Lost in Space: Ford E150 (2001)

December 12,2001

Space…the final frontier. At least it seems that way, when it comes to vans. After all, you don’t buy a van because you want to carve corners up or blast away from a stoplight. You buy a van because you need space…the more, the better. In this area, there are few spaces that roll on four wheels bigger than that inside a Ford Chateau Wagon. Since space is the final frontier where vans are concerned, we thought what better way to explore the Ford Chateau Wagon’s features than to compare it to its futuristic counterpart, the Starship USS Enterprise from the 1960s Star Trek series.

The Enterprise is a deep-space exploration vessel, and as such is designed to carry 300 people for thousands of light years in supreme comfort. The E-150 is suitable for deep-city exploration, and for its part can easily carry 10 persons for hours or even days on end, from the depths of the urban jungle to the wide expanses of open highway. Like the starship’s crew, each passenger of the E-150 can look forward to having their own personal space onboard the vehicle.

You’ll feel like helmsman Sulu when you plop down onto the driver’s seat. Before you is a carlike cockpit, with power-everything activated by the typically chunky Ford switches. The gauge faces are almost identical to the F series pickups’, but are completely analog, including the odometer and trip meter. Only speedometer, fuel and coolant temperature gauges are included; there’s no odometer. There’s no glovebox either, its space taken over by the passenger airbag module. There’s a surprising lack of storage bins in the cockpit area—even your cellphone and shades will have to sit on the floor.

Pass-through between the front seats is also not possible, unless you’re a Tribble. A huge column sticks out from the dashboard to effectively separate the front seats from the rest of the cabin.

The second row of seats is made up of two captain’s chairs, perfect for would-be Captain Kirks. They’re not really seats; more like armchairs, with their single-piece seatbacks and folding armrests on either side. You can’t rotate these seats; they’re fixed facing forward. From there, you can easily bark orders to your pilot to increase warp factor or even change the station. A remote control for the radio would be a sensible and welcome addition.

While the second row gives a feeling of absolute command, the third and fourth rows relegate you to sitting three-abreast on a bench configuration. Still, legroom is adequate, and there’s sure to be plenty of air between your head and the ceiling, even if you happen to be a Klingon. However, don’t expect to be taking a snooze in these seats, as the 3rd and 4th row lack headrests.

With all rows of seats up, the E-150 has surprisingly little luggage space. In fact, there’s close to none! Even a Vulcan gong wouldn’t fit in here. The seats are also uncooperative when it comes to reconfiguring for luggage. They don’t fold or slide, and can be removed only with tools.

The Starfleet vessel packs a mighty punch with its warp engines. The Chateau Wagon is no slouch either when it comes to acceleration. A 4.6-liter Triton V8 resides under its hood, pumping out 235 bhp, and 462 Nm of torque at just 3000 rpm. The V8 growl is always pleasingly audible from the driver’s seat, similar to the omnipresent hum on the Enterprise bridge. The throttle response isn’t quite as sharp as that in an F-150 SuperCrew with the same engine. This is due to the E’s massive 2623 kg, compared to the SuperCrew’s 2309 kg. However, warp speed is still available on command. A clunky column-mounted shifter controls the four-speed automatic transmission. This gearbox responds quite well to prods from the throttle. Downshifts are prompt and decisive, while upshifts are smooth and unobtrusive.

Accelerating the E is a strange affair; you can hear the engine winding up, but there’s little sensation of increasing velocity. Perhaps it’s equipped with inertial dampeners. It’s only when you glance at the speedometer do you realize you are moving faster.

Steering is just as remote as the acceleration. There’s no steering feel to speak of, and the wheel has an odd tendency to rebound a bit when released. Maneuvering the E isn’t so difficult on the open road, but you have to make sure there’s plenty of room when overtaking or changing lane to account for the vehicle’s length.

The E can travel 4.10 km per liter of anti-matter…er, gasoline, rather. (24.39 l/100 km, or 9.64 mpg US.) This was the average during our weekend of mixed city and highway driving. However, the fuel tank packs a whopping 133 liters, for a range of several light years—actually, about 545 km.

When the Enterprise encounters wormholes and other spatial distortions, it tends to buck like a bronco and throw the crew out of their seats. The E while not quite as unruly, also has a problem with ride. It tends to send bumps and road irregularities into the cabin seemingly unfiltered, causing the seats and other interior bits to quake and vibrate unpleasantly. It’s a far cry from the floating ride quality of the F150 pickup.

Surely Ford trucks don’t break down easily, and in this ship you won’t have to hear Scotty yelling, “She canna take much more of this, Captain!” The E’s mechanical bits seemed bulletproof, but other areas didn’t seem to be wearing so well. Our test E had surely gone through a rough life being a press and demo unit, but at 9700 km on the odometer, it already had plenty of squeaks and creaks from interior bits and the chassis itself.

The biggest problem for the Enterprise when it reaches a planet is that it can’t land on the surface because it’s too large. There’s no place to park the darned thing! Unfortunately, you get the same dilemma in the E. Finding a place to park it is a challenge, due to its ampleness in all three dimensions. You can forget about most basement or multi-level parking; the 2118 mm height exceeds most buildings’ 1.8 or 2.0 meter restrictions. Its 5382 mm length makes it difficult to maneuver and turn, and its 2014 mm width ensures that you won’t able to squeeze it into a parking space if the adjacent vehicles so much as put the edge of one wheel on the yellow lines.

Don’t be shocked if you scrape the van on road signs or walls that you never had to worry about before—our demo unit had multiple gashes on its sides from previous users. This is one vehicle that should have parking sensors, perhaps on all four sides. You’ll have to adjust your habits if you drive an E: go early to ensure available parking. If you’re late at the mall, then you’ll be orbiting the parking lot for ages looking for a big enough space. An easy solution would be to bring a chauffeur, and let him worry about it.

At least the Enterprise has a transporter beam. Ingress and egress isn’t quite so easy with the E. You’ll need a small hop up to get onto the front seats. If you’re stationed at the rear, there’s but a single sliding door for the rear three rows of seats.

The E is a lot of metal for the money; the basic model goes for P1.295 million, while an optional body kit costs PHP55,000. The smaller Dodge Caravan is a lot more expensive at PHP1.6 million. However, smaller-capacity Carnival and Starex cost less than PHP900,000. The crack in the Chateau is likely to be the Chevrolet Venture, with its cheaper price tag (PHP1.15 million) and distinctly more carlike dimensions and manners.

Space may be the final frontier and the E does have enough for a whole basketball team. However, it needs a thorough refurbishment if it’s to be fit for the future. Perhaps Ford needs to launch an entirely new, smaller vessel that will be more appropriate for our city streets and family needs.

motioncars.com would like to thank

Ford Motors Philippines Incorporated
for letting us test drive the Ford E150 Chateau Wagon for a weekend.

By Jason Ang | Photos By Ulysses Ang and Jason Ang
Originally Published in the December 2001 Issue

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.