Ok I just spoke to a mechanic about this vehicle, I mentioned the name of it and he started saying the engine's in these things are absolute trash. Cant possibly more than 50,000 miles, etc. I couldn't believe him because I've been reading this forum and haven't seen too many people with engine issues, but he swears Ford Aerostar's have nearly all had major engine issues and claims my 1989 Aerostar has probably had 2-3 engines already. Is this guy losing his mind or is there any truth to these claims? Are the Aerostars known for bad engines? Thanks.

 

If you read this forum, and look over some of the archives, you will probably find very few owners who have had to actually replace their engine. For those who had to, most of it is probably the result of poor maintenance, usually by a previous owner. There were a few unlucky owners who run into what may be the most common severe problem, which is blowing a head gasket. But again, it's like like any other car, if you don't maintain it, you increase the likelihood of encountering problems.

Now consider the age of your van; any engine that has been in service pushing such a heavy vehicle for so long will be worn out, and probably in need of some service, if not an overhaul. That goes for most of the other major mechanical parts, like the transmission, or rear axle.

Did your mechanic also bitch about Ranger or Explorer? Most of them used the same engines as in the Aerostar. I suspect he's expressing his bias against a vehicle that is more difficult to work on than most.

 

Mine has 316.000 km in it and still kicking. I'd say that guy losing it.

 

Mine will hit 500,000 km (310,685 miles) in approximately 62.5 days.

Still runs like a charm and doesn't require oil between oil changes.

Transmission was rebuilt in January 07 at 340,000 km (211,000 miles).

 

I'm not the worlds expert, but I believe the 4.0 can experience head gasket problems at less than 100,000 miles. Once it's replaced you're good to go. I've also heard of problems with the freeze plugs needing replacement in less than 100,000 miles, which sometimes happens in a way that results in cooling loss that triggers overheating which triggers the blown head gasket.

Overall though, I know for an absolute fact that both the 3.0 and the 4.0 engines can easily last 200,000-300,000 miles without rebuilding. Especially the 3.0 Vulcan engine, which is legendary for its durability. That mechanic you were speaking to is ill informed.

 

There is some truth to his statements, but not nearly to the severity that he is stating. This guy is definitely ill informed.

The stock valve seats are one of the weaknesses that both motors share, but those are good for 120,000 plus miles, and the engine will still probably run fine evan after the seats are trashed. Eventually you will obviously get misfires, but in its early stages all you might notice is it lacks that new engine power, and the fuel economy will slowly start to drop. But the engine will still run, for a long time.

The 4.0L does have lifter wear issues, typically by 100,000 miles the lifters start showing signs of wear, and as they wear, the wear gets faster. Like with the valve seats, the engine will still probably run just fine, it just that the lifters were not that well lubricated, and as a result they suffer more wear than most of the other parts. The only real protection there is to use a good oil that has a strong metal film strength.

In either case, with proper maintenance these engines are good for well over 200,000 miles. You can always have the individual engines that fall short of the mark, often because of negligence at some stage in its life, but overall these engines are very well made and very reliable. The only real weakness, as I've said before, is the valve seats. And of course, neither engine likes to be overheated, most engine failures are often the result of cooling failures. Maybe he saw lots of engines biting the dust because of people overheating them.

I would disregard that mechanic, his statements do not coincide with reality.

 

I've owned (and currently own one) four Aerostars, two 3.0 liters and two 4.0 liters, all of them extended. The previous three vans each one has made it to over 250K miles before I retired them. My current Aerostar was almost totaled last fall (I hit a black cow that was standing in the road at night) but with a new fender, bumper and headlight assembly, it's back on the road again. It currently has about 235K miles on it and is still running strong.
Your mechanic may be spouting some of his "wisdom" on some partial facts. One is that the automatic transmisisons do need required maintenance. My rule-of-thumb is to change the fluid every 25K miles. Another is to never let the engines overheat as they run fairly warm their whole life.
But to say that your Aerostar is absolute trash is showing his incompetence. Perhaps he is also throwing in the Windstar reputations in there as well. Anybody who throws parts at a car only because of a vehicle's reputation is a parts replacer, not a mechanic. Consider shopping for a different mechanic.

 

that mechanic doesn't know what he's talking about.

Maybe he's talking about the Chevy Venture, Oldmobile Silhouette, or Pontiac Montana, which are notorious for transmission, intake and head gasket failures at 50k miles or before. I've owned two Aerostars since 1986 and looking for a third one. Never had engine problems.

I think Ford made a mistake discontinuing the Aerostar, the Windstar and Freestar front wheel drive minivans are also not worth buying either.

the only Second Choice in a rear-wheel-drive minivan for me would be a Chevy Astro or GMC Safari, but they are so ugly I always pass on them.

 

Nevermind folks, turns out he thought I said WINDSTAR, not Aerostar. I looked up the Windstar and sure enough, they had a lot of engine issues!

 

see more Aerostars on the road here than Windlesstars or Freestars.

that 3.8L transverse powertrain was one of Ford's Worst Abortions. if the engine didn't die by 100k the sick tranny did. that and Ford's later, after 7.3L, diesel engines are the main reasons I haven't bought Ford in 16 years.

may try one of the new 6.7 diesels if this Dodge/Cummins ever dies, 200k and still going Tough

 

that reminds me of a 1997 Mercury Sable wagon and its transverse powertrain, in our case it was the tranmission that kept failing.