Ford should do what GM has done, extend the wheelbase on the 15 passenger models, rather than lengthening them. There should also be some more reinforcement added to the body so it doesn't crush as much in a rollover. People also need to realize that they need seatbelts. It's just needed. It's a good thing there are three point belts in them now.
There should also be dually wheels for these sort of vans. It could help keep them from having those severe blowouts that happens with the tires.
1: Longer vehicles have GREATER lateral stability, not less.
2: There is no room for luggage in 15 passenger vans.
3: The tires in the van do not need different pressures for different loads, it's 55 front 80 rear, 24/7. Well, it is for my Ford.....
4: Rollovers are highly unlikely if a skilled driver is at the helm. Hell, I'm 17, drive the van like a 17 year old does, and I have yet to lose control.
2: Where the hell are you fitting this luggage with people? There's not room for more than MAYBE a backpack or two under the seats, if that. Most of the under seat space is taken up by the feet of the people in the row behind. Unless your luggage consists of lead, luggage is not a contributing factor.
@johneastmond Trailers, properly loaded, hitched and braked, do not contribute to rollovers. We've pulled everything from little utility trailers to 8,000 pounds worth of 28 foot enclosed race car trailer. The only time I had a scary incident was when I loaded the utility trailer about 50 pounds tongue light. I adjusted my loading and was on my way, not a sway in sight.
The weight issue is that these vans, loaded to capacity, have a rearward weight bias and a lot of weight aft of the rear axle. Think Porsche 911. When you get into a long turn fully loaded at speed (way too much speed) and then try to remove speed, you will lose the tail end and it will swing out. This is simple physics. RSC helps to mitigate the issue by controlling power/braking but in the end PHYSICS are there.
@johneastmond This is not vehicle fault, this is driver fault, plain and simple.
3: They sure as hell shouldn't be. They should be checked and maintained constantly, nothing more.
Actually, funny thing that, nope. I turn 19 in 10 days and still drive that van. It has 121,xxx miles on it now and not a lick of trouble. You see, I understand basic physics of handling and avoid situations that will cause a loss of control. I'm not a dumbass.
@skenneyjr Ask me how I knew. I've got the job of explaining to people how they're loved ones got injured or died. I'm a remote facilities operations engineer. It's my job to provide all the infrastructure and logistics to do the job at hand and provide for life safety at the same time. Can you figure out why it would be the left rear? When you (or anyone for that matter)want the answer comment me and I'll be happy to reply.
@johneastmond Why is it the left rear? Simple: when fully loaded, there is a slight weight bias towards the left and these vehicles tend to be overloaded. The tires can support a max of 3042 pounds each in the rear, and if they are not fully inflated or they are overloaded they will fail.
@johneastmond The only solution to this would be to install tires with a higher weight capacity, as the rest of the rear end can support far more. The frame on an E-350 van, single or dual wheel, is the same. The axles are largely the same and very interchangeable, as are the springs. The trouble is, to install tires with a higher load capacity you have to go up a size in wheel diameter, which would be pointlessly expensive.
The reason vans like these roll is the drivers thinking they handle like sports cars. We own a 2005 Ford E350 extended with 70,000 miles. We had a blowout at 80 MPH because the tire was bad(tires were religiously filled to 80 PSI) and I never lost control. it's the driver being an incompetent dumbass, not the vehicle itself.
The reason why people lose control of their 15-passenger vans is because of the tires. The tires become bald and show the cords, making the tire blow at highway speeds because of the heat created. It's not about weight distribution, it's about common sense and checking your tires.
With fuel at $3.50 a gallon having 10 vehicles that get 25 MPG is like one that gets 2.5 MPG. Each of these vans gets about 12 MPG. One vehicle is more efficient than two, ALWAYS.
It's being realistic. One trained educated driver can control one of those vehicles very easily. To believe that they are unsafe because of design is arrogant. They are unsafe because of the moron at the wheel. It's a truck, it needs to be driven like one.
why look at the vehicle jez135? theres 2 areas that will make the 15-pass van a dangerous vehicle - carelessness of the operator and lack of maintenace. yes it maybe top-heavy but so is the Volvo 670 that i drive every day.. and I know this truck inside and out. put an idiot in this truck and its flat-out dangerous.
The length of the wheelbase is actually just one inch longer than that of an extended cab gm pickup, and the engines are rarely powerful enough to make a vehicle of this weight lose traction at the rear wheels. Fish-tailing is the result of losing traction...too little weight not too much. That's the opinion of a man who logs about four hours a week in just such a van. ANY vehicle is dangerous in the hands of a novice driver.
Sir, you assumptions concerning the vehicles are incorrect. There is not enough room in the rear to throw off the weight ratio of the van. They are no more top heavy than many suv's and due to their longer wheel bases they are likely MORE stable. The difference in weight between loaded and unloaded is much smaller than that of my 1/2 ton truck. They are not difficult to drive if in the hands of an experienced driver.
Ford should do what GM has done, extend the wheelbase on the 15 passenger models, rather than lengthening them. There should also be some more reinforcement added to the body so it doesn't crush as much in a rollover. People also need to realize that they need seatbelts. It's just needed. It's a good thing there are three point belts in them now.
There should also be dually wheels for these sort of vans. It could help keep them from having those severe blowouts that happens with the tires.
frohman3 1 year ago
Comment removed
chris66712 2 years ago
1: Longer vehicles have GREATER lateral stability, not less.
2: There is no room for luggage in 15 passenger vans.
3: The tires in the van do not need different pressures for different loads, it's 55 front 80 rear, 24/7. Well, it is for my Ford.....
4: Rollovers are highly unlikely if a skilled driver is at the helm. Hell, I'm 17, drive the van like a 17 year old does, and I have yet to lose control.
skenneyjr 3 years ago
You have yet to blow a left-rear tire! Haven't hauled a full load.
1.Longer WHEELBASES have better lateral stability.
2 Luggage under seats and pulling trailers.
3 Tire pressures are changed constantly on well managed vans.
4 If loaded and driven like a 17 year old you will! And people will die! If you wear a seat belt and roll in these you will be injured or killed!
johneastmond 2 years ago
@johneastmond
1: True.
2: Where the hell are you fitting this luggage with people? There's not room for more than MAYBE a backpack or two under the seats, if that. Most of the under seat space is taken up by the feet of the people in the row behind. Unless your luggage consists of lead, luggage is not a contributing factor.
skenneyjr 1 year ago
@johneastmond Trailers, properly loaded, hitched and braked, do not contribute to rollovers. We've pulled everything from little utility trailers to 8,000 pounds worth of 28 foot enclosed race car trailer. The only time I had a scary incident was when I loaded the utility trailer about 50 pounds tongue light. I adjusted my loading and was on my way, not a sway in sight.
skenneyjr 1 year ago
@johneastmond
The weight issue is that these vans, loaded to capacity, have a rearward weight bias and a lot of weight aft of the rear axle. Think Porsche 911. When you get into a long turn fully loaded at speed (way too much speed) and then try to remove speed, you will lose the tail end and it will swing out. This is simple physics. RSC helps to mitigate the issue by controlling power/braking but in the end PHYSICS are there.
skenneyjr 1 year ago
@johneastmond This is not vehicle fault, this is driver fault, plain and simple.
3: They sure as hell shouldn't be. They should be checked and maintained constantly, nothing more.
Actually, funny thing that, nope. I turn 19 in 10 days and still drive that van. It has 121,xxx miles on it now and not a lick of trouble. You see, I understand basic physics of handling and avoid situations that will cause a loss of control. I'm not a dumbass.
skenneyjr 1 year ago
@johneastmond You're more likely to die without a seatbelt than with, idiot. Also, people may or may not die. Don't be throwing around absolutes.
In summation: Learn how to drive and you're fine.
skenneyjr 1 year ago
@johneastmond Also, the tire we blew WAS, in fact, the left rear.
skenneyjr 1 year ago
@skenneyjr Ask me how I knew. I've got the job of explaining to people how they're loved ones got injured or died. I'm a remote facilities operations engineer. It's my job to provide all the infrastructure and logistics to do the job at hand and provide for life safety at the same time. Can you figure out why it would be the left rear? When you (or anyone for that matter)want the answer comment me and I'll be happy to reply.
johneastmond 1 year ago
@johneastmond Why is it the left rear? Simple: when fully loaded, there is a slight weight bias towards the left and these vehicles tend to be overloaded. The tires can support a max of 3042 pounds each in the rear, and if they are not fully inflated or they are overloaded they will fail.
skenneyjr 1 year ago
@johneastmond The only solution to this would be to install tires with a higher weight capacity, as the rest of the rear end can support far more. The frame on an E-350 van, single or dual wheel, is the same. The axles are largely the same and very interchangeable, as are the springs. The trouble is, to install tires with a higher load capacity you have to go up a size in wheel diameter, which would be pointlessly expensive.
skenneyjr 1 year ago
@johneastmond As it stands, the best solution is to not overload the vehicle and take care to ensure the tires are at correct PSI.
skenneyjr 1 year ago
The reason vans like these roll is the drivers thinking they handle like sports cars. We own a 2005 Ford E350 extended with 70,000 miles. We had a blowout at 80 MPH because the tire was bad(tires were religiously filled to 80 PSI) and I never lost control. it's the driver being an incompetent dumbass, not the vehicle itself.
skenneyjr 3 years ago
The reason why people lose control of their 15-passenger vans is because of the tires. The tires become bald and show the cords, making the tire blow at highway speeds because of the heat created. It's not about weight distribution, it's about common sense and checking your tires.
perfoodleschnitz 3 years ago
The people of the world should bann everything like this.
I lost someone very close in the E350. 'Wasn't wearing seatbelt'...BS. Just like this man says, you'll get cr**ed anyway...
Why 15 pass van? Why not...10 sedans ? You dont NEED to ride toegether
jez135 4 years ago
Why not 10 sedans?
Are you retarded?
With fuel at $3.50 a gallon having 10 vehicles that get 25 MPG is like one that gets 2.5 MPG. Each of these vans gets about 12 MPG. One vehicle is more efficient than two, ALWAYS.
skenneyjr 3 years ago
And you rate money over safety?
Now that's simply idiotic if you'd rather die than to pay a buck more each time you visit the gas station.
jez135 3 years ago
But driving 10 sedans would require more people to drive the vehicles. Just being resposible with your van will keep you safe indeed.
Fil3691 3 years ago
It's being realistic. One trained educated driver can control one of those vehicles very easily. To believe that they are unsafe because of design is arrogant. They are unsafe because of the moron at the wheel. It's a truck, it needs to be driven like one.
skenneyjr 3 years ago
@jez135 Safety isn't the issue. Efficiency is. Spend the money and resources on driver training. Voila! No more wrecks!
skenneyjr 1 year ago
And you rate money over safety?
Now that's simply idiotic if you'd rather die than to pay a buck more each time you visit the gas station.
jez135 3 years ago
why look at the vehicle jez135? theres 2 areas that will make the 15-pass van a dangerous vehicle - carelessness of the operator and lack of maintenace. yes it maybe top-heavy but so is the Volvo 670 that i drive every day.. and I know this truck inside and out. put an idiot in this truck and its flat-out dangerous.
Tr2u1ck 2 years ago
The length of the wheelbase is actually just one inch longer than that of an extended cab gm pickup, and the engines are rarely powerful enough to make a vehicle of this weight lose traction at the rear wheels. Fish-tailing is the result of losing traction...too little weight not too much. That's the opinion of a man who logs about four hours a week in just such a van. ANY vehicle is dangerous in the hands of a novice driver.
spamleader 4 years ago
Sir, you assumptions concerning the vehicles are incorrect. There is not enough room in the rear to throw off the weight ratio of the van. They are no more top heavy than many suv's and due to their longer wheel bases they are likely MORE stable. The difference in weight between loaded and unloaded is much smaller than that of my 1/2 ton truck. They are not difficult to drive if in the hands of an experienced driver.
spamleader 4 years ago