I was poking around on Ford's site yesterday and it appears that they will build me a short wheelbase low roof 3.5 Ecoboost Transit van with a factory limited slip. The only thing they won't do is paint it brown, but I'm ok with that one small gripe, I could go black, out on a red stripe and mag wheels and be ok. The 3.5 takes a tune VERY well. Why do I want a modern muscle van? Why doesn't everyone?
That would be fun. Make mine a mid height roof for hauling dirt bikes.
That should be a pretty damn fast combo stock as long as it's unloaded- if you do this you need to keep the R63 for comparison purposes until the Transit is faster, though 
I am ready for a resurgence in custom vans, only with tight suspensions and turbos instead of shag carpet and bubble windows.
And it'll definitely need that tune, considering the van version is noticeably de-rated compared to the truck version (310hp vs 365 or 375 IIRC). For whatever reason, Ford has always loved to de-rate their engines in van applications...
In reply to rslifkin :
Is the van lighter? They might not want their money maker of a truck to have a slower 0-60 time than their mundane van. Sign me up for a mundane van. I love old trucks and a new comfy van sounds great...with a twin turbo V6 and a limited slip.
Does it also have the buried water pump I've heard about on other 3.5 powered vehicles? (I heard of a $3000 quote to replace the water pump on one!)
Doesn't somebody at GRM HQ have one?
Drop the motor to service a van? I never! 
The plan in my head is a grand consolidation. A hot rod van could replace the truck, the R63 and the V wagon all in one fell swoop. I don't think Mrs. Deuce is going to let me, she likes all the weird crap I drive.
I wonder though, I'm 99% sure I've seen a rear sway bar under these vans, does the one ton high roof get a bigger bar? It should. And stiffer shocks? I wonder what you could do with the Ford parts bin. 400hp drift van?
I need to see what we have parked out back- I may be able to get an answer for you.
In reply to RossD :
Nope, the truck is lighter. Looks like the lightest Transit 150 is about 4850 lbs. About 4950 with the 3.5 EB. The lightest F-150 is about 4100. They don't sell a reg cab / short bed with the 3.5 EB, so the lightest 3.5 EB powered F-150 is about 4600 lbs (those beer can trucks are surprisingly light).
Even in the days of V-10 pickups and vans from Ford the vans got less power (along with the chassis cab E series). The trucks got a 310hp 2V V10 and later a 360-ish hp 3V V10. The vans only ever got the 2V and it was derated to 290-ish hp for those.
Car And Driver did a test of the high top LWB. I was surprised by the speed of this thing. I am absolutely in favor of you snagging one.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-ford-transit-350-cargo-van-ecoboost-test-review
None of the various combinations of wheelbase/roof height/capacity seems to have a rear bar (we've got a variety of them). The parking brake cables are routed such that they look a lot like a bar from the back.
The CCLB F250 4x4, however, has a 22mm rear bar which looks like it might fit with a little work.
Interesting that they decided to go without a rear bar. I'll have to ponder that. If we can retrofit bars to tiny cars surely one can be put on a truck. Thanks for checking.
I think the problem with vans is always heat. Even with uprated cooling it's hard to move enough air to keep everything cool to factory standards. Also, fast full-size vans seem like a good way to earn negative press in a hurry if things go pear shaped. I still want one.
What they do have is ginormous bumpstops- I think they're designed to ride on them if they're anywhere near full capacity. To me, this means that there's untapped suspension travel there if you want to lower it
No rear bar on a RWD isn't a big deal, especially combined with stiff springs for load carrying. If it's too floppy, add more rear spring. The lack of bar will probably help grip under power on imperfect surfaces.
I love muscle vans! Please do it!
They didn't put rear sway bars in excursions either.
rslifkin said:And it'll definitely need that tune, considering the van version is noticeably de-rated compared to the truck version (310hp vs 365 or 375 IIRC). For whatever reason, Ford has always loved to de-rate their engines in van applications...
One must look at the ratings closely to see what you are getting out of that tune. The way I read it, all that was really different is that the peak power is moved down. Both truck and van are rated at 400lb-ft, so the only difference is high rpm rating. Which may not really matter for most.
pinchvalve said:I am ready for a resurgence in custom vans, only with tight suspensions and turbos instead of shag carpet and bubble windows.
Oh mine will have shag and bubble windows too. Not to mention a cat riding a unicorn through space airbrushed on the side. Needs a CB too.
In reply to alfadriver :
Yeah. The van version will feel just as fast at part throttle around town because of that. But put your foot down and you'll notice the difference. And it'll be slower in a WOT run up a mountain moving a given weight of van + trailer than the truck would be.
When Tom (Suddard) started posting about the one GRM bought i looked into it and apparently the version i looked at does the 1/4 in ~mid15s @91-92mph stock. I did some weight/trap speed calculations and it seems like the derate might be just an underrate as by the math it was doing a little better than 310hp and thats not accounting for the aero challenges.
Im very glad that full size vans in america finally make sense. The full size vans of the past always seemed like a thrown together afterthought. Even the 94 B250 i've been working on and driving lately is still sort of a bitch to get in and out of, and that's a silly trait that they NEVER got rid of in any full size van in america until we just started importing the vans from the rest of the world that were designed like somebody gave a E36 M3.
My 3.7L NA cab chassis Transit is surprisingly quick, I imagine the ecoboost is a hoot. The transmission is surprisingly good too, which lets the motor sing. I'm not sure how much of a rear bar you would need, the rear end is pretty light and you might just be lifting the inside wheel.
The awd version is supposed to be available early next year, and if so an awd, ecoboost, lsd rear van would be pretty awesome as a people and stuff mover. The one concern might be the 6k# trailer limit, which is right at the adequate for most of us but not huge margins level that would push for an aluminum trailer or preclude an enclosed one.
The transit appeals more than the RAM van, those things look like they are large and FWD with just the tiniest little axle hanging out behind it
oldopelguy said:My 3.7L NA cab chassis Transit is surprisingly quick, I imagine the ecoboost is a hoot. The transmission is surprisingly good too, which lets the motor sing. I'm not sure how much of a rear bar you would need, the rear end is pretty light and you might just be lifting the inside wheel.
The awd version is supposed to be available early next year, and if so an awd, ecoboost, lsd rear van would be pretty awesome as a people and stuff mover. The one concern might be the 6k# trailer limit, which is right at the adequate for most of us but not huge margins level that would push for an aluminum trailer or preclude an enclosed one.
Wonder how much that rating would have more to do with axle ratios etc than chassis limitations
Well, I had to do it too. I went and "built" one on the Ford Website. $46,500 for a really well equipped 8 seat, leather Ecoboost "shorty" van.
Nearly $6k more!!! and it can be a 5cyl diesel which then has a towing capacity of only 3,600# vs the Eco's towing of 5,100#.
Actually, here are engine prices:
You'll need to log in to post.
