Were I as hedonistic and narcissistic as I often pretend to be when I test luxury cars, I would have been seriously pissed off. Stepping out of a Porsche Panamera, Mercedes CLS or BMW M Coupe into Ford’s Transit Connect delivery van is something of a shock. The Ford cargo van is, after all, budget transportation, the likes of which have not seen the consumer side of the automotive market for decades. The interior trim is, well, plasticky in the most I-can’t-stand-to-rub-my-fingers-on-nylons-because-it-makes-my-fingers-queasy sense. The seats, especially the rear bench on the wagon version, are basic, and there’s not a bit of excess luxury anywhere to be seen. Like I said, were I even in the slightest to the manor born, I would have been cheesed.
Instead, I was as happy as a clam. I am obviously parading my inner Anglo-Saxon Protestant work ethic, but the Transit Connect’s rudimentary accoutrement appealed to me. Or, at least, they did not disturb my inner karma. In fact, I quite enjoyed my week in the boxy little Ford, and only part of that is because I had some motorcycle parts to pick up.
First, a little background. Though it’s relatively new to our shores, the Transit Connect is already popular in other (read European) markets. And the larger Ford Transit is a perennial best-seller with businesses and consumers alike. Pretty much every privateer motorcycle racer in England has one. Ford also is working on an electric version of the Transit Connect.
Though it’s that very utilitarian work ethic that is the Transit’s calling card — it should not be seen as an alternative to the mainstream minivan — what surprised me was how well it drove. After all, it is a rather narrow-tracked van with a roofline that implies a centre of gravity somewhere on the 49th floor of the Empire State Building.
Behind the wheel, however, there’s no impression of its rather stately shape. Indeed, the Transit Connect, though it is very obviously a van, drives much like a traditional basic subcompact, albeit one stripped to the bones and not particularly gifted in the power department. The small Transit is actually based on the previous Ford Focus platform and the handling is, therefore, exemplary. There was no tipping, no gross understeer and no wandering from lane to lane even in high winds (this last surprising considering the size of its side panels and its relatively light weight). Oh, the ride is choppy, but that’s to be expected since it is, again, a cargo van. Load it up (though only modestly as its payload is only 721 kilograms) and the ride smooths out appreciably. In fact, it rode better with a beefy Honda motorcycle engine in the cargo area than empty.
Naturally, it’s fairly roomy back there. Whether it’s the five-passenger Wagon or the two-seater cargo version, there’s 2,057 millimetres of floor length to work with and 129.6 cubic feet of cargo volume (118.7 cu. ft. in the Wagon with the rear seats folded). Both the XLT cargo van and the XLT Wagon five-passenger van have sliding rear doors that really help with loading, and the large rear double doors swing open 255 degrees to further ease loading. Interior-wise, the Transit Connect’s one flaw (besides the rudimentary decor) is that the rear seats aren’t particularly comfortable. Ford is also selling a taxi version that sacrifices a little cargo space for 60 mm more rear-seat legroom, but I expect the rear-passenger accommodations may be a limitation for Ford’s cab ambitions.
The powertrain will be familiar to econocar owners. The engine is Ford’s little 2.0-litre four-cylinder, in this guise producing 136 horsepower and 128 pound-feet of torque and mated to an automatic transmission with just four forward speeds. (They really still make transmissions with four speeds?) The engine would be hard pressed in a lithe subcompact; in a 1,589-kg van with the aerodynamic profile of a sail, it’s, shall we say, challenged.
Acceleration to 100 kilometres an hour is on the sand dial side of 10 seconds. Yet, I never felt the lack of power. As long as I was thinking econocar, the Transit Connect never felt really challenged. And, of course, the Ford’s fuel economy — 9.6 litres per 100 kilometres in the city and 7.4 L/100 km on the highway — is fantastic compared with the larger but truly archaic full-sized vans from GM and Ford that have long dominated the delivery business.
And it is against those vehicles that the Transit will most likely be compared. But despite its advantages — civilized handling, small size, fuel economy, etc. — I suspect the near future will see the diminutive delivery truck staking out only a niche market. For one thing, private owners will most likely opt for a beat-up but larger GMC Safari that will cost a fraction of the Transport’s admittedly still frugal $30,000 price. Ditto small businesses starting up. And those looking for more bulk might even opt for the equally European but American-sized Mercedes-Benz Sprinter.
THE SPECS
Type of vehicle Front-wheel-drive compact van
Engine 2.0L DOHC four-cylinder
Power 136 hp @ 6,300 rpm; 128 lb-ft of torque @ 4,750 rpm
Transmission Four-speed manumatic
Brakes Four-wheel disc with ABS
Tires P205/65TR15
Price: base/as tested $28,499/$29,899
Destination charge $1,500
Transport Canada fuel economy L/100 km 9.6 city, 7.4 hwy.
But I suspect government agencies will pounce on the Transit (Canada Post has a fleet of 1,175 Transit Connects). The same goes for some franchised businesses — plumbing, cleaning, etc. — looking to reduce operating costs. The Transit’s reduced running costs and ease of use will prove a boon to those who need cargo-carrying ability but don’t need a full-sized van.
I also suspect that, a few years hence, when some of these companies look to trade in the Transits, they will be very popular on the used market. It’s one thing to choose a well-used $7,000 Safari over a $30,000 brand-new Transit, but as the prices equalize, I think the little Ford will build up a loyal following among used-vehicle purchasers. I’d certainly have one.
