Hi all,

I currently have a 94 XLT Extended. Was looking at maybe buying a 97 XLT Extended. My 94 has the center console & cup holders in the front, electric lumbar adjustments on the front seats, a cubbyhole under the front ashtray, and burgundy trim on the seats & map pockets etc.

Looking at the 97 XLT, this one doesn't have the center console or cup holders in the front, manual ***** for lumbar adjustments on the front seats, no cubby hole under the front ashtray, no colored trim like on the 94. I can't see any other differences except that the 97 has an updated/different front dome light setup. The 97 just seems cheaper than my 94 does.

I'm wondering if Ford did the same thing on the last year of the 97 models like they did on the Lincoln Town Car. The last year for the 97 Town Cars have less options than prior years, in essence, making the vehicles cheaper?

I would like to buy the van, I'll post some pics here later in the week of it in a different thread and would appreciate your comments.


Thanks!

 

the 97 did get the improved 4.0L engine with better head design and better performance along with the improved 5R55E 5 sp auto but only because of '97 emissions requirements.

 

Also just because its an XLT does not mean it came fully loaded, only that the base options are included, like power windows, locks, and mirrors, and that there are the under dash footwell lights. Beyond that, Xt really doesn't mean much. It also means that features like AC and power steering are standard (they basically are on the lesser models too, but on a base model you could order them without). XLT models also come standard with cruise control.

I agree, the seats I had in my '97 were terrible, I replaced them with the seats from my '94.

 

I was also under the impression that the 97s were a, "hey look whats in the junk bin lets throw it together and sell it as an aerostar" sort of deal to get one more year out of them?

 

Unfortunately thats was pretty much the case. Ford resented building the Aerostar beyond the '93 model year. They pretty much figured they new more than their buyers, they brought in the Windstar and Explorer and said hey, choose one of those two so we can discontinue the Aerostar, and the public said no way. So Ford grudgingly continued making them. I have put a lot into my current '97 Aerostar, I like the van as a whole, but I do agree, it seems they cheapened the interior a bit.

 

see far more late Aeros still on the road rather than the early overlap years pathetic Winstar

looks like Ford looses another van fan.
headed to a Scion xB for hauling the dogs and 30 mpg+. Aero 4L AWD at -16 mph around town isn't cutting it. gas heading to $4+ a gal this summer
rig looking now.
gonna miss the old girl.

 

I think the 1997 model your only had 2 Aerostar wagon models; all the other models were eliminated. The better engine was probably developed more for the Explorer than the Aerostar, but could be used by both.

Ford kind of pushed the SUV culture with the Explorer, just like Chrysler pushed the minivan culture before. So as the minivan replaced the station wagon as the family car, the SUV later replaced the minivan. People who bought Aerostars probably wanted features that a Windstar did not have, but Ford would prefer that they bought an Explorer, which had a higher profit margin. So instead of having 2 vehicles competing against the high profit Explorer, they got rid of the one that would have required additional development for the newly mandated safety features, such as passenger or side airbags.

 

And yet, Ford, much as they do now, has missed a major part of the marketing game. It goes by many names, but a designed obsolescence is a great marketing strategy. Basically you genuine replace you own model with a new one that is better. That means you don't worry about competing with yourself. Competing with yourself is an excellent strategy, because it draws more attention to yourself. Basically if you can get your customers to choose between 2 minivans and an SUV, you are preventing you customers from even looking at other brands. How successful is this stragey? No automaker has really deliberately employed this tactic, but Gillette has done this for years. Its no Schick versus Gillette. Its Mach 3 vs Mach 3 Turbo, vs Mach 3 Power vs Fusion vs Fusion Power. No one has time to think about why they should get anything other than a Gillette Razor, when Gillette actually competes with themselves. This is part of why Gillette makes the best razors, and why Gillette sells more razors than anyone else. They don't wait for their competition to up the ante, they up it themselves, and compete with their own innovations. If Ford did this with their own products, imagine where it would take them. Sure their R&D would be high, but think about it, If each model has its own merits, and you make that model excel at those merits, then you don't have to compare your product to a Chrysler van or a Jeep, or whatever. Keep the competition internal, and your sales can increase.

 

That means Ford would have had to increase prices on the two minivans maintain the profit level that the Explorer provided. That would have surely driven away customers.

 

My 96's have the same interior exact as the 94 we had. No changes that I could tell and still built really well.

 

Having owned four Aerostars, with the combined mileage close to 1,000,000 miles between all four, there was always a running joke in our family that the worst engineering feature of the Aerostar was the factory cup holders. (I'd should tell the kids about changing the spark plugs, but since they have never done it, they wouldn't understand) A panic stop or a sharp turn could easily spill the contents on the floor or the console. The joke has since stopped since I picked up a '96 Jeep Cherokee 4X4 w/manual transmission (for a pittance) and it has NO cup holders. I long for another Aerostar, but the wife reminds me that in a few years the kids won't be living at home and we probably won't need it. Still, if I found one for a bargain, I'd probably buy it and try to justify it after it is sitting in the driveway. BTW, Aerostar #4 was put out to pasture when we hit a black cow that was standing out in the highway late at night. Mysteriously, the cow never had an owner.

 

seems like honda's going this way... but that IS a really good marketing idea

 

The problem Ford has always had, is that rather than competing with themselves and pushing themselves to do better, they wait for their competition to one up them. In other words, the old Taurus didn't die because the imports were better. Ford let it become obsolete, and didn't do anything to keep themselves on top. A confirmation is the fact that a 2005 Taurus, the last year the 4th ten was sold to the public, was not much better equipped than a 1996 Taurus. They still came with the same standard features, which of all appalling facts was a cassette deck in the most stripped down and basic model. A CD player didn't even become an option till 2001. Hondas and Toyotas int heir most basic forms were better equipped.

The same story held true with the Aerostar. Was a 1997 model really different in any ways that would be noticed by an average consumer than a 1992 model?

Ford should have moved the Windstar as the basic family minivan, and advertised its safety ratings, thus stealing sales from the Dodge and Chevy vans of the time. They then should have advertised the Explorer as well, an SUV with offroad capabilities and great towing capacity. And the Aerostar should have been marketed by its cargo capacity and heavy duty design relative to other vans. It has a lot more cargo room than an Explorer, but the comparison between he two would have been about the Explorers offroad design, an Aerostar, no matter how you slice it, is not an offroad vehicle, even if its power and towing capacities rival the Explorer's. An approach like this would not have reduced Windstar or Explorer sales, but rather would have taken Astro sales. Especially in a redesigned 1998 Aerostar features a slightly wider design (wide means more cargo room and a slightly roomier engine compartment too.), redesigned suspension, and larger 15 wheels, along with the new 4.0L OHC engine the Explorer was getting. This would have crushed the Astro sales. The target market would have been those that were after the cargo space and the AWD, while those who did need that much space would opt for a Windstar or Explorer. Also by making it wider, you would create a clearer distinction between an Aerostar and Windstar. Also having two models that end in star is confusing, they should have shortened the name to just Aero. Ford should have marketed the Aerostar for its more truck like properties and truck like handling, as opposed to the more carlike Windstar. Then Ford could have offered both models, and observed which one sold better and which features consumers wanted and cared about. If anything should have been discontinued, the Windstar should have, even in 1997 the Aerostar outsold the Windstar. The winning features of the Windstar should have been brought over to the Aerostar (improved safety), and the Windstar should have been trashed or improved.

This tactic has not really been used by any automaker, though the closest to try is Nissan. Nissan is introducing a new model somewhere in the world every 6-9 weeks (or at least they stated they intend to). This is so that they can capture more sales, and also to determine which models sell best in which markets.

Unfortunately, Automakers in particular seem to lack an even basic understanding of marketing, and the success or failure of an automaker is often better measured by the success or failure of their marketing and not of their designs. Some examples of this.

The Dodge Caravan is and for the most part, has always been the best selling minivan. Why? Firstly, it was the first minivan, being the first is always a competitive advantage. Secondly, they are practically synonymous with the minivan. Is it a better minivan than everyone else's minivan? Probably not. However, whether by accident or by design, their marketing has secured the Caravan as the best selling and most profitably minivan.

Subarus are synonymous with AWD. Did they invent AWD? No, but AWD is all they make, and by focusing their entire product line around AWD, they have become one of the most profitable Japanese automakers. Everyone knows that Subarus have AWD, and if someone is in a market for an AWD, very often Subaru is the first brand name that pops into their head. This gives them a one up over other automakers in the AWD market. It doesn't matter if other automakers have AWD offerings, Subaru will probably always sell more AWD vehicles than any other automaker.

Examples of success and failure can be found in all industries, but particularly in the automotive industry.

Another rule and all the automakers in America are failures in this regard, is that often the success fa brand is inversely proportional to the number of offerings it has. This means that many automakers for example that only sell a few models are more profitable than brands that sell many models. The exception is if those models can be brands unto themselves. Sometimes they are, and those models become successful. Other times they are not well identified on their own and they fail. An example is the Mustang. While everyone knows its a Ford, its not the fact its a Ford that makes it successful. Its the fact that its a Mustang. Real Mustang enthusiasts don't say "I drive a Ford", they don't say "I drive a Ford Mustang" either. They instead call it a Mustang or Stang. All of Fords successes stand on their own merits. The Ford name has really become more synonymous with trucks. A cleaver marketing strategies that understands real marketing and the industry he is serving would take hold of this and make the Ford name less prominent, and would for example, put larger Mustang, Focus, Taurus, and other badges on their vehicles, and make the Ford logo less prominent or remove it from the exterior altogether (of course you would make it very prominent on the engine.) Chevrolet and Chrysler have also both made the same mistake. Many other automakers make it too. Often the idea that promoting your company name as the primary brand name seems like a successful idea since everyone is doing it. And yet, GM had more brands than Ford did, and they were temporarily larger. But they were also economically hit much harder when everything hit the fan. Their failed to distinguish very much at all. The only real successes they had was the Impala, Malibu, Camaro, Firebird, GTO, and their truck lineup. Many of these were discontinued or poorly marketed or had eroded so badly in quality.

At the end of the day, the way branding works is as a battle for the publics minds. You have to create a singular idea, and own that idea. Subaru owns AWD, Honda owns quality, Toyota owns reliability, Mercedes owns engineering. What does Chevy own? What does Ford own? What does Chrysler own. On all three of those counts, you probably have to think about it. Maybe you already have an idea, but the idea can't be one that is already owned by another brand. Sorry, thats part of the way branding works. If some says quality, you can't thin of both Honda and Ford, it will be one or the other, but not both. Now one can own a more specific idea. For example, Ford owns tough. This idea works great for trucks, and its part of why Ford sells many trucks. Harder idea to sell on a car, especially as it isn't even true of many of them. I don't see too many tough Escorts running around. Chevrolet in my opinion does not really own any ideas, though the most universal one might be American. Not a good reason to buy a car though, because American can act like a brand, and like Chevrolet of GM, its really kind of meaningless because it has not strong definition, it is not a singular idea. Chrysler is not really well defined either. They have more recently come to the same conclusion that I am outlining here, and they are trying to form a clearer image and solidify ideas. Dodge has become more aggressive, you could say Dodge owns aggressive, their styling is aggressive, their models are considered powerful and mean. Chrysler is generally more upscale, but still vague, maybe over tim it will solidify. Dodge has removed their name front heir trucks, and is instead promoting Ram. Like the Dodge, their are going for an aggressive look and attitude, so RAM equals aggressive truck. Even though thats two words, thats still a singular idea. You could shorten that to Ram equals aggressive, because its a given that its a truck, and the public still hasn't separated Ram and Dodge yet.

Ford Aerostar still works well as an name, since Ford is more closely associated with the trucks (Ford equals tough), then it stands to reason the Aerostar should be tough. And if Ford has focus on the Aerostar as a tough minivan, well thats a winning idea.

Its all about marketing, and the demise of the Aerostar was not a failure of the model or a lack of sales, it was a marketing failure on Ford's part. They failed to recognize their own position in the market, they failed to recognize the way people think and perceive brands, and they failed to update their product to own an idea.

For the record, the demise of the Ranger is caused by the same failure. The Ranger is a small pickup. Ford has convinced themselves thats is slumped sales are a result of people not wanting small pickups. In reality, its a failure to market the models greatest strength, its small utilitarian size. A current model F150 can get as good or better fuel economy than a V6 Ranger. But simp truth of the matter, a V6 F150 can't bought he economy of the 4 cylinder, and the F150 is larger and more expensive. Solution, drop the V6 options int he Ranger, and focus on the fuel efficient 4 cylinders. The F150 is the clear winner if you need power or hauling capacity. Then the tightly focused Ranger could work at attracting and capturing the sales to fleets and those who don't need big trucks. This would take a huge chunk out of the sale of all other small pickups, and even revive the sales of smaller trucks.

 

I remember reading at the time that Ford was "forced" to continue the Aerostar because of the demand for them by their fleet customers. Lots of Aerostars were used as service vans.

I had a post last year comparing our '93 XL and our newly acquired '96 XLT with basically the same question. The '93 XL has more options - p/w, power mirrors, console, aluminum wheels, pinstripes - than the '96 XLT, which has none of those options. It does have the stripe in the upholstery, and the '93 doesn't.

 

I have a 97 Aerostar shorty cargo barn doored XLT 3.0L and it has absolutely zero options.