Thanks for posting, it's good information.
my guess, No.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?
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.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 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.
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.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?
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.