Transit - FWD vs RWD

Author
Discussion

Jakg

Original Poster:

3,604 posts

175 months

Monday 3rd March 2014
quotequote all
I'm picking some stuff up for work soon, which involves hiring a van. Nothing too heavy - just too bulky for a car.

Never driven a van before and am quite excited (sad, I know!).

Originally I chose a "medium van" which is listed as a Ford Transit 280 SWB FWD Low Roof. I've just realised for an extra £10 I could of gotten a "large van" instead, a Ford Transit 350 LWB RWD High Roof. Both are listed with the 2.2 TDCi 100ps engine.

The high-roof model has slightly worse MPG (32 vs 40) but the companies paying for the fuel anyway.

Is a RWD transit going to be the pinnacle of driving excellence vs FWD, or am I just never going to notice?

kiethton

14,071 posts

187 months

Monday 3rd March 2014
quotequote all
You will not notice a thing...except for the larger turning circle (and extra care) needed with the longer van

golfer19

1,579 posts

140 months

Monday 3rd March 2014
quotequote all
No real difference between the two.
You may be surprised how well a Transit drives.

Jon999

400 posts

155 months

Monday 3rd March 2014
quotequote all
FWD is better in the Transit than RWD, especially when unladen.

Jonny_

4,289 posts

214 months

Monday 3rd March 2014
quotequote all
golfer19 said:
No real difference between the two.
You may be surprised how well a Transit drives.
The current (2007ish-onward) model is astoundingly pleasant to drive, even in base model flatbed form with a 90bhp engine. It's light years ahead of the previous one, which in turn was leagues ahead of the 1990s "smiley face" Transits. RWD ones are marginally less refined, I've found, but the difference is very minor.

abbotsmike

1,033 posts

152 months

Tuesday 4th March 2014
quotequote all
You can't powerslide the front wheel drive one around a wet roundabout driving

Parsnip

3,135 posts

195 months

Tuesday 4th March 2014
quotequote all
Either way, a rental Transit will be the fastest thing you have ever driven - once you get used to the constant ratio, variable noise gearbox.

abbotsmike

1,033 posts

152 months

Tuesday 4th March 2014
quotequote all
And if you do get the LWB, don't do what I've seen so many people do and forget that it has a longer wheelbase and wider turning circle, then clobber it on a car/bollard in the area just in front of the rear wheels.

grumpy52

5,717 posts

173 months

Tuesday 4th March 2014
quotequote all
You will be amazed that you will always have another gear to go(6spead box)
The smaller engined models run out of puff when loaded, in the wind, and going uphill.

LouD86

3,285 posts

160 months

Tuesday 4th March 2014
quotequote all
With the 100bhp, your a 5 speed. FWD for comfort if it will fit in what you need

agent006

12,058 posts

271 months

Tuesday 4th March 2014
quotequote all
Bet they give you an Iveco now.

951TSE

600 posts

164 months

Tuesday 4th March 2014
quotequote all
Make sure you ask the hirers if there's anything you need to know, like different speed limits for instance.

mph1977

12,467 posts

175 months

Saturday 8th March 2014
quotequote all
kiethton said:
You will not notice a thing...except for the larger turning circle (and extra care) needed with the longer van
however the rwd may have better steering lock than the FWD or AWD ( as iirc there is now a factory AWD Transit)... but that would require someone with a more intimate knowledge of Transit oily bits to comment on the simialrity / differences between the front axles when driven or undriven ...

bigger worry with the longer van may be tail swing ... inside 'cut in' (source of the scrapes in front of nearside rear wheel on vans and ambis) is much the same between FWD and RWD vans

twing

5,211 posts

138 months

Monday 10th March 2014
quotequote all
Rear wheel drive is much higher to load into as well

Jakg

Original Poster:

3,604 posts

175 months

Monday 10th March 2014
quotequote all


Ended up with an 85 HP FWD Transit.

Suprisingly fun to hustle along (it feels wrong to make something that big travel briskly down a country road), excellent turning circle too which I wasn't expecting. The engine was a bit of a let down on the motorway (75 was about as much as it wanted to do before giving up all pretences of comfort!) but for a few fleeting moments in 3rd felt surprisingly punchy.

Hooli

32,278 posts

207 months

Tuesday 11th March 2014
quotequote all
abbotsmike said:
You can't powerslide the front wheel drive one around a wet roundabout driving
This is the only fact that matters.

vanordinaire

3,701 posts

169 months

Tuesday 11th March 2014
quotequote all
Hooli said:
abbotsmike said:
You can't powerslide the front wheel drive one around a wet roundabout driving
This is the only fact that matters.

I agree

Jakg

Original Poster:

3,604 posts

175 months

Tuesday 11th March 2014
quotequote all
I should also mention that the rented van came with ESP which couldn't be defeated (press & hold, it switches off, light comes on the dash, but then about 10 secs later went away again).

And I only managed 34 MPG over 500 miles... ooops.

harrisp

200 posts

154 months

Tuesday 11th March 2014
quotequote all
I've only managed an average of 36mpg in mine over 69,000 miles.
The FWD transits have less passenger leg room.

Cyberprog

2,232 posts

190 months

Tuesday 11th March 2014
quotequote all
Just remember that on Dual Carriageways you've got a lower speed limit in a van - 60 vs 70. Easy for you to get a fine if you're new to driving a van and don't realise!