Good morning! I thought we’d start this week off with a good old fashioned Ford versus Chevy comparison, by looking at a couple of vans. Not just vans, but truck-based minivans of the sort you don’t see any more. These things were fixtures on the roads for decades, but now they’re rare sights indeed.
On Friday, we took a look back at the week’s winners, and I asked you which one you thought would make the best amateur rallycross car. The pink Honda Accord seemed like the obvious choice, and in fact it won. The V6 manual Ford Tempo came in a reasonably close second, though I think a lot of you who voted for it just wanted to see it beaten to death.
I couldn’t bring myself to torture either the Tempo or the similarly clean Chevy Cavalier like that, and a full-size truck is just ungainly when trying to go fast around a dirt course, as I found out this weekend. So put me down for the Honda as well.
The Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager were the first of the new “garageable vans” in the 1980s, but it didn’t take long for Ford and GM to respond in kind. But instead of Chrysler’s car-based mechanicals, both Ford and GM based their vans on the drivetrains of their respective compact pickups, meaning rear-wheel-drive and better cargo and towing capabilities, at the expense of some interior volume and comfort. Chrysler’s formula won out in the end, but both competitors had a good long run, and still have lots of fans today. Let’s check out one example of each.
1997 Ford Aerostar XLT Sport – $3,000
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0- or 4.0-liter OHV V6, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Lakeland, FL
Odometer reading: 166,000 miles
Operational status: “Runs good” is all we get
Ford launched the Aerostar with a great deal of fanfare in 1986, comparing its shape to the Space Shuttle and bombarding television sets with new lyrics to an old Fifth Dimension song. The last of the Big Three’s minivans to go on sale, the Aerostar tried hard to be seen as the most futuristic. It certainly had the best aerodynamics of the bunch, thanks largely to the hood and windshield being at almost exactly the same angle. How much the fairings and spoilers of this “Sport” model helped or hurt its aerodynamics, I don’t know. All I know is that by 1997, the final year of Aerostar production, Ford had long since retired that damn ad.
The Aerostar was available with a couple of different V6 engines: the most common was the 3.0-liter Vulcan V6 from the Taurus, but higher-end models often had a 4.0-liter Cologne engine, as featured in the Ranger and Explorer, instead. The seller doesn’t say which one powers this van, but if I had to guess, it’s probably a Vulcan. Either way, it supposedly runs well, but at this mileage I bet the transmission has either been replaced, or it needs to be. The 4R44E/4R55E was not one of Ford’s finer moments.
Ford completely revamped the Aerostar’s interior halfway through its life, making it much nicer, but slightly less interesting in one regard: the automatic shift lever moved from the floor to the steering column. The absurdly long T-handle shifter of the original Aerostar was sort of endearing in a gawky way. (You could also get a five-speed manual in an Aerostar, but I think I’ve seen maybe two or three in my life.) The driver’s seat of this one looks a bit beat down, but otherwise it’s not in bad shape.
Ford offered the Aerostar in two different lengths, but unlike Chrysler, who added length to the middle of its vans, Ford tacked on an extra foot at the back, and kept the wheelbase the same. The extended Aerostars had more room for stuff behind the seats, but man, did they look weird. This is the original short style, which is a much better looking vehicle. I don’t think you could get the Sport package on the long version, come to think of it. It’s in good condition outside, though it is missing a hubcap, and some paint is coming off the front spoiler.
2002 Chevrolet Astro LS – $3,800
Engine/drivetrain: 4.3-liter OHV V6, four-speed automatic, AWD
Location: Fresno, CA
Odometer reading: 210,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Chevy, meanwhile, brought out the Astro in 1985 along with its twin, the GMC Safari, just a year after the Chrysler vans came out. The Astro borrowed its drivetrain from the S-10 pickups, and some suspension parts from full-size station wagons, put together in the same unibody-with-a-subframe way as Camaros and Firebirds. The Astro and Safari not only beat the Ford Aerostar to market, but they outlived it by nearly a decade, remaining in production for twenty years.
Early on, you could get an Astro van with a 2.5 liter Iron Duke four-cylinder, but I’ve never actually seen one in person. Every other example is powered by some variant of Chevy’s stalwart 4.3 liter V6. This one sends its power to all four wheels through a four-speed automatic, by far the most common transmission in these vans, though you could get a manual for the first few years. I have actually driven a manual Astro van, and you’re not missing much by choosing the automatic. This one drives “perfect” according to the seller, though the ABS brake warning light does come on the dash intermittently. Most likely that’s a short or a bad connection somewhere, but it’s worth looking into.
Much like the Aerostar, the Astro’s interior got much better as time went on. The footwells are cramped, owing to the large doghouse in the front, but the seats are pretty comfy, and the outward visibility is great. This one looks like it has held up well inside. I don’t see any obvious damage or signs of wear apart from a missing trim piece on one back seat. The seller says the air conditioning works fine, as does the aftermarket stereo.
Chevy also extended the Astro by adding extra length behind the rear wheels, but somehow it doesn’t look as ungainly as the Ford. This is the long version, which was the only version by the end of the Astro’s production. These have a really cool “Dutch door” setup in the rear: the top part opens upward like a hatch, then the power portions swing outward, giving easy access to the cargo area without a heavy hatch or a tailgate in the way. This van is in good shape outside, except for some peeling clearcoat and a couple of ugly plastic doodads stuck on the front fenders.
Nobody makes any vans like these anymore, which I think is why the remaining good examples command some high prices. These are actually quite reasonably priced compared to others I’ve seen. There are more Astros than Aerostars left on the road, from what I’ve seen, but neither one is as common a sight as they were twenty years ago. If you want one, you’d better grab it when it comes along. Which one of these two speaks to you?
Astros (ALL of them) were made in Baltimore. So it gets my vote
I could buy that Astro and drive it up north and sell it for 2-3X more money.
(looks at both)
Nope, I’m out.
The Chevy Astro/GMC Safari look like full size vans that went through the dryer and shrunk. While I am a Ford guy, GM did the best minivan. It’s Chevy for me and that hurts just a little bit. The Aerostar looks like a pretty nice example though.
I voted for the Astro. I always liked these. I saw them as more of a mini van than a minivan. It is like the designer took a photo of a full-size van, resized it to three-quarters, and left it at that. The mini van styling always looked right. Other vans of the ’80s and ’90s looked dated and awkward after a few years, and that never happened with the Astro.
The Aerostar is interesting. It mostly appeals as a rare survivor, though. I would want an Astro if they were still common today. I can’t say the same about the Aerostar.
That Astro’s in pretty good shape; the AWD is just a plus.
Side note: my dad bought a very early Astro (maybe ’86 or ’87) that I’m pretty sure had the Iron Duke in it. (He certainly complained about the acceleration, and his previous car was a not-fast ’79 Chevy Caprice.) After it was retired from family hauling duty, it got repurposed as a work van for his business; I think it lived its entire existence in our employ.
AWD Astro is always the answer
I would like both, but voted Aerostar as I remember thinking how futuristic seemed when compared to my parents Oldsmobile station wagon. Having rear air conditioning and radio controls was so cool.
Astro van here. The vortec 4.3 is a great engine and the AWD is a nice bonus. Both remarkably clean for their age and mileage, but the Astro just feels like it’s got more life left in it. I’ve had some bad experiences with Ranger/Explorer rust at the rear leaf springs but FL car probably won’t be as bad.
Just a note – that AWD system in the Astro is not really meant for offroading. It’s a viscous coupling with no locking Hi/Lo etc. although plenty of retrofits are available for beefier hardware.
I love a good Astro van, the AWD is just the cherry on top.
We took a GMC Safari on a road trip from Ottawa to Vermont to pick up some Goldwings.
That van, loaded down with 4 guys, and two Honda Goldwings in tow, with 300k miles, never skipped a beat.
The trailer lost a wheel bearing about 20 miles after the bike pick up, but the van was rock solid.
I have a picture of me standing on the roof like I was surfing, somewhere. God, that was nearly 20 years ago now.
The Aerostar’s almost surely the 3.Slow version…IIRC the 4.0 was only on AWD and extended length versions.
We had a ’94 with that config, holy fuck was it a dog. Giving it enough gas to make it downshift just made the engine produce more noise as it attempted to groan its way to a higher speed. The interior was the finest hard plastic and exposed black-oxide screws that Ford could come up with.
The Astro looks much nicer and I remember them being more comfortable, other than the cramped footwells.
That Chevy looks pretty good and the price isn’t “Astro-nominal”.
The Astro sure looks to be in better shape. The AC works? I’m sold.
The Astro is just a little nicer and newer. And has AWD.
Yes, that really is it. That’s all I’ve got. What are you expecting, Shakespeare? They’re minivans. What am I supposed to say?
A Van! A Van! My kingdom for a Van!
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your Aerostar.
There is no van either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
Frailty, thy name is Aerostar.
Friends, Autopians, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury a shitbox van, not to praise it.
(I picked the Chevy because I once had a Windstar and it was bleurgh.)
Going withn the Chevy for it’s generally better usability for ‘extra car’ duty, hauling the dogs around, Lowes runs, etc. Also the AWD is a bonus for New England winters. I also have a bit more faith in the 4.3 than the Ford block. It’s a dirt simple engine that can typically keep plugging along just about forever.
That dumb Astro would fit right in with the lifted horror shows currently terrorizing the streets and sidewalks of subhumia.
Gimme the Aerostar. And thanks for acknowledging that dreadful ad campaign.
Taking the Chevy because the Astrovan can hold more ANFO.
Astro wins for me. The AWD option is the icing on the cake.
First place I’d look for problems causing the ABS light to come on would be the bulb, socket, or wiring to the CHMSL. I’ve seen problems with those trigger the ABS light in GM cars — just some sort of GM OBD weirdness.
Both these examples are from very late in the production run, by which time most of the usual little foibles had been thoroughly sorted. Either engine is reliable, though my faith in Ford automatic transmissions is less than that I have in GM. Plus AWD is extremely attractive since you can find the occasional somewhat-lifted Safari living up to the name on meaty knobbies and that’s just hilarious.
I’d happily take both, but if forced to choose I’d go with the Astro today.