Ram Promaster Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,001 Posts
Thanks for posting, it's good information.

It's still nearly twice as large as the largest Econoline (like mine), but the revision clarifies how the PM can't be essentially as large as a Sprinter that is 3-feet longer. We knew the PM is wider and sides more vertical, but that in itself made it hard to explain equal volume in a much shorter cargo area.

If RAM want more space to best Transit's Jumbo model they can always offer the Ducato's Maxi higher roof. That higher roof adds a lot of volume.

I just know that my closest dealer has an extended PM as a demo and standing in the cargo area makes my extended Econoline feel tiny by comparison. Still, there is no excuse to have gotten these numbers wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
They have to introduce the largest Ducato-Promaster H3-L4 size that is not sold in the US right now.
This will stop any discussion...
It's very common in Europe...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Do you think that there is any chance that Ram will compensate people who bought the Promaster before the correction in cargo space. I know that companies have had to compensate people when fuel efficiency has been advertised wrong. Isn't this a similar situation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
886 Posts
Do you think that there is any chance that Ram will compensate people who bought the Promaster before the correction in cargo space. I know that companies have had to compensate people when fuel efficiency has been advertised wrong. Isn't this a similar situation?
my guess, No.

They never gave the wrong space. They just used the Europe standard for measuring, when they should have used the US standard. Both measurements were correct.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
726 Posts
Cargo length and height was an important factor for me and the given specifications were exact, so no complain here. I hardly believe someone would buy a van solely on the given cargo volume.

And If we compare a Sprinter and a PM side by side, there is not doubt that PM has more cargo space, whatever the numbers say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Cargo length and height was an important factor for me and the given specifications were exact, so no complain here. I hardly believe someone would buy a van solely on the given cargo volume.

Yeah, cargo volume is an unpicturable number, what I relied on were the length, height and width and those numbers were correct. I even tried to calculate the cargo volume from those numbers and it didn't work. In my PM brochure, it had the low roof volume of the 159 wb at 353 and the high roof 159 wb at 530, I knew something was real wrong there. (11in. X 73.4in. x 147in. / 1728 (cu. ft.) = 68.7 cu. ft.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,001 Posts
Cargo length and height was an important factor for me and the given specifications were exact, so no complain here. I hardly believe someone would buy a van solely on the given cargo volume.

Yeah, cargo volume is an unpicturable number, what I relied on were the length, height and width and those numbers were correct. I even tried to calculate the cargo volume from those numbers and it didn't work. In my PM brochure, it had the low roof volume of the 159 wb at 353 and the high roof 159 wb at 530, I knew something was real wrong there. (11in. X 73.4in. x 147in. / 1728 (cu. ft.) = 68.7 cu. ft.)
I'm under the impression that the low-roof Pro-Master is not available in the 159-inch wheelbase, which may explain much of the difference you are estimating. Also, the added 11-inch height is at the top where the van is less than 73.4 inches wide.

I tried estimating the difference in volume between high-roof 136 and 159 inch wheelbase in a similar manner because the van's cross section is nearly identical and the numbers, while very close, did not work out exactly. Now I know why.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,001 Posts
Do you think that there is any chance that Ram will compensate people who bought the Promaster before the correction in cargo space. I know that companies have had to compensate people when fuel efficiency has been advertised wrong. Isn't this a similar situation?
That's a great point. I don't know but expect it may be possible if advertising regulations clearly specify that cargo volume must be stated under some US standard. If so it seems it would fall under false claims similar to MPG exaggerations. To me it seems similar to claiming higher MPG ratings because they were based on Imperial gallons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
I'm under the impression that the low-roof Pro-Master is not available in the 159-inch wheelbase, which may explain much of the difference you are estimating. Also, the added 11-inch height is at the top where the van is less than 73.4 inches wide.

Ah, you're right, they don't offer the low roof in 159. They don't make it clear that they're comparing apples to oranges in the brochure.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top