Ram Promaster Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,650 Posts
Car & Driver? Please! That's like car evaluations from Consumer Reports -mostly pure BS. This whole so called review is a farce. Anyone who has ever owned a rust bucket, constantly broken down Sprinter knows what a joke this review is. As for looks - I'm always confusing the Promaster with the Sprinter when I look quickly. I could never confuse the ugly pig-nosed Transit with anything. The low roof Transit is an abomination, almost as bad as the Nissan NV but at least the high roof Transit looks ok from the side view.

I doubt if any Promaster owners would trad for either a Sprinter or a Transit - I know I certainly wouldn't.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,837 Posts
If you look at the test result numbers, a pattern emerges. In objective test areas (those that have measurable numbers the PM does very well. In subjective areas where the reporter gets to say “I liked the seating?” or whatever, the PM does worst. Since so many areas are subjective or the smaller PM van got poorer marks (like interior space- gee it was a shorter van!) and non-measured areas where the PM would have scored better (floor height- very important for this sort of product) (or turning radius- also important but not measured) the PM was ignored. If you rigged a test against one product this would be it. Interesting that the public commenters have favorable comments about the PM! Too bad C&D got so far from their expertise. Makes you want to renew your Road & Track subscription.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
Car & Driver, road & Track, and a few other mass published automotive enthusiast magazines have to brown nose their parent companies to keep the doors open, a model being awarded something or another for eight years running becomes meaningless if the editors/publisher are owned by that automaker.

Look how the PM is stripped interior and all the others got liners/floors, certainly it is noisy, not even a sheet of cardboard on the cargo area floor.

July of 2015 indicated on instrument panel - I wonder if it had the Euro 'C' load range VancoFourSeason tires from Continental while the others had some-brand soft 'E' range tires.

Contorted driving position? Aww, the idea of forcing some desk-jockey to sit in something other than an EZ-Boy recliner is nearly criminal!

I've finally decided the Fiat diesel must be driven with an 'intentionality' that US car makers want us to feel is old-fashioned - compulsive aggression will not be rewarded in the diesel PM.

Auto makers like giving people pocket-rocket cars so they can make more money on collision repairs, something folks have gotten away with 100 times finally bites them and they can blame everything else other than the lugnut behind the wheel.... This was pointed out to me in the safety option that the robo-shift diesel PM will not shift making a tight corner when it left me stranded like a whale for several eons with oncoming traffic from both sides until the logic decided I was back in a safe-zone to shift. I won't make that mistake twice. Want to rock and roll & get down the road, then know the engine and gearing and have expectations for a two-ton cargo weight truck it really is!

Anyhow - I drove all three of the vans they tested and the Promaster reminded me of a Iron-Horse Harley versus some Japanese road bike... something I needed not 'wanted'.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,650 Posts
How true RD, and that's why I never renewed my C&D subscription many, many years ago ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
This is a very old comparison that was unequal to begin with. They drove empty vans around and did empty acceleration and braking tests...if they had used the vans for what they were built for they would find that the ProMaster will outperform both the Mercedes and Ford in very important day to day operations like fuel economy and maneuverability. The brakes on the ProMaster are fantastic and a single unloaded stop doesn't reflect that. Load that thing up and do 6 stops from 75 mph and you'll see the Ford brakes fade to the bottom. The Mercedes brakes are ok but the ProMasters will do it over and over again without fading. The loaded ProMaster also handles better than the loaded Ford...the Mercedes still does very well here though...but when the Mercedes breaks down you have to pay through the nose to repair it. The recent sales numbers indicate that the buying public is figuring this out as the ProMaster has pulled way ahead of the Mercedes and even catching up to the Ford...but Fords huge dealer network will keep it in front for a long time... The ProMaster is considered an excellent van in Europe and the U.K. as well as the Transit which is offered as a front wheel drive there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Car & Driver -> comparative test results are proportional to how much advertisement money each automaker invest in their publications.
 

·
Registered
2014 136” HR
Joined
·
5,812 Posts
Totally unbiased, right? "detestable, shovel-faced thing that appears to have been cobbled together from spare parts."

At least they could have compared similar wheel bases. Total hack job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
This right off the bat they really tell you they know what they are doing, "The idea was to make them, as much as possible, candidates for modern van customizers." Now I know some of you have bought the low roof and short wheelbase model, but for someone who wants to customize their van to camp, haul passengers, work out of, etc would likely prefer a high roof. Seems the reviewers are either short or have rubber necks. I dont know why (there are reasons some of you have bought low roofs) someone would want a low roof?

There are a few points I slightly agree with them on. Driver ergo could certainly be better, which would be a very easy fix for them. Trans in the diesel I know nothing about, but after 40k on my gas it shutters and is very jerky. so that seems to be another little hiccup.

Other than that, the review is pretty terrible. The give the Ford marks for being easy to get into? The PM is class leading in load height, beating the other 2 by almost 3". They didnt mention that though. Styling, the PM certainly grows on you. I liked the Transit's styling at first, but no thanks. The list goes on for what they got wrong, but I am preaching to the choir.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDM

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,650 Posts
This article is an excellent example of why no one should ever believe what they see, read or hear without doing their own research on the subject (including, politics, religion, and vans) ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
An advantage of all of the newer style vans is that you CAN have a choice between roof heights. The traditional American vans - including GM to this day! - don't have that choice. And our low roof is higher inside than the old style one-size-for-all.

I will give the Transit one thing; they build a really low roof model that is about the same overall height as the old E-series, for those who have to fit into a garage. Obviously the interior height suffers but at least there IS that choice.

I bought a low-roof ProMaster because it has to fit under a balcony that hangs over the driveway at my house. And it has less frontal area so it punches a smaller hole through the air, so it theoretically should use a bit less fuel. And I can stand up inside with my head ducked anyhow, which isn't really much of a bother, so I don't really need the high roof.

Car and Driver's test was pretty much irrelevant. The disconnect between what journalists like, and what people actually buy, has been demonstrated many times over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Wow!

Makes me want to get rid of my crappy old Promaster...NOT, I think maybe that was just BS. Glad that I didn't read that before I bought the most comfortable, best handling van that I have ever driven.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top