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?
Although they are both deathtraps in a frontal collision, the Astro gets my vote here as I have always thought the Aerostar was grossly undertired/underwheeled. It has always looked a little goofy to me.
I had one of the 1st-gen Astros, with the manual transmission, and you are correct that you’re not giving up much with the auto trans. That was a faithful vehicle for me for quite a while. The one I had was the short version with the regular center-opening doors in the back. It didn’t have the third row seating, which was actually ideal for me; I could fit a ton of music gear in the back and still had the 2nd row for my kids (they absolutely loved that old van). My only complaint about the design of the Astro/Safari was that there wasn’t really room for the driver to comfortably plant the left foot when not engaging the clutch. They evidently expected the driver to rest the left foot on the inner wheel well, but that leaves your left leg scrunched up higher that your right leg. It was awkward and uncomfortable. I wouldn’t mind having one of these again for camping trips, and the AWD would be a nice bonus. The Astro Van gets my vote today.
I had one of the rare 5 speed manual Aerostars and I loved that thing! That van got me through two moves – including our first home. When not in cargo mode, I removed the center row and left the rear bench in, and I called it “Limo Mode”. Eventually the Midwest Rust Worm took its toll. I replaced it with a 5 speed work (stripper) F-150.
My first car was an 86 Astro I inherited. I put nearly 100k on it myself, and only finally gave up on it at just shy of 300k because of an issue with the rear diff.
Easy vote for me.
My dad moved us down to Tennessee in a Ford Aerostar and the recently replaced transmission gave up on it.
Sign me up for the Chevy Van.
I’m better off making this decision on a dart board. Nothing about either of these is interesting or compelling. I guess you don’t see either of them much anymore. Like seeing that weird relative once a year at the family reunion you just don’t miss them or even care if you see them anymore
I owned and daily drove an Astro for 3 years. The opinions of the people who picked it are factually incorrect. There’s no way an Aerostar would be worse.
It could be worse if you owned it.
A California Astro beats a Florida Death-Star.
No question about it.
The Astro all day, every day. The drivetrain is far superior to the Aerostar’s, and I’d trust it more, even with the extra 60k miles. These things are pretty damn bulletproof. This one also looks to be in much nicer shape than the Aerostar. I mean, look at how clean the engine bay is! Someone took care of this thing.
I’ll take the classic van styling and reliability of the Astro, and cope with the engine fan noise making it sound like the interior of an industrial air conditioner.
I cannot find any evidence Ford offered a “Sport” package on the ’97 Aerostar, so I’m thinking the aero add-ons and Sport badging were done by the dealer. Also, the 4.0L was only available on the extended-length AWD vans in 1997, so this one has the Vulcan.
AWD astro for sure. They are comfortable drive fairly well and have a crazy amount of space. They also still have a following of people that wish it was brought back and want to run them.
Aerostar for me. I have no need for AWD and I recall back in the day, the Aerostar was the better van.
But having said that, for someone who wants AWD and doesn’t mind the gas guzzling nature of AWD Astro, it can be a great cheap choice for someone.
I prefer the Astro, but these are both solid vehicles.
Dad rented an Aerostar in Albequerque NM for our trip to Philmont in summer ’93. Was a roomy and comfortable, if underpowered ride over the mountians.
We had the GMC Safari version of that Astro in blue (no AWD on ours though). A great people and stuff hauler! True, the current Sienna is more comfy, but that Safari/Astro was great! Very much the feel of a regular size van that shrunk in the wash.
Well, this was easy…Astro! Those Fix Or Repair Daily/Found On Road Dead Aerostars are just so ugly…and I don’t mind the “dustbuster” vans, which are sorta similar; but the Aerostars just look awful. I’ve heard good things about the Astro/Safari twins. I’ll go ahead and “live in a VAN…down by the RIVER!”
I have no use whatsoever for either, so I’ll take the Astro because of the AWD and the apparently lower potential for a major transmission problem.
There is a reason you see so many Astros/Safaris still on the road, and barely any Aerostars.
The Astro would be perfect in the role of that weekend hauler without the hefty premium that aged but clean pickups usually have. I’ll rent a utility trailer if I want to move dirty stuff around and keep the interior clean for people and packages.
Guess I’d vote for the Astro. But it’s at least 10 years past the point of when one of these would make sense for me. Oldest kid is about to go off to school and the middle one will follow in a few years.
Either van is not bad although compared to a new Sienna, probably seems like a dinosaur. Both are clean but I’d roll with the Astro mainly due to the AWD in the mountains.
in 1997 the 4.0 Aerostar had an AWD option, it was XLT and Eddie Bauer only though I believe. that makes the 4.0 engine and important note as well as the accuracy of the sellers info. Though I am not sure All time AWD from 30 years ago is going to be in great shape still. it really puts a bunch of strain on front suspension usually.
The GM cockroach is easily better for me though. parts and drivetrain longevity for that van seem to be far superior.
I had an almost identical Astro (year, paint, interior, except mine had the alloy wheels) as a company pool vehicle two decades ago, so the Astro gets my vote out of nostalgia’s sake. I don’t mind the Ford, but those running boards never looked right on them and certainly cannot overcome the awesomeness of the Astro’s half-barn door & hatch setup.
That Astro is genuinely useful… especially with the AWD, good hauler and winter beater. Someone will snatch that up quickly, I’m sure.
I had no idea they still sold Astros after the y2k bug was a dud! Its really clean and that price isn’t bad!
The 2003-2005 ones with 6 lug GMT800 wheels are even cooler.