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?
We’ve had an Astro for the last 13 years as a shop vehicle. It’s a steaming pile, and I hate its damned guts. Gimme the Ford.
If you pause too long driving the Chevy, people will get in to go to the airport.
Growing up, my mom had an early 90s Astro, and a friend’s mom had a couple of Aerostars. The Aerostar was fun to ride around in, but the Astro beat it in pretty much every way. I did my first burnout in the Astro. It could haul sheets of plywood and drywall with the back doors shut. The doghouse was annoying but wasn’t a dealbreaker for me, but maybe I also wasn’t used to driving comfortable cars. I’d take the Astro in a heartbeat and would actually go get it if my wife wouldn’t kill me for doing so. She hates Astros because she had to drive one as a delivery vehicle in college and says it’s the worst thing she’s ever driven, especially in snow. Unfortunately, I don’t think the AWD would convince her.