normal height vs high top transit fuel efficiency

broganire

I’m hoping to replace my old van with a 04(~ish) Transit and am considering getting a mid wheel base higher top transit instead of the normal height short wheel base like I currently have.

Does anyone know what the difference is in fuel efficiency between both vans assuming they are both loaded with the same weight load?

Pottler

Do you really need the height? If you are planning on standing up in there or carrying tall pallets/stuff, all good. If not, think on wether you really need the extra headroom as it does add a bit to consumption, takes a bit from acceleration/speed and catches more crosswind when on the motorway. I also only get high roof vans with dual rear wheels as otherwise you can only carry really tall light stuff. I prefer the low/normal roofers for the driving dynamic(if you can call it that) but if you need the space, you've no choice really.:)Edit;just re-read your post, you're thinking of getting a normal Transit, not a high-cube, so ignore the above. ;-)

broganire

Pottler,

Maybe you can still answer my question. My van will be full of the same amount of watersports equipment regardless of what van I get. The reason for considering a medium wheel base/medium roof is the extra headroom when getting changed inside.

The missus has a sporty golf for all long distance journeys so the main consideration is will a medium/high top transit cost a fortune on diesel.

Cheers.

Pottler

broganire wrote: »

Pottler,

Maybe you can still answer my question. My van will be full of the same amount of watersports equipment regardless of what van I get. The reason for considering a medium wheel base/medium roof is the extra headroom when getting changed inside.

The missus has a sporty golf for all long distance journeys so the main consideration is will a medium/high top transit cost a fortune on diesel.

Cheers.

I'd not bother, I'd stoop:D Driving dynamic is different, the low-roof swb models are much less "van" like, given the choice, I'd have a fwd swb low roof in your shoes. Going to a bigger T280 rwd or similar would not float my boat, and I've both. Fuel bill gets bigger as the van does btw.:)

Bpmull

Im not trying to be funny but either transits will be hard on diesel. you will be doing well to get 28-30 mpg and on motorways even less as the 2004 old model transits only have 5 speed gearboxes as far as i know. But to answer your question the smaller will be better on diesel but not by that much a couple of miles per gallon. So for the amount of diesel you would save just buy which ever van you want as it won't make a big enough difference. Btw you don't buy a transit because there economical.

Pottler

Bpmull wrote: »

Im not trying to be funny but either transits will be hard on diesel. you will be doing well to get 28-30 mpg and on motorways even less as the 2004 old model transits only have 5 speed gearboxes as far as i know. But to answer your question the smaller will be better on diesel but not by that much a couple of miles per gallon. So for the amount of diesel you would save just buy which ever van you want as it won't make a big enough difference. Btw you don't buy a transit because there economical.

The fwd 2.0 are actually ok on juice. Personally, I like em best of all the Trannies. I've the whole range(almost literally) apart from the newest models and they're not all the same on fuel. They are all the same in wanting a sixth gear though:)

Bpmull

Pottler wrote: »

The fwd 2.0 are actually ok on juice. Personally, I like em best of all the Trannies. I've the whole range(almost literally) apart from the newest models and they're not all the same on fuel. They are all the same in wanting a sixth gear though:)

Its a big pitty about not having a 6 speed gearbox. we have had most types of vans as my father has a construction company but we never owned a transit for no real reason in particular so i really don't no much about them. we have a lWb high roof renault master 2006 and it is the best van we have ever had never spent a penny on it bar service it nothing has ever gone wrong with it. and it does over 30mpg every fill. but the best thing is the 6 speed gearbox and that van had a 6 speed gearbox from 2004. it really helps with fuel consumption.

Pottler

Bpmull wrote: »

Its a big pitty about not having a 6 speed gearbox. we have had most types of vans as my father has a construction company but we never owned a transit for no real reason in particular so i really don't no much about them. we have a lWb high roof renault master 2006 and it is the best van we have ever had never spent a penny on it bar service it nothing has ever gone wrong with it. and it does over 30mpg every fill. but the best thing is the 6 speed gearbox and that van had a 6 speed gearbox from 2004. it really helps with fuel consumption.

I've 1 Master, think it's a 04, not too sure, deffo know it has its gearbox out at the mo though and deffo know it's the second time. They're ok, but just ok. That one is a flat with a tail-lift. FWD though, which to me is crap for a van that size. I prefer RWD for biggies, fwd for smaller stuff. I've never actually driven that Master though, one of the lads has it, never really noticed what it was like on fuel, so presume it's average enough.

Bpmull

Pottler wrote: »

I've 1 Master, think it's a 04, not too sure, deffo know it has its gearbox out at the mo though and deffo know it's the second time. They're ok, but just ok. That one is a flat with a tail-lift. FWD though, which to me is crap for a van that size. I prefer RWD for biggies, fwd for smaller stuff. I've never actually driven that Master though, one of the lads has it, never really noticed what it was like on fuel, so presume it's average enough.

I think we're just lucky with our one to be honest over 200k km on it and it has original engine gearbox and clutch. Literally the only thing we have ever done with it outside servicing tyres pad and break is one wheel bearing. I suppose it's all about how you drive them. We have never even done bushings track rod ends nothing. The mechanic was checking it over last week and couldn't believe that we haven't done anything with it and he said its perfect and needs nothing. In saying all that we had a a Trafic a couple of years ago with half the mileage and at by then it had bushings, egr valve bearings track rod ends and more. So the master seems to be a better van. As your is 2004 it was the first of the new model and therefore may have had some problems which were rectified by 2006. Your van probably has higher mileage also

Pottler

had a goo and there's 265k on it - it also looks knackered according to the 'sheet of what ails it' on the dash. Needs tr ends, bushings, an exhaust, fifth is gone(box is on floor!), headlight cracked, ah, it's a long list. Might add that to the "let's not do that" list and replace it:D Traffics get a bad press, but the lad that does our repairs has a 03 one with starship(literally) mileage up and it still flies. I've a graw for another swb Transit anyway, and vans are scarce in the yard lately as they're all out on jobs. Had a lad do a job for us a few weeks back with a 12 reg Master and he loved it but reckoned it was a sow on fuel.:)

Bpmull

Pottler wrote: »

had a goo and there's 265k on it - it also looks knackered according to the 'sheet of what ails it' on the dash. Needs tr ends, bushings, an exhaust, fifth is gone(box is on floor!), headlight cracked, ah, it's a long list. Might add that to the "let's not do that" list and replace it:D Traffics get a bad press, but the lad that does our repairs has a 03 one with starship(literally) mileage up and it still flies. I've a graw for another swb Transit anyway, and vans are scarce in the yard lately as they're all out on jobs. Had a lad do a job for us a few weeks back with a 12 reg Master and he loved it but reckoned it was a sow on fuel.:)

There was a courier out at our house a couple of weeks ago and had an 11 reg new model master and said his was a miser on diesel getting over 1000km to a tank and he said he only does town driving. But I suppose it depends on what model you buy and how you drive them. But if you get 30 mpg out of a van that size your doing well tbh as there is diesel cars that wouldn't do that and at the end of the day they are high enough and there is quite a lot of air resistance on them. Do you find your transits reliable or do they have many common faults.

Pottler

Re-Transits-Constant wheel bearings but that's more to do with no-one knowing/following the correct replacement procedure, eat brakes esp. rears, too low geared on the motorway, and when you see 2.5 engine fully apart and the cats-cradle thats the cam/rocker/valve arrangement you shudder a bit at the daft design. Upside, big, common for parts, drivers like them(??) and they're familiar/repairable. My own, only me yoke, is a Hiace which never, ever gets anything but oil/filters/belts/tyres. But God it's dull. It's also too small even in LWB version.

broganire

Okay, lot's of info there!

1. I'm not stuck to a transit, I used to have a hiace and if I found one for the right price I would go back again in a heart beat loved it. That been said the closest garage to me is a ford garage so convenience for parts etc. Hence why I moved to a transit. Pottler you mentioned Traffics, they seem to be for sale all over the place, but they get terrible press. Should I be considering one of them?

2. I don't do much motorway driving maybe 4 times a year, I live in the country and mostly do short journeys. But it sounds like the bigger the van to bigger the fuel bill?

Thanks.

Bpmull

broganire wrote: »

Okay, lot's of info there!

1. I'm not stuck to a transit, I used to have a hiace and if I found one for the right price I would go back again in a heart beat loved it. That been said the closest garage to me is a ford garage so convenience for parts etc. Hence why I moved to a transit. Pottler you mentioned Traffics, they seem to be for sale all over the place, but they get terrible press. Should I be considering one of them?

2. I don't do much motorway driving maybe 4 times a year, I live in the country and mostly do short journeys. But it sounds like the bigger the van to bigger the fuel bill?

Thanks.

If I was you I would stick to the transits unless you can get a new model 2007 115 bhp or very low millage old model. There is nothing wrong with the trafics until the mileage gets high we have had a couple and found the Renault master a better van. If you could get a Trafic that was minded it would be a great van but they really don't take hardship well. We bought a Trafic brand new in 2006 and kept it 3 years it was a great van but the we only put up 100k km on it. And in this time it needed a new radiator, bushings, egr valve, track rod ends. So in my opinion if you could get a Trafic with low miles go for it otherwise unless it was seriously well minded stay away from it. I would imagine the Trafic would be marginally better on diesel are one done into mid 30 mpg which isn't to bad. We also had a 2004 Trafic and didn't cause any major problems again mileage was low when we sold.