pontiac van/Sprinter etc.. the pros far out way the cons when it comes to the Promasters that's why I ordered a new 159 extended a few days ago. These are the most practical best handling/driving commercial vans out there I believe. Having said all that I still say my current low roof PM is underpowered. Good Day!
 
#56 ·
Sure, no problem. As Chance mentioned above it's all pretty subjective and we feel what we feel. All 7 of my air-cooled VW's were underpowered but I enjoyed (and obviously kept buying) them anyway. Maybe that's partly why (to me at least) my PM isn't. Even though I've had a few V8's, plus straight 6 and V6's (42 cars/trucks/vans + 6 motorcycles over the years) my background is mostly 4-cylinder vehicles.
 
#58 ·
LOL! Yeah, they required near-constant maintenance but certainly helped (read that as "forced") me to learn how to work on vehicles - which has literally saved me thousands of dollars over the years.
 
#59 ·
Allhandsondeck said:
It's underpowered compared to my previous E250/V6. Its underpowered compared to my previous Pontiac Silhoutte/V6 front wheel drive. Not quite apples to apples but pretty close. My go cart has more power than my old Westy.
Click to expand...
Prior to the PM and after the 87 westy I owned a 98 e-150 4.2L V6 for 15 years. Mine had a fiberglass hightop and full camper build. It wasn't a dog, but it was much slower than my 17' 159' PM. If your E250/V6 had same engine and a full camper and is slower than your PM Id say that there is something wrong with your PM.
 
41 - 60 of 69 Posts
About this Discussion
68 Replies
17 Participants
Last post:
jracca
Ram Promaster Forum
posts
322K
members
48K
Since
2012
We’re a community forum dedicated to Promaster enthusiasts to discuss mods, camper conversions, diesel, fuel economy, reviews and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Promaster General Discussion Forum Promaster Builds and Conversions Electronics New Member Introductions Engine and Technical Discussion