Talk:Ford Transit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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?