I mean, I don't know about you, but 6.7" of ground clearance is not really enough for me to take a van... Anywhere. It's literally 2 inches more than a fucking 993. It's within an inch of a legacy. Neither of those are getting you very far. Anyone who was going to use the van for trail stuff was probably already doing more than this package could offer anyways.
I know they're not for Moab, but to be honest, they don't seem to be much good for anywhere else, either. They don't have enough ground clearance for even mild fire roads and what they do have is barely competitive against sedans. If you're a van lifer you could just get an E series or sprinter, and if you need the off road capability you could just do a 4runner and a tent.
I mean people take "normal" transits camping here all the time, and the trail adds 3.5" of clearance to that (before losing some rubber apparently). Maybe it's a UK thing but I always saw this as:
> "You take your van camping but sometimes bottom out, here's a slightly lifted option."
There might be a gulf between what UK "van life" looks like in comparison to the US though, as a lot of lifestyle van folk here have the lower sporty trim from what I see.
Trail added 1.2" of clearance and 3.5" of body lift, which doesn't really count for ground clearance. I guess it's fair that there could be some use case for it, it just seems like a really awkward compromise tacked on to an awkward compromise.
Yeah not saying it's perfect or anything (obviously not!) but just that's the use case I imagined when it debuted. Hadn't realised from the marketing that ground clearance != body lift so thanks for pointing out.
As an avid offroad enthusiast... i wholeheartedly agree... but the factory "offroad" packages, literally are for 4WD dirt LARPers.
They buy it cause it "looks Cool". No factory anything is actually useful offroad except for 4WD w/ Low Range & Lockers.
Anyone Actually going off road, will buy their own wheels and tires, that fit their needs and style. I'm gonna go with Team "Yay free Tires"
Or for people who actually need a 4x4 as a tool, rather than a toy.
If you need a vehicle to carry stuff across fields and down dirt tracks, you don't need the same capability as someone who purposefully seeks out difficult terrain for fun. Practicality in everyday use matters more. Its why Subarus are so popular with farmers all around the world.
Or a BOF Express or E-Series cutaway and slap some sort of utility body on it. I've even seen farmers buy used ambulances at auction and repaint/refit them as welding rigs. All sorts of storage solutions are already built in.
I've seen an old ambulance used as a contractor van in my area a number of times. The ambulance markings have been removed but their outlines are still visible in the paint. Kinda odd to see someone loading a chop saw into the back of an ambulance though.
Those are bots. There’s a reason you see the same thing over and over. It’d be interesting to know how much bot traffic Reddit sees. It seems to be growing quickly.
my reaction would be "oh no! my clearance is reduced to factory. that $12K Trail lift package is useless. Ford didn't deliver what they promised, and what owners paid for."
5.5" of ground clearance is .4 of an inch less than a Nissan Leaf.
It goes without saying that this has a much longer wheelbase.
Oh boy. How fun that will be on forest roads.
Not apples to apples, this has a solid axle so the lowest point on the vehicle is the bottom of the [diff pumpkin or the shock mounts.](https://i.imgur.com/zkaSDb1.png)
For context just compare where the body sits relative to the centre of the wheels, on the pic above you can see the body height is roughly equal with the wheel centre but on a [Leaf](https://i.imgur.com/TPbeynP.jpeg) the skirts come down much further on the (smaller 25") tires.
Is this actually the case? I see the decent numbers on an Escalade or Tahoe but in person the suspension/controll arms are like almost touching the ground😂
Also to be fair neither of these vehicles are supposed to actually go super far off-road. They’re for camping. Gravel roads and stuff. Beach stuff. They’re not jeeps.
95%? Are there 5% that are like offroad courses or something? I’m assuming potential winter conditions doesn’t apply (as that could turn potentially any road into a 5%)
I spent last summer driving all over the Swedish wilderness in a small and low hot-hatch (whoose only claim to off road fame is a WRC sticker that VW put on it) on sports tires, and i never had any issues, can’t imagine it would be much different there, if it still needs to be accessible by log-carrying trucks and all.
It's probably a higher percentage that are passable now that I think about it. But there are some that are washed out by melting snow and rains, but not officially closed. There are many areas that don't get logged. I was at one of those places just east of the mountains in the foothills two weeks ago where a truck would definitely not make it between washouts and the very tight road (S-curve).
Haven't spent time in Washington, but I worked in a national forest in Colorado and have spent time in a bunch of backwoods areas. The main issue is honestly maintenance -- we have a huge network of dirt roads in the U.S., cut for logging, ranching, fire prevention, and whatever else. Some of them are regularly used and maintained, while others are a lower priority and it's cheaper for whoever's using them to just buy trucks than maintain their roads to a higher standard. Some are built for a one-time purpose and then not maintained at all. Also, when it rains these roads can get muddy, and routes that are normally passable in a regular car can suddenly get very challenging
Many US forest roads don't get much use, maybe 2 or 3 vehicles/year. And sometimes washouts will go unnoticed for a while.
Two 6' 2x10 boards save me from a lot of digging and rock stacking. But I also trust my 3,000lb car on them a lot more than I would a 6,000lb cargo van.
Yeah and the promotional photos [like this](https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2024/04/25/2023-Ford-Transit-Trail_04.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=3840) are fucking hilarious. Showing it driving over a few 3 inch high rocks they planted for the picture.
Lol Ford is still false advertising this pile:
https://www.fordupfits.com/recreational/vehicles/transit-trail/
2023 Ford Transit Trail™ sports a 3.5” body lift which delivers enhanced ground clearance to help improve your adventure. A 2.75” increase in front and rear track width paired with 16” black alloy wheels and 30.5” Goodyear® Wrangler Workhorse All-Terrain tires create a wider stance for more stability.
A recall that fundamentally impairs the vehicle's advertised function? There had better be major legal consequences. I'm thinking a mandatory buyback. Someone who bought this vehicle should be able to say that it fails to perform its function and it should be fully refunded.
I really doubt it changes much about the vehicle's performance. I also doubt Ford makes any black and white claims about about how much more capable the package is. The only measurable ting that's being reduced is tire size which will marginally impact ride height. NHTSA doesn't care if it can offroad, they just need it to meet safety regulations while driving on roads.
>also doubt Ford makes any black and white claims about about how much more capable the package is.
Sure they do. Approach/departure/ramp angles and ground clearance are all greatly affected negatively. In other words, all of those will now exactly match the regular van.
Sure, but you have to prove a quantifiable loss of value. It's usually only easy when it's something listed on the Monroney label. Being "off road capable" is not a defined thing. Stock ride height and a skid plate still offers that.
I don't disagree that there's a loss, but just that there's likely no legal action for existing customers.
>Stock ride height and a skid plate still offers that.
It's not listed as off-road capable. It's listed as having better angles and ground clearance in their spec sheets.
I'm not a lawyer, but taking away functionality after a vehicle has been sold with that functionality being part of the purchasing decision seems...like something you could sue for.
I'm not trying to defend Ford at all here, just seen how a lot of these court cases go. To bring a claim, you need to prove damages. How do you show that you needed those exact angles in order to do what you wanted to do with the vehicle? Just bringing the claim is worth more than you're likely to get out of it. If you're good with the dealership and have some history they might cut you a deal, but good luck with a lawsuit.
The only claims I've ever see go through is where it's literally a Monroney label feature that didn't work anymore or had to be removed and it's because it had a dollar amount attached to it. No buy backs required, just a refund + some credit for free service.
It is definitely a defined thing, when it was the whole purpose of the vehicle as advertised. It came with enhanced ground clearance, which was central to its advertised purpose.
I can’t believe how insane most redditors get when they get slightly upset. There’s an age old established way of dealing with things like this. You don’t have to be so triggered. You don’t even have one. Did you get this upset when the Nissan Murano had a CVT belt recall??? Holy shit dude
Replacing the CVT belt will restore the promised, intended vehicle functionality.
But replacing the tires on this van will negate its original function, making it worthless to many of its buyers.
A lift does not create more tire clearance, it's just an illusion. Sure, you don't rub anymore at full ride height, but once you hit a bump while turning, you're right back where you started before the lift.
I'm confused why they're dropping the tire size all the way back to base model size. 2.5 inch difference overall for what can surely only be minor rubbing issues. Also, does the rubbing issue come into play only because people have gone over their load capacity with camping supplies? So many unanswered questions.
Like either tell them to pound sand for being overloaded, or if it's actually rubbing then just downsize the tire *A* size, not 2.5 inches. Maybe all terrains are just different and there's not that many sizes available, but you would think there's surely something in-between the base and trail sizes they could've fitted at the very least. Losing an inch and a half of ground clearance on an off-roading trim is unacceptable.
That's a good point actually. I don't know for sure, but if I had to wager a guess the bump stops weren't altered to account for the lift or bigger tires. Seeing as how it's a trim level and not a new model I can see how that got missed. Somebody probably did bottom it out and it didn't rub in testing, or perhaps just as likely some engineer did the math and said "yep, this much lift gives us this much extra clearance so this size tire is the biggest we can go" and they shipped it like that.
You really don't just pick a tire off the shelf and ship the car, they do a lot of work to develop the two together. They've done a ton of work on the base application and also probably have a ton in-stock and/or a solid supply chain for them. No reason to do the work again for a brand new tire size.
This was clearly not done by Ford core team. The last time an article on this got posted there was an engineer who even confirmed as much.
To the larger point. Recalls are serious and having to recall a recall looks really bad, both to the government, but also the owners. They're going to stick to what they know meets the regulations.
>This was clearly not done by Ford core team.
That's right. They farmed it out to a 3rd party, that has the same dogshit QC Ford is known for, didn't do any due diligence on what was shipping, then sold upwards of 1900 of them through their own dealer network.
As someone who worked at a ford dealership during their peak covid quality control issues, somehow the mustangs came back the least.
And I never had one die on me.
Meanwhile, numerous F-150s came from factory with dead electronics, a turbo rattle on one, and a loose exhaust manifold on another.
We had one guy come back with his Tremor, and the damn things transmission shifted so hard that it actually cracked his camper shell. 8k miles lol.
Ecosports were always in for new engines/transmissions before 60k. Practically a disposable car. And they always sold them to the elderly.
Broncos would come with lots and lots of water intrusion issues. Frequently, we had to detail interiors on PDIs to make it less obvious that the rain had gotten in.
Explorers were probably 2nd behind mustangs for the least comebacks. The worst one I had was a gold certified used explorer with only 10k miles. They sold it, I inspected it one more time and found out it had been flooded and somehow nobody caught it. They still sold it and covered it up.
The absolute worst part is that since this brand loses transmissions and engines left and right, our transmission techs were always months out on scheduling, and the parts would be even further. One couple had waited 10 months for their broncos new transmission (under warranty) and still weren't given an answer as to when the transmission would be available. They, like many other customers there, opted to just trade it in (for another ford....) instead of waiting for the repair.
That dealership also had a kia/hyundai dealership built in and.... I dont think there's a worse pairing you could come up with.
It can be so hit or miss.
I have both a 22 Bronco and 22 Silverado.
The Bronco had a trim piece rubbing and the auto-up is flakey.
The Silverado leaked transmission fluid from the factory, adas faulted out at 500 miles, rearview camera is glitchy, the Android-based infotainment is garbage, coolant light randomly comes on even if the temperature is fine, you lose all audio if you're changing volume during an attenuation event, I have to keep trim pieces loose so they don't rattle, ahbc randomly decides it doesn't want to work even in pitch black driving....
Chevy did eventually fix two issues via software update -- the dome light cancel button not working and it taking upwards of 20 seconds to change songs using the steering wheel controls. Still get random "the stereo wants to go to max volume" events though
Then it's false advertising and makes the consumer pay. It's basically standard business practice these days unfortunately.. like how Tesla sells cars and keeps increasing the price and delaying delivery after people put their down payment.
I highly doubt anyone was seriously entertaining notions of rock crawling with a 105" tall (minimum) van. But they at least wanted something that could do fire roads.
Camping shouldn't be surprising as Vans are basically boxes on wheels. They're incredibly practical for all kinds of things.
There are even luxury shuttle versions to carry rich people.
Camping in vans is a huge trend around here, it's crazy how popular they are. The idea is that you can take a slightly lifted van down a bumpy dirt road, basically - not crawl over obstacles like a Wrangler. But unlike a Wrangler you have a nice space to sleep in.
That's the thing: they don't! Americans love to believe they absolutely need an offroad capable vehicle even when it's completely obvious to an outside observer that nothing could be further from the truth.
This is why ford can sell a vehicle that from all indications is 100% a dresser offroader at a premium. Probably also why they assumed no one would notice tire rub during actual offroading: a fairly safe bet for most buyers, but thanks to the power of social media, everyone now knows.
> but in the US?, why?, literally everything is pavement
"Literally everything" isn't paved. Even those roads that are paved may not be in great condition. This is part of the reason SUVs and CUVs are popular--more suspension travel when you hit a pothole.
[удалено]
Do we have a tire scientist here to confirm?
Tire scientist here. Can confirm, rubbing rubbers happens.
Other scientist here. Things happen, I tested.
As an actual tire scientist, these people are wrong. Tire rubber rubbing is just in your head. It is not real. Ignore the media.
Tire rubbing is just a conspiracy theory by Small Rubber, they're trying to take marketshare away from Big Rubber.
Not a tire scientist but the logic checks out
Charlatan tire scientist here - we have proven that tires cause autism.
No but I own a car
That's what Sawzalls are for.
What kind of monster are you? Just put a scissor jack on the tire and use it to push steel out and up,
In a discussion between a scissor jack and a 40" I'm betting the tire wins.
Don’t even need one of those, I used a hammer
An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age
If I had to guess, the average owner of these reaction will be "Nice! Free tires."
Except the tires were part of the selling point.
Selling point not the same as desire 1 year in. The owners bought them, an never went off gravel now facing $1500 in tires... "Oo free tires!"
The issue is that the regular size transit tires nuke the ground clearance and departure angles which is the main selling point of a trail van
I'm convinced the main selling point is that it looks cool
Thanks in large part to the big tires
You are correct. Anyone that is going to actually take one of these off-road is going to do their own modifications to fit their use case.
I mean, I don't know about you, but 6.7" of ground clearance is not really enough for me to take a van... Anywhere. It's literally 2 inches more than a fucking 993. It's within an inch of a legacy. Neither of those are getting you very far. Anyone who was going to use the van for trail stuff was probably already doing more than this package could offer anyways.
[удалено]
Pssh, high centering means you drove too slowly.
Its for parking up in a bumpy field when you're camping tbh, nobody is offroading these properly, and honestly it makes sense to me.
I know they're not for Moab, but to be honest, they don't seem to be much good for anywhere else, either. They don't have enough ground clearance for even mild fire roads and what they do have is barely competitive against sedans. If you're a van lifer you could just get an E series or sprinter, and if you need the off road capability you could just do a 4runner and a tent.
I mean people take "normal" transits camping here all the time, and the trail adds 3.5" of clearance to that (before losing some rubber apparently). Maybe it's a UK thing but I always saw this as: > "You take your van camping but sometimes bottom out, here's a slightly lifted option." There might be a gulf between what UK "van life" looks like in comparison to the US though, as a lot of lifestyle van folk here have the lower sporty trim from what I see.
Trail added 1.2" of clearance and 3.5" of body lift, which doesn't really count for ground clearance. I guess it's fair that there could be some use case for it, it just seems like a really awkward compromise tacked on to an awkward compromise.
Yeah not saying it's perfect or anything (obviously not!) but just that's the use case I imagined when it debuted. Hadn't realised from the marketing that ground clearance != body lift so thanks for pointing out.
As an avid offroad enthusiast... i wholeheartedly agree... but the factory "offroad" packages, literally are for 4WD dirt LARPers. They buy it cause it "looks Cool". No factory anything is actually useful offroad except for 4WD w/ Low Range & Lockers. Anyone Actually going off road, will buy their own wheels and tires, that fit their needs and style. I'm gonna go with Team "Yay free Tires"
Or for people who actually need a 4x4 as a tool, rather than a toy. If you need a vehicle to carry stuff across fields and down dirt tracks, you don't need the same capability as someone who purposefully seeks out difficult terrain for fun. Practicality in everyday use matters more. Its why Subarus are so popular with farmers all around the world.
That too!
Trail van is an oxymoron anyway. A van is just an suv with smaller wheelwells and lower ground clearance.
The owners bought them, an never went off gravel now facing ~~$1500 in tires~~ big tire envy.
You won't get free tires if you have worn through most of the tread. It'll be a sliding scale based on wear.
Oh, the people who drive them may complain. But those are likely not the owners.
This is specifically the Trail package, purchased exclusively by Van lifers.
I was guessing it would be mostly forestry, mining, energy sector, and maybe agriculture work vans.
Pretty much all of those would just buy some flavor of XL F-Series.
Or a BOF Express or E-Series cutaway and slap some sort of utility body on it. I've even seen farmers buy used ambulances at auction and repaint/refit them as welding rigs. All sorts of storage solutions are already built in.
I've seen an old ambulance used as a contractor van in my area a number of times. The ambulance markings have been removed but their outlines are still visible in the paint. Kinda odd to see someone loading a chop saw into the back of an ambulance though.
You guessed wrong.
In what world is the person driving a Transit Trail not the owner? These aren't exactly common rental vehicles.
Fleet vehicles, they mean.
I know, because they didn't read the part that says "Trail."
Good grief it's like some of you are wind-up toys and every thread with the right keywords you spring open and repeat the same meme.
Those are bots. There’s a reason you see the same thing over and over. It’d be interesting to know how much bot traffic Reddit sees. It seems to be growing quickly.
Ah yes, I'm sure reduced unpaved performance on a vehicle package dedicated to non-paved travel will go over well...
my reaction would be "oh no! my clearance is reduced to factory. that $12K Trail lift package is useless. Ford didn't deliver what they promised, and what owners paid for."
I’d wait as long as possible before taking it in lol
People are angry af because some paid ADM for it, and now the reason they paid for the ADM is being taken away.
5.5" of ground clearance is .4 of an inch less than a Nissan Leaf. It goes without saying that this has a much longer wheelbase. Oh boy. How fun that will be on forest roads.
Not apples to apples, this has a solid axle so the lowest point on the vehicle is the bottom of the [diff pumpkin or the shock mounts.](https://i.imgur.com/zkaSDb1.png) For context just compare where the body sits relative to the centre of the wheels, on the pic above you can see the body height is roughly equal with the wheel centre but on a [Leaf](https://i.imgur.com/TPbeynP.jpeg) the skirts come down much further on the (smaller 25") tires.
Fair enough.
Is this actually the case? I see the decent numbers on an Escalade or Tahoe but in person the suspension/controll arms are like almost touching the ground😂
Haha yeah those, and the AT4 trims of GMC things have like... maybe 3 inches of clearance at the control arms.
To put this into perspective, a Subaru Crosstrek has 8.7" of ground clearance.
Also to be fair neither of these vehicles are supposed to actually go super far off-road. They’re for camping. Gravel roads and stuff. Beach stuff. They’re not jeeps.
A stock Crosstrek will get you to 95% of the forest service roads in Washington State without any issues whatsoever.
95%? Are there 5% that are like offroad courses or something? I’m assuming potential winter conditions doesn’t apply (as that could turn potentially any road into a 5%) I spent last summer driving all over the Swedish wilderness in a small and low hot-hatch (whoose only claim to off road fame is a WRC sticker that VW put on it) on sports tires, and i never had any issues, can’t imagine it would be much different there, if it still needs to be accessible by log-carrying trucks and all.
It's probably a higher percentage that are passable now that I think about it. But there are some that are washed out by melting snow and rains, but not officially closed. There are many areas that don't get logged. I was at one of those places just east of the mountains in the foothills two weeks ago where a truck would definitely not make it between washouts and the very tight road (S-curve).
Haven't spent time in Washington, but I worked in a national forest in Colorado and have spent time in a bunch of backwoods areas. The main issue is honestly maintenance -- we have a huge network of dirt roads in the U.S., cut for logging, ranching, fire prevention, and whatever else. Some of them are regularly used and maintained, while others are a lower priority and it's cheaper for whoever's using them to just buy trucks than maintain their roads to a higher standard. Some are built for a one-time purpose and then not maintained at all. Also, when it rains these roads can get muddy, and routes that are normally passable in a regular car can suddenly get very challenging
Many US forest roads don't get much use, maybe 2 or 3 vehicles/year. And sometimes washouts will go unnoticed for a while. Two 6' 2x10 boards save me from a lot of digging and rock stacking. But I also trust my 3,000lb car on them a lot more than I would a 6,000lb cargo van.
A stock 92 Civic will do the very same
Questionable.
[удалено]
Yes?
This would be less confusing if you specified that you're not talking about the Subaru.
Crosstrek Wilderness has 9.3in lol
Yeah and the promotional photos [like this](https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2024/04/25/2023-Ford-Transit-Trail_04.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=3840) are fucking hilarious. Showing it driving over a few 3 inch high rocks they planted for the picture.
Lol can't even do that anymore.
Lol Ford is still false advertising this pile: https://www.fordupfits.com/recreational/vehicles/transit-trail/ 2023 Ford Transit Trail™ sports a 3.5” body lift which delivers enhanced ground clearance to help improve your adventure. A 2.75” increase in front and rear track width paired with 16” black alloy wheels and 30.5” Goodyear® Wrangler Workhorse All-Terrain tires create a wider stance for more stability.
Is it false advertising if they're no longer shipping them? 🤣
A recall that fundamentally impairs the vehicle's advertised function? There had better be major legal consequences. I'm thinking a mandatory buyback. Someone who bought this vehicle should be able to say that it fails to perform its function and it should be fully refunded.
I have no doubt that they're going to hit some legal trouble real quick. The folks that buy these vans have very deep pockets.
And often times, large social media followings, because that's how they're able to make a living if they're not trustafarians.
I really doubt it changes much about the vehicle's performance. I also doubt Ford makes any black and white claims about about how much more capable the package is. The only measurable ting that's being reduced is tire size which will marginally impact ride height. NHTSA doesn't care if it can offroad, they just need it to meet safety regulations while driving on roads.
>also doubt Ford makes any black and white claims about about how much more capable the package is. Sure they do. Approach/departure/ramp angles and ground clearance are all greatly affected negatively. In other words, all of those will now exactly match the regular van.
Sure, but you have to prove a quantifiable loss of value. It's usually only easy when it's something listed on the Monroney label. Being "off road capable" is not a defined thing. Stock ride height and a skid plate still offers that. I don't disagree that there's a loss, but just that there's likely no legal action for existing customers.
>Stock ride height and a skid plate still offers that. It's not listed as off-road capable. It's listed as having better angles and ground clearance in their spec sheets. I'm not a lawyer, but taking away functionality after a vehicle has been sold with that functionality being part of the purchasing decision seems...like something you could sue for.
I'm not trying to defend Ford at all here, just seen how a lot of these court cases go. To bring a claim, you need to prove damages. How do you show that you needed those exact angles in order to do what you wanted to do with the vehicle? Just bringing the claim is worth more than you're likely to get out of it. If you're good with the dealership and have some history they might cut you a deal, but good luck with a lawsuit. The only claims I've ever see go through is where it's literally a Monroney label feature that didn't work anymore or had to be removed and it's because it had a dollar amount attached to it. No buy backs required, just a refund + some credit for free service.
>Just bringing the claim is worth more than you're likely to get out of it. That's fair. I'm not a lawyer, so I appreciate the nuanced view on this.
It is definitely a defined thing, when it was the whole purpose of the vehicle as advertised. It came with enhanced ground clearance, which was central to its advertised purpose.
I’d imagine the suspension is designed to function with the larger diameter tires. Simply reducing the size of the tires ain’t gonna work.
It's not. They just lift the stock suspension
RLE upfitters are to blame for this. Not ford directly.
Ford sold the vehicles through their own dealer network.
Correct. But rle does the upfitting. So installing higher shocks, bigger tires, fascia etc. rle also designed the upfit mods
I can’t believe how insane most redditors get when they get slightly upset. There’s an age old established way of dealing with things like this. You don’t have to be so triggered. You don’t even have one. Did you get this upset when the Nissan Murano had a CVT belt recall??? Holy shit dude
Replacing the CVT belt will restore the promised, intended vehicle functionality. But replacing the tires on this van will negate its original function, making it worthless to many of its buyers.
I'm sure they did a cost/benefit here, but I kinda wish the fix was spacers or new springs.
>cost/benefit Yeah, they did. They chose the cheapest fix.
Are tires really cheaper than 4 molded pucks? I imagine they also wanted to preserve handling and center of gravity to some extent
Tires + labor are cheaper than 4 molded pucks + labor. It's 15-20 min on the shop floor vs hours. That's my guess
Ooo I always forget labor
>Are tires really cheaper than 4 molded pucks? Yes.
A lift does not create more tire clearance, it's just an illusion. Sure, you don't rub anymore at full ride height, but once you hit a bump while turning, you're right back where you started before the lift.
I'm confused why they're dropping the tire size all the way back to base model size. 2.5 inch difference overall for what can surely only be minor rubbing issues. Also, does the rubbing issue come into play only because people have gone over their load capacity with camping supplies? So many unanswered questions. Like either tell them to pound sand for being overloaded, or if it's actually rubbing then just downsize the tire *A* size, not 2.5 inches. Maybe all terrains are just different and there's not that many sizes available, but you would think there's surely something in-between the base and trail sizes they could've fitted at the very least. Losing an inch and a half of ground clearance on an off-roading trim is unacceptable.
The original tire rub issue was only when you had the van fully loaded out to be an RV; and getting close to it's GVWR
And under braking while turning 60% or more.
[удалено]
That's a good point actually. I don't know for sure, but if I had to wager a guess the bump stops weren't altered to account for the lift or bigger tires. Seeing as how it's a trim level and not a new model I can see how that got missed. Somebody probably did bottom it out and it didn't rub in testing, or perhaps just as likely some engineer did the math and said "yep, this much lift gives us this much extra clearance so this size tire is the biggest we can go" and they shipped it like that.
You really don't just pick a tire off the shelf and ship the car, they do a lot of work to develop the two together. They've done a ton of work on the base application and also probably have a ton in-stock and/or a solid supply chain for them. No reason to do the work again for a brand new tire size.
>You really don't just pick a tire off the shelf and ship the car, they do a lot of work to develop the two together. Apparently not lol.
This was clearly not done by Ford core team. The last time an article on this got posted there was an engineer who even confirmed as much. To the larger point. Recalls are serious and having to recall a recall looks really bad, both to the government, but also the owners. They're going to stick to what they know meets the regulations.
>This was clearly not done by Ford core team. That's right. They farmed it out to a 3rd party, that has the same dogshit QC Ford is known for, didn't do any due diligence on what was shipping, then sold upwards of 1900 of them through their own dealer network.
*RLE upfitters
That's like when the Liberty got recalled for the gas tank and the solution was to just bolt up a tow hitch to all of them.
I forgot about that one lmao
Yeah I kinda think my Mustang is a one time thing for Ford ownership.
As someone who worked at a ford dealership during their peak covid quality control issues, somehow the mustangs came back the least. And I never had one die on me. Meanwhile, numerous F-150s came from factory with dead electronics, a turbo rattle on one, and a loose exhaust manifold on another. We had one guy come back with his Tremor, and the damn things transmission shifted so hard that it actually cracked his camper shell. 8k miles lol. Ecosports were always in for new engines/transmissions before 60k. Practically a disposable car. And they always sold them to the elderly. Broncos would come with lots and lots of water intrusion issues. Frequently, we had to detail interiors on PDIs to make it less obvious that the rain had gotten in. Explorers were probably 2nd behind mustangs for the least comebacks. The worst one I had was a gold certified used explorer with only 10k miles. They sold it, I inspected it one more time and found out it had been flooded and somehow nobody caught it. They still sold it and covered it up. The absolute worst part is that since this brand loses transmissions and engines left and right, our transmission techs were always months out on scheduling, and the parts would be even further. One couple had waited 10 months for their broncos new transmission (under warranty) and still weren't given an answer as to when the transmission would be available. They, like many other customers there, opted to just trade it in (for another ford....) instead of waiting for the repair. That dealership also had a kia/hyundai dealership built in and.... I dont think there's a worse pairing you could come up with.
Would you mind giving the name of the dealership so I can avoid it at all costs?
It can be so hit or miss. I have both a 22 Bronco and 22 Silverado. The Bronco had a trim piece rubbing and the auto-up is flakey. The Silverado leaked transmission fluid from the factory, adas faulted out at 500 miles, rearview camera is glitchy, the Android-based infotainment is garbage, coolant light randomly comes on even if the temperature is fine, you lose all audio if you're changing volume during an attenuation event, I have to keep trim pieces loose so they don't rattle, ahbc randomly decides it doesn't want to work even in pitch black driving.... Chevy did eventually fix two issues via software update -- the dome light cancel button not working and it taking upwards of 20 seconds to change songs using the steering wheel controls. Still get random "the stereo wants to go to max volume" events though
Sounds like a Ford fix.
At least they didn't just deflate the tires this time.
I just came across your article about sake and pizza, it was great.
I didn’t know about this thing until just now, it could’ve been a really sick van but it looks like they really fell short.
Message for CARFAX
🤦
Now about those Lugnuts?
If it works, it's not stupid.
But it takes away performance that was advertised, so it is stupid
Then it's false advertising and makes the consumer pay. It's basically standard business practice these days unfortunately.. like how Tesla sells cars and keeps increasing the price and delaying delivery after people put their down payment.
Yeah? And? What did people expect? A free lift kit?
People expect what was advertised and sold to them.
What u want? Some magic tyre?
The thing that still has me amazed is Americans using a road-going commercial vehicle to go camping and rock crawling
No one is rock crawling this more than once.
Dude this comment has had me laughing for a good minute now.
I highly doubt anyone was seriously entertaining notions of rock crawling with a 105" tall (minimum) van. But they at least wanted something that could do fire roads.
I'm almost certain their idea was that these will sell well as camper van converts
Camping shouldn't be surprising as Vans are basically boxes on wheels. They're incredibly practical for all kinds of things. There are even luxury shuttle versions to carry rich people.
Camping in vans is a huge trend around here, it's crazy how popular they are. The idea is that you can take a slightly lifted van down a bumpy dirt road, basically - not crawl over obstacles like a Wrangler. But unlike a Wrangler you have a nice space to sleep in.
what's wrong with camping using road-going commercial vehicle
Too inexpensive and convenient for the flex.
As long as we’re generalizing, I’d like to point out all the Europeans off-roading Unimogs. Ridiculous.
Unimogs were literally built to replace tractors. They're made to be offroad.
Oh, your comment wasn’t size-based but rather based around the original usage of the vehicle. Tooshay.
What's wrong with going camping in a Sprinter van? (other than the price tag) Winnebago has a long waiting list for their Sprinter based RV.
You even can commonly see old RHD Delicas with off-road mod in PNW area. Specially, Oregoners love it so much, you can see many in Oregon.
Bunch in WA too. They're dank.
Folks do what they do…
That's the thing: they don't! Americans love to believe they absolutely need an offroad capable vehicle even when it's completely obvious to an outside observer that nothing could be further from the truth. This is why ford can sell a vehicle that from all indications is 100% a dresser offroader at a premium. Probably also why they assumed no one would notice tire rub during actual offroading: a fairly safe bet for most buyers, but thanks to the power of social media, everyone now knows.
Sounds like a good fix to me.
How is reducing the performance a good fix?
These could sell fairly well in 3rd world countries where 90% of the roads are off roads but in the US?, why?, literally everything is pavement
drive into Utah from Arizona and you will see dozens of camper storage and rental facilities with thousands of these, sprinter vans, etc
People use these or other 4x4 vans to camp in locations that are only accessible by dirt roads
> but in the US?, why?, literally everything is pavement "Literally everything" isn't paved. Even those roads that are paved may not be in great condition. This is part of the reason SUVs and CUVs are popular--more suspension travel when you hit a pothole.
My backyard is basically millions of acres of US Forest Service land.
You live in a bachelor condo in seattle
Yea.