Ram Promaster Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,651 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
On a RWD van you have to concentrate the weight on the rear axle and the handling is always worst in this configuration. On the FWD you have only to concentrate as more as possible the weight near the partition and you have always a better handling van with a good traction. When I am in Italy I live on the Alps. 90% of the vans here are FWD. Only heavy duty users use RWD vans. Most people don't want RWD vans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
That commercial reminds me of my express 2500 going up my driveway. No problems with the promaster on my driveway at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,651 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
Anyone know what the weight percent on both vans empty front/back?
I know what the weight is for the ram in video is. Just under 5000 pounds.
Do not know the weight on the front vs back though.

You can see that both vans are the same size in that video. Pm high roof/Transit midroof.
Much much more volume in that PM because of front wheel drive.

Ford will always out sell the PM because the PM is strange to North Americans.(Front wheel drive). Just my opinion.

added Post the same time lol!^^^^^
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,651 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
In the 1960's I drove a VW bug in the North-east Kingdom of Vermont. Winter tires etc. I would stop beside the Saabs I found stopped on hills and ask if they were ok then drive by them up the hill laughing all the way. Rear weight and rear wheel drive beats front weighted front wheel drive. My take is: if that transit in the video is loaded with a ton or so it will climb better than the Promaster with a ton. Empty not so much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,651 Posts
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.
That would make my point even stronger, right? :)

Notice I was only guesstimating, and using only one significant digit so as not to imply accuracy. Regardless, I was very close for the Transit when guessing 60/40. I've seen the numbers for the PM also but can't find them. In any case there is little doubt that when empty, a PM has much more weight percentage over driven wheels due to its FWD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
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.
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.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top