My theory, which may be nonsense, is that the front wheels in a FWD climb up on the snow better than the front wheels in a RWD. The rear wheels in a FWD don't have to climb anything since the front wheels have already flattened and compacted the snow.It's smart to take the lead on this subject, even if Ford counters. With empty vans the PM will have much greater percent weight over drive wheels, so no surprise there. I'm assuming this was filmed with empty vans.
At full or near-full load the Transit will have greater percent weight over drive wheels (based on axle ratings), so I'd expect the opposite outcome.
It's smart ad even if taken out of context. Reminds me of old rear-engine VW Beetle ads also showing their hill-climbing abilities.
There is probably some of that, but I'd expect large diameter tires to compact snow relatively easy. An empty ProMaster has around 60 percent of weight over driven wheels, and when fully loaded maybe as low as 40 percent. That's got to make a huge difference when on slippery surfaces.My theory, which may be nonsense, is that the front wheels in a FWD climb up on the snow better than the front wheels in a RWD. The rear wheels in a FWD don't have to climb anything since the front wheels have already flattened and compacted the snow.
One other thought -- if compacting snow was that important compared to weight distribution over driven wheels, then we could test your theory by driving both vans up the hill in reverse. My guess is that would make the PM beat the Transit even easier when empty.My theory, which may be nonsense, is that the front wheels in a FWD climb up on the snow better than the front wheels in a RWD. The rear wheels in a FWD don't have to climb anything since the front wheels have already flattened and compacted the snow.
Both vans 60 40 empty?There is probably some of that, but I'd expect large diameter tires to compact snow relatively easy. An empty ProMaster has around 60 percent of weight over driven wheels, and when fully loaded maybe as low as 40 percent. That's got to make a huge difference when on slippery surfaces.
The Transit is probably close to the opposite. Depending on model it could have around 40 percent over driven wheels when empty, and as much as 60 percent when loaded.
In my mind it's advantage PM empty and Transit when both nearly fully loaded.
That would make my point even stronger, right?Both vans 60 40 empty?
I have to disagree , I do not have the numbers but there is more of everything
more forward than the Transit > Engine/transmission/gas-tank/exhaust and drive train/passenger and Driver. All are more forward then the Transit.
To be exact 44K and that's with few options including the diesel! I just don't get why people gravitate towards the Transit, I mean the PM has more cargo volume/cheaper to maintain hopefully/and less expensive out the door.The two vehicles are almost deadbeat competitive. My PM weights 5440 (CAT scale) dry and
I think the payload is 4300. Do you have the chart handy for the LWB HR dually transit?
I don't recall the exact pricing, but when I was shopping the Transit is notably more expensive in the big boy sizes. Like over 40k. I got my PM 3500 with a couple of minor options for 33.5k. Big difference.
I've lived that test. Went to college in Houghton MI. We got almost 400" of snow my first year and there are lots of very steep hills in town. Drove a fwd Saab with 4 snows. There were a few times I couldn't make it up a hill going forward so I backed up instead. There's a bit of weight transfer to the rear involved accelerating and going up hills.One other thought -- if compacting snow was that important compared to weight distribution over driven wheels, then we could test your theory by driving both vans up the hill in reverse. My guess is that would make the PM beat the Transit even easier when empty.