mlts22
Austin, Texas
Senior Member
Joined: 11/15/2010
View Profile
|
There is one factor in the favor of the Transit, and it sounds totally irrational: MPG. Even though a person would not save much at all going from a 25 MPG car to a 33 MPG car, they will spend the $30,000 to buy a hybrid.
PR is important. A firm that switches to Transits (which Ford claims get a 25% better MPG than the E-series) can tout the fuel savings (although not mentioning that it cost a mint to retool their new vans). So, when it comes time to replace vehicles due to tax reasons, the top brass will switch to the newer style (be it a Sprinter or Transit) just because of the perceived fuel economy gains.
I've seen one municipality replace all their fleet E-series with Sprinters just because a Sprinter can get 20-22 MPG, and tout the fact that they can use biodiesel [1].
Other than MPG, what will sell the Transit is the higher roofline, which allows for more shelving and cargo, as well as the fact that the Transits will have AWD as an option. Stock Ford vans are only two wheel drive unless the vehicle gets a trip to a Quigley, Sportsmobile, or other conversion shop.
As for a class B upfitting, since the Europeans have been cranking out both class B Transits as well as class Cs, hopefully the knowledge of converting will propagate across the pond so it won't be a big learning curve for US RV makers.
[1]: Random footnote -- when businesses tout they use biodiesel, I always wonder about asking what grade. B2 -- yawn. For actual effort, I'll be impressed if they run B100. Also, having vehicles that have the ability to run biodiesel doesn't mean that they do.
|
NewsW
US
Senior Member
Joined: 02/06/2012
View Profile
|
I ran the numbers and concluded that the 25% fuel savings are only there for city / suburban cycle, lightly loaded Transits.
That is roughly comparable to the Sprinter.
As for municipal governments buying fleets of Sprinters, I don't doubt it one bit --- tax dollars, funny business under the table, and who cares... they don't pay the bills.
Fleet managers of private companies are pretty savvy, and to sell a vehicle that goes for 1/3 more capital cost is going to be a fight.
|
NewsW
US
Senior Member
Joined: 02/06/2012
View Profile
|
RobertRyan wrote:NewsW wrote:That is probably why Americans are good engineers.
Well sticking with something that is out of date and not as effective, I do not know about that. You find some very good engineering in a lot of places these days.
Yes, like the bunch that did the Collins class boat.
|
RobertRyan
Australia
Senior Member
Joined: 03/16/2008
View Profile
 Offline
|
NewsW wrote:Yes, like the bunch that did the Collins class boat.
Poor project management,(very poor project management compounded by secrecy and skullduggery amongst the contractors, which included US Comanies) not so much the engineering. On the other hand the IPad is a world beater, concept and excecution brillant. Chevrolet Volt on the other hand a bit of a dud.You have very good engineering and extremely poor and outdated stuff as well. There are many examples of very good engineering worldwide, much more than the failures
|
RobertRyan
Australia
Senior Member
Joined: 03/16/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
NewsW wrote:Yes, like the bunch that did the Collins class boat.
Poor project management,very poor project management compounded by secrecy and skullduggery amongst the contractors, which included US Companies. not so much the engineering.
On the other hand the IPad is a world beater, concept and excecution brillant. Chevrolet Volt on the other hand a bit of a dud.You have very good engineering and extremely poor and outdated stuff as well. There are many examples of very good engineering worldwide, much more than the failures
Collins class Submarine Wikipedia
Quote:Later that year, during two weeks of combat trials in August, Sheean demonstrated that the class was comparable in the underwater warfare role to the Los Angeles-class nuclear powered attack submarine USS Olympia.[171][173] The two submarines traded roles during the exercise and were equally successful in the attacking role, despite Olympia being larger, more powerful, and armed with more advanced torpedoes.[173] In 2003, a Collins-class boat carried out successful attacks on two USN nuclear submarines and an aircraft carrier during a multinational exercise.[174] The repeated successes of the class in wargames and multinational exercises earned the Collins class praise from foreign military officers for being "a very capable and quiet submarine",[168] and recognition of the boats as a clear example of the threat posed to navies by modern diesel submarines.[175]
|
|
|
NewsW
US
Senior Member
Joined: 02/06/2012
View Profile
|
The outdated stuff work, are thoroughly debugged and are extremely reliable.
Like the B-52.
Or the software that runs the Collins, licensed from USA after all the Aussies in the continent can't write software to do the job.
FYI, the software that was licensed is very old, a subset of the real McCoy, and better than all the snazzy Aussie stuff that didn't work!
LOL --- Have fun, mate.
There is a reason why your good gear comes from US of A.
Oh yes, the Collins without the software is about as good as a WWII grade U-boat.
|
RobertRyan
Australia
Senior Member
Joined: 03/16/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
NewsW wrote:There is a reason why your good gear comes from US of A.
Good and Bad , a lot of stuff that does not work as well.That is why others are taking over from US Companies in Australia.
NewsW wrote:Or the software that runs the Collins, licensed from USA after all the Aussies in the continent can't write software to do the job
Reinventing the Wheel , is a waste of money especially on a complex project, which is not simple and cutting edge not old technology.Still they had problems with that software as it did not meet the project requirements as it turned out. Not the only problems they had with the contractors.
Still the submarine does it's intended job very well, problem is the project Management and related servicing issues with the contractors have been a nightmare.
* This post was
edited 04/12/12 07:37pm by RobertRyan *
|
NewsW
US
Senior Member
Joined: 02/06/2012
View Profile
|
RobertRyan wrote:
Reinventing the Wheel , is a waste of money especially on a complex project, which is not simple and cutting edge not old technology.
Still the submarine does it's job very well, problem is the project Management and related servicing issues with the contractors have been a nightmare.
The sub did good after it got major surgery courtesy of US of A, not just in the software, but also in providing many other little tidbits that I cannot mention casually.
The Americans are great to sneer at and laugh at their apparent ineptness, until you come up against them, and realize they are the A team in many things.
Ask the Japanese that got their head handed back to them competing with the US on high tech.
|
RobertRyan
Australia
Senior Member
Joined: 03/16/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
NewsW wrote:The sub did good after it got major surgery courtesy of US of A, not just in the software, but also in providing many other little tidbits that I cannot mention casually.
No that certainly did not happen It was getting Kockums and other contractors to sort out major issues with their alterations, that was a major problem. They intially said it had nothing to do with them, but after threats of penalties and no more contract work, strangely they fixed the problem.
Electronic upgrades with Thales and others is an ongoing project, not related to the initial problems. Yes I do know someone in the Australian Defence Industries
* This post was
edited 04/12/12 07:52pm by RobertRyan *
|
NewsW
US
Senior Member
Joined: 02/06/2012
View Profile
|
Here is a public list of US content in that boat:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/collins/
I can just imagine the fun doing Systems Integration.
|
|
|
