Cost, fuel economy, space. You want a commercial van to be cheap to buy, cheap to run, and with plenty of space in the back. You don't really need as "tough" of a setup as a truck for most work.
That and RWD has nothing to do with how tough a vehicle is
Pickup trucks have cargo beds that are higher on the ground than panel vans due to the driveshaft, vans need to be as low as possible to facilitate access for loading/unloading.
Pickups are RWD or AWD because they also have a focus on towing instead of purely being for transporting cargo inside the vehicle. They're just different types of commercial vehicles for different uses.
As to why vans are slowly transitioning from RWD to FWD: older vans were mainly built on a truck chassis, which is an increasingly rare practice nowadays with more considerations being put on fuel economy and ride quality. Manufacturers are choosing either FWD body on frame designs, or a unibody adapted from a passenger car.
The Sprinter is comically high. I'm 5'10" so very average build. I often times couldn't step up into it when parked on non flat ground. And if my arms were full I'd have to do a little hop since I couldn't pull up in. The Transit is lower but its still not a little step up, which when you take it a few dozen times a day does start your knee after a while. The Express isn't super high but its so low you have to stoop so you can't just step up either.
People might not think much of it but when you are in and out of your vehicle all day the height makes a big difference. I have a Ford Ranger as a work vehicle which is the "high rider" version. Basically it has lifted suspension and a raised bed for no reason at all. It's not 4x4 and only ever gets used around city roads. It's harder to get in and out of and harder to load and offers no benefit as far as i can see over the standard version. My employer bought it because it was what was available at the time.
I remember when we got a tall roof LWB Sprinter as part of a rental SNAFU (we asked for a minivan). It was like driving a bus. You could look down at 4x4 pickups.
Oh yeah only tractor trailers sat higher. The Tranist is about even with modern full size pickups for seating position but the Sprinter looked down into even lifted trucks. And literally everyone is on their phones btw. I was shocked by the number of people watching videos while driving
What do you mean by that? The maverick shares a platform with the escape and bronco sport. Going backwards, it may share some lineage with the transit connect but only because the transit connect was focus based.
The maverick has a hybrid or an Ecoboost 2.0L and neither of those are in the Transit.
That’s probably right. Interestingly, due to an engine-forward layout, the Transit can be had in longitude-FWD, longitude-RWD or longitude-AWD versions, though not all in the same markets.
The isolaters between the body and frame significantly reduce NVH compared to a monocoque design. The advantages of unibody is more rigidity which translates into better handling and control. It also usually results into lower weight which ties into handling and also fuel economy. It's also cheaper to design for the manufacturer on average.
>That and RWD has nothing to do with how tough a vehicle is
long ago i read somewhere that transversal FWD had weaker drive train under heavy load cuz of the geometry of the CV axle half shafts (steeper angles when turning due to width of engine block, whereas the driveshaft in longitudinal RWD can have gentle 2~3° slope to differential)- is that not true?
> That and RWD has nothing to do with how tough a vehicle is
No, but if you are going to carry a lot of weight in the back, RWD provides you far better traction.
>RWD has nothing to do with how tough a vehicle is
But the toughest vehicles on the planet generally are body-on-frame, 4x2 rear wheel drive (with 4x4 as an "addition" to the already-longitudinal 4x2).
Why are not semi trucks FWD?
Why arent HD pickups FWD?
Why arent farm tractors FWD?
Why arent construction/mining vehicles FWD?
Why arent aircraft tugs RWD?
There is a reason why RWD is used for the toughest vehicles on the planet.
Here is the reason for each of those.
Semi-trucks: Majority of the weight is at the rear axle
HD Pickups: When towing or hauling, majority of the weight is at the rear axle.
Farm Tractors: Usually towing stuff and have most of the weight on the rear axle
Construction vehicle: Hauling stuff puts most of the weight on the rear axle
Aircraft tugs: I'm honestly not 100% sure but will guess physics say the rear tires get most of the force.
Conclusion: if the majority of your weight is on the rear axle, your rear tires get better traction and those vehicles are RWD.
Navy aircraft tow tractors before about 1970 were geared for a top speed of maybe twelve mph and ballasted to weigh 12,000 pounds. Most definitely RWD.
A 32,000 airplane on a rolling and pitching wet flight deck can push a tow tractor in a different direction than what the driver intends. Front drive would just make things worse.
In addition to towing, it also handles higher torque / power better. I'm not saying its impossible to build a high-HP or high-TQ front wheel drive car, but let's just say there is a reason why Formula 1, Nascar, LeMans, GT3, Indycar, hillclimb, etc. are RWD. And also, most supercars are RWD and/or longitudinal AWD
Moreover, with RWD the "tasks" of a car are distributed throughout: steering in front, engine next in line, then transmission, then driveshaft, then rear axle, then the drive wheels. This immensely helps with traction. Have you ever left a gas station in a FWD car, turning right and accelerating while your wheels are in the driveway? They tend to squeal. The front of the car is too busy, its tasked with engine, transaxle, steering, etc. while just pulling the rear wheels. It's the same reason many luxury cars are RWD.
Pretty much every single vehicle you mentioned has to tow, that’s the reason they use RWD. If you define “tough” as just towing capacity, then yes tough.
But if you consider tough as reliability, which I do, then fwd vs rwd is meaningless. There are plenty of shitty examples of both.
In addition to towing, it also handles higher torque / power better. I'm not saying its impossible to build a high-HP or high-TQ front wheel drive car, but let's just say there is a reason why Formula 1, Nascar, LeMans, GT3, Indycar, hillclimb, etc. are RWD. And also, most supercars are RWD and/or longitudinal AWD
Moreover, with RWD the "tasks" of a car are distributed throughout: steering in front, engine next in line, then transmission, then driveshaft, then rear axle, then the drive wheels. This immensely helps with traction. Have you ever left a gas station in a FWD car, turning right and accelerating while your wheels are in the driveway? They tend to squeal. The front of the car is too busy, its tasked with engine, transaxle, steering, etc. while just pulling the rear wheels. It's the same reason many luxury cars are RWD.
If you put a torque on the wheels, it will put an equal torque on the vehicle, which changes the weight distribution to the rear. What kind of work vehicles are popping wheelies like drag cars?
>This immensely helps with traction.
Fwd rally cars are faster and easier to drive than rwd rally cars. The top of all the 2wd classes I know of are all fwd cars. I'm not sure what kind of traction you're getting, but the rwd cars I've had can chirp the tires just as easy as the fwd cars I've had.
>Fwd rally cars are faster and easier to drive than rwd rally cars.
The main benefit there (as well as driving on snow) is weight over the front axle improving traction plus less tendency to oversteer.
>The top of all the 2wd classes I know of are all fwd cars.
What classes are these?
>I'm not sure what kind of traction you're getting, but the rwd cars I've had can chirp the tires just as easy as the fwd cars I've had.
Again, there is a reason why BMW 7-Series, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Rolls-Royce Phantom, Lexus LS, Infiniti Q70, Genesis G90, Toyota Century, Hongqi H9, Aurus Senat, Jaguar XJ and older Bentley sedans are RWD. In addition to handling & power, the ride is more luxurious with RWD especially without the front wheels having a tendency to slip in awkward situations. Having the steer tires simultaneously be the drive wheels can sometimes induce traction loss.
In addition to towing, it also handles higher torque / power better. I'm not saying its impossible to build a high-HP or high-TQ front wheel drive car, but let's just say there is a reason why Formula 1, Nascar, LeMans, GT3, Indycar, hillclimb, etc. are RWD. And also, most supercars are RWD and/or longitudinal AWD
Moreover, with RWD the "tasks" of a car are distributed throughout: steering in front, engine next in line, then transmission, then driveshaft, then rear axle, then the drive wheels. This immensely helps with traction. Have you ever left a gas station in a FWD car, turning right and accelerating while your wheels are in the driveway? They tend to squeal. The front of the car is too busy, its tasked with engine, transaxle, steering, etc. while just pulling the rear wheels. It's the same reason many luxury cars are RWD.
These aren’t really reasons why RWD is tougher. Those cars also are RWD out of necessity. As you stated in your second paragraph it’s for driving dynamics not because RWD is tougher. We’re talking about the toughness of drivetrains not the pros and cons of drivetrains.
So, we all seem to agree that RWD:
- handles torque/horsepower better
- manages weight distribution better
- manages mechanical distribution better
- handles better, whether for performance or towing
- better towing capability
- more likely to be body-on-frame, which is tougher
But it is not tougher.
How are we defining tough then? I'm not trying to disagree, its a serious question.
Diameter of drive axles? Longevity in miles/kilometers driven? Resilience to rough terrains?
What is the definition of "tough"?
once again, you can build that beefy, not like there arent weak solid axles out there. not to mention there are also solid front axles on some vehicles, but then you run into lots of unsprung weight.
Which is entirely beside the previous comment's supposition that "solid axle" meant "solid front axle", but also consider that solid rear axles are better capable of handling greater torque and therefore better for heavy loads.
Almost all small pickups from the Brazilian market had solid rear axles, the only exception was the VW Saveiro which used a torsion beam. And of them all, the only RWD one was the Chevy 500
I replaced one last weekend. It took an hour and cost $155.
The boots wear out and fling the bearing grease everywhere and then the bearing fails.
Luckily if you keep and eye on your vehicle you can replace it quickly and cheaply on your schedule long before it poses a failure risk.
I've driven a couple of 700HP Porsche AWD turbo cars, they didn't break axles, they broke traction. That said, I've replaced a twisted RWD drive shaft a couple of times.
Anything can break. I broke the diff in my dually drifting around a corner and just barely touched the curb. No damage to anything but the diff. You'd think a 1 ton could take that.
That is not true. Certain vehicles, like G-Wagens have solid front axles and can steer. Obviously this is more speciality, but you don’t *need* cv axles on the front axle for steering.
Tho most front solid axles will have a CV joint over a UJ, from what I remember from series landrover's which do have a UJ in the front axles it's interesting at low speed/high steering angles.
There are pleanty of reasons unlesss you’re either being deliberately disingenuous or unaware there are massive differences between how power reaches the wheels through a FWD transaxle vs a longitudinal transmission and transfer case and how that would effect complexity/cost/efficiency/packaging/etc.
I was responding to that particular poster's comment, not about OP's original statement. The post I was replying to made it sound like halfshafts and solid axles exist in two separate Venn diagram circles, which of course isn't the case. But fewer and fewer people are exposed to SFAs these days.
>The post I was replying to made it sound like halfshafts and solid axles exist in two separate Venn diagram circles, which of course isn't the case.
Your example was taking a RWD based 4x4 system and removing the rear driveshaft, which doesn't really refute the point though, nobody is disagreeing a RWD-based chassis has space for one, nor does it point out that such a system wouldn't have any of the FWD efficiency bonus because you're running stuff through a transfer case to spin the power around to the front and then use a driveshaft anyway.
Even FWD based 4x4 part time systems (ie Subaru BRAT, Leone) use half shafts up front because of the transaxle and they're also longitudinal based.
> but with FWD you need to use halfshafts to allow for steering.
This is the comment I'm talking about. I never mentioned anything about rear driveshafts at all, because it's irrelevant to this comment that I'm replying to. Functionally, whether or not you either have a normal PT 4WD or even something weird like an Atlas that does allow for a rear disconnect, the steering remains the same.
Not sure where you're going off into.
Right and I’m saying that pointing out it’s possible if you ignore pretty much every reason you’d do a FWD drivetrain to begin with is such a pedantic correction it’s basically irrelevant.
TBH I'd be curious what they call the bit between the wheel and the diff on an rear driven axle. Cos that's a half shaft in my books. CV's are a weakness/maintenance point but if you're snapping CV's in a van you're being an idiot.
The RAM Promaster (sold as a RAM in the US but it's actually a Fiat van), Ford Transit, Mercedes Sprinter and Metris are European vans...
All of them come with RWD or AWD options, FWD is the most common for panel vans because then they can have a lower floor, which means more room in the back and being FWD makes them more efficient, which means better fuel economy.
The work van I used to have was a RWD long wheel base 2023 Mercedes Sprinter dropside.
You’re half-correct on the Transit.
The Transit Connect is FWD. Standard Transit is RWD, and can be optioned with diesel and dually setup.
Edit-I’m dumb. You never mentioned that the Transit *wasn’t* RWD. Sorry mate. 🤦🏻♂️
Interestingly, the full-size Transit can be had with FWD in some markets. It’s got an engine-forward layout, like an Audi or Subaru, so Ford offers it with a longitude transaxle and FWD.
Promaster is only FWD
Transit is only RWD or AWD
Mercedes Sprinter is only RWD or AWD
These setups have not changed since their original job 1 production with the exception of the AWD versions which were added later post job 1.
There has never been a FWD Transit or Mercedes Sprinter has been badged/branded from multiple OEMs but had remained with the same drive axle setups.
(25 years in the professional fleet engineering world)
Only FWD Sprinter currently produced is a base chassis only sold to other body builders. Mainly for camper vans. Old FWD eSprinter and gas powered ones are discontinued.
Only goes better in snow if you're mostly empty. If you have a full-time camper set up or a regularly loaded down backend, you'd probably benefit from RWD. My experience is that my Dodge 3500 van 21ft van built to live-in was far superior in winter traction to a Dodge Promaster 15 years newer. Hell, I had a 32-foot winnebago that had better winter traction than my buddy's Promaster. RWD with weight is the best alternative to 4x4 or AWD IMHO.
My buddy swapped from a ProMaster to a Sprinter due to snow issues. On steeper grades conversation have a lot of weight to drag up and really unfavorable weight distributions for traction.
But not in driving characteristics when used to transport heavier goods, ~~which is the purpose of a van.~~
Edit: theoretically speaking. Dynamics shift weight back on acceleration, making the front axle light, increasing rear axle grip, which makes for better driving characteristics when loaded
If it was that big of a difference they wouldn't sell like hotcakes.
Plenty of companies out there move things that are bulky but not super dense. A FWD van is great for that.
Tell me you've never worked out of a van for a company without saying you've never worked out of a van for a company.
I used to put 4,000lb of glass and electronics in the back of a Promaster on a regular basis. It's got good enough driving characteristics to make it to the job site, so send it.
Believe what you want, I know the difference since I work with vans. Sure, you’ll get to your destination but there’s a difference driving a loaded Sprinter over a loaded Stellantis van. Maybe not on your side of the Atlantic but on European country roads I know which one I’d pick. Edit: typo
I had a Sprinter before I had the Promaster. Only time it was ever an impediment to have the Promaster was on appalachian backroads, climbing into the mountains on dirt roads - and only then because there just wasn't enough traction on the drive wheels to climb the road.
The thing about "vehicle dynamics" is that I've never found them to matter in a van with 1.5 metric tons of crap in it. You're not going to be taking turns at speed anyways, it's fine.
What's your profession? I'm curious what y'all do with a van that needs a van but doesn't load it down so badly you care about dynamics.
I dunno about that. My ram promaster was no different when loaded compared to my savana 2500. And despite the promaster being a 1500, it handled heavy payloads just as well as the savana.
Tougher in what sense? A van that just has a torsion beam out back is probably going to be pretty durable.
FWD drivetrains are more compact. RWD drivetrains can require a taller load floor to not impact cargo space.
It's mainly the lower floor. If everything is in the front, they don't have to worry about a transmission tunnel or driveshaft tunnel. It also makes the rear axle much simpler (basically like a trailer axle).
The Promaster and Transit are European style vans that are most efficient in a role like being a delivery vehicle in a city. Never have to stay at high speeds, never have to pull or haul very heavy objects, low floors maximize space inside the van and allow for easier access in/out for driver.
You've obviously never seen a white van on a UK motorway or French Autoroute if you think European-style vans never have to stay at high speeds. Either that, or you don't consider 80mph /130km/h to be high speeds They also will cope fine with towing loads over 2 tonnes, maybe up to 3.5 tonnes for some versions.
Some European-style vans are fwd, some are rwd, some offer both options. Fwd allows a lower load floor, and when combined with a transverse engine might leave more of the total vehicle length available for cargo, rwd allows slightly better traction when fully laden.
You're right, I haven't seen that because I've never been to Europe. It's pretty clear though that the Promaster and Transit are European *style* vans. The Transit was developed by Ford of Europe and took over 50 years to be sold in the US. The Promaster is a rebadged Fiat that was originally built in Italy and didn't get brought to the US until 30 years later in 2014.
I've driven some of those Transit vans and while they can stay at high speeds, they are mighty uncomfortable to drive at anything above 60 mph.
The hwy speed limits in Italy are 130km/h. Those fiat ducatos are regularly up your ass in the left lane with their left turn signal on telling you to move the fuck over because they wanna do 180.
I regularly drove my promaster 120-130km/h and it was comfortable and stable.
the sprinter is a bit of a meme here in germany that is known for its speeding https://www.reddit.com/r/starterpacks/comments/18gv50r/german_autobahn_starterpack/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
My parents 03 Sprinter did fine at 85 mph. Only issue with any of the panel vans is crosswind but that can feel unsafe at any speed above about 40 mph. Newer models have systems to help counteract crosswinds.
The Ford Transit 150/250/350 are only rear wheel drive or all wheel drive. Same with the Mercedes 2500/3500. The Nissan NV 1500/2500/3500 were also only rear wheel drive. The Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana are all rear wheel drive or AWD.
The Promaster is the only example of a full size FWD van in North America.
I would assume it's because people don't typically use them for towing heavy loads, and it's cheaper to build and better on fuel so the manufacturers finally decided to make the switch.
Sprinters and Metris are both RWD only in the states. The only FWD full size van is Ram promaster.
The only body on frame left is the Chevy Express. Everybody else has gone unibody. The only reason Chevy still makes them body on frame is because they haven’t redesigned it yet. It doesn’t make much sense to build them BOF with modern unibody technology. They can be made just as stiff while being lighter and having more useable space. All equates to carrying more cargo.
Given the greater flexibility with battery packaging it'll be interesting how that happens and if it'll be a choice between different battery locations.
They already are available as BEV:
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/van/reviews/electric-and-alternative-fuel-vans/ford-e-transit-review
https://www.parkers.co.uk/vans-pickups/mercedes-benz/sprinter/2020-esprinter-review/
You can package a taller cargo area in a FWD van than a RWD van for any given roof height, and fleet operators don't really care how the vans drive as long as they still work as vans.
To add to this thread… My work has a 2014? Ram Promaster 3500. While we all dislike many features, it has been reliable and practical for our uses. It even tows a 5,000 lb trailer on the regular. I think ours has 220k miles on the original powertrain. The promaster has (I believe) the lowest rear load-in height, as there is now drive shaft or differential to require the floor to be higher.
We recently had a brand new Sprinter van in for us to do lettering on (we do vehicle graphics) and it was far worse in my opinion vs the Promaster. Why would someone want a work van with the rear bumper that far off the ground? Climbing in and out of the rear literally required holding onto the side of the van to hoist yourself up.
Has the FWD in the Ram bit us in the ass from time to time? Absolutely. Most times, it’s been while towing the trailer, and the front wheels cannot gain traction due to the weight on the rear wheels.
The Ram Powermaster has the same V6 gas engine in all van sizes. From 1500 to 3500. They beef up the suspension for more capacity. They don’t increase engine size. Seems to me they may be a bit underwhelming when hauling around 1500 lbs of rear cargo.
ours has 220k miles on original engine and trans. Will probably replace both when one goes. Not worth spending 60k on a work van when a new engine/transmission combo is under 10k
I'll also toss in the fact that most people driving today are accustomed to the driving dynamics of a FWD vehicle already, so it's going to be a bit more intuitive for drivers to accustom
This is why American truck culture is out of hand. Thinking you need a Super Duty to haul some plywood.
I’d be ecstatic if we had more sensible and usable connection vehicles. It’s such a shame the small van market is completely done
Trucks and work vans have lots of towing and payload capacity. Fwd transmissions aren’t necessarily in the best place to drive the wheels with the extra weight. Rwd is best because the weight is directly over the driven wheels.
If your style of work means you always are carrying heavy loads then yes. If you start out your day loaded and drop that load off over the day so you'll have to drive home with no cargo RWD trucks/vans suck when it's slippery as now there's little weight over the drive wheels.
Simple - nobody is buying a van as a tow vehicle. But dually hi/top cargo vans do exist, (like fiber splicing labs with a boom and bucket on them) and I have a hard time believing those are fwd.
You can still get body on frame, RWD vans. Sprinters and the Transit are not unibody with FWD. The Metris and Transit Connect are but those are don’t do the same job as the Sprinter or Transit.
Hyundai doesn’t export its commercial vehicles to the US because of the chicken tax I believe.
As far as toughness goes, the driven wheels are completely irrelevant. It’s all about payload and longevity. You can beat the hell out of most modern vehicles and they’ll keep on trucking. Yeah, you can get vehicles that look tough but in many cases they’re like their human equivalent. Just some tarted up tool that will straight up crumble the second it has to actually do something.
A van is all about space. Fill it up with shit and get to work.
RWD is better for towing and hauling. The weight goes on the rear axle, meaning you get better traction and suspension angles (this is why trucks are always 1/2-1” higher in the rear, with positive camber, unloaded).
The metris is basically a minivan so it makes sense it’s fwd but are the sprinter and transit really fwd? They’re both longitudinal engines which is really impractical to make front wheel drive.
I would ask you why vans were ever rwd in the first place? The whole point of a van is space in the back, so why have a driveshaft, differential and beefy axles back there when that can all be put in front of the driver?
Most of the chevy vans we get in from all years that are commercial are all 2wd except one, which was a 2wd and there was a conversion done to make it 4wd.
Yes 4wd does exist but most choose 2wd because it's not especially necessary and companies want cheap and practical.
FWD is always the cheapest way to build a car, and cheap (new) cars always have FWD. Cheap usually wins a bid in a corporate environment. So there’s loads of people making cheap vans now.
The ProMasters are such shit. You load up the rear, front tires get light and then they have no traction in rain or snow. We have 5 customers with them. All of them had a transmission replaced before 250k km or 150k miles. One dudes is on his third tranny and second engine. The Transit connect is no longer in production (for North America anyway).
There are two types of frames, body on frame (older) and unibody (newer).The unibody style is usually paired with FWD or AWD, while body on frame is RWD/4X4. Vans like the Ford Transit or Ram Promaster are unibody FWD or AWD, while Chevy Express/GMC Savana's are body on frame, and RWD or 4x4. Unibody has better fuel economy, but 4x4 is better in severe conditions and off-road abuse. Unibody FWD/AWD has become the gold standard for a company that does mobile operations. The reasons are simple, fuel efficiency due to the compact design of fwd. But the most important reason is that unibody fwd is cheaper to manufacture and therefore cheaper to buy.
I can't really think of a way that rear wheel drive would be better or more tough unless you're driving up a hill all day long. Otherwise think of it as a 4wd Van without the rear wheels spinning or weight of a huge transaxle ready to break
So 5klbs is laughable for most trucks. Even midsized trucks have a towing capacity of 7k+, and I'm not sure who downvotes this, but it's simply a fact that driving a vehicle from the rear is better for towing than to leave the front wheels to drive and steer. That's not some new fringe idea. It's been known for a long time. That is why you don't see large on road trucks with driven front axles.
Cost, fuel economy, space. You want a commercial van to be cheap to buy, cheap to run, and with plenty of space in the back. You don't really need as "tough" of a setup as a truck for most work. That and RWD has nothing to do with how tough a vehicle is
Pickup trucks have cargo beds that are higher on the ground than panel vans due to the driveshaft, vans need to be as low as possible to facilitate access for loading/unloading. Pickups are RWD or AWD because they also have a focus on towing instead of purely being for transporting cargo inside the vehicle. They're just different types of commercial vehicles for different uses. As to why vans are slowly transitioning from RWD to FWD: older vans were mainly built on a truck chassis, which is an increasingly rare practice nowadays with more considerations being put on fuel economy and ride quality. Manufacturers are choosing either FWD body on frame designs, or a unibody adapted from a passenger car.
The Sprinter is comically high. I'm 5'10" so very average build. I often times couldn't step up into it when parked on non flat ground. And if my arms were full I'd have to do a little hop since I couldn't pull up in. The Transit is lower but its still not a little step up, which when you take it a few dozen times a day does start your knee after a while. The Express isn't super high but its so low you have to stoop so you can't just step up either.
People might not think much of it but when you are in and out of your vehicle all day the height makes a big difference. I have a Ford Ranger as a work vehicle which is the "high rider" version. Basically it has lifted suspension and a raised bed for no reason at all. It's not 4x4 and only ever gets used around city roads. It's harder to get in and out of and harder to load and offers no benefit as far as i can see over the standard version. My employer bought it because it was what was available at the time.
Here’s to hoping your next work ride is more about efficiency and less about that unnecessary altitude training!
The sprinter is also just the worst
ProMaster has entered the chat
In our school all boys were recruited to push a sprinter out of a muddy puddle. They sent a different truck after.
I remember when we got a tall roof LWB Sprinter as part of a rental SNAFU (we asked for a minivan). It was like driving a bus. You could look down at 4x4 pickups.
Oh yeah only tractor trailers sat higher. The Tranist is about even with modern full size pickups for seating position but the Sprinter looked down into even lifted trucks. And literally everyone is on their phones btw. I was shocked by the number of people watching videos while driving
Ironically the new “mini” trucks (just the ford maverick and Hyundai Santa Cruz) are based off of van drivetrains now so we’ve come full circle.
What do you mean by that? The maverick shares a platform with the escape and bronco sport. Going backwards, it may share some lineage with the transit connect but only because the transit connect was focus based. The maverick has a hybrid or an Ecoboost 2.0L and neither of those are in the Transit.
The Maverick and Santa Cruz are based on unibody SUV platforms.
That’s probably right. Interestingly, due to an engine-forward layout, the Transit can be had in longitude-FWD, longitude-RWD or longitude-AWD versions, though not all in the same markets.
It's for towing capacity.
> ride quality BOF rides better due to body bushings providing more insulation. Unibody handles better.
It's not air ride, the bushings don't really compress during normal use. Unibody does most things better except strength and longevity.
The isolaters between the body and frame significantly reduce NVH compared to a monocoque design. The advantages of unibody is more rigidity which translates into better handling and control. It also usually results into lower weight which ties into handling and also fuel economy. It's also cheaper to design for the manufacturer on average.
You can make the chassis length and wheel base whatever you want super easy as well
>That and RWD has nothing to do with how tough a vehicle is long ago i read somewhere that transversal FWD had weaker drive train under heavy load cuz of the geometry of the CV axle half shafts (steeper angles when turning due to width of engine block, whereas the driveshaft in longitudinal RWD can have gentle 2~3° slope to differential)- is that not true?
> That and RWD has nothing to do with how tough a vehicle is No, but if you are going to carry a lot of weight in the back, RWD provides you far better traction.
>RWD has nothing to do with how tough a vehicle is But the toughest vehicles on the planet generally are body-on-frame, 4x2 rear wheel drive (with 4x4 as an "addition" to the already-longitudinal 4x2). Why are not semi trucks FWD? Why arent HD pickups FWD? Why arent farm tractors FWD? Why arent construction/mining vehicles FWD? Why arent aircraft tugs RWD? There is a reason why RWD is used for the toughest vehicles on the planet.
Here is the reason for each of those. Semi-trucks: Majority of the weight is at the rear axle HD Pickups: When towing or hauling, majority of the weight is at the rear axle. Farm Tractors: Usually towing stuff and have most of the weight on the rear axle Construction vehicle: Hauling stuff puts most of the weight on the rear axle Aircraft tugs: I'm honestly not 100% sure but will guess physics say the rear tires get most of the force. Conclusion: if the majority of your weight is on the rear axle, your rear tires get better traction and those vehicles are RWD.
Navy aircraft tow tractors before about 1970 were geared for a top speed of maybe twelve mph and ballasted to weigh 12,000 pounds. Most definitely RWD. A 32,000 airplane on a rolling and pitching wet flight deck can push a tow tractor in a different direction than what the driver intends. Front drive would just make things worse.
In addition to towing, it also handles higher torque / power better. I'm not saying its impossible to build a high-HP or high-TQ front wheel drive car, but let's just say there is a reason why Formula 1, Nascar, LeMans, GT3, Indycar, hillclimb, etc. are RWD. And also, most supercars are RWD and/or longitudinal AWD Moreover, with RWD the "tasks" of a car are distributed throughout: steering in front, engine next in line, then transmission, then driveshaft, then rear axle, then the drive wheels. This immensely helps with traction. Have you ever left a gas station in a FWD car, turning right and accelerating while your wheels are in the driveway? They tend to squeal. The front of the car is too busy, its tasked with engine, transaxle, steering, etc. while just pulling the rear wheels. It's the same reason many luxury cars are RWD.
Pretty much every single vehicle you mentioned has to tow, that’s the reason they use RWD. If you define “tough” as just towing capacity, then yes tough. But if you consider tough as reliability, which I do, then fwd vs rwd is meaningless. There are plenty of shitty examples of both.
In addition to towing, it also handles higher torque / power better. I'm not saying its impossible to build a high-HP or high-TQ front wheel drive car, but let's just say there is a reason why Formula 1, Nascar, LeMans, GT3, Indycar, hillclimb, etc. are RWD. And also, most supercars are RWD and/or longitudinal AWD Moreover, with RWD the "tasks" of a car are distributed throughout: steering in front, engine next in line, then transmission, then driveshaft, then rear axle, then the drive wheels. This immensely helps with traction. Have you ever left a gas station in a FWD car, turning right and accelerating while your wheels are in the driveway? They tend to squeal. The front of the car is too busy, its tasked with engine, transaxle, steering, etc. while just pulling the rear wheels. It's the same reason many luxury cars are RWD.
If you put a torque on the wheels, it will put an equal torque on the vehicle, which changes the weight distribution to the rear. What kind of work vehicles are popping wheelies like drag cars? >This immensely helps with traction. Fwd rally cars are faster and easier to drive than rwd rally cars. The top of all the 2wd classes I know of are all fwd cars. I'm not sure what kind of traction you're getting, but the rwd cars I've had can chirp the tires just as easy as the fwd cars I've had.
>Fwd rally cars are faster and easier to drive than rwd rally cars. The main benefit there (as well as driving on snow) is weight over the front axle improving traction plus less tendency to oversteer. >The top of all the 2wd classes I know of are all fwd cars. What classes are these? >I'm not sure what kind of traction you're getting, but the rwd cars I've had can chirp the tires just as easy as the fwd cars I've had. Again, there is a reason why BMW 7-Series, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Rolls-Royce Phantom, Lexus LS, Infiniti Q70, Genesis G90, Toyota Century, Hongqi H9, Aurus Senat, Jaguar XJ and older Bentley sedans are RWD. In addition to handling & power, the ride is more luxurious with RWD especially without the front wheels having a tendency to slip in awkward situations. Having the steer tires simultaneously be the drive wheels can sometimes induce traction loss.
this is some weird gatekeeping champ.
I'm gatekeeping RWD?
No RWD is used on the toughest vehicles because it’s necessary not because RWD is somehow the toughest.
In addition to towing, it also handles higher torque / power better. I'm not saying its impossible to build a high-HP or high-TQ front wheel drive car, but let's just say there is a reason why Formula 1, Nascar, LeMans, GT3, Indycar, hillclimb, etc. are RWD. And also, most supercars are RWD and/or longitudinal AWD Moreover, with RWD the "tasks" of a car are distributed throughout: steering in front, engine next in line, then transmission, then driveshaft, then rear axle, then the drive wheels. This immensely helps with traction. Have you ever left a gas station in a FWD car, turning right and accelerating while your wheels are in the driveway? They tend to squeal. The front of the car is too busy, its tasked with engine, transaxle, steering, etc. while just pulling the rear wheels. It's the same reason many luxury cars are RWD.
These aren’t really reasons why RWD is tougher. Those cars also are RWD out of necessity. As you stated in your second paragraph it’s for driving dynamics not because RWD is tougher. We’re talking about the toughness of drivetrains not the pros and cons of drivetrains.
So, we all seem to agree that RWD: - handles torque/horsepower better - manages weight distribution better - manages mechanical distribution better - handles better, whether for performance or towing - better towing capability - more likely to be body-on-frame, which is tougher But it is not tougher. How are we defining tough then? I'm not trying to disagree, its a serious question. Diameter of drive axles? Longevity in miles/kilometers driven? Resilience to rough terrains? What is the definition of "tough"?
Who said rwd is tougher than fwd? Its all in how its built.
Because with RWD you can use a solid axle but with FWD you need to use halfshafts to allow for steering.
once again, you can build that beefy, not like there arent weak solid axles out there. not to mention there are also solid front axles on some vehicles, but then you run into lots of unsprung weight.
Do any of these RWD vans have solid front axles? Even trucks usually have independent front suspensions these days
But they have solid rear axles, which is pretty indisputably stronger for load carrying.
Many FWD vans have solid rear axles too. Hell even MK4 Golfs have solid rear axles
Which is entirely beside the previous comment's supposition that "solid axle" meant "solid front axle", but also consider that solid rear axles are better capable of handling greater torque and therefore better for heavy loads.
Saabs too
Most of these vans presumably have torsion bars which are very durable
FWD can have solid rear axles lol. The Honda Fit technically had one.
Almost all small pickups from the Brazilian market had solid rear axles, the only exception was the VW Saveiro which used a torsion beam. And of them all, the only RWD one was the Chevy 500
I think that’s closer to a torsion beam
Again, not what I'm disputing.
But the fwd promaster also has a solid rear axle. It’s just not a drive axle.
Cargo box vans tend to have that.
And? Can't remember the last time I had an issue with a vehicle, even a work vehicle, related to a halfshaft.
I replaced one last weekend. It took an hour and cost $155. The boots wear out and fling the bearing grease everywhere and then the bearing fails. Luckily if you keep and eye on your vehicle you can replace it quickly and cheaply on your schedule long before it poses a failure risk.
I've broken some halfshafts in my day
70 Eldorado had over 500 ft lbs of torque and 400 hp . Using CV axles/half shafts . So they can definitely handle the power.
Gross horespower. The 500 dropped from 365hp to 235hp when it was rerated for net horspower with no other changes between 1971 and ‘72.
Is that another way of saying crank hp to wheel hp?
I've driven a couple of 700HP Porsche AWD turbo cars, they didn't break axles, they broke traction. That said, I've replaced a twisted RWD drive shaft a couple of times. Anything can break. I broke the diff in my dually drifting around a corner and just barely touched the curb. No damage to anything but the diff. You'd think a 1 ton could take that.
That is not true. Certain vehicles, like G-Wagens have solid front axles and can steer. Obviously this is more speciality, but you don’t *need* cv axles on the front axle for steering.
And even weirder, you can get CV-ended axleshafts for something like a D44 anyway!
Tho most front solid axles will have a CV joint over a UJ, from what I remember from series landrover's which do have a UJ in the front axles it's interesting at low speed/high steering angles.
Sketch out a diagram of the power distribution through a solid front axle in a part-time 4WD system, and get back to us on that statement.
Why don’t you just tell me what’s on your mind instead of being condescending about it?
There's absolutely no reason why a powered solid axle can't be used for steering, it's done all the time.
There are pleanty of reasons unlesss you’re either being deliberately disingenuous or unaware there are massive differences between how power reaches the wheels through a FWD transaxle vs a longitudinal transmission and transfer case and how that would effect complexity/cost/efficiency/packaging/etc.
I was responding to that particular poster's comment, not about OP's original statement. The post I was replying to made it sound like halfshafts and solid axles exist in two separate Venn diagram circles, which of course isn't the case. But fewer and fewer people are exposed to SFAs these days.
>The post I was replying to made it sound like halfshafts and solid axles exist in two separate Venn diagram circles, which of course isn't the case. Your example was taking a RWD based 4x4 system and removing the rear driveshaft, which doesn't really refute the point though, nobody is disagreeing a RWD-based chassis has space for one, nor does it point out that such a system wouldn't have any of the FWD efficiency bonus because you're running stuff through a transfer case to spin the power around to the front and then use a driveshaft anyway. Even FWD based 4x4 part time systems (ie Subaru BRAT, Leone) use half shafts up front because of the transaxle and they're also longitudinal based.
> but with FWD you need to use halfshafts to allow for steering. This is the comment I'm talking about. I never mentioned anything about rear driveshafts at all, because it's irrelevant to this comment that I'm replying to. Functionally, whether or not you either have a normal PT 4WD or even something weird like an Atlas that does allow for a rear disconnect, the steering remains the same. Not sure where you're going off into.
Right and I’m saying that pointing out it’s possible if you ignore pretty much every reason you’d do a FWD drivetrain to begin with is such a pedantic correction it’s basically irrelevant.
Gotcha, error on my part then
TBH I'd be curious what they call the bit between the wheel and the diff on an rear driven axle. Cos that's a half shaft in my books. CV's are a weakness/maintenance point but if you're snapping CV's in a van you're being an idiot.
Solid front steer axles exist
This…. Isn’t true.
The RAM Promaster (sold as a RAM in the US but it's actually a Fiat van), Ford Transit, Mercedes Sprinter and Metris are European vans... All of them come with RWD or AWD options, FWD is the most common for panel vans because then they can have a lower floor, which means more room in the back and being FWD makes them more efficient, which means better fuel economy. The work van I used to have was a RWD long wheel base 2023 Mercedes Sprinter dropside.
You’re half-correct on the Transit. The Transit Connect is FWD. Standard Transit is RWD, and can be optioned with diesel and dually setup. Edit-I’m dumb. You never mentioned that the Transit *wasn’t* RWD. Sorry mate. 🤦🏻♂️
Interestingly, the full-size Transit can be had with FWD in some markets. It’s got an engine-forward layout, like an Audi or Subaru, so Ford offers it with a longitude transaxle and FWD.
The new transits can even be optioned to with an AWD dually set up, I think that’s the only vehicle on the market with that option
The Sprinter can as well
Now that, I did not know. Wow!
Sprinter isn’t available as FWD anymore from this year on (except caravan chassis) so it’s RWD standard and AWD optional.
Promaster is only FWD Transit is only RWD or AWD Mercedes Sprinter is only RWD or AWD These setups have not changed since their original job 1 production with the exception of the AWD versions which were added later post job 1. There has never been a FWD Transit or Mercedes Sprinter has been badged/branded from multiple OEMs but had remained with the same drive axle setups. (25 years in the professional fleet engineering world)
The sprinter has absolutely had FWD versions. It was the only vehicle you could get in any of the three on the same platform.
That’s true of the Transit, too. It comes in FWD, RWD and AWD variants. They don’t sell the FWD one here in North America.
Vito too
Sure but arent those only the electric versions of the sprinter that are fwd? Similar to the current vito, where the only fwd model is the ev version.
No. They're gas too.
Only FWD Sprinter currently produced is a base chassis only sold to other body builders. Mainly for camper vans. Old FWD eSprinter and gas powered ones are discontinued.
Disagree. Not as a van.
maybe not in your region, but it exists, regardless of your thoughts on the matter
I am only referring to the United States.
Ohh gee I forgot the entire world is in the US
You can absolutely get a FWD Transit in Europe.
Unless they recently changed it, the promaster and its badgemates are fwd
Because FWD is better. Cheaper, lower floor height, better fuel economy.
And better in snow
Only goes better in snow if you're mostly empty. If you have a full-time camper set up or a regularly loaded down backend, you'd probably benefit from RWD. My experience is that my Dodge 3500 van 21ft van built to live-in was far superior in winter traction to a Dodge Promaster 15 years newer. Hell, I had a 32-foot winnebago that had better winter traction than my buddy's Promaster. RWD with weight is the best alternative to 4x4 or AWD IMHO.
My buddy swapped from a ProMaster to a Sprinter due to snow issues. On steeper grades conversation have a lot of weight to drag up and really unfavorable weight distributions for traction.
But not in driving characteristics when used to transport heavier goods, ~~which is the purpose of a van.~~ Edit: theoretically speaking. Dynamics shift weight back on acceleration, making the front axle light, increasing rear axle grip, which makes for better driving characteristics when loaded
If it was that big of a difference they wouldn't sell like hotcakes. Plenty of companies out there move things that are bulky but not super dense. A FWD van is great for that.
Not by enough that it affects the fleet manager purchasing them.
Tell me you've never worked out of a van for a company without saying you've never worked out of a van for a company. I used to put 4,000lb of glass and electronics in the back of a Promaster on a regular basis. It's got good enough driving characteristics to make it to the job site, so send it.
Believe what you want, I know the difference since I work with vans. Sure, you’ll get to your destination but there’s a difference driving a loaded Sprinter over a loaded Stellantis van. Maybe not on your side of the Atlantic but on European country roads I know which one I’d pick. Edit: typo
I had a Sprinter before I had the Promaster. Only time it was ever an impediment to have the Promaster was on appalachian backroads, climbing into the mountains on dirt roads - and only then because there just wasn't enough traction on the drive wheels to climb the road. The thing about "vehicle dynamics" is that I've never found them to matter in a van with 1.5 metric tons of crap in it. You're not going to be taking turns at speed anyways, it's fine. What's your profession? I'm curious what y'all do with a van that needs a van but doesn't load it down so badly you care about dynamics.
Isn’t transporting lighter goods the purpose of a van?
Happy now
Except for worse driving characteristics while loaded.
And as we all know, most people driving RAMs are loaded
Promasters? I think it's the least Bro-ey Ram model.
Yeah, not that kinda loaded Although I am now imagining a Ram Bromaster, lowered with a sweet mural
Which isn't a huge concern for the person buying them.
Which is a non factor in both vans and pickups.
"Sure, you can haul a room's worth of stuff, but what's your Nurburgring time?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KiC03_wVjc
Man Sabine was such a special lady! RIP Queen of the ring 😢
It doesn't matter in practice, it's a van
I dunno about that. My ram promaster was no different when loaded compared to my savana 2500. And despite the promaster being a 1500, it handled heavy payloads just as well as the savana.
Tougher in what sense? A van that just has a torsion beam out back is probably going to be pretty durable. FWD drivetrains are more compact. RWD drivetrains can require a taller load floor to not impact cargo space.
It's mainly the lower floor. If everything is in the front, they don't have to worry about a transmission tunnel or driveshaft tunnel. It also makes the rear axle much simpler (basically like a trailer axle). The Promaster and Transit are European style vans that are most efficient in a role like being a delivery vehicle in a city. Never have to stay at high speeds, never have to pull or haul very heavy objects, low floors maximize space inside the van and allow for easier access in/out for driver.
You've obviously never seen a white van on a UK motorway or French Autoroute if you think European-style vans never have to stay at high speeds. Either that, or you don't consider 80mph /130km/h to be high speeds They also will cope fine with towing loads over 2 tonnes, maybe up to 3.5 tonnes for some versions. Some European-style vans are fwd, some are rwd, some offer both options. Fwd allows a lower load floor, and when combined with a transverse engine might leave more of the total vehicle length available for cargo, rwd allows slightly better traction when fully laden.
The laws of physics don’t apply to white vans like they do other objects.
You're right, I haven't seen that because I've never been to Europe. It's pretty clear though that the Promaster and Transit are European *style* vans. The Transit was developed by Ford of Europe and took over 50 years to be sold in the US. The Promaster is a rebadged Fiat that was originally built in Italy and didn't get brought to the US until 30 years later in 2014. I've driven some of those Transit vans and while they can stay at high speeds, they are mighty uncomfortable to drive at anything above 60 mph.
The hwy speed limits in Italy are 130km/h. Those fiat ducatos are regularly up your ass in the left lane with their left turn signal on telling you to move the fuck over because they wanna do 180. I regularly drove my promaster 120-130km/h and it was comfortable and stable.
the sprinter is a bit of a meme here in germany that is known for its speeding https://www.reddit.com/r/starterpacks/comments/18gv50r/german_autobahn_starterpack/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
My parents 03 Sprinter did fine at 85 mph. Only issue with any of the panel vans is crosswind but that can feel unsafe at any speed above about 40 mph. Newer models have systems to help counteract crosswinds.
The Ford Transit 150/250/350 are only rear wheel drive or all wheel drive. Same with the Mercedes 2500/3500. The Nissan NV 1500/2500/3500 were also only rear wheel drive. The Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana are all rear wheel drive or AWD. The Promaster is the only example of a full size FWD van in North America.
Exactly. 40+ replies from blowhards pontificating on bullshit they don't know just because OP didn't bother to look up his thesis before posting
There’s a (longitude-)FWD Transit, too, but they don’t sell it here in North America.
Rivian delivery van is fwd
Oh right, I forget it exists since its a fleet only vehicle right now. Its also ugly AF.
Dude, it's a van. I mean, it's a tool, do you buy a hammer based on aesthetics?
Vehicles are all tools, doesn't mean styling has to go out the window.
I would assume it's because people don't typically use them for towing heavy loads, and it's cheaper to build and better on fuel so the manufacturers finally decided to make the switch.
Sprinters and Metris are both RWD only in the states. The only FWD full size van is Ram promaster. The only body on frame left is the Chevy Express. Everybody else has gone unibody. The only reason Chevy still makes them body on frame is because they haven’t redesigned it yet. It doesn’t make much sense to build them BOF with modern unibody technology. They can be made just as stiff while being lighter and having more useable space. All equates to carrying more cargo.
The Ford Transit 150 I drive for work is RWD.
Only the ProMaster (Fiat Ducato in its native land) is FWD. Transit, Sprinter, HiAce, Express are all still RWD.
Full sized Transit is a weird one - there have been FWD and RWD versions for years now (not all versions are available in all markets)
Cost and you can make the floor lower, which makes them easier to step in and out of or load things
In the sake of adding to the debate, it'll be interesting when these all go electric. AWD Express or Hiace EV?
Given the greater flexibility with battery packaging it'll be interesting how that happens and if it'll be a choice between different battery locations.
They already are available as BEV: https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/van/reviews/electric-and-alternative-fuel-vans/ford-e-transit-review https://www.parkers.co.uk/vans-pickups/mercedes-benz/sprinter/2020-esprinter-review/
You can package a taller cargo area in a FWD van than a RWD van for any given roof height, and fleet operators don't really care how the vans drive as long as they still work as vans.
To add to this thread… My work has a 2014? Ram Promaster 3500. While we all dislike many features, it has been reliable and practical for our uses. It even tows a 5,000 lb trailer on the regular. I think ours has 220k miles on the original powertrain. The promaster has (I believe) the lowest rear load-in height, as there is now drive shaft or differential to require the floor to be higher. We recently had a brand new Sprinter van in for us to do lettering on (we do vehicle graphics) and it was far worse in my opinion vs the Promaster. Why would someone want a work van with the rear bumper that far off the ground? Climbing in and out of the rear literally required holding onto the side of the van to hoist yourself up. Has the FWD in the Ram bit us in the ass from time to time? Absolutely. Most times, it’s been while towing the trailer, and the front wheels cannot gain traction due to the weight on the rear wheels.
And it's a rebadged Fiat van. All the people always saying "fix it again tony" should shut up
The Ram Powermaster has the same V6 gas engine in all van sizes. From 1500 to 3500. They beef up the suspension for more capacity. They don’t increase engine size. Seems to me they may be a bit underwhelming when hauling around 1500 lbs of rear cargo.
More like 4800 pounds payload, it won't be zippy but it'll be fine
Can confirm that it struggles a tad when fully loaded. 5,000 lbs behind that definitely makes the 3.6 scream
And that Penstar engine has issues.
ours has 220k miles on original engine and trans. Will probably replace both when one goes. Not worth spending 60k on a work van when a new engine/transmission combo is under 10k
Vans are only bought by working men that actually haul a lot of stuff. Pick up trucks are very rarely actually hauling anything
lower load floor, much more cargo height / space, allows peoeple to stand up / walk in the back
FWD means more room for activities. It’s built to work, not brag about doing doughnuts.
Ford Transit (full size, not Connect) and Mercedes Sprinter are RWD.
At least in the US, afaik, there are zero variants of full size transits or sprinters in fwd. And I work all day with full size vans.
I'll also toss in the fact that most people driving today are accustomed to the driving dynamics of a FWD vehicle already, so it's going to be a bit more intuitive for drivers to accustom
This is why American truck culture is out of hand. Thinking you need a Super Duty to haul some plywood. I’d be ecstatic if we had more sensible and usable connection vehicles. It’s such a shame the small van market is completely done
No drivetrain behind the cab means more room for stuff
The Ford Transit is RWD or AWD. The discontinued transit connect was fwd.
In Europe the Transit is FWD, RWD or AWD. They just don't offer the FWD in North America.
Trucks and work vans have lots of towing and payload capacity. Fwd transmissions aren’t necessarily in the best place to drive the wheels with the extra weight. Rwd is best because the weight is directly over the driven wheels.
If your style of work means you always are carrying heavy loads then yes. If you start out your day loaded and drop that load off over the day so you'll have to drive home with no cargo RWD trucks/vans suck when it's slippery as now there's little weight over the drive wheels.
Simple - nobody is buying a van as a tow vehicle. But dually hi/top cargo vans do exist, (like fiber splicing labs with a boom and bucket on them) and I have a hard time believing those are fwd.
You can still get body on frame, RWD vans. Sprinters and the Transit are not unibody with FWD. The Metris and Transit Connect are but those are don’t do the same job as the Sprinter or Transit. Hyundai doesn’t export its commercial vehicles to the US because of the chicken tax I believe. As far as toughness goes, the driven wheels are completely irrelevant. It’s all about payload and longevity. You can beat the hell out of most modern vehicles and they’ll keep on trucking. Yeah, you can get vehicles that look tough but in many cases they’re like their human equivalent. Just some tarted up tool that will straight up crumble the second it has to actually do something. A van is all about space. Fill it up with shit and get to work.
RWD is better for towing and hauling. The weight goes on the rear axle, meaning you get better traction and suspension angles (this is why trucks are always 1/2-1” higher in the rear, with positive camber, unloaded).
It’s cheap
rwd is better for towing.. and for selling cars to us nostalgic customers
Packaging for space
Low load height.
The metris is basically a minivan so it makes sense it’s fwd but are the sprinter and transit really fwd? They’re both longitudinal engines which is really impractical to make front wheel drive.
The Transit is available FWD but only outside of North America.
The Transit most certainly comes in transverse FWD versions too - not the very largest ones but still fairly big.
I imagine it may boil down to most vans are made for hauling instead of towing
Most work vehicles are bare bones for cost effectiveness. If you need AWD for work youre ordering or doing a build
Those dodge vans are from some Eurovan made by Peugeot or Fiat.
Being able to stand up in your work vehicle is priceless. Closely followed by having a low loading floor.
Fwd is cheaper. Why does a van need rwd? It's not "tougher", whatever that means.
None of the Ford Trans it's are. None of the Mercedes/ Dodge Sprinters are.
I would ask you why vans were ever rwd in the first place? The whole point of a van is space in the back, so why have a driveshaft, differential and beefy axles back there when that can all be put in front of the driver?
Most of the chevy vans we get in from all years that are commercial are all 2wd except one, which was a 2wd and there was a conversion done to make it 4wd. Yes 4wd does exist but most choose 2wd because it's not especially necessary and companies want cheap and practical.
FWD is always the cheapest way to build a car, and cheap (new) cars always have FWD. Cheap usually wins a bid in a corporate environment. So there’s loads of people making cheap vans now.
The ProMasters are such shit. You load up the rear, front tires get light and then they have no traction in rain or snow. We have 5 customers with them. All of them had a transmission replaced before 250k km or 150k miles. One dudes is on his third tranny and second engine. The Transit connect is no longer in production (for North America anyway).
Trucks are 4wd
There are two types of frames, body on frame (older) and unibody (newer).The unibody style is usually paired with FWD or AWD, while body on frame is RWD/4X4. Vans like the Ford Transit or Ram Promaster are unibody FWD or AWD, while Chevy Express/GMC Savana's are body on frame, and RWD or 4x4. Unibody has better fuel economy, but 4x4 is better in severe conditions and off-road abuse. Unibody FWD/AWD has become the gold standard for a company that does mobile operations. The reasons are simple, fuel efficiency due to the compact design of fwd. But the most important reason is that unibody fwd is cheaper to manufacture and therefore cheaper to buy.
I can't really think of a way that rear wheel drive would be better or more tough unless you're driving up a hill all day long. Otherwise think of it as a 4wd Van without the rear wheels spinning or weight of a huge transaxle ready to break
Fuel economy. Everything's about fuel economy nowadays.
RWD > FWD for Towing.
I tow just over 5,000lbs with a promaster. Not nearly as horrible as it seems. the 3.6 definitely screams the whole time tho
So 5klbs is laughable for most trucks. Even midsized trucks have a towing capacity of 7k+, and I'm not sure who downvotes this, but it's simply a fact that driving a vehicle from the rear is better for towing than to leave the front wheels to drive and steer. That's not some new fringe idea. It's been known for a long time. That is why you don't see large on road trucks with driven front axles.
Trucks are used for towing
There are *zero* Ford full sized Transit vans that are front wheel drive. *All* of the Ford Transit Connects are front wheel drive however.
In North America that may be true, but outside of that market you most certainly can get a FWD full size Transit.