Talk:Ford Transit/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture position

Would it not be "nicer" to have the picture at the top of the table? EvocativeIntrigue 21:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

More on Pictures - could anybody locate and add pictures of the Mk.II Mk.III and Mk.IV models —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.220.112 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 August 2006

Previous Model, and "Mark" numbers

starting in 1965 is not the first line of transits, see the german page for pictures and data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.221.136 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 October 2006

I've taken some info on the original Transit, and some pictures, from the German Wikipedia and included them in this English article. I also found the "generations" were out of synch with the German page, and on researching it on the 'net and in the various external links quoted in the article, I've found the confusion reigns all over the place. That's why I've gone for the "a.k.a." stuff, where both reasonably applicable "Mark" designations are given. I've used the production dates rather than "Mark"s in the photo captions for the more recent models, and I'd suggest we do that until we can establish (presumably from Ford themselves) what the correct "Mark"s are. One last point: my apologies for forgetting to uncheck the "minor edit" box on what was clearly not a minor edit! :) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
An anon editor removed the "first Transit" section and also changed the "Mark" numbers system to fail to indicate any conflicts exist. I've restored the paragraph, but left the Marks alone for now, since the current version has a logic to it. But we really need to know what Ford actually say about it. The anon has not provided any reference, so I'd invite them to contribute on this talk page and explain their evidence, please. If there's no further feedback here in a week or so, I'll return the "alternative" numbering system found on some sources, with the "a.k.a." as before. – Kieran T (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Right... I dug out an official Ford publication, from the launch of the 1994 model, which has a full timeline and history of the Transit. It totally avoids using the "Mark" system and goes for production dates as a model identifier instead. I've therefore copied this into the article. Attempting to do otherwise would appear to be PoV or original research. However, since there are secondary sources indicating at least two alternative ways of using the "Mark" system, I've kept a note of those in the text, along with the German "generations" from the German-language Wikipedia article. I've also put an explanatory paragraph in the "Mark 1" section to explain to the reader what's going on. – Kieran T (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Have just put this stuff back. Somebody from an AOL address really seems to want to have only the British info in there. Could always add the "this article lacks global coverage" tag (or whatever it exactly says) if they do it again. 62.30.176.215 13:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair Ford themselves don't count the Taunus Transit as part of the Ford Transit timeline, you are correct that Ford don't use 'Mark' numbers to classify the vans so here is a list or what Ford do use.

Original Transit(1965-1978) Ford Project codes LCX(SWB) LCY(LWB)

Facelift Transit(1978-1986) Ford Project codes LCX/LCY - known as 1978⅛ model

Second Generation Transit(1986-1994) Ford Project code VE6, and from 1991 after facelift VE64

Modified front-end style(1994-2000) Ford Project code VE83

Third-generation Transit(2000-2006) Ford project codes V184 (FWD) & V185 (RWD)

These details are taken from the Ford heritage book that was released in 2005 fort he 40th anniversary of the Transit.--MrMPuk 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's good to get a second source as confirmation that Ford don't use these mark designations.
 As for the German model, I think the point here is that it's not a Ford Transit owner's club page, or whatever, where they can stick to the "family" they support. It's an encyclopædia article about the entity, and the way that's interpreted on many other automotive-related topics is that the heritage of the name is a vital part of the information about the vehicle. It affects public perception, and it intermixes with the history of the company and its moves to globalisation. Look at other cars where different generations are sold in different global markets, we see that it often arouses debate, but the Wikipedia community tends to settle for having all the types covered.
 One edit-summary comment from an anon (the 172-range anon?) was that this is the English Wikipedia. It certainly is the English-language Wikipedia, but I strongly believe that does not mean we shouldn't cover a German vehicle. – Kieran T (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's occurred to me that since we've got all the unofficial designations in there, it'd be worth putting in the official ones you've located, MrMPuk. Could you possibly type up the name of the publication so we can add it as a reference alongside the 1994 one? Cheers. – Kieran T (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think that if you really feel that you need to include The Taunus Transit in this page even though at the top it says that this is not world wide content but just UK then you should at the very least also include the Thames as this page did originally before someone re-wrote it to confuse people by including German numbers on it.

As I said before Ford themselves don't class the Taunus Transit as part of the Transit timeline, other wise the 40 years of Transit celebrations that were celebrated across several countries throughout 2005 would have been in 2001 according to the information contained within wikipedia.

--MrMPuk 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

At the top it says "not world wide content" as a warning — it's not seen as a good thing! It's not a pro-active choice. Random editors with no interest in the Transit are liable to see that flag and copyedit the article to fix the "problem", which I think is less desirable than we, who seem to care about the subject, editing it.
As for the Thames, where there's a connection to the Transit in terms of development (even development of the marketplace), then I'd certainly agree it should get a mention in the text, but if it was never called Transit, and didn't share a floorpan, it probably shouldn't be in anything so big as a sub-section. Really, in that circumstance, it should have its own article, and be linked to appropriately. Have a look at the treatment of the LDV Pilot to see how the old Morris pre-Sherpa vans are mentioned.
And just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you over what Ford themselves count as part of the Transit line. It's just that that's not the point with regard to inclusion of the German van. The point is, the article is where people come if they're interested in Transits. Only the reader knows which Transit they mean. We include the verifiable "Transit" information and let that speak for itself. I don't think the article is misleading. At no point does it claim that the German van was part of the main family in the UK. If it did, it'd be a strong argument to reword it, but as it is I don't see any good argument to deny the reader the information. – Kieran T (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if the Taunus Transit is included due to it sharing part of it's name with the Transit range then surely so should the now 2 series of Transit Connect!--MrMPuk 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That is an interesting bit of marketing, isn't it? There's a difference though (sorry to seem slippery about this!) — but the difference in that to the Germans, the Connect isn't a "generation" of Transit. We're back to the point that the Taunus Transit does appear to be considered part of the family according to the German Wikipedia editors (many of them, see here), and that this English-language edition is expected to give world-wide descriptions and a world-wide view.
Also, the Connect already has its own article, which certainly should be linked from this one, as indeed it is. – Kieran T (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It all at the end of the day comes down to an individuals or small groups view, this in my mind does not nesscessarly make it correct. I for instance could start a Transit club and inform all the members of a new numbering system that I had come up with to include the Thames and Connect and have 300 members believing that this is correct. So what in you mind is correct because I certainly don't read German but I know for afact that the small number of people in the German Transit club seem to have there own numbering system.--MrMPuk 22:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Popularity

I recently saw a bit on the Transit (I think it was one of those greatest 10 ... lists on the Discovery Channel, and they said that one of the main reasons for it's popularity was that it was made to fit standard 8x4 ft sheets of ply. They also said that the earlier models, were the getaway vehicle of choice for bankrobbers, since it was the fastest van around. I can't find any sources for now, but if anyone can, it would be a nice addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.102.34 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 August 2006

- The above 2 claims were made on the BBC TopGear programme. British TV shows of the 70s era featured Transits regularly (as well as mk2 Jaguars).

it certainly took better to the road than a commer minibus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.221.136 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 October 2006

Wheel at each corner rather than tucked underneath like your sainted aunt in a big duffelcoat... a pleasant side-effect of trying to maximise the width of the load bay! It may not even have been the fastest van, but it was the best-handling, somewhat breaking the mould in big-van terms by aping the smaller Morris Minor and 2CV panel vans instead of it's "loaf of bread" shaped rivals. I remember the Top Gear segment using some at-the-time film footage of it holding its own against a pack of Minis on a motorcross course! Surely that can't be the only source for this, though? (Don't make me drag out the classic Police Stop! series-opener chase where a load of the Met's finest are harrying a beat-up old Transit full of cons fresh from a job like a pack of wolves around a bison down the M25... and though it only ever gets up to about 75mph downhill, they can't get past to box them in because the driver swerves like a good'un, and the chase only ends when he overestimates the tyres' grip trying to breakaway at a junction, skidding smokily into a lamp-post. Had it been one of the older competitors, it'd have turned over or at least spun out much earlier. LDV probably made vans that handled just as well by that point, but by 'eck were they slow... the police would have got past even if the driver managed to tack at a good 45 degrees!) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rear model plate of Mark I

So my grandpa owns a Mark I and on the rear door there is this plate that reads: "Ford Transit 100 Diesel". Anyone know what this '100' might stand for and why such apparently non-standard (according to this article) naming has been used on the vans themselves?  ITAL 15:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

- Would this happen to refer to 100 CWT, the loading capacity?

Van and light to medium truck designations appear to be a law unto themselves, I've never been able to work them out. 100 CWT is 5 tons - that would be a hell of a payload even for a modern transit (and would put you into a whole different license category in the UK and probably mainland europe too), and can you imagine that 40hp diesel trying to pull such a load even against the bearings/tyre friction on level ground let alone uphill? A lightly loaded 1-ton mini car with that much engine power isn't exactly fast... I think it's safer to assume they're just manufacturer product codes, like the Intel "CPU numbers". 193.63.174.10 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I can help you. The Mark I Transit was sold in different weight classes, the number refers to the payload. "1" means 10 kgs, so "100" stands for a payload of 1000 kgs. The following weigt classes were offered: 75, 100, 125, 130, 150, 175 and 190. So the payload varied from 750 kgs for the smallest Transit to 1900 kgs for the heaviest version. OnkelFordTaunus (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

E-Series Discussion

This was hidden in the "North America" paragraph I was editing (in bold):

should I include also that the E-series is noticably larger and heavier-duty, though? It's more like the "luton" type van/truck than an actual transit - the current model has something like a 6-ton payload in its heaviest models, which is far more than the transit tops out at; you have to move on to more rugged ford trucks (...and a higher class of license) in the UK to match it!

It wouldn't be a bad idea to include that information. Try this: The Transit is more fuel efficient than the North American E-Series, albeit not as capable.


The luton is called a box van in the US, it has basically the same overkill powertrain as an E-Series where the Transit is similarly powerfull as a luton, albeit with more space.

A 4.6L 225hp Triton V8 petrol engine as the base model engine in a van in the UK would be ridiculous, if it was not for the American's much lower fuel prices.

It goes hand in hand that a US E-Series could be filled full and haul tons of solid rubble due to it's V8 power although statistics show that a Transit and E-Series are basically used for the same purpose and "hauling" needs.

It's just a powertrain difference between a US and UK van, fuel efficiency is second to power in the US. An E-Serious hits 60 a lot faster than a Transit, and can haul more if needed.

Embello (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

American Continent

The section about North America says "The Ford Transit made its debut in the American continent in Mexico on September 10, 2007 and over nine different models are offered. This is the only country in the American continent in which it is currently on sale." North should be added before "American Continent" since the Transit is also on sale in Brazil. Cafecomics (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

While we're on this subject, are there any plans to bring the full-size Transit to the USA? The Transit Connect is already available in the USA, so it would seem that the Transit is due there pretty soon, yes? 72.209.42.92 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ford Transit in China

Theres no article especially for the Chinese version because the only special model is the 2006 Transit. The 2000 generation was imported and the 2008 model is built in China but identical with the European model. --TheAutoJunkie (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's right. But this is no reason for deletion or revision. You can add information to the article and sort them. But Wikipedia is not a place to collect only any information. It is a enzyclopedia. So the content is to correct. All other is a malicious vandalism. --TheAutoJunkie (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The technical information are taken from the manufacturer website of Jiangling Motors. The page is only in Chinese. So it's helpful to use a online translator. But I haven't used all information, only the technical specifications and some other information. I think you can trust an manufacturer website. But I think a person whos has Chinese as his mother language can find more. But that's currently not the mattaer. The matter is that means the text should be better. So he will also improve it. And please use this discussion page here! --TheAutoJunkie (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The page is such a mess now, I have been an enthusiast of the Transit for so long now and have owned over 20 of them, I have been updating and ensuring the information on this page has been correct for 5 years now and you come along and just add every bit of rubbish you can find on the net be it true or not. I give up as you obviously know far more about the workings of Wiki but know sod all about the Transit. 90.204.111.184 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Very exaggerated! This model exists, so it have to be in the article. The problem is to seperate this article because there were more generations avalaible in China. --TheAutoJunkie (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese are amazing "The two facilities are currently manufacturing 300,000 units annually. Ford and Jiangling want to open a third plant in late 2012 to increase the annual production to 3,000 units" going from 300,000 units to 3,000 is an amazing increase maybe this article should focus less on how "Remarkable are the much larger headlights and the larger grille." are and instead on the accuracy of the article. -- Nate Riley 12:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well observed! It was only a forgotten word to have the right meaning. The first plant 1 is manufacturing 140.000 units a year. Plant 2 which manufactures the 2008 Transit (New Generation Transit) is manufacturing 160.000 units annual. The this plant which will be opened in 2012 will be only for the assembling of 3.000 more units. But I don't know which generation there should be assembled. I think it will be the new, but I am not sure. --TheAutoJunkie (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

About article

"Man With Van Challenge". Is it mistake? I find only "White van man challenge" here RusCloud (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Has already understood. RusCloud (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing / incorrect engine information

The section for the 1994-2000 Transit makes no mention of the normally aspirated 2.5L diesel engines that most UK models had, only the petrols and turbo-diesel. I don't know the power output but they are so gutless! 

 The Normally Aspirated Diesel I think came in various power outputs, I think there was a 52bhp version also used in the first gen MCW Metrocab, a version of the original Top Gear with Jeremy Clarkson testing taxis mentioned this engine but I can't find the clip.  They might also have came in 70 and 85bhp versions so I've seen but which one is the turbo I dunno,I know there's a 115bhp that's gotta be the turbo and probably a 100bhp too, anybody who can clarify this please do chime in here.

 Also only one or 2 of the sections mention the transmission options for each model.  I have seen a video clip on Youtube that apparently there is an Automatic version of the mk4 or 5 transit dunno which one.  They're rare apparently but the clip is here if anybody knows anything about what sort of gearbox these had.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbwVZb4Q28w  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.176.222 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, in the section for the 2000-2006 Transit the author must have mixed up the petrol and TDCi diesel engines (they have the same 0-60 time) because he/she said Sabine Schmitz drove a petrol engined Transit round the Nurburgring, it was a TDCi diesel (TDCi badge on the front grille, also Richard Hammond said it was a diesel-powered van). I don't know where the author is from but the article seems predominantly petrol engine information, ironic when most Transits (in the UK) are diesels. --81.156.15.155 (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the above poster. I have since found out that the power output is only 70 bhp! (later 76 bhp). Would be nice to see some corrections made based on the information in my last post too. --86.133.108.228 (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No reply after nearly 2 years since my original posting?!? --81.152.95.136 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm the OP from 2011/2013 - thanks for the response from 2015 which I've only just seen! Strange how the article doesn't mention that "most" UK 1994-2000 Transits are the naturally aspirated Diesels up to 76hp, and is still biased towards the less common petrol engines and 85hp upwards turbo-Diesel engines. I must do something about this one day! Anamyd (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus image

Can this go into the article? I want to add it to List of buses, but don't know if it's considered a Ford Transit. Please advise.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You've not even added it to the list of buses. 90.208.174.141 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Why yes, I know that. I was inquiring here first to see if it's considered a Ford Transit. Considering it's not in this article, I thought I'd check. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a Mk1 Ford Transit based service bus. Service buses based on Mk2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/solenteer/4429549661/) and Mk3 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/35114850@N08/5148374032/) Transits also exist(ed). I would like to see some information in this article about the Ford Transit as a service bus and its popularity during the minibus craze of the 80s! --217.39.39.112 (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I added it to List of buses as "Transport bus FS19". I guess I should change it. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

4x4 section.

I just noticed that at the bottom of the page there is a link to the "Transit County 4x4 site". I first thought that it would be better moved to be a reference in the actual 4x4 section of the article, but on looking at the aforementioned site, it isn't an official company site, but a 4x4 County owners site. Moreover, the site (apart from some very good images) seems to use text almost identical to the text on Wikipedia.

I'm loathe to remove the link full stop, as it's an interesting - and probably fairly unique - part of the Transit's history, but I'm not sure that it should stay - and if so certainly not at the bottom of the page, so I've relocated it to the 4x4 section, pending decision.

If anybody else has a thought, please edit away. Just wanted anothers opinion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, remove it. We're not here to replace Google. Reading WP:EL is worth it - their purpose is to add things to our articles that aren't there, or won't be there. ELs aren't intended as a directory of what's on the web for that topic.
I usually support owners' clubs as ELs. This is because a decent site will add content that we don't have, or a major club is worth linking in its own right. Their EL has to justify itself under one of those aspects though. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Next-gen Transit - ridiculous heading!

"2014 - present" - that doesn't make sense as it is presently 2013. --81.152.95.136 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind that, why the hell have they done THAT to the front end for? "Ugly" doesn't even begin to cover it. Mr Larrington (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ford Transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ford Transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Rear image replacement

Hi, I've replaced this image with this image -
In most countries the Pre-facelift was sold with bright clear rear lights however I believe it was sold with dark lights in Russia (There are a few pics of the van with dark lights in other countries but I don't know if these were exports from Russia or whether these were sold with dark lights),
I'm under the impression other than Russia these were sold with clear rear lights hence replacement,
Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 17:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure the difference isn't just due to the different daylight conditions (sun brightness, direction etc.)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi PaleCloudedWhite, I can't see how that would affect the colour ?, Anyway searching by year models seems to still throw up light and dark for all countries ... so I'm not too sure, I can't see it being a sunlight or direction thing as to my knowledge it's never affected any other vehicle on the planet ?, Anyway I've restored,
Many thanks :), –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 20:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I asked the question because I got the impression your assertion was unsourced, and when I looked at both images, I couldn't see any discernible difference in colour. OK, the blue van has darker-looking light fittings, but to me that's just because the sun isn't shining through the plastic to make it brighter, as in the white van. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
You're not going to get sources on that sort of thing as that model was made in the '80-'90s ...., Well I disagree I don't think sunlight plays any sort of part here - The lights would generally look the same regardless of season and whatnot. –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 23:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

fact error, used by emergency services in U.S.A or other countries?

I dont know, but they say than the ford transit is used by Emergency medical services or police and/or Swat, trust me, also are used in the U.K and other countries if you dont believe me, please see the next images, the links are here, just click on it: http://www.carrosblindados.com.mx/wp-content/uploads/INKAS_Ford-Transit-SWAT-01.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/df/d7/cc/dfd7ccf8efffb7cc33ddcd267fa61644.jpg https://static1.squarespace.com/static/546b81fbe4b0f17878b992f2/546d8771e4b093626abe8974/59b8352890bade0135f35c0c/1505244649759/2017-pendleton-rescue-southeastern-transit_001.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalininos (talk • contribs)

Hello Kalinios, it is not clear what you think the problem is. The article says that there are versions built for emergency applications. Nobody doubts that they are used for that, and the article didn't say otherwise.
Also, please sign your comments to the take page with four tilde signs (~).
Averell (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Generation confusion

The 'Third generation' section has paragraphs talking about fourth generation ('Facelift (2006–2013)') and fifth generation ('SuperSportVan') vehicles. The 'Fourth generation' section is talking about fifth generation vehicles ('The fifth generation of the Transit was officially launched in January 2013').

I've not checked the rest of the article exhaustively.

154.59.156.153 (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ford Transit facelift picture

Can someone add this picture of the facelifted Ford Transit? The biggest exterior difference is the grille change. Thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Facelift
    Facelift
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Transit/Archive_1&oldid=1136352060"