Hi,
I'm new here but have been on the Aerostar forum a while. I had good luck with a '91 shorty and had thought of moving up to an extended 4.0 Aero, but it looks like it's too hard to find a used one in good shape-and they're hard to work on.
I'm now thinking a full-size van would be easier to work on and more reliable, but would like to have something economical. I don't expect a full-size van to come close to an Aero for fuel economy, but would like to know what engine and trannie combo and what years would be the best for economy.
I can't afford to buy a new van but would at least want one with EFI and lockup transmission to have the best chance for reasonable economy (wife can't drive a manual trannie).
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Ray Mac..

 

The 97 and newer vans have modular engines, not user servicable at all, their placement in the vans set them in an unreachable location for you to work on them. I replaced the IAC in my 99 last month, it was luckly on the rear, the throttle body is far out of reach. I paid $300 to get my plugs changed last year, glad they held true to their quote, because it costs more on the vans, no you can't do them yourself.
Pre 97 vans will all have high miles, the EFI ones are backed by the AOD transmissions, they don't last long, so it it's not recently rebuilt, it'll be needing it at some point. I like the EFI engines over the carbed ones because they have more power, run cleaner and last longer, they tend to reach 200,000 miles or more.
Fuel economy will be best with the 302 5.0 EFI and AOD, the 351 5.8 has more power and is better for towing but gets poor mileage.

 

Good advice, thanks.

 

Pretty much agree with everything Maples01 said.

> but would like to have something economical

My 1995 Aerostar (AWD, 4.0, 7 pass, ext) got 18 avg and 21 hwy. My 1985 E-250 (converted to 4x4) with 351w/C-6 gets 9.90 and less with mostly highway driving. E-250 probably weighes in at 7k.

> I'm now thinking a full-size van would be easier to work on and more reliable

They are not more reliable.

Consumer Reports will bear this out and I know that from working at dealerships and owning both an Aerostar and E-series (my second one). My Aerostar was the most reliable vehicle I have ever owned. The tranny failure at 185K was the only thing that really went wrong with it. Still has the original starter and alternator too. Of course, I kept up with PM to make sure I did not have on the road failures.

If it is a daily driver for 1-3 people, I would still shoot for the Aerostar. Way better economy. They are not that hard to work on, especially compared to the newer vans.

I say get a nice 1995-1997, plan on doing the tranny as you would on any automatic vehicle, and get one loaded with all the creature comforts. I liked my quad seating very much.

 

The E series are very reliable vehicles. Also, the '93 and later E150s will all have electronic OD transmissions (either the AODE or E4OD). My 5.0 E150 Clubwagon (with an AODE trans) is probably much like what you describe. They are readily available and can be bought in good condition for anywhere from $2000 and up.

My van has been one of the most reliable vehicles I have owned. I bought it in early '97 with 18,000 miles and it now has 240,000. The driveline has been pretty much bullit proof. The only repairs were things like; fuel pump, AC compressor, heater core. Pretty typical for any high mileage vehicle and better than most. I get about 15 combined mpg. A later model van with a 4.6 is going to be similar in performance and perhaps a little better on mileage.

Compared to an Aerostar the Clubwagon feels much larger but drives very nicely (with the KYB shocks and aftermarket swaybars). It makes a great long distance traveler and will cruise all day comfortably with 6 people aboard.

Steve
'95 Clubwagon XLT

 

Thanks. This sounds pretty much what I'm looking for except I need to stay away from the 4.6 even if mileage may be better.

 

I had an 03 with the 7.3L. It was not user serviceable unless you dismantle the front end. You have to remove the front tires, passenger seat, console and some misc. engine parts to access the glow plugs, and don't ask about draining water from the filter bowl.

 

I probably would not be getting a diesel, though until now I thought the 7.3 had a good reputation.
Anyway, one of the reasons I said Aerostars were hard to work on was because of the posts on the Aero site about how hard it is just to change the plugs, and pulling the engine means doing what you describe (if done by the book).
I never did any major work on my Aero other than changing the thermostat, and that was a real chore. Oh yeah, I did have to fix the stuck sliding door, but even that was easier than the 'stat.

 

Never said that the 7.3L was a bad motor, Its just hard to work on in a van because of the tight space.

 

> bout how hard it is just to change the plugs

There are some tricks for the 4.0, like doing #3 from underneath, and #6 from inside, but, it is not that tough. Like its Ranger/Bronco II counterpart, doing the plugs from the wheel wells works great.

 

I have a 2002 E150 with the 5.4 in it. I bought this van new and it has absolutely been the most reliable vehicle I have every owned. It has 70K miles on it and it has never been back to the dealer. Front rotors are an issue but other than that, it is a rock solid vehicle. Someone said earlier that you cannot replace the plugs in this van yourself. Do a search on this forum and you will see that indeed, the plugs can be replaced without taking the van to a shop. It's not easy but it can be done.

Avoid the 4.6 motor in the full size van. The 5.4 has more power and, realistically, in a vehicle this heavy, they both get about the same mileage because the 4.6 must work harder. Around town, mine gets between 13 and 15 mpg. On the highway, it gets 15 to 18 depending on how much weight I have loaded into it.

 

I probably won't be able to afford a van that new, but I appreciate the advice.

I expect I will wind up with a van with a 302.

 

I had a 92 with a 302 in it and I felt that it didn't have enough power. If I had to do it over, I would have bought one with a 351 instead of the 302. Here in Maryland, it was very hard to find used Econoline Clubwagons with 302 engines. The 351 engines were a dime-a-dozen.

 

Plug on the 302 aren't that hard. The right front plug is best reached through the fenderwell, but other than that its not hard.

I like my 5.0 (302) and it has adequate power. More is always better but.... I found a couple of simple things that boosted the power enough on my van that it now feels as strong as any 351 I have driven. First, be sure everything is is good order. Plugs, wires, distributor cap and rotor. Then add a K&N filter and have the injectors properly cleaned. Finally, and this is made the biggest difference, do the exhaust. I ditched the entire system from the point where is mates to the manifolds on back and replaced the dual cats with a single, high flow cat, a low restriction muffler and 3" pipe all the way through.

Another important thing to note is the final drive gear ratio. Most of the '92 - '95 E150s will have the 3.31 gear. If you don't haul much and travel mostly on flat ground, this gear is fine. But, its a little too tall for the 5 liter which is much happier if it can turn a little more rpm. The 3.55 is a much better gear for the 5.0. The 3.73 is good too but is typically only found on the tow package and that's rare with a 5.0. If you can't find one with a 3.55 or 3.73 its not hard to swap the gears.

Steve
'95 Clubwagon XLT