By on April 19, 2012

Americans with well worn passports often amaze their less-traveled friends with miraculous tales of a land full of tiny, fuel-efficient vehicles, expensive gasoline and miniature cans of Coke. (Really, those Coke cans are awesome.) The story inevitably ends with, “I wish I could buy X here”.  Ford has so far been the most receptive to these cries, with the tasty Euro Focus, Fiesta (and soon the Fusion/Mondeo) to our shores. But what about some fuel-efficient love for the man-in-the-van? That’s where the Transit Connect fits in according to Ford. TTAC is no stranger to the Transit Connect with our own Sajeev Meta taking a spin in 2009. However in this review, we’ll attempt to compare the Connect to the other commercial options on the market while channeling our inner Joe-six-pack.

The Connect is off to a good start, with sales climbing from 8,834 in 2009 to 31,914 in 2011 proving there is a market for a mini-bread-van. The small hauler even accounted for 21.4% of Ford’s US van sales in 2011. Meanwhile, sales of the ancient and thirsty E-Series increased from 85,735 units to 116,874 from 2010 to 2011. By comparison, GM shifted just 89,211 vans in 2011. The reason behind the sales jump is obvious: high gas prices and no efficient cargo haulers to compete with it. But does that mean you should own one?

The overall look is awkward to the American eye with a tall box grafted onto a long car-like hood, but looks aren’t what this vehicle is about. Compared with the E-150, the full-sized van is 36 inches longer, 9 inches wider but only 3 inches taller on the outside. The inside is where things get interesting. The E-150 supports a cargo hold 120 x 73 x 52 (L x W x H in inches) while Connect provides 81 x 59 x 59, that’s actually 7-inches taller than the E-150. Getting bulky cargo inside the Connect is easy with a cargo hold opening that is 51.1 x 52.1 inches (W x H) compared to the E-Series 53.9 x 49.5. More importantly, the load floor that is 5.5 inches lower and the double doors open a full 255-degrees  magnetically latching to the side of the van. If you prefer to talk in cubes, the Connect will haul 107 fewer cubic feet of widgets (130) than the E-150. Sounding too good to be true? The light 1,600lb maximum payload (half what a base E-150 will haul) limits the Connect to lighter hauling than even a Chrysler minivan (1,800lbs) and should be kept in mind before you buy one for your metal recycling business.

Compared to the RAM C/V, the Transit Connect is 22-inches shorter, 8-inches narrower but 10.4 inches taller. While Chrysler was unable to provide us with a RAM C/V to test, there are a few problems with the blue-collar Caravan you should know about. The C/V retains the Caravan’s tailgate making access more difficult when being loaded by a forklift or tall employee. In addition, despite being nearly two feet longer than the Ford, the RAM’s cargo hold is only 17 inches deeper, and although it is 3 inches wider, it’s nearly a foot shorter. The RAM’s ability to carry 4×8 sheets of whatever is appealing, but the cargo opening is smaller at 45×40 inches vs the Connect’s 50×52 inch opening. Who cares? Pallet fans. All standard North American pallet sizes fit in the Connect while only the smallest of the sizes will fit in the RAM. Where does that leave us on cargo? The Connect’s light payload precludes the baby-Ford from being used in heavy-hauling activities like carpet cleaning where a cleaning unit and waste tank can easily reach 1,900lbs. However, general cargo hauling, palletitzed items, bakeries, dry-cleaners, pet businesses, cleaning services and electricians may find the fuel economy and maneuverability outweigh the payload capacity.

The cabin of the Transit Connect is turn-of-the-century Euro-Ford. From the air vents to the steering wheel and center-mount window switches it’s obvious this Turkish delight hails from the old world. Despite the Connect’s European origins, the seats are broad enough to accommodate even the most American-sized drivers, but the padding could be thicker for long journeys. Due to the proportions, taller drivers downsizing from the E-Series will be surprised by more headroom (an epic 51 inches), an inch more legroom and a footwell that’s considerably wider and taller than the full-sized van  (due to the engine being entirely under the hood half way into the cabin). If you have size 12 or larger feet, the difference is tremendous with the E-150 constantly making me feel as if I was trapped.

For 2012, Ford killed the awful Work Solutions in-dash computer (as pictured above) and replaced it with the optional ($395) SYNC system which is a considerable improvement over the former Euro headunit in terms of iPod and USB connectivity as well as sound quality. On the downside it means that a navigation system is no longer offered. Should you need to GPS track your fleet, Ford offers their Crew Chief solution from the factory for $925.  Aiding inner-city parking are optional parking sensors and a backup cam, available together for $470. For some reason Ford chose not to re-key the Connect for the American market retaining the unusual Tibbe key which is more common across the pond but on these shores are almost exclusively found on pre-2006 Jaguars. The Euro-novelty key can cost up to $200 if you lose it. Ouch.

Shuttling the baby-bread-van around is Ford’s ubiquitous 2.0L four-cylinder engine and four-speed automatic borrowed from the previous generation American Focus. With just 136HP at 7,000RPM and 128lb-ft at 4,750RPM on tap, the Connect is far from swift, but considering it weighs 1,900lbs less than the E-150, it’s just as quick as the 235HP full-sized Ford. The missed opportunity with the Connect is obviously the ancient four-speed automatic which seems to hunt for gears frequently when hill climbing and rarely finds what it’s after. Should you feel gaseous, the Connect is available with factory Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) prep for $315 which consists largely of hardened valve seats. To complete the CNG picture, you take your Transit to a conversion company and they remove the gas tank and install the gas cylinders. While there is usually a net loss in cargo space as a result of the conversion, California and a few other states will allow certified conversions to drive solo in HOV lanes which may offset the reduction in capacity for some.

In order to test the Transit Connect properly, I grabbed some friends, loaded it to the gills and went camping. This was possible because our tester was a 5-seat “wagon”, the result of an import tax dodge. Not wanting to bore readers with the details, all Connects are built in Turkey with seats and rear windows and cargo-style floor covering. When they get to Baltimore, those destined for cargo duty have the seats removed and windows replaced with steel inserts. If you want a 5-passenger van, Ford will just skip all the needless destruction. Back to the camping: with three 200lb adults and some 1,000lbs total of camping gear, a generator, 60 gallons of water and 1/8 cord of firewood, the Connect was riding low on the dirt roads of the “lost coast.” Thankfully the combination of FWD and high ground clearance (7.9 inches vs 5.6 on RAM C/V)  and fairly short wheelbase (114 inches) made easy work of the rutted terrain and proved the Connect would perform admirably on the imperfect surfaces of the average construction site. Out on the open road, the Connect doesn’t feel “car-like” despite its car-origins, this is thanks to the solid rear axle and other “heavy duty” suspension tweaks. While feeling more like a little truck than a minivan, the Connect is surprisingly nimble in the city with a 39′ turning radius. That may sound large to some of us, but in the world of commercial vehicles this is positively tiny, cutting a circle 8 feet smaller than the E-Series, 4 feet smaller than GM’s V6 van, 9 feet smaller than GM’s V8 van and a whopping 14-feet smaller than GM’s extended wheelbase wares.

Over 1,100 miles I helped my brother move, commuted in traffic, and spent 4 days driving and camping from San Jose to Eureka. Despite the hauling, commute traffic and sustained 76MPH highway speeds on our road trip (and the resulting 3,100RPMS thanks to ye olde 4-speed automatic), the Connect never dropped below 20 MPG, a significant improvement over the V8 E-Series on essentially the same journey. That 20MPG number is the reason that Jane-six-pack buys the Transit Connect for her trendy cupcake delivery service and it’s also the reason Joe-six-pack should seriously consider whether the space and hauling capacity of the E-Series is required. If not, the Connect makes a compelling case against the full-size work vehicles. Until Fiat/Chrysler bring over the Doblo vans as promised and Nissan brings the baby-NV to market for the commercial segment, the Transit Connect is your best choice for reducing the footprint of your fleet. Or is it? Visit TTAC tomorrow to find out.

 

This is part four of a five-part series on commercial vehicles. Click the links below for the others in this series:

2012 Nissan NV

2012 Chevrolet Express / GMC Savana

2012 Ford E-350


 Ford provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of gas for this review.

Specifications as tested

0-60: 11.8 Seconds

Average fuel economy: 20.5MPG over 1,105 miles

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

57 Comments on “Commercial Week Day Four Review: 2012 Ford Transit Connect...”


  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    “One of these things is not like the others,
    One of these things just doesn’t belong,
    Can you tell which thing is not like the others
    By the time I finish my song?”

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    In all seriousness, I love this car. It appeals to my utilitarian instincts, and yet it’s kind of gonzo as a personal vehicle.

    Ford: please offer some way to add three rows of seats to the Transit Connnect. Please. I know this will murder Flex and Explorer sales. Or at least sales to people who can’t really afford Flexes and Explorers in the first place. Or rather, people who aren’t considering $30K+ crossovers and are going the base Caravan/used SUV route now.

    So, no downside, really.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      Agreed on all points. I’d love for this to be 7-passenger-capable.

      And – as I’m sure you can appreciate – this is the only vehicle I’ve sat in with more headroom than my xB1 (46″ for the xB). I love it – I really think there is a market for small vans (true “mini” vans) without the bloat.

    • 0 avatar
      Slow_Joe_Crow

      The third row seat is already available in Europe, al they need to do is have the Turks bolt them in. I do know somebody who has a Transit Connect for personal use, he uses it to carry his bicycles to races. You can get several in a two seater plus room to wriggle in and out of your Spandex shorts. I considered one as a family hauler but a Mazda5 made much more sense.

    • 0 avatar
      russhdonovan

      For people with disabilities, this is a good choice. I have arthritis and got 2012 transit connect to haul a Pride scooter and/or wheelchair. Vehicle is equipped with Bruno “Joey” platform for scooter et all. I can operate everything with no assistance. Driver seat is perfect height for stiff leg joints. I removed part of back seat so that I might store canes and crutches and misc behind driver seat. Like sliding doors for easy use. This is only vehicle with 4 cylinder power and better gas mileage. This is also the only vehicle equipped for people like myself for under $30,000.00 with mods. Look forward to American production upcoming. I also understand a new midsize Connect will be forthcoming from Ford. Look for this here in US in next year or so. Pass the word.

  • avatar
    AMC_CJ

    When these first came out I spotted one at a camp ground that was a home-made conversion of sorts. Didn’t get a good look at the inside, but if I was single I wouldn’t have a problem ditching the travel trailer and making up a small bed, fridge, etc. and camping out of it. Unfortunately, that drivetrain is just so dated. It needs a small diesel in it, or in the very least a 6spd transmission.

    So tomorrow we get see how the Sprinter crushes the competition, right?

  • avatar

    Dear Ford,

    Please build an extended version with an extra 6-12″ in the cargo area so I can fit a dirt bike in the back without bungieing the doors shut with the back wheel hanging out. Honestly you don’t even have to extend the wheel base. Simply extend the load floor and the body. It seems like a minor thing, but for guys like me this is the #1 consideration when shopping for a vehicle.

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      FWIW when C&D reviewed the Connect in February 2010, they managed to fit a ’68 Seeley Norton in the thing by placing the front wheel between the front seats, and believed they’d be able to stuff a 71.7″ long Honda TRX400 quad in there too, if they needed to. Though for all I know you’ve already tried fitting your bike, w/o success.

      Link:

      http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2010-ford-transit-connect

    • 0 avatar
      That guy

      Darn, I was considering scooping one of these up in a few years to haul my bikes. I guess I’ll have to wait until the upcoming Fiat vans are out.

      • 0 avatar
        tparkit

        +1… nothing worse than a short van. If Honda had made the Element long enough to put my bikes in the back without taking the front wheel off (and fixed the other flaws) I’d have bought one instantly.

    • 0 avatar
      jpcavanaugh

      I saw one of these being loaded up in front of a Sam’s Club store recently. The owner bought a wire shelving rack. He could not get the box all the way in so that the doors would shut. It looks to me like the thing needs to be about a foot longer in the cargo area.

      I still do not see that many in my area (central Indiana).

  • avatar
    Zackman

    I heard of these and finally saw one on the silver screen when wifey dragged me kicking and screaming to that “Valentine’s Day” movie a few years ago. For my wasted money, the Transit Connect flower delivery car was the star of the show, and the screen time given to it proved it!

    Finally…a return to a REAL minivan!

    I REALLY like these. Score one for Ford – no matter where it’s made.

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    My fire dept picked up two of these for our EMS only non transport medic units. I was assigned to one for a while and loved it. We fit a full slate of EMS equipment (stretcher, backboards, etc) in them. Ironically, the only practical consideration keeping them from being used as a BLS transport is the height inside. Once all the interior storage areas were fabricated and the stretcher put in, you could not sit someone up on the stretcher without it hitting the ceiling. You also couldn’t lay the stretcher flat because the vehicle was not long enough. Not a huge issue since these were non transport units anyway, but still does limit the vehicles versatility. On the other hand, they drove great. The steering was direct precise, and communicative, the handling way better than any van deserves, the ride quiet and smooth, and we had sufficient power for our generally low sleep operations (i never went much more than 50 mph even during an emergency response), even though I imagine these things were loaded pretty close to max gross weight, and the engine was quiet, smooth, and civil. I can’t comment on fuel efficiency though. I normally didn’t use enough in a shift to require refueling. Still, would be fun to think of what Ford could get out of them with the new Focus’s DI 2.0 and a 6 speed transmission.

  • avatar
    That guy

    The TransitConnect is an interesting proposition for those who don’t need the size/cargo capacity of the bigger E-Series. My only concern with them is that they use a very dated engine/trans, upgrading to a 2.0L DI and 6spd auto would improve both performance and economy. Even the 2.5L would probably improve efficiency.

    Even with the old 2.0L, I’m going to be awfully tempted to scoop a used one of these up in 4 or 5 years to haul my dirtbikes.

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      It’d be better if they had the latest and greatest but , in the context of this series of tests we’re at least in the 21st centery and not mid 20th. That’s got to count for something.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    Just going from the number of these that I’ve seen sold at my dealer this month, the Transit could have record sales this April.

    Regarding the cost of keys, when you order the car you can get an additional two keys (no fobs) for $20, or an additional two keyfobs for $65.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      Friend of mine lost the key to his Explorer (guessing here, it was some kind of domestic SUV) a few years ago. Cost him well over $100 to replace it, so spendy fobs aren’t limited to the Transit.

      • 0 avatar
        nikita

        Made in Japan Honda Fit has a key unlike US-built Honda Accord, Civic, etc., requiring a dealer only key for >$100, including programming. At least its not $200.

  • avatar
    Madroc

    Other than the FWD bit and no third seat, this is almost a modern incarnation of the Aerostar, which (along with the Astro/Safari) enjoyed some popularity as a fleet vehicle in its day.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    The mini-camper idea is a good one. Especially since VW’s got nothin’ nowadays.

    However, 20mpg is somewhat disappointing. A more contemporary drivetrain with better fuel economy (and, optionally, a bit more oomph) would probably spark more interest.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      There’s not a lot you can do about highway mileage: the aerodynamics are not in your favour. Now, in the city, the Transit Connect will just pistolwhip the others at the pump.

      And the 2.0L Duratec isn’t that out of date: Mazda is just now phasing it out in favour of the SKYACTIV stuff.

  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    FWIW I have seen that conversion van companies are doing conversions on a few of these.

    http://www.sterlingvans.com/images/newvans2010/nv_2010-11.jpg

    Personally I’d want a better trans and/or an upgraded engine for that but I think the little van has promise.

  • avatar
    Lynn E.

    Love it. Thank you for this review. I have been considering the Transit for a couple of years for carrying home repair tools and my bicycles. The low floor is a huge plus. Now if Ford would make it a hybrid and get 35 mpg I would have no excuse not to buy it.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    I sat in the back of one of these at the auto show. The rear seats are very uncomfortable.

    • 0 avatar
      SlowMyke

      The rear seats are solely in there to avoid extra tax and Ford intended on throwing each set out (or shipping them back to make the trip again in another TC). If I ever got one of these for personal use, I’d swap out the seats for something else more comfortable. Maybe a couple bucket seats.

      • 0 avatar
        bikegoesbaa

        The WSJ says the seats and glass are destroyed and recycled as waste materials rather then being sent back across the ocean to be installed in another van:

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125357990638429655.html

  • avatar
    Jimmy7

    I think that these are the answer for a lot of hauling and utility questions. But, it’s an older design with an amortized drivetrain made in Turkey. Why isn’t this thing $16 grand?

  • avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

    Can you leave the gas fuel system in and do dual-fuel?

  • avatar

    A generator, in a rustic campground? That’s what state parks are for.

  • avatar
    probert

    Man, I hate those generators.

  • avatar
    probert

    The price is the issue and also the used car maket. Minivan hate and the resultant resale values are tough to compete with. An early 2000 chrysler can be had for $4000.00 – better mileage and more room. Same for a late 90s previa (also known as the second greatest car aver made).

    Hard to get around it.

  • avatar
    CliffG

    My wife works for a company that has been moving over from their F-150s to this van. The real world gas mileage difference in barely 1 mpg, and to say the guys/installers hate these things is an understatement. I hope they hold up for 150K miles, otherwise that whole “green” thing will have been a waste.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      The F-150 has a very high liftover height, and is not enclosed unless you buy a cap.

      The Transit Connect is ideal for many things, but it’s not a pickup truck substitute.

      • 0 avatar
        CliffG

        The reason why they are buying these things is to provide a meaningful economic (re: gas mileage)alternative to that small part of their fleet for light duty/small job work. The fact that the mpg is not that different means that the guys forced to use the thing 8 hours a day/5 days a week aren’t exactly thrilled with giving up their full sized rigs and the company better hope like hell that the new vehicles have a long life, otherwise you are encountering the spector of false economy. The big advantage is that the advertising space on the side is a LOT larger*. In other words, before you give up your full size vehicle you better make sure you really like it. * Also you get the view of being a “green” company, no small thing in this particular part of the world.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      @CliffG:
      They’re certainly saving a lot of “green” on the initial purchase. The fully-optioned Transit Connect doesn’t get much over $25k. A fully optioned F-150 can be well over $40k.

      I really wanted one of these things for personal use (I like their utilitarian simplicity), so I’ve test driven the Transit Connect. I also am part owner in an F-150. They’re different tools for different jobs. Without knowing what your wife’s company does, I can only guess what their needs are — but one of these vehicles really was the wrong tool for the job. The F-150 is a nice machine, and kind-of general purposey, so it’d be hard to give up, even if these little vans are actually the right tool for the job. But, who knows.

      For my purposes, a TC with an 8′ cargo area would be awesome.

  • avatar
    Sigivald

    In addition, despite being nearly two feet longer than the Ford, the RAM’s cargo hold is only 17 inches deeper, and although it is 3 inches wider, it’s nearly a foot shorter.

    Wait, what?

    It’s 17 inches deeper, but nearly a foot shorter?

    Something got mangled there, but I can’t tell what.

    • 0 avatar
      Educator(of teachers)Dan

      I’m guessing the overall bumper to bumper measurement of the Ford is nearly a foot less than the RAM but the Ford has a longer cargo hold.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      It’s phrased awkwardly, but here is what I think he means:

      The Ram C/V’s cargo hold is 17″ deeper (in depth, i.e. length from front to back), 3″ wider (side to side), and nearly a foot shorter (height, distance from top to bottom vertically).

  • avatar
    rudiger

    Ah, the un-minivan, the size of the original Chrysler minivan with the charm of an old Microbus, right down to the glacial, low-performance engine (in today’s world, anyway). It’s just utilitarian enough (both in appearance and execution) to differentiate it from what are now considered the status quo, nearly full-size, soccer mom, traditional minivans from the Big Three (Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda).

    As others have pointed out, for the price Ford is asking for one, the Transit Connect really should have a more up-to-date drivetrain that gets the same fuel mileage but wasn’t so god-awful slow.

    Fix that, and they’d have a real star.

    • 0 avatar
      Archie

      In Europe, those kinds of vehicles are not only the barebone of commercial fleets but also very popular family cars. I own Citroen Berlingo, most popular of them, and with its twin Peugeot Partner it was the 5th most sold car in my country in 2011 and is probably the most popular car in front of my kindergarten. It is very car-like in driving, with rear independent suspension (as opposed to solid rear axle in this Ford), as its drive train is based on very popular Picasso range of minivans. Beside practicality the main reason is the price – reasonably equipped models with diesel engines sell for less than 15.000 EUR (basic at 12.000EUR), for comparison rebranded Dodge Journey starts at 26.000EUR, similarly equipped Mazda5 or Jetta SW from 20.000EUR upwards. I got 33mpg on a diesel engine (while mostly driving 80-90mph on highways and some city rush hour driving), with a more gentle touch I managed to get 40mpg easily. Remember, diesel fuel is also almost 10% cheaper as gas in our country, as it is generally in most of the Europe. And if I fold rear back seat I can drive my 2 kids, me and my wife + my 2 MTB without taking the front wheel off.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        That’s awesome. That would be my car, if only it were available here!

        I almost talked my wife into a Transit Connect. Her only objection was that the American version doesn’t have a 3rd row seat. My only objection was that the cargo area isn’t long enough to haul 8′ sheets of plywood/drywall for DIY projects. So, I bought a cheap very-used Ford Escape and a 4′x8′ Chinese folding trailer, instead.

        I love the utilitarian charm and hackability of the TC, and if my wife hadn’t objected to the lack of the 3rd-row seat, I’d probably own one. I still like them quite a bit, and will buy at TC as soon as I need one.

        It sounds like your Citreon fixes my objections (other than the length of the cargo area), and adds enough goodies that I would love to trade my Escape (and the Ranger that I owned previously) for one.

        (I’m keeping an eye on the Nissan NV200 and NV350, too. Either one could be the perfect home handydad’s minivan, especially if it eventually has high-efficiency diesel and/or plugin variants.)

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        Ah yes, the Harbor Freight folding trailer. I just finished putting mine together and tomorrow it will make its first trip to the Home Depot for a 4×8 sheet of pressure-treated plywood to form its deck.

        For years I lusted for a pickup to replace the Rangers I used to drive. But from a practical perspective, I’m about $600 in on the entire trailer thing including the hitch for my car, installation, trailer and registration.

        On paper it seems like steal. We’ll sow how well this works in the real world.

  • avatar
    burgersandbeer

    I’ll never figure out why some cars get a tach and some don’t. A friend of mine has a 2000 Focus with 5-speed manual, yet no tach. Meanwhile, this bread van with a 4-speed auto has one.

  • avatar
    ChevyIIfan

    These seem like very useful next-generation haulers, with their much better than than the E-series and express fuel economy. It will be interesting to check on them in 5-6 years to see how durable they are and how they compare to the truck based versions.

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    ford desperately need to overhaul the drivetrain

    they have new 1.6 ecoboost that has awesome power and torque and a dsg type transmission but i dunno about longevity

  • avatar
    RoadBuilder

    Canada Post is replacing their LLV’s (same ones as the USPS) with Transit Connects. I’m thinking Ford’s target is large volume fleet sales, which may explain why there’s only 4 cogs instead of 5 or 6. I mean the LLV had only a 3 speed and the iron Duke engine, anything has gotta be better than that.

    Undoubtedly, the Transit Connects will get rebuilt at least half a dozen times during their service life.

  • avatar
    bill mcgee

    This would be an ideal florist delivery van . The tall roofline would accomodate the tallest flower arrangements , the relatively small size makes it much better than its bigger brothers for urban parking and the better city/suburban gas mileage is more important for a business where driving is in more congested areas.Also , with the engine in front the floor wouldn’t be a ridiculous feet-roasting , flower killing oven like an Econoline or Express . Wish it came with a diesel and/or a stick though .

    • 0 avatar
      piro

      Haha, see, that’s the irony.
      In Europe, the Transit Connect is ONLY available with diesel and a manual transmission.

      http://www.ford.co.uk/Commercialvehicles/TransitConnect/Powertrain

      So although you now get the thing physically, you’re not all the way because you lack the drivetrain.

    • 0 avatar
      Zackman

      “This would be an ideal florist delivery van”

      Please see my comment above, ha ha!

  • avatar

    I’ve never understood how a utility trailer trumps a pick up truck/van. I guess if you have an overabundance of space to park things, and you don’t need to worry about yearly registration or insurance for it. If I didn’t need to occasionally haul motorcycles I wouldn’t have anything remotely truck like.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India