Talk:Ford Thames 400E

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buses Low‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Ford Transit#Ford Transit 1965–78|new range of vans]] The anchor (#Ford Transit 1965–78) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I have removed references in the History section to the American Ford Econoline van which was only introduced 4 years later. These are uncited, and I am unable to determine if these should refer to a predecessor to the Econoline (unlikely), be part of the history of the Ford Transit (the 400E's successor), or perhaps some combination. The original two paragraphs are included here in full: 78.33.115.88 (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studies were made of the competition in this sector, with the Morris Commercial 10 cwt and 15/20 cwt models, of prewar design; Austin 10 cwt, and later their 25 cwt; Trojan 15 cwt van; and the Bedford 10/12 cwt model all coming in for scrutiny. One proposal, backed by Dearborn, was that the American Ford Econoline van should go into production at Dagenham, thus eliminating any design problems whilst also saving considerably on development costs. This model had however one very serious drawback in that its extremely forward mounted, and rather heavy engine, resulted in what was considered by some at Ford of Britain to be a dangerous weight distribution in the unladen state. In this state, if firm braking was applied, the rear wheels could be lifted clear of the road on level ground, and it was felt by some that the Econoline could easily somersault end over end if an emergency stop was attempted on a down grade.

A new British range was therefore decided upon, to be of the forward control type and of monocoque construction for the van, but based on a ladder type chassis for the pick up truck and some other variants. A wheelbase of 84 inches (2,100 mm) was chosen, upon which was accommodated a van body of 180 cubic feet capacity, After some discussion, independent front suspension was sanctioned, but not of the MacPherson strut type which Dagenham had pioneered in the monocoque passenger car applications for which it had been specifically designed in the first place. This system was considered, but its inclusion in the forward control, forward entrance van would, primarily because of the strut height, have placed serious restrictions on cab design particularly in respect of entry. Instead, a system of coil springs and transverse wishbones was agreed upon, and as in this respect the Econoline checked out satisfactorily according to Ford of Britain, a set of drawings of the Econoline's coil and wishbone system was obtained from Dearborn.

Noted. For what it's worth (and if only to demonstrate that someone somewhere read what you wrote) I think you have done the right thing, given the evidence you have adduced that these paras - whatever formal or informal source(s) they maybe based on - depend on an incorrect or insufficient understanding of something or other. Thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

panthechinon?[edit]

seems a neoligismic word hads crept into the article.......

unless I am not as vocabularised (hehehe) as some people who offer insight on here...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.245.250 (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]