What was the best year for Aerostars?

 

Definitely I would say 92 & newer (MUCH better interior). I would also say maybe late 93 or newer gets you R134A as a refridgerant for your a/c system (no possible R-12 conversion hassles). Also, I think the latest models (95 or 96?) had a 5-spd auto which may be better?

 

I also would say 92 & newer. The 93 did not come with R134 refrig as my made in April 93 Aerostar still has the old refrigerant.

 

I am blessed in that my wife and I own a '92 Aerostar. The '91 and older had a different dash board with a squared off instrument panel area. Every Aerostar I see that is badly rusting has the squared off dash area. So I think Ford did something to stop the rust problem starting in '92.

 

Van connoisseurs universally agree the 1991 vintage represents the defining year. (Well hey, someone has to defend the older models.)

In all honesty, there are pluses and minuses for all model years.

 

I may be mistaken but I believe that late 93 models (that had the 3rd brake light) also have R134A for the a/c system. Mine is an early '93, my buddies a latter one (w/. 3rd brake light) and pretty sure he has the newer refridgerant. If not, I'm sure by 94 it was in there.

Mark

 

i like the 91 because you can open up the top of the dash.(which i have had to do many times, and because thats the one i have and its paid for!! it would be nice to have a 5 speed tranny, might even break 20 mpg's!!

 

I had a 90 extended with a 5-spd. Didn't know the rear axle ratio but it was way to high geared. It was a bit like driving a truck. I think a shorty w/ 5-spd and lower gears would have been much better. I do recall it getting about 22 on hwy but my 93 AWD 4.0 on occaision gets over 20.

 

I would stay away from '96 and '97 Aerostars. That's when they went OBD II and there was a new transmission either in '96 or '97. I prefer to stay away from cars and trucks when there are major changes made to them. With only one or two years in production, I doubt Ford was able to work out any bugs (maybe I'm being overly pessimistic). But, I wouldn't want anything too old, because most of the auto manufacturers stop making parts after about 15 years, unless it's used by the later year models. Also, with an older Aerostar you get stuck with R12 (not sure of when the switch occurred). I would say '92 to '95 are good years. No offense to owners of other years, that's just my preference.

 

My 93 had the 3rd brake light and the new refrigerant. I will have to say it was one of the finest vehicles I have ever owned. I had the 'Longstar' (said so on the side) with the 4.0 V6 and Electronic AWD. It was the ultimate urban assault vehicle. Went anywhere, seated 7, front and rear A/C. had plenty of power, looked good (silver/gray with the blue bottom) and did everything well. It rode really well and was an awesome rig, then my ex-wife got drunk and totalled it. It was a sad day even though she got it in the divorce, it was a tragic end to the life of a wonderful vehicle, too bad.

 

Consumer Reports has the last few years as being the most reliable. As far as the 5 speed automatic, by all accounts they have been excellent in all of their applications. I have over 160,000 in a '97 AWD with ZERO problems. Others I know with the tranny in other vehicvles have gotten similar results. Ford got it right with this tranny.

 

1991 was a good year. I have a 91 short wheel base areostar with a 3 litre 5 speed. It has lots of spunk off the light and cruises real well at highway speeds. I have never had a speck of rust on it, but then again I do put wax on it once or twice a year. The only problems that I have had and still do is a miss at highway speeds but it is generally not a huge factor in it's preformance as the problem is intermitent.