Wouldn't you agree that time is more important than mileage?

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Leland

I'm in Boston area, and up here its usually rust/rot that condemms a vehicle before the engine let's go. "rust never sleeps"

This certainly used to be true of vehicles in general. But, in my experience, it is a thing of the past. The metallurgists seem to have finally cracked the automotive rust problem. I have seen no sign of structural rust in any vehicle I have owned that was built in the last 20 years.

Are things different in Boston? Hard to imagine that Boston is much worse than Pennsylvania, unless ocean salt is a lot worse than road salt (which I guess is possible).

[Davydd]

As I have said before, it is the design of the van. The engine makes no difference to me since I've had gas and diesel and both are capable of doing what I want and you take what is available. Long or short, the Sprinter carries more payload than the others especially the Promasters. A Promaster can't be configured with battery and tank (F,G,B) capacities to achieve what I am accustomed to in my travels.

I initially felt the Transit would be more popular. It looked as if it was in the sweet spot and reminded me of the N1T Sprinter with a gas engine. It doesn't seem to be making headway. I guess payload makes the sweet spot not so sweet.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Robert Ryan

That Payload gets much greater with the IVECO, that is replacing the Sprinter here for a lot of RV applications

Iveco has a very good product from all I have heard. The make a flat nosed cutaway that we see in the US, that is used for specialty stuff like lawn spraying trucks.They do seem to run forever.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by Leland

I'm in Boston area, and up here its usually rust/rot that condemms a vehicle before the engine let's go. "rust never sleeps"

YES.... that's NOT a problem in Southern California....
Vehicles here can last 50 years.....and with proper maintenance they do.....

I normally turn around my cars every 15 to 20 years due to safety and technology features... NOT rust.

[booster]

Originally Posted by avanti

This certainly used to be true of vehicles in general. But, in my experience, it is a thing of the past. The metallurgists seem to have finally cracked the automotive rust problem. I have seen no sign of structural rust in any vehicle I have owned that was built in the last 20 years.

Are things different in Boston? Hard to imagine that Boston is much worse than Pennsylvania, unless ocean salt is a lot worse than road salt (which I guess is possible).

We do still see rusting here in Minnesota, with noticeable differences between models. They seem to have been able to reduce the visible rust more than the structural, from what I have seen, probably from using more lighter high strength steel in the structural areas. I see quite a few Dodge Magnums with rust failed engine cradles, and other unibodies with rusted structural area damage. You can have a vehicle that looks clean and rust free, and then you go under it to work on something, and everything is rusted stuck. You would swear it is a different vehicle.

[BBQ]

.

Don't want rust? Just don't buy a Nissan.

[gregmchugh]

Originally Posted by booster

Iveco has a very good product from all I have heard. The make a flat nosed cutaway that we see in the US, that is used for specialty stuff like lawn spraying trucks.They do seem to run forever.

Are you sure those are Iveco? Maybe Isuzu?

I think Iveco stopped US sales back in the 90s...

[Phoebe3]

Originally Posted by Davydd

...I initially felt the Transit would be more popular. It looked as if it was in the sweet spot and reminded me of the N1T Sprinter with a gas engine. It doesn't seem to be making headway. I guess payload makes the sweet spot not so sweet.

I'm surprised, too. With WGO no longer making the Paseo, the Coachmen Crossfit and the Okanagan Tribute are the only Transit-based vans available. Perhaps the recall on the flexible coupling stalled sales and upfitters are waiting to gauge its popularity before committing.

As far as payload, it looks like the GVWR of the diesel Sprinter is nearly 1,000 lbs higher than the gas-powered Transit. However, fully loaded (fuel, water, people and gear), our Crossfit is still almost 1,400 lbs below GVWR and I don't think we have the SPACE to add that much more stuff, so I don't know if it's really a problem or not.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Mike,

I cannot imagine that you would have to replace the engine until 250,000 minimum...

---MARK

As I have mentioned many times, I watch Craigslist for age/mileage/failures of vehicles. We have been hearing so much about half million mile or more expected life from diesels, and minimum of 250K (or more most of the claims) with decent care.


Here is one that just showed up on the Minneapolis Craigslist. Fleet maintained, it would appear, lots of miles in a short time which is said to good for Sprinters. Engine toast at 200K.


https://minneapolis.craigslist.org/h...692029766.html


I totally understand that one example is no proof of anything in the real world, but I will also say it is just as indicative of reality as unsupported claims of invincibility.

[Boxster1971]

The diesels in the Sprinter should not be confused with heavy truck diesels. I've followed the Sprinter-Source forum for a decade. The consensus from experienced Sprinter mechanics and independent shop owners is that the Sprinter 3.0 liter V-6 turbo-diesel is good for about 250,000 miles. There are some exceptions by expediters who drive over 200,000 miles a year. This is a lightweight built to cost item that is not designed to be overhauled like heavy truck diesel engines.