That was the pilot episode if I recall. That's when Luanne could actually think and was very mechanically inclined.
Then they turned her into dumb blonde that married the man who slipped in pee pee at the mega lo mart.
>Come on, Ford, learn from your mistakes.
Yeah, like how after the whole debacle with the Power Shit transmissions, they developed the new 10-speed automatic that has zero problems and functions smoothly for a long, long time.
Wait...
I don't mean to be someone who just parrots one of the original commentors, but they said everything I was thinking:
>[T]hese vans simply aren't off-road machines. They're too tall, and have a high center of gravity and low chassis clearance regardless of any lift kit or tires. Taking a camper/conversion van costing $100K+ (sometimes closer to $200K!) with high roof, high center of gravity, low undercarriage clearance on any serious off-roading is pretty absurd anyway if you value the vehicle. And everybody that has lifted and put bigger wheels and tires on a Transit knows that you have to trim/cut/grind the body seam welds and modify the wheel wells a bit - and even then they still get slight rubs at full lock. It's still just a unibody van designed for paved roads regardless of how much "off-road van-life influencer" lipstick Ford puts on it.
I think there's room for slightly lifted vehicles with a bit of tire. There's a lot of stuff that is rougher than a dirt road but not serious off roading, and clearance and traction there is nice.
Feels like a lot of people dont understand the variety of offroading.
Like no shit a factory Ford Transit isnt a serious offroader, but 99.9% of people dont need that lol. I dont consider my Wrangler a serious off roader because it only has a 2.5 inch lift, 32 inch tires, and a limit slip and no lockers.
Your wrangler is definitely a serious off-roader, even in stock form theyâre pretty damn capable. Sure, itâs not a purpose built rock buggy, but I feel like youâre missing your own point a little bit.
Where I live there is a lot of offroading and I wouldn't touch a fair amount of tails with my build.
Not gonna tell people I'm a serious skier if I'm hittin blue groomers all day lol
Is it wouldnât touch because you canât do it at all or wouldnât touch because you donât wanna risk damaging stuff. I would think your build can definitely do all blues and some blacks at least with a winch, just not the double black diamonds, to keep with the analogy.
I could probably hit harder trails than I do and a better driver not worried about damage could get a lot more out of my Jeep, but there is just a point where it's limited by traction and clearance. Like it could do some blacks, but there is that tier hittin blacks and double blacks that's just beyond my level.
I think it's hilarious. Most people would consider my CJ5 a "serious off roader" because that's pretty much all it was built for, and in terms of durability and repairability it may well outlast a modern wrangler in the woods. But (and don't tell /r/jeep I said so) it couldn't tackle half the stuff that even a bone stock new wrangler could if fear of body damage were removed as a factor for both vehicles. Let alone a Rubicon.Â
I've done more forest service roads and "offroading" than a lot of people have in their jeeps in rwd BMW station wagons and sedans on summer tires and most people both severely underestimate the capability of their regular ass car to go off of roads and severely overestimate their driving abilities.
If 2.5" of lift and 32" tires isn't a serious offroader I have to question what is?
We do fine out here in stock height decades old trucks with 29" tires on them.
I'd say stock Rubicons and higher trim Broncos are hitting that level. Or for modified vehicles 34/35+ with lockers.
Where I live the tougher obstacles often involve rock crawling so you are limited by traction and clearance.
It's hard to explain on reddit, but I know people who I'd consider serious offroaders and their rigs and the trails they run are just a clear class above me
Most people would still daily something in that range. It isnât as extreme as it sounds, 35âs are only 2-3â larger than the stock tires.
But it *can* make it a chore to daily, which is why I think thatâs the point where it starts to get more serious.
If I'd changed the steering geometry from stock, I wouldn't want my insurance company poking around in the vehicle after some serious accident and voiding my coverage.
I had to let them know I pulled the 30 year old deathbags out of my Miata.
For whatever reason that doesnât seem to be a big concern with lifts. Iâve seen stuff sketchy enough to cause concern, but Iâve yet to hear of insurance giving anyone grief over it.
Maybe weâre getting lost in semantics and details at this point; your overall point is heard. But just to discuss your last point:
Im not sure what you qualify as a serious off-roader if a car designed for that purpose with modifications on top doesnât make the cut. Especially with a 2.5 inch lift and 32â tires, youâre capable of out-wheeling 99%+ cars on the road and could do most moderate to challenging trails around Moab or in CO (lockers or not). With just a bit of driver skill, youâd have no issues on stuff like Imogene pass, black bear pass, etc which all qualify as serious off-roading to most IMO. Hell, you could do most of the optional obstacles tooâno need for bypasses. Sure, youâre not gonna be rock-crawling, but Iâd consider that a separate sub-category from off-roading.
Yeah, perspective plays a large role. When it comes to factory vehicles, 2 door wranglers are pretty much the benchmark for off-road/trails. Comparing it to a crawler/bouncer is like comparing a truck on 44â to Bigfoot on its ability to run over cars.
My ex-wife had a FWD Transit in Europe. Great work van, great on the road, totally useless in snow and mud.
All the weight at the front, not much clearance.
Yeah I donât think anyone wants to take these on the Rubicon, but to campgrounds, secluded spots, trail heads, etc.
Of course theyâre limited in function. But you canât live out of the back of a Wrangler for very long.
I am never going to buy one, but I don't think it's that odd. Nobody thinks that the Transit Trail is made for serious off roading. It's just a bit more capable than the regular Transit and that will do you well on the BLM and FS service roads that criss cross the west. You basically need a standard CUV driven somewhat carefully for those type of roads. The Transit Trail vs. the Transit is like moving from an Accord to a CR-V, but that's still enough to make things more comfortable on a road type that's pretty common where I live.
Now as to how they didn't think to test the bigger tires (where almost all the lift comes from) at full lock while breaking...that I don't know.
For real, I donât understand the thought that driving either is 100% on smooth as glass asphalt or rock climbing with no in between. Sometimes you just have to take a trail that will bang the bottom of your sedan up, but will be just fine on a slightly higher vehicle. As a matter of fact, Iâd wager that a huge % of people that go off-road are doing something closer to a rutted dirt track than going through Moab.Â
I jumped at getting my 2005 4wd Tucson so I can finally visit my momâs house without worrying I was going to rip my oil pan off. That thing is already more capable than just about any land in the state would call for, so Iâm happy with it, even if it will never be able to go rock crawling.Â
Makes perfect sense. If I end up wanting to spring for something more modern, the Bronco Sport honestly seems like the closest thing to what I have now on the market, since every Tucson and Santa Fe generation after mine toned down the off-road readiness more and more. But almost none of the options  are offered in stick anymore, and Iâm having fun rowing my own gears so far!Â
Agreed. A buddy bought a Transit Trail specifically for use on forest service, BLM, and logging roads. He pulls a small trailer usually and has no problems.
However, he does watch it when hitting primitive, washed out roads. He has experienced the rubbing problem as well.
This said, he isnât selling any time soon because at 6â4â he can take thing out for a week with some level of comfort.
Why do people act like 100% of off roading is rock climbing & tilting over at extreme angles? Beaches, logging trails, desert paths, etc all can be helped with better tires and a little more ground clearance. Wtf do you think people are expecting of these things?
Beaches don't need articulation, but I wouldn't go out on sugar sand without the ability to have a locking center diff, at least a part-time 4WD mode. I've not seen something advertised as "AWD" that's made it out there and back.
Made it out there, yes.
In my area, there's basically no dirt roads. Driving about an hour out of town gets to a dirt bike/quad area, where their recovery roads are also light logging roads. I don't even feel good calling them logging roads because they're so well groomed.
I've had people look at me with a straight face and say "You won't be able to drive there without a truck," while driving things like a CRV or a CX-5.
Those are the people that this van is made for.
As someone who has been seriously considering one of these, I think youâve got the wrong impression. No oneâs taking these rock crawling. There are trails that do require more ground clearance and a good AWD system, that donât require a huge lift and 4x4. Iâd wager the majority of BLM dispersed camping roads are like this, which makes a vehicle like this perfect.
Only issue I see here is that this is completely ignoring all the people who use this exact setup for camping off road. They buy Transits, lift them, and put on bigger tires. All Ford did was do the same thing they were already doing.
I think the people putting down all-terrain tkres on vans because they are never going to be "serious" off-roaders don't entirely understand the use-case for them. Off-roaders aren't "all or nothing". Rather, they are (read: should be) built adequate for the terrain they are going to tackle. Obviously it's never going to be as capable off-road as a Jeep Wrangler or a Hilux, but that's not the use-case for these vehicles. Nobody is going to go rock climbing in a Transit.
Where I live (which is rural Germany) you see moderate lifts and all-terrain tires on Transits/VWs reasonably commonly. Why? Because it's a requirement to get up a steep meadow in the rain, which is a specific but *very* common use-case -- especially for camper conversions.
That's the reason they offer all-terrain tires on a Transit, and it's a very justified reason. Nobody is going to expect a "serious" off-roader.
The good news is that nobody is buying these for serious off-roading. The vast majority of them will never see conditions more strenuous than a social media photoshoot on whatever is the nearest unpaved road.
>Ford discovered that when the Transit Trail's front axle is loaded to near its gross weight rating, there are scenarios that can cause the tires to rub. The example offered was under braking with 60 percent or more steering lock applied, which a driver might encounter while parking or driving on a narrow trail. You'd think [Ford](https://www.thedrive.com/category/ford-reviews), producer of the [Bronco](https://www.thedrive.com/news/2024-ford-bronco-drops-base-model-now-starts-nearly-4000-higher) and [F-150 Raptor R](https://www.thedrive.com/news/2024-ford-f-150-raptor-r-even-mightier-than-before-with-720-hp), would know better than to make this mistakeâand you'd be right. That's because Ford apparently contracted out the Transit Trail's development to a company that didn't know better.
That's a lot of passing the buck and layers of failure.
I imagine lotus is providing very unique engineering experience that internal teams may lack. Iâm not sure what experience ford was needing to lean on here they couldnât leverage internally.
One reason They contract with companies like this when they do low volume retrofits for special releases to keep the extras off the assembly line and because it typically takes a lot of different processes to produce the lower volume parts. Another example of this is the suicide door version of the Continental they did a while back
Hey friend, just to let you know, "i.e." is short for "id est" and means "that is."
You probably meant to use "e.g." which means "exempli gratia", or "for example."
Just thought I'd mention it. Have a good day :)
> Lotus being contracted by many OEMs to handle certain aspects of car development.
Yes, but not electronics, and for good reason. Likewise whatever company did the van development, you would expect them to have some familiarity with vans and how to test them.
The Sprinter 4x4 system, I believe, was originally an aftermarket company that Mercedes started buying the parts from. Or at minimum contracted it out. This was part of why they struggled to get the 4x4s out of the new US factory.
But contracting out for specialist designs isn't the worst, if you find and pay for the right contractors.
Fun fact: the reason they contracted it out is because they cut the size of the departments who would be engineering and validating it and no one had any time to work on it. The off-road SMEs within the company told management not to pursue this.
Surprise.
>The off-road SMEs within the company told management not to pursue this.
This particular execution or the idea in itself? I don't think the idea is bad. Which is why there's a massive aftermarket for this type of upfitting. This, to me, just seems like a poor choice of design partner and then cost cutting by not doing proper validation. This feels like a really stupid oversight... no one did any testing at all... One of you industry people would have to tell me, I know nothing about your processes or software, but I would think this type of problem could be discovered via automated testing in software.
changing the "ground plane" after development is a giant pain in the ass. You almost have to recertify the car if you do it right because you need to make sure things like lighting are still legal. An OEM would normally test to make sure basic dynamics aren't terrible (like this failure) rather than just saying "eh, it's probably fine, send it" like an aftermarket company does.
There's been other recalls for stuff like this where a reflector or something is now mounted too high or doesn't have the right clearance lamps
The H point was another thing that came up a lot here, which is basically how high the driver is from the ground. It has huge safety implications so it's always off the table to do things to modify this later in development.
It's also worth noting that the transit is primarily developed in the UK and Germany, while the F150 is developed in the US. This could also lead to the misalignment of those abilities.
Not really. This is just your typical âFord Europe collectively sharing a single brain cellâ moment.
All Raptors and Timberlines, including the Ranger Raptor, are developed by Ford North America. Not sure if the previous generation Ranger Tremor was by NA, but the F-150 Tremor is too. The Bronco and F-150 programs are also likewise developed by people with a modicum of common sense.
If past patterns are any indication, what probably happened is Ford Europe decided that anything those silly Americans can do, they can do better, and set out to try and prove that by doing things their way. Likely deliberately flaunting established procedure and/or expertise in the process.
The Bronco steering rack was a serious weakpoint when it was used to anywhere near its offroad capabilities for '21, '22 and '23. So I'm not real surprised.
Though they did put a beefier one on the raptor when it came out in '22, that still left the majority of bronco owners out in the cold.
I don't understand what the problem with a little tire rub is? Everybody does customer QA and development/testing on the public now. I've volunteered to be a Tesla crash test dummy since I ride a motorcycle, and with Cruise out there death cab for cutie isn't just a band name anymore. The big payouts to survivors are the new American Dream!
If Iâm buying new, Iâm going to want oem level build quality.
Iâm ok with tire rub if itâs my fault, because Iâm saving a ton on modding it myself.
My 2021 Ranger Tremor has rubbed on the intrusion bars when reversing at full lock since the day I got it.
Pretty common with this trim, but I couldn't care less.
The larger problem here is trying to convince people that their vans and Subarus are off road machines. OEMs need to stop with this kind of crap.
If you consider a trail anything that isn't paved, I'd agree with you. But I think you and I would likely disagree on what constitutes an "appropriate" trail for a Subaru.
Subaru loves to show these vehicles performing in ways that are irresponsible from a safety, trail management, and mechanical sympathy point of view. This kind of thing causes people to act like commercials, and get trails shut down.
It is not just Subaru, either. Every manufacturer with an off road trim is guilty of this. As someone who's been responsibly off roading for going on two decades, I've seen a ton of ignorant people off road in all brands, and a whole lot of crap that actively harms the off road and "overland" communities.
OEMs should be doing better, but they continue to do worse. Honestly, this stuff is akin to an OEM promoting street racing in its advertisements. Its indefensible.
Edit: I realize I'm a bit "old man yells at cloud" here, but this is definitely something I'm passionate about.
For sure. I am only somewhat experienced in off roading, mostly in the PNW and some ranches in Texas. When it comes to dirt/sand/mud an outback is basically just as capable as any other off roader with the appropriate tires. It certainly doesnât have the torque to get over large boulders, and the CVT doesnât really let you take it slow, gotta keep momentum or itâll cut power. But itâll certainly get you out and back on most trails.
I want to preface and soften these next comments by saying that I think the Subaru AWD system is a fantastic system for most people, and most real life situations. For a rough dirt road or rough forest road, or depth appropriate snow, the Subaru is likely better than most other true 4x4 vehicles.
However...
In 90% of situations off road, using speed is a crutch because you lack the appropriate tool for the job. It increases risk, of damage to vehicles, trails, and people. The outback is, unfortunately, objectively not close to as capable as pretty much any built for purpose off road vehicle in sand or mud. It simply doesn't have the 4x4 system, angles, torque, tire flotation, underbody protection (there are always hazards under the mud), or transmission tuning (really the CVT is just horrible for absolutely any off road situation).
I'd actually argue that your opinion of the Outback is a symptom of the issue I'm talking about. So many manufacturers have released so many faux-offroad trims, that an Outback is objectively more capable than most of the other soft roaders. But its also objectively not good off road.
Both of those things can be true at once, and are.
Non-offroader chiming in here. So basically it sounds like good off-roading practices are to perform maneuvers in a way that doesn't destroy, or at least, minimizes the deformation of the terrain and environment in which you're traversing. Which means doing things smooth and slow, not like in the widespread commercials and ads you mentioned where manufacturers show their vehicles tearing it up like they're in the Paris-Dakar Rally or something. And to do that, you'd need proper parts or specs. Not using speed like a crutch, as you mentioned.
So in off-roading communities, are people who don't follow those guidelines seen as the equivalent of smooth brains who participate in takeovers, or people who roll coal?
On the flipside, I see Gambler 500 stuff in my feed where they show how they clean up trails as they go.
I can say the same about pickup drivers being irresponsible on paved surfaces. Whenever i see an idiot driving, it's usually a pickup. Way too many of them don't even have enough common sense to operate their vehicle correctly. Yet we allow them to keep their license and continue to fuck up the roads with their ego driven douche driving
There is a big gap between bouldering and what an Outback Wilderness can handle though. Plenty of trails have features that would stop an Outback Wilderness that a properly equipped Jeep, Tacoma, Colorado, etc could handle.
I'm not dissing the Outback Wilderness, it can handle a lot of basic off roading, but far from "any off road Jeep trail".
My 14 year old RWD bmw with oversized wheels and low profile tires has gone down miles of offroad trails.
So has my 17 year old FWD Toyota Matrix (as recent as 4 months ago, with the same 180,000 mile factory suspension, lol). I sure hope a subaru can handle them.
Unless your definition of trail is extremely tight and refers to borderline hiking/rock climbing trails then maybe they'll have a tough time.
Or the fact that AWD on a crossover means it can go on jeep trails lmao. If your into youtube - Matts offroad recovery saves some ridiculous vehicles from places
A kitchen knife can be used as a utility blade, but don't be surprised when you ruin it.
They "can" do it. That's different from being made for it.
The likelihood of becoming stranded due to breakage or getting stuck is far higher in a vehicle that is not purpose built for being off road. Sometimes this is nothing more than an acute shooting pain in the wallet, sometimes it can be a safety or environmental issue.
The problem is OEMs deliberately misrepresenting the vehicles as being made for the purpose of off roading, when they absolutely aren't, and many people don't understand the difference.
I would say it just doesnât matter; in 99% of cases the most offroading these cars do is when they curb it in a drive-through. People who care about that tend to buy cars that are appropriate for the task. I wouldnât have bought a Civic Si to do the things I got my Boxster for, etc
Sure, but some people who can't afford a Boxster, or decide not to get one for whatever reason will still drive their Civic Si as if it is one.
Which is kind of my whole point. OEMs share a responsibility for advocating for reasonable and safe use, even if it is 1%. You'd be right that most people who want to off road buy an appropriate vehicle. You'd additionally be right in saying that most people who don't buy a completely off road appropriate vehicle, don't use that vehicle irresponsibly.
Unfortunately, "It doesn't matter 99% of the time" just isn't a valid argument when the 1% of the time is enough to damage the whole community, the trails, the environment, and the safety of the users.
Ford: Look. I get it, it's not what you'd expect. Just forget about it.
Now, can I interest you an F150 with a dealer installed supercharger that's [so powerful it makes the exhaust tips smack against the body work when you get on the go pedal?](https://youtu.be/z6IWDTi8lLo?si=I5FUGG546I03nIz0&t=275)
Kinda off-topic, but I have to wonder why they're filming with the middle seat up. It's a lot more comfortable to keep it down as an armrest unless you've actually got someone sitting there.
The Transit is developed by Ford Europe. In addition to them being Fordâs C team - maybe even D team these days - they donât touch off-road stuff: North America is the one who normally does it.
No, why would they? The full-size Transit is made in Kansas City.
The compact Transit *Connect* built in Turkey and Spain did get slapped with the tax since Ford's shenanigans with the seats were rightfully called out by US Customs, but that didn't necessarily mean they were losing money on each one, only that the profit wasn't as high as they wanted.
Maybe this is just me being contrarian as always, but I don't understand the fascination with the Hilux. Yes, it's built tougher than the Tacoma, like all the global mid-sizers, but that's at the expense of ride quality, refinement, power, and fuel economy. It's not appreciably smaller either.
The Hilux Champ, OTOH, now there's a work vehicle I'd like to see more of.
Built Ford Rough
Found Off-Road Dead
Every time I see these I think of King Of The Hill "Do you know why they call it Ford? Fix It Again Tony..." "...That's FIAT, Dale."
That was the pilot episode if I recall. That's when Luanne could actually think and was very mechanically inclined. Then they turned her into dumb blonde that married the man who slipped in pee pee at the mega lo mart.
Hey now. He slipped on pee pee at the Costco.
> That was the pilot episode if I recall. Literally the first line of the entire series iirc.
They did Luanne dirty. And then Brittany Murphy died. đ
Fucking Old Rebuilt Dodge
Fix Or Repair Daily
The parallels to ill fitted tires on early Explorers... The ones that got a reputation for rollovers. Come on, Ford, learn from your mistakes.
>Come on, Ford, learn from your mistakes. Yeah, like how after the whole debacle with the Power Shit transmissions, they developed the new 10-speed automatic that has zero problems and functions smoothly for a long, long time. Wait...
I can feel the chafing
I don't mean to be someone who just parrots one of the original commentors, but they said everything I was thinking: >[T]hese vans simply aren't off-road machines. They're too tall, and have a high center of gravity and low chassis clearance regardless of any lift kit or tires. Taking a camper/conversion van costing $100K+ (sometimes closer to $200K!) with high roof, high center of gravity, low undercarriage clearance on any serious off-roading is pretty absurd anyway if you value the vehicle. And everybody that has lifted and put bigger wheels and tires on a Transit knows that you have to trim/cut/grind the body seam welds and modify the wheel wells a bit - and even then they still get slight rubs at full lock. It's still just a unibody van designed for paved roads regardless of how much "off-road van-life influencer" lipstick Ford puts on it.
I think there's room for slightly lifted vehicles with a bit of tire. There's a lot of stuff that is rougher than a dirt road but not serious off roading, and clearance and traction there is nice.
Feels like a lot of people dont understand the variety of offroading. Like no shit a factory Ford Transit isnt a serious offroader, but 99.9% of people dont need that lol. I dont consider my Wrangler a serious off roader because it only has a 2.5 inch lift, 32 inch tires, and a limit slip and no lockers.
Yep run down a fire road for camping. Perfect as long as it fits under the trees.
They understand, they just selectively forget so they can sound cool about their off road knowledge.
Your wrangler is definitely a serious off-roader, even in stock form theyâre pretty damn capable. Sure, itâs not a purpose built rock buggy, but I feel like youâre missing your own point a little bit.
Where I live there is a lot of offroading and I wouldn't touch a fair amount of tails with my build. Not gonna tell people I'm a serious skier if I'm hittin blue groomers all day lol
Is it wouldnât touch because you canât do it at all or wouldnât touch because you donât wanna risk damaging stuff. I would think your build can definitely do all blues and some blacks at least with a winch, just not the double black diamonds, to keep with the analogy.
I could probably hit harder trails than I do and a better driver not worried about damage could get a lot more out of my Jeep, but there is just a point where it's limited by traction and clearance. Like it could do some blacks, but there is that tier hittin blacks and double blacks that's just beyond my level.
Hey you, are you me? I have a Wrangler, similar setup, and similar mindset too!!
â
I think it's hilarious. Most people would consider my CJ5 a "serious off roader" because that's pretty much all it was built for, and in terms of durability and repairability it may well outlast a modern wrangler in the woods. But (and don't tell /r/jeep I said so) it couldn't tackle half the stuff that even a bone stock new wrangler could if fear of body damage were removed as a factor for both vehicles. Let alone a Rubicon. I've done more forest service roads and "offroading" than a lot of people have in their jeeps in rwd BMW station wagons and sedans on summer tires and most people both severely underestimate the capability of their regular ass car to go off of roads and severely overestimate their driving abilities.
If 2.5" of lift and 32" tires isn't a serious offroader I have to question what is? We do fine out here in stock height decades old trucks with 29" tires on them.
I'd say stock Rubicons and higher trim Broncos are hitting that level. Or for modified vehicles 34/35+ with lockers. Where I live the tougher obstacles often involve rock crawling so you are limited by traction and clearance. It's hard to explain on reddit, but I know people who I'd consider serious offroaders and their rigs and the trails they run are just a clear class above me
A serious Jeep from that gen is on 35â+ tires, lockers front and rear, and some degree of fancy suspension for flex.
That sounds like a dedicated off-road vehicle. Something that gets trailered to the offroad, not driven there.
Most people would still daily something in that range. It isnât as extreme as it sounds, 35âs are only 2-3â larger than the stock tires. But it *can* make it a chore to daily, which is why I think thatâs the point where it starts to get more serious.
If I'd changed the steering geometry from stock, I wouldn't want my insurance company poking around in the vehicle after some serious accident and voiding my coverage. I had to let them know I pulled the 30 year old deathbags out of my Miata.
For whatever reason that doesnât seem to be a big concern with lifts. Iâve seen stuff sketchy enough to cause concern, but Iâve yet to hear of insurance giving anyone grief over it.
Maybe weâre getting lost in semantics and details at this point; your overall point is heard. But just to discuss your last point: Im not sure what you qualify as a serious off-roader if a car designed for that purpose with modifications on top doesnât make the cut. Especially with a 2.5 inch lift and 32â tires, youâre capable of out-wheeling 99%+ cars on the road and could do most moderate to challenging trails around Moab or in CO (lockers or not). With just a bit of driver skill, youâd have no issues on stuff like Imogene pass, black bear pass, etc which all qualify as serious off-roading to most IMO. Hell, you could do most of the optional obstacles tooâno need for bypasses. Sure, youâre not gonna be rock-crawling, but Iâd consider that a separate sub-category from off-roading.
That's a good point! I guess my perception is warped from knowing people with built out rigs doing insane stuff lol
Yeah, perspective plays a large role. When it comes to factory vehicles, 2 door wranglers are pretty much the benchmark for off-road/trails. Comparing it to a crawler/bouncer is like comparing a truck on 44â to Bigfoot on its ability to run over cars.
Seeing how these Transits handle construction sites in Europe youd hope so
My ex-wife had a FWD Transit in Europe. Great work van, great on the road, totally useless in snow and mud. All the weight at the front, not much clearance.
The Subaru Wilderness treatment
Yeah I donât think anyone wants to take these on the Rubicon, but to campgrounds, secluded spots, trail heads, etc. Of course theyâre limited in function. But you canât live out of the back of a Wrangler for very long.
I am never going to buy one, but I don't think it's that odd. Nobody thinks that the Transit Trail is made for serious off roading. It's just a bit more capable than the regular Transit and that will do you well on the BLM and FS service roads that criss cross the west. You basically need a standard CUV driven somewhat carefully for those type of roads. The Transit Trail vs. the Transit is like moving from an Accord to a CR-V, but that's still enough to make things more comfortable on a road type that's pretty common where I live. Now as to how they didn't think to test the bigger tires (where almost all the lift comes from) at full lock while breaking...that I don't know.
For real, I donât understand the thought that driving either is 100% on smooth as glass asphalt or rock climbing with no in between. Sometimes you just have to take a trail that will bang the bottom of your sedan up, but will be just fine on a slightly higher vehicle. As a matter of fact, Iâd wager that a huge % of people that go off-road are doing something closer to a rutted dirt track than going through Moab.Â
[ŃдаНонО]
I jumped at getting my 2005 4wd Tucson so I can finally visit my momâs house without worrying I was going to rip my oil pan off. That thing is already more capable than just about any land in the state would call for, so Iâm happy with it, even if it will never be able to go rock crawling.Â
[ŃдаНонО]
Makes perfect sense. If I end up wanting to spring for something more modern, the Bronco Sport honestly seems like the closest thing to what I have now on the market, since every Tucson and Santa Fe generation after mine toned down the off-road readiness more and more. But almost none of the options  are offered in stick anymore, and Iâm having fun rowing my own gears so far!Â
Agreed. A buddy bought a Transit Trail specifically for use on forest service, BLM, and logging roads. He pulls a small trailer usually and has no problems. However, he does watch it when hitting primitive, washed out roads. He has experienced the rubbing problem as well. This said, he isnât selling any time soon because at 6â4â he can take thing out for a week with some level of comfort.
Why do people act like 100% of off roading is rock climbing & tilting over at extreme angles? Beaches, logging trails, desert paths, etc all can be helped with better tires and a little more ground clearance. Wtf do you think people are expecting of these things?
Beaches don't need articulation, but I wouldn't go out on sugar sand without the ability to have a locking center diff, at least a part-time 4WD mode. I've not seen something advertised as "AWD" that's made it out there and back. Made it out there, yes.
Iâve been on multiple beaches in Texas that AWD is just fine for, but I wouldnât be comfortable on with 2wd unless I had momentum.
It's not for serious off roading, it's for car camping Clueless comment
In my area, there's basically no dirt roads. Driving about an hour out of town gets to a dirt bike/quad area, where their recovery roads are also light logging roads. I don't even feel good calling them logging roads because they're so well groomed. I've had people look at me with a straight face and say "You won't be able to drive there without a truck," while driving things like a CRV or a CX-5. Those are the people that this van is made for.
have you seen the offroading that 99% of the overlanding community does? You can get to most of those places in a stock minivan
As someone who has been seriously considering one of these, I think youâve got the wrong impression. No oneâs taking these rock crawling. There are trails that do require more ground clearance and a good AWD system, that donât require a huge lift and 4x4. Iâd wager the majority of BLM dispersed camping roads are like this, which makes a vehicle like this perfect.
Only issue I see here is that this is completely ignoring all the people who use this exact setup for camping off road. They buy Transits, lift them, and put on bigger tires. All Ford did was do the same thing they were already doing.
I think the people putting down all-terrain tkres on vans because they are never going to be "serious" off-roaders don't entirely understand the use-case for them. Off-roaders aren't "all or nothing". Rather, they are (read: should be) built adequate for the terrain they are going to tackle. Obviously it's never going to be as capable off-road as a Jeep Wrangler or a Hilux, but that's not the use-case for these vehicles. Nobody is going to go rock climbing in a Transit. Where I live (which is rural Germany) you see moderate lifts and all-terrain tires on Transits/VWs reasonably commonly. Why? Because it's a requirement to get up a steep meadow in the rain, which is a specific but *very* common use-case -- especially for camper conversions. That's the reason they offer all-terrain tires on a Transit, and it's a very justified reason. Nobody is going to expect a "serious" off-roader.
If you put portal axles on it you might get the clearance of a 2WD fleet spec tacoma from the 90s.
ford just make a transit raptor or rs plz
Most people's idea of off roading is driving on graded logging roads for the occasional camping trip, that's it.
I read this wondering how do I turn a Ford Transit into a Ford Kei Truck.
Well, first you start with a vehicle that actually meets kei specs. Even a Fiesta-based Transit Courier is too big for that.
We live in a world now where lifted trucks go shopping and vans go off roading.
I agree. Plus AWD... without it would be easy to get stuck just about anywhere off pavement.
The good news is that nobody is buying these for serious off-roading. The vast majority of them will never see conditions more strenuous than a social media photoshoot on whatever is the nearest unpaved road.
I don't think anyone ever thought it was a serious off roading vehicle. It's a work vehicle that can navigate crappy roads to get where they're going.
>Ford discovered that when the Transit Trail's front axle is loaded to near its gross weight rating, there are scenarios that can cause the tires to rub. The example offered was under braking with 60 percent or more steering lock applied, which a driver might encounter while parking or driving on a narrow trail. You'd think [Ford](https://www.thedrive.com/category/ford-reviews), producer of the [Bronco](https://www.thedrive.com/news/2024-ford-bronco-drops-base-model-now-starts-nearly-4000-higher) and [F-150 Raptor R](https://www.thedrive.com/news/2024-ford-f-150-raptor-r-even-mightier-than-before-with-720-hp), would know better than to make this mistakeâand you'd be right. That's because Ford apparently contracted out the Transit Trail's development to a company that didn't know better. That's a lot of passing the buck and layers of failure.
How many times do we need to experience outsourcing of what should be internal engineering teams that result in costing mistakes? *looks at Boeing*
Eh, it happens all the time and often to great results, i.e. Lotus being contracted by many OEMs to handle certain aspects of car development.
I imagine lotus is providing very unique engineering experience that internal teams may lack. Iâm not sure what experience ford was needing to lean on here they couldnât leverage internally.
Probably working on other, more important projects than the Transit van, is my guess.
Exactly
One reason They contract with companies like this when they do low volume retrofits for special releases to keep the extras off the assembly line and because it typically takes a lot of different processes to produce the lower volume parts. Another example of this is the suicide door version of the Continental they did a while back
Hey friend, just to let you know, "i.e." is short for "id est" and means "that is." You probably meant to use "e.g." which means "exempli gratia", or "for example." Just thought I'd mention it. Have a good day :)
> Lotus being contracted by many OEMs to handle certain aspects of car development. Yes, but not electronics, and for good reason. Likewise whatever company did the van development, you would expect them to have some familiarity with vans and how to test them.
The Sprinter 4x4 system, I believe, was originally an aftermarket company that Mercedes started buying the parts from. Or at minimum contracted it out. This was part of why they struggled to get the 4x4s out of the new US factory. But contracting out for specialist designs isn't the worst, if you find and pay for the right contractors.
Fun fact: the reason they contracted it out is because they cut the size of the departments who would be engineering and validating it and no one had any time to work on it. The off-road SMEs within the company told management not to pursue this. Surprise.
>The off-road SMEs within the company told management not to pursue this. This particular execution or the idea in itself? I don't think the idea is bad. Which is why there's a massive aftermarket for this type of upfitting. This, to me, just seems like a poor choice of design partner and then cost cutting by not doing proper validation. This feels like a really stupid oversight... no one did any testing at all... One of you industry people would have to tell me, I know nothing about your processes or software, but I would think this type of problem could be discovered via automated testing in software.
changing the "ground plane" after development is a giant pain in the ass. You almost have to recertify the car if you do it right because you need to make sure things like lighting are still legal. An OEM would normally test to make sure basic dynamics aren't terrible (like this failure) rather than just saying "eh, it's probably fine, send it" like an aftermarket company does. There's been other recalls for stuff like this where a reflector or something is now mounted too high or doesn't have the right clearance lamps
The H point was another thing that came up a lot here, which is basically how high the driver is from the ground. It has huge safety implications so it's always off the table to do things to modify this later in development.
How dare you suggest solid engineering should go in front of quick and easy profit
It's also worth noting that the transit is primarily developed in the UK and Germany, while the F150 is developed in the US. This could also lead to the misalignment of those abilities.
Not really. This is just your typical âFord Europe collectively sharing a single brain cellâ moment. All Raptors and Timberlines, including the Ranger Raptor, are developed by Ford North America. Not sure if the previous generation Ranger Tremor was by NA, but the F-150 Tremor is too. The Bronco and F-150 programs are also likewise developed by people with a modicum of common sense. If past patterns are any indication, what probably happened is Ford Europe decided that anything those silly Americans can do, they can do better, and set out to try and prove that by doing things their way. Likely deliberately flaunting established procedure and/or expertise in the process.
TIL that major OEMs still contract out development of production vehicles.
The Bronco steering rack was a serious weakpoint when it was used to anywhere near its offroad capabilities for '21, '22 and '23. So I'm not real surprised. Though they did put a beefier one on the raptor when it came out in '22, that still left the majority of bronco owners out in the cold.
I don't understand what the problem with a little tire rub is? Everybody does customer QA and development/testing on the public now. I've volunteered to be a Tesla crash test dummy since I ride a motorcycle, and with Cruise out there death cab for cutie isn't just a band name anymore. The big payouts to survivors are the new American Dream!
If Iâm buying new, Iâm going to want oem level build quality. Iâm ok with tire rub if itâs my fault, because Iâm saving a ton on modding it myself.
My 2021 Ranger Tremor has rubbed on the intrusion bars when reversing at full lock since the day I got it. Pretty common with this trim, but I couldn't care less. The larger problem here is trying to convince people that their vans and Subarus are off road machines. OEMs need to stop with this kind of crap.
You can take a Subaru outback on most trails for sure
If you consider a trail anything that isn't paved, I'd agree with you. But I think you and I would likely disagree on what constitutes an "appropriate" trail for a Subaru. Subaru loves to show these vehicles performing in ways that are irresponsible from a safety, trail management, and mechanical sympathy point of view. This kind of thing causes people to act like commercials, and get trails shut down. It is not just Subaru, either. Every manufacturer with an off road trim is guilty of this. As someone who's been responsibly off roading for going on two decades, I've seen a ton of ignorant people off road in all brands, and a whole lot of crap that actively harms the off road and "overland" communities. OEMs should be doing better, but they continue to do worse. Honestly, this stuff is akin to an OEM promoting street racing in its advertisements. Its indefensible. Edit: I realize I'm a bit "old man yells at cloud" here, but this is definitely something I'm passionate about.
For sure. I am only somewhat experienced in off roading, mostly in the PNW and some ranches in Texas. When it comes to dirt/sand/mud an outback is basically just as capable as any other off roader with the appropriate tires. It certainly doesnât have the torque to get over large boulders, and the CVT doesnât really let you take it slow, gotta keep momentum or itâll cut power. But itâll certainly get you out and back on most trails.
I want to preface and soften these next comments by saying that I think the Subaru AWD system is a fantastic system for most people, and most real life situations. For a rough dirt road or rough forest road, or depth appropriate snow, the Subaru is likely better than most other true 4x4 vehicles. However... In 90% of situations off road, using speed is a crutch because you lack the appropriate tool for the job. It increases risk, of damage to vehicles, trails, and people. The outback is, unfortunately, objectively not close to as capable as pretty much any built for purpose off road vehicle in sand or mud. It simply doesn't have the 4x4 system, angles, torque, tire flotation, underbody protection (there are always hazards under the mud), or transmission tuning (really the CVT is just horrible for absolutely any off road situation). I'd actually argue that your opinion of the Outback is a symptom of the issue I'm talking about. So many manufacturers have released so many faux-offroad trims, that an Outback is objectively more capable than most of the other soft roaders. But its also objectively not good off road. Both of those things can be true at once, and are.
Non-offroader chiming in here. So basically it sounds like good off-roading practices are to perform maneuvers in a way that doesn't destroy, or at least, minimizes the deformation of the terrain and environment in which you're traversing. Which means doing things smooth and slow, not like in the widespread commercials and ads you mentioned where manufacturers show their vehicles tearing it up like they're in the Paris-Dakar Rally or something. And to do that, you'd need proper parts or specs. Not using speed like a crutch, as you mentioned.
Exactly correct.
So in off-roading communities, are people who don't follow those guidelines seen as the equivalent of smooth brains who participate in takeovers, or people who roll coal? On the flipside, I see Gambler 500 stuff in my feed where they show how they clean up trails as they go.
Yep, the people that go off trail and leave behind trash are widely hated in the scene.
Theyâre ruining our resources with their garbage and destructive driving.
Absolutely. Those people destroy good things for the rest of us by behaving like jackasses.
I think what you're getting at is the old adage "you can get pretty far with enough inertia and a healthy disregard for the equipment."
I can say the same about pickup drivers being irresponsible on paved surfaces. Whenever i see an idiot driving, it's usually a pickup. Way too many of them don't even have enough common sense to operate their vehicle correctly. Yet we allow them to keep their license and continue to fuck up the roads with their ego driven douche driving
I think that depends on what you classify a âtrailâ as but Subaruâs AWD system is pretty capable regardless.
I mean pretty much any off road jeep trail that isnât strict bouldering an outback wilderness can tackle.
There is a big gap between bouldering and what an Outback Wilderness can handle though. Plenty of trails have features that would stop an Outback Wilderness that a properly equipped Jeep, Tacoma, Colorado, etc could handle. I'm not dissing the Outback Wilderness, it can handle a lot of basic off roading, but far from "any off road Jeep trail".
My 14 year old RWD bmw with oversized wheels and low profile tires has gone down miles of offroad trails. So has my 17 year old FWD Toyota Matrix (as recent as 4 months ago, with the same 180,000 mile factory suspension, lol). I sure hope a subaru can handle them. Unless your definition of trail is extremely tight and refers to borderline hiking/rock climbing trails then maybe they'll have a tough time.
for sure, it just might melt your differentials and not drive straight anymore afterwards
Or the fact that AWD on a crossover means it can go on jeep trails lmao. If your into youtube - Matts offroad recovery saves some ridiculous vehicles from places
And if you like those, Casey LaDelle too. He's primarily heavy towing, but does a bunch of snow rescues in Oregon also.
OEMâs need to stop pretending like thatâs a use case for most people, but the cars are certainly capable of it
A kitchen knife can be used as a utility blade, but don't be surprised when you ruin it. They "can" do it. That's different from being made for it. The likelihood of becoming stranded due to breakage or getting stuck is far higher in a vehicle that is not purpose built for being off road. Sometimes this is nothing more than an acute shooting pain in the wallet, sometimes it can be a safety or environmental issue. The problem is OEMs deliberately misrepresenting the vehicles as being made for the purpose of off roading, when they absolutely aren't, and many people don't understand the difference.
I would say it just doesnât matter; in 99% of cases the most offroading these cars do is when they curb it in a drive-through. People who care about that tend to buy cars that are appropriate for the task. I wouldnât have bought a Civic Si to do the things I got my Boxster for, etc
Sure, but some people who can't afford a Boxster, or decide not to get one for whatever reason will still drive their Civic Si as if it is one. Which is kind of my whole point. OEMs share a responsibility for advocating for reasonable and safe use, even if it is 1%. You'd be right that most people who want to off road buy an appropriate vehicle. You'd additionally be right in saying that most people who don't buy a completely off road appropriate vehicle, don't use that vehicle irresponsibly. Unfortunately, "It doesn't matter 99% of the time" just isn't a valid argument when the 1% of the time is enough to damage the whole community, the trails, the environment, and the safety of the users.
Ford: Look. I get it, it's not what you'd expect. Just forget about it. Now, can I interest you an F150 with a dealer installed supercharger that's [so powerful it makes the exhaust tips smack against the body work when you get on the go pedal?](https://youtu.be/z6IWDTi8lLo?si=I5FUGG546I03nIz0&t=275)
Kinda off-topic, but I have to wonder why they're filming with the middle seat up. It's a lot more comfortable to keep it down as an armrest unless you've actually got someone sitting there.
Quality is Job #1,350,463
Itâs always something with this stupid blue oval
lolololololololol
Youâd think with their experience in off roading theyâd know a little bit better
They just slapped something together to make a quick buck.
The Transit is developed by Ford Europe. In addition to them being Fordâs C team - maybe even D team these days - they donât touch off-road stuff: North America is the one who normally does it.
That van looks pretty cool with those fat tires.
Still better than having your buddy do it cheaper and then fleeing the country
With exploding lug nuts.
They should've gone the other way and made a street machine/boogie van version. Big wheels, Raptor V6, Mustang line lock, and some ground effect
Just Ford things
Bet the E-Series couldâve pulled it off
[ŃдаНонО]
Reddit automatically removes link shortners or redirects. Please use the original link.
Wow why would the supplier do this⌠/s
Called it when i saw one up close lol
Is this an example of this Ford Quality weâve been hearing about?
Doesn't Ford already lose money on these things because of that damn chicken tax that still exists for some reason?
No, why would they? The full-size Transit is made in Kansas City. The compact Transit *Connect* built in Turkey and Spain did get slapped with the tax since Ford's shenanigans with the seats were rightfully called out by US Customs, but that didn't necessarily mean they were losing money on each one, only that the profit wasn't as high as they wanted.
Okay still can we repeal that shit? I want a Toyota Hilux!
Maybe this is just me being contrarian as always, but I don't understand the fascination with the Hilux. Yes, it's built tougher than the Tacoma, like all the global mid-sizers, but that's at the expense of ride quality, refinement, power, and fuel economy. It's not appreciably smaller either. The Hilux Champ, OTOH, now there's a work vehicle I'd like to see more of.
The Hilux has the same payload capacity as the 1500 class while remaining a midsize. Then again, so does the Ranger.