The New T7 California can be ordered from today in Germany + configurator.

[Californication69]

Bless their hearts. Try as hard as they did the bed was NOT suitable for 2. She couldn't even drop her arm due to the reduced width. Headroom also an issue.

They grind my gears, blackboard out and scratch it type of grind.

 

[soulstyledevon]

They grind my gears, blackboard out and scratch it type of grind.

They have to be impartial, otherwise they wouldn’t get the products to review.
All the YouTubers are exactly the same. Can’t say I blame them. No point killing the channel if they enjoy creating the content.
You just need to read between the lines. But looking at that video, the T7 is a NO from me, unfortunately.

 

[clarinetbcn]

They have to be impartial, otherwise they wouldn’t get the products to review.
All the YouTubers are exactly the same. Can’t say I blame them. No point killing the channel if they enjoy creating the content.
You just need to read between the lines. But looking at that video, the T7 is a NO from me, unfortunately.

I suspect that marketing forces and competition will eventually convince VW to do a California on the new Transporter. It's so obvious: the Transporter is smaller and easier to park on the outside than the Multivan, while being much larger on the inside. As my snowy ski weekend in the Pyrenees just reminded me, the Transporter's higher ground clearance is decisive, and if you find yourself fitting chains (my Michelin Agilis Crossclimates meant I didn't have to), you will see the difference. I think campers will vote with their money and feet. Maybe there's room for both, the Multivan California for city and day trips and a Transporter California for people who get more out into nature, but the Mutivan California Ocean/Coast price and equipment seem excessive for its limited use as a day van. The only one that makes any sense at all with this generation’s more limited space is the Beach, with its flexible use of space and usable lower bed.

This could all change if the new Transporter really has a Ford motor with the dreaded wet cam belt, but I'm hoping VW has enough sense to avoid another 180 biturbo fiasco.

 

[ourcaliforniakid]

It’s not that I don’t like change - I was patient until the Multivan was released and I knew it wasn’t right for us. So glad I snapped up one of the last 6.1 vans.

 

[Barry Chuckle]

They have to be impartial, otherwise they wouldn’t get the products to review.
All the YouTubers are exactly the same. Can’t say I blame them. No point killing the channel if they enjoy creating the content.
You just need to read between the lines. But looking at that video, the T7 is a NO from me, unfortunately.

To be fair to their channel they're marginally more candid in reviews than most others in my experience. But yes of course it's all very gentle as they don't want to kill a cash cow. He also says that he buys many of the items he reviews and he says he's very selective (whether that is true or not)

When you compare their channel to others such as ABAB and the like who will push any form of crap onto their subscribers for the highest bidder, I think Campervan Time is one of the better ones.

But to take your point in the world of the blind the one eyed man is king

 

[clarinetbcn]

I suspect that marketing forces and competition will eventually convince VW to do a California on the new Transporter. It's so obvious: the Transporter is smaller and easier to park on the outside than the Multivan, while being much larger on the inside. As my snowy ski weekend in the Pyrenees just reminded me, the Transporter's higher ground clearance is decisive, and if you find yourself fitting chains (my Michelin Agilis Crossclimates meant I didn't have to), you will see the difference. I think campers will vote with their money and feet. Maybe there's room for both, the Multivan California for city and day trips and a Transporter California for people who get more out into nature, but the Mutivan California Ocean/Coast price and equipment seem excessive for its limited use as a day van. The only one that makes any sense at all with this generation’s more limited space is the Beach, with its flexible use of space and usable lower bed.

This could all change if the new Transporter really has a Ford motor with the dreaded wet cam belt, but I'm hoping VW has enough sense to avoid another 180 biturbo fiasco.

I've looked at several videos of camper van specialists trying to get both Ford and VW engineers to comment on what has been changed with the new Ford engines in the Transporter to correct the problems with the previous Ford wet cam belt engines. It seems that the engines are a new design, but engineers from both companies have been prohibited from commenting on the improvements because that would mean admitting that something was wrong with the previous ones.
Other interesting points from these videos: VW claimed that the reason for the joint venture with Ford in Turkey is that labor costs are too high in Germany, making it impossible to sell a new German made successor to the T6.1 at a profit. The only reason the T7 Multivan/Sharan is being produced in Germany is that it is a money saver based on a previously existing car chassis, which also explains the Multivan's space and size problems and the second A pillar stuck on over the long front engine compartment to make it look like a van. VW has also claimed that although the new Transporter is built in a Ford plant in Turkey using the Transit chassis and drivetrain, the two vans are built on different assembly lines with different suspensions, finishings and separate quality control teams. VW is on the defensive about the whole arrangement, but some testers have pointed out that the Amarok and Ranger are also built on the same Ford chassis and yet drive quite differently. Time will tell.

 

[pluc99]

I suspect that marketing forces and competition will eventually convince VW to do a California on the new Transporter. It's so obvious: the Transporter is smaller and easier to park on the outside than the Multivan, while being much larger on the inside. As my snowy ski weekend in the Pyrenees just reminded me, the Transporter's higher ground clearance is decisive, and if you find yourself fitting chains (my Michelin Agilis Crossclimates meant I didn't have to), you will see the difference. I think campers will vote with their money and feet. Maybe there's room for both, the Multivan California for city and day trips and a Transporter California for people who get more out into nature, but the Mutivan California Ocean/Coast price and equipment seem excessive for its limited use as a day van. The only one that makes any sense at all with this generation’s more limited space is the Beach, with its flexible use of space and usable lower bed.

This could all change if the new Transporter really has a Ford motor with the dreaded wet cam belt, but I'm hoping VW has enough sense to avoid another 180 biturbo fiasco.

Keep in mind that this issue is linked to the diesel engine and not the petrol engine or hybrid. Given the mounting restrictions in European cities I would avoid getting a diesel at this point.

 

[clarinetbcn]

Keep in mind that this issue is linked to the diesel engine and not the petrol engine or hybrid. Given the mounting restrictions in European cities I would avoid getting a diesel at this point.

The ecoboost PETROL engines from Ford were the first wet cam belt engines to fail. Ford has prohibited their, and VW’s, engineers from speaking about the specific technical improvements to any of the new engines (including the petrol engines) in the new Turkish Transporter and Transit, which I consider to be a Very Big Red Flag. When have we ever seen a manufacturer not brag about technical advances?

Result: we have no way to tell if the petrol engines are also at risk because Ford refuses to give detailed technical specs for the new petrol and diesel engines. If you can find an interviewer who successfully squeezes this info out of a Ford engineer, please post it for the benefit of Forum members!

 

[chockswahay]

They have to be impartial, otherwise they wouldn’t get the products to review.
All the YouTubers are exactly the same. Can’t say I blame them. No point killing the channel if they enjoy creating the content.
You just need to read between the lines. But looking at that video, the T7 is a NO from me, unfortunately.

C'mon Soulers, all Californias have been a hard no for you since you crossed to the 'dark side'

 

[soulstyledevon]

C'mon Soulers, all Californias have been a hard no for you since you crossed to the 'dark side'

Honestly, I had a wobble last month.
Hadn’t properly used the van for about 7 weeks, considered going back.
Then we had a few days away last week and couldn’t fault the Hymer.
So back in love again. Just wish I had more free time…

 

[owen_h]

The ecoboost PETROL engines from Ford were the first wet cam belt engines to fail. Ford has prohibited their, and VW’s, engineers from speaking about the specific technical improvements to any of the new engines (including the petrol engines) in the new Turkish Transporter and Transit, which I consider to be a Very Big Red Flag. When have we ever seen a manufacturer not brag about technical advances?

Result: we have no way to tell if the petrol engines are also at risk because Ford refuses to give detailed technical specs for the new petrol and diesel engines. If you can find an interviewer who successfully squeezes this info out of a Ford engineer, please post it for the benefit of Forum members!

The 2.5l petrol PHEV engine option on the Ford Transit Custom and presumably the 'New Transporter' when it becomes available in the VW version is not an ecoboost or a wet belt engine. It is the 2.5 Duratec engine. I think chain driven. Seems to have a good reliability reputation.
Engine runs on the Atkinson cycle, so efficient but not particularly powerful for a 2.5l. Hence the electric motor to get back the power & torque.
Its the engine option I would go for in the Transit or New Transporter conversion.