What is The Most Fuel Efficient Cargo Van?

[SierraVanCampers]

Just for comparison. Chevrolet Express 2500 Extended Van with a 24" raised fiberglass top with camper build. 6.0 V8. Just returned on a trip and averaged exactly 16.0.

 

[rruff]

My understanding is that all the Transits are at the same body, same two 6 cylinder engine choices.
So a short wheel base normal roof with the Ecoboost engine probably gets the best mileage.
I have a SWB med roof transist with the 3.7L. I average low 20's MPG.

The Ecoboost 3.5L is designed for power not economy... in the pickup it gets the same MPG as the 5.0L V8. If they put the 2.7L EB in the vans, that would be a good pick for mpg. Your other choice is the 3.3L NA V6, which would be my pick, mostly for simplicity and size in the engine bay, and less weight. Best MPG also. It comes with the 10 spd. With a low gear differential, a locker, 2" lift and bigger tires it would get around fine offroad.

Ford used to have a diesel option for the Transit... don't know if they still do. I wouldn't get a diesel unless it was pre-2007 though.

I've heard good things about the Ram... front wheel drive (good and bad points), lower to the ground and a little wider, more square. Comes with a small V6 Fiat engine... and reliability seems to be a bit worse than the Fords.

I wonder about fuel economy Vs. longevity. A smaller engine will get better fuel economy, but it will be working harder in many instances. Transmissions are also a consideration. Small engine = small transmission. These items cost thousands to replace, and if you need to replace one there is the possibility of needing to replace the other in the near future.

All things being equal, a big engine should last a little longer... that's if you don't actually use the extra HP of the big motor. Plus with decent maintenance, there is very little wear in normal operating conditions; rather it's cold starts that cause most of it.

I think the quality of the design is important. I lived in an overloaded '84 Toyota pickup with a 2.4L engine, and seriously abused it. I retired it at 260,000 miles, and it never let me down. I'd be happy with that performance in any vehicle. Several Tundras with a V8 have gone over 1,000,000 miles, but I doubt I'll put 200,000 on mine before I'm dead.

At least in the Transit, the 3.5 EB has the same transmission as the 3.3 NA engine.

 

[rruff]

these have diesel engines which last forever, but hard to get parts and drive on the right side. Really want one. They are not that expensive like a Mercedes camper, in the 20K or so range, made by Toyota in Japan.

Ya, those Hiace vans are great. They can't sell them in the US because of crash standards and the forward cab position... even though it's more practical in many other ways.

MPG is a low priority for me. Nice, but not if have to compromise to much on other things like offroad ability and reliability. There is a big size factor also! Maybe it would make more sense if you were driving a lot. I plan to snowbird from Yuma to central UT most of the time, and doubt I'll exceed 10k miles/yr.

From the OPs link:

 

[Calaverasgrande]

I wonder about fuel economy Vs. longevity. A smaller engine will get better fuel economy, but it will be working harder in many instances. Transmissions are also a consideration. Small engine = small transmission. These items cost thousands to replace, and if you need to replace one there is the possibility of needing to replace the other in the near future.

I don't think it really is that simple. There are ample examples of small engines that run forever under reasonable loads.
Toyota Hilux never had huge displacement engines and those trucks are legendary.
The Volvo 5 cylinder engines are reputed to be indestructible.
If anything, I think large displacement engines are inherently flawed due to their need to remove massive amounts of heat from such a large mass. And the diminishing returns one gets from more cylinders/displacement.
As far as transmissions are concerned. I think that is more up to the design and cooling of the trans than it's size. I've had large Ford and GM transmissions break like glass. I've had tiny Honda and Nissan transmissions put up with endless abuse.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

Honestly the only time I need to stand up in my van is to put on clothes.
Happy I went with a med roof Transit instead of the high roof transit which can't do drive throughs and much be even more of a sailboat when semis blast by.

 

[rruff]

Honestly the only time I need to stand up in my van is to put on clothes.
Happy I went with a med roof Transit instead of the high roof transit which can't do drive throughs and much be even more of a sailboat when semis blast by.

I agree. For a small space being able to sit up straight is important, but being able to stand isn't.

One thing I love about nomadic living is being in nature and far from the things of man... and being able to move around to where the weather is nice. I don't want to spend much time inside my rig. I cook, shower, wash dishes, poop and pee, and often sleep outside.

Now that I'm alone, I'd prefer a 4runner or Sequoia; cut out the roof and build a high-top... or even chop off the body behind the front doors and build a camper. Neither of those would get good MPG, but there is nothing for sale in the US with good offroad ability that does.

 

[Quinn]

Great! I have a Ford Transit 350 Medium roof long wheelbase...I get an average of 17.8 mpg. On a long stretch of flat freeway with little wind resistance it can be over 20 mpg, but goes down to 15-16 mpg if I'm gaining elevation or in a strong wind, or on slow roads or forest roads.

Omg i have a Ford Transit 150 short body medium roof passenger and i get only 16/17mpg. Maybe 18 on a slight downhill Why??

 

[Calaverasgrande]

Omg i have a Ford Transit 150 short body medium roof passenger and i get only 16/17mpg. Maybe 18 on a slight downhill Why??

How fast do you drive? I find the mileage goes down when you go up over 60-65 or so.

 

[Ripper238]

Q: What is The Most Fuel Efficient Cargo Van?

A: The one you don't drive a lot.

 

[WayOutWest]

Omg i have a Ford Transit 150 short body medium roof passenger and i get only 16/17mpg. Maybe 18 on a slight downhill Why??

Wow, that's interesting. I would think that since you have a short wheelbase and lighter van (150 is less weight I believe) yours would get better mpg. Do you have a heavy load in it?
I drive 65-70 on "major" freeways, but slower, more like 55-60, on two-lane rural highways. On an 11-day trip from California to Idaho and back this year, average overall mpg was 17.86 mpg.

 

[rruff]

Wow, that's interesting. I would think that since you have a short wheelbase and lighter van (150 is less weight I believe) yours would get better mpg. Do you have a heavy load in it?

Anecdotes of mpg are always all over the place. Speed, wind, altitude, drafting, temperature, driving style, tires, etc... make a difference. Best to check Fuelly for comparisons. Those are anecdotes too, but at least there are a lot of them.

 

[The Wheel Nomad]

Anecdotes of mpg are always all over the place. Speed, wind, altitude, drafting, temperature, driving style, tires, etc... make a difference. Best to check Fuelly for comparisons. Those are anecdotes too, but at least there are a lot of them.

I had a 2015 transit 150 med roof with the 3.7 liter. I could average 20mpg keeping the RPM's under 2000 is the key. That means 62 on the hwy's.

BTW the 3.7 liter is a dog. Worst underpowered engine I have ever owned. I wish they made a V8 or the 6.7 liter diesel for the Transit. I would buy one in a heartbeat. But the engine bay is so tiny.

The 3.5 liter has good power and tows well but putting a turbo on a gas engine is just silly. Your going to be lucky if the engine is not worn out by 100000 to 150000 miles. The 10 speed transmission is awesome shifts like a dream.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

Dont think the 3.7L is bad at all. I've a lot more to say about the Guibo they had to recall, and teh way the driveline vibrates at pretty much any speed.
Sure you can't peel out with the 3.7, But I have no problems passing other vehicles on the freeway even going up hill.
It just hogs gas when I do need to go 70+.
Really don't see the need for V8 or V10 in any van unless you plan on towing a camper.
And this is a thread on fuel efficiency, V8's are not doing a lot of that.

 

[rruff]

Dont think the 3.7L is bad at all.

The newer one is a 3.3L... much better MPG and more power to boot.

The rest of the world drives Transits with wee little 2.0L diesel engines that make from 105 to 185 HP. But in the US the 290 HP of the 3.3L V6 isn't nearly enough...

 

[beachy]

Why can't they make a hybrid van? Any hybrid van with good mpgs would sell like crazy. A 4wd version would be snapped up by the adventure/vanlife crowd. Drives me crazy waiting for this obvious development...

 

[rruff]

Hybrids are mostly a benefit in city commuting. I don't think van-life is a good fit for it... even if you could get one.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

the whole point of hybrids is running the engine in the ideal power band where it gets the best mileage.
For a smaller camper van I think that makes a LOT of sense. Since that is what I do on the days that I'm driving a lot.
On the camping out days I'm managing my power usage. A hybrid which integrated solar charging, DC power and an inverter would be amazing.
With van conversions becoming the latest DIY hobby and vans/RVs selling out fast these days, I'd be surprised if we don't see a hybrid van from Toyota, Honda, Ford or GM.
Especially a plug in hybrid like my sister's Prius. She only drives around on errands and she has filled up the gas twice in the last year.
Remember, not all van life people are logging in hundreds of miles a day. Some folks just orbit around a general area.

 

[rruff]

the whole point of hybrids is running the engine in the ideal power band where it gets the best mileage.

Or using the electric drive instead for acceleration and regen. There is very little benefit at highway or even slower but steady speeds, though. If you are driving around in cities a lot it would be a benefit.

There are simpler ways reduce fuel consumption, if that is a priority. But... if you have a newish vehicle, the cost of fuel is small compared to the total cost of owning and driving, even if you only get 12 mpg.

 

[beachy]

These vans are originally designed to be city delivery vans, so they should have been hybrids from the beginning of hybrid adoption. There is a lot of rural driving that is the same as city driving with slower speeds and stops, e.g. parks and forests. Calaverasgrande has it right, lots of advantages to a hybrid like access to the battery. With a newish vehicle the cost of driving IS fuel, period.

​

 

[rruff]

With a newish vehicle the cost of driving IS fuel, period.

Ford Transit, cost to own: https://www.edmunds.com/ford/transit-van/2019/cost-to-own/

Total for 5 years, $56,369. Fuel is $17,680 of that, or 31% of the total.