And no gratuitous Chevy bashing heh heh....... I haven't owned either of these for what it's worth but I will shortly. My quicktake is that the Astro is certainly a nicer looking van, is bigger and has more power but the Aerostar is less expensive, gets better fuel mileage, is lighter, and seemingly more aerodynamic. Reliability? Repair/parts costs? Comfort?

 

Well I've only drove a Astro once on a Youth Trip and it was rented.
But I own two Aerostars. I like the feeling of the Aerostars better that the Astro.

But like ANY automobile it just depends on how well the upkeep was done on it before you.
Did the owners before you fix things when they started going bad or did they wait until they had to fix them, which by then could of already started/caused other problems before they got the first problem fixed.

Jay

 

I used to drive Astro's for work.
We got them new, drove them for about 100K miles then traded them in.
The door handles break off all the time, which is commonplace with chevys.
They all (in our fleet) would develop some kind of engine trouble before 100K miles.
We were allowed to do the Quick Lube "on the clock" so I know those things got frequent oil changes. Given, fleet service vehicles to get abused - however I always felt the Astro was built cheaply. I went through several brand new ones.
These were not set up as passenger vehicles, maybe that makes a big difference? I've never had, or used one that was a passenger van.
Just my $.02

Oh, and I really like my Aerostar (of course) except for when you have to work on it. Fortunately that's not too often.

 

test drive them both!

we rented a 95 astro for a trip one time. i felt like it was going to rattle and sqeak itself apart before I got where i was going. the interior was very lound, and all the trim rattled. that just drove me nuts!

Imy uncle had an astro that I wanted so bad. they do look good, i will give them that. never owned one, so I cant say how reliable they are. but astros will cost you more to buy than an aerostar.

they dont make a long-body version of the astro. they call them "extended length" but they are not! their extended length is the same as aerostars shorty.

i owned a 3.0 shorty aero with no options. it was the bare-bones version, it had cruise, and air, and auto tranny, thats it. it was indestructible! without extra upgrades of any kind, I hauled paper bundles in it to paper boys. every day i had loads in it from 1500 to 2200 pounds, on thanksgiving, the load was 3700 pounds! the next day a tire blew out while the van was empty, seems that the weight caused a hole to wear in the tire sidewall where the balance weight was attached. they gave me a new tire for free!

i had it for 2 years went from 138,000 to 190,000 miles with about $200 in "fix-it-yourself" parts repairs. I actually sold it cause I was afraid of hitting the 200,000 mile mark, when the next break-down would be the "big-one" and I wouldnt be able to fix it myself. well, i got what I paid for it, $1000. the lady who bought it goes to my school, and says she loves it, and its yet to need any repair even yet (its been a year) and its at 220,000 miles now.

when i sold that one i got my 95 extended, 4.0 with all the goodies, even 4-wheel drive! its soo nice. i got it for $3700 at a car lot. the right rear window leaked when it rained, which is often here. i fixed it myself in less than an hour, no parts required, just loose window nuts. ive had it for almost a year, and the front fan blower just went out. $20 fix. my new aero had 135,000 on it when i got it, its about 148,000 now. i talked to the old owners by looking them up on the internet. they said, "oh, well, it started to leak inside! and that was a good excuse to get the SUV i wanted, so we traded it in". thats it? "yeah, it was always a good van for us"

I like that the rear window is NOT split. like the astro. the side bolsters of the front seats of the aerostar tend to wear out. if you plan on pulling anything get a tranny cooler. not a bad idea even if your not pulling. I love my aero now, and would never consider an astro again.

I was not a fan of ford, ever. but when i needed a van for my job hauling bundled papers, my grandpa sold me my first aero for $1000. and took payments, its what i needed, and could afford. so i was stuck with it. i chose aero again after my first one was so good to me.

 

Comparing a 93 Aero extended 2003 Asto extended
1. Aero has 4.0 & Astro 4.3 V6 engines
2. Aero has more foot room up front compared to Astro
3. Astro has a little more rear space & overhead room
4. Aero has weak head gaskets & heads that are prone to crack
5. Aero has tie rods that ware out early in the cars life
6. Asto has idle arms that if not greased tend to ware out early in the cars life
7. Both are built on a truck suspension with the Astos bieing more heavier
8. Both feel the same when on the road & neither raddle
9. Spare tire mounts the same under the rear in both
10. Instruments are similar
11. Driver vision in the Astro is better
12. Both are a pain to change plugs & tight under the hood.
13. Dutch doors on the Astro are grat as they keep things from roolling out
14. Aero has 14 inch wheels & drums on rear
15. Asto has 16 inch wheels & disc brakes all arround
16. AWD is similar in both models
17. Aero AWD gets a couple of mile better gas mileage than Astro AWD
18. Aero has built in locking gas cap & Asto does not
19. Asto comes with Alloy wheels
20. Asto door handles tend to break on older models, time will tell on newer ones
21 Astro has rear leaf springs Vs Aero coil
22. Both vans were built in the same time frame with similar technologies
23. Aero has coil springs on the front & Asto AWD has torsion bars
I hope this will help. The bottom line is $$$. From what I hear, the Asto will only be made for commerical us in 2005 because of the side airbag rule.

 

The Astro/Safari have 15" wheels, and take LT235x75x15 tyres.
I have driven both for some time, untill it was not worth fixing the Aerostar again.

All the Astro's had the 4.3 motor, which has proved to be fairly reliable. The Aero had several engines, most of which were underpowered and unreliable.

The Astro had several rear door options, of which the Dutch doors were the best. The Aerostar had no rear door options I believe.

The rear plugs on the driver side of the Astro could be easily accessed by taking the wheel off, the Aerostar .......

The exact behaviour of either vehicle depends on the options and year.

The Astro has a real frame and can tow trailers without killing the transmission.

The Astro starts easier on a cold day.

Mechanics are not scared of Astro's.

Just my thoughts.

 

Actually, I've seen an aero with the dutch doors.

 

More info
1. Astros came out with 16 inch wheels in 2003
2. Recent model Astro engines have cast iron cylinder heads with roller rocker arms & hydraulic roller lifters
3.Astros & Aero are both unibody, Asrto uses a partial front ladder stub-frame like the Aero but heavier
4. Some early Astos came with 4 cylinder engines.
5. Aero & Astro engines both use timeing chaines & not belts
6. Some Astros have problems with the "spider" fuel injection system

 

To clarify some things....or muddy them, the Asto engine was originally the 2.8, later the 4.3 was added. The Areo was availible with the Dutch door but I have only seen them in the cargo van with no rear seats or side windows.

 

Somebody mentioned that the Aeros had unreliable engines. I'm not sure if that is a fair criticism. I am actually more interested in the 3.0 because fuel mileage is a major factor and we all know that these days. I've heard that the 3.0 is a great little engine. Considering it doesn't have a timing belt, 4 valves per, double overhead cams, roller rockers it's probably feasilble to rebuild a motor like that. I've heard the 4.0's are too expensive to be worth rebuilding in an Aero and I agree. I've heard $700.00 just for the rocker/cam setup alone. In an Astro I don't think I'd consider anything less than the Vortec but again, I bet they are expensive as hell to have rebuilt and they only get 16-17 mpg in town. I know Astro came with a 4 banger at one time but don't know if it was worth a crap. If it was an iron duke I would definitely pass on that. Again, I've heard the 3.0's were very good motors and studying them I think they'd be pretty cheap to replace. Good ole 2 valves per overhead, single cam, chain timing drive, IRON heads (which I've heard are prone to cracking but I don't think it's a big problem, probably prone to cracking if you overheat it and that is common to many vehicles) and I've heard the distributorless system is very good.

 

The Astro dutch doors also come in the passenger van. Top half has glass like the Aero van. Bottom half is 2 separate doors. So you can open the top half & remove something and not have it roll out.
Astros also come with & engine oil cooler that is prone to leak when they get old as I have been told.
Also when I was a Disney World in Orlando last summer I noticed Disney had white Astros everywhere.

 

Have owned a '94 Aerostar XL Plus since new. 197,500 miles, used for towing and carrying heavy loads for long distances (packed full of Boy Scouts and their gear). Have rented Astros for work and travel. Here are the main differences that I have found:

1.) AC Vent of Astro freezes driver's left knee. If you don't have arthritis in your knee, you will after driving and Astro w/AC running.

2.) 4.0L Aero will blow away a 4.3L Astro anytime, anyplace. The 4.3 has more initial grunt, but runs out of breath quickly.

3.) 4.0L heads are very susceptable to cracking, especially if you crank the temp gauge fro towing etc. They crack right between the intake and exhaust valves on the center piston. Results from poor casting process that used two pouring locations from either side of the head. When the molten iron flow met in the middle, the same place it cracks, the front of the flow was partially cooled and didn't knit completely. Overhead, and ping, they crack. Aftermarket heads available for $300 each built + parts if you need new. I replaced at 181,000 and haven't had a problem yet. Also, I pulled the heads as a way to tear out the motor, which I was going to replace with an aftermarket "Crate Motor." Once we got the heads off, we saw that the original bottom end was in almost perfect condition. In the cylander bores, there were no wear ridges at all, and the original cross hatch pattern from honing was still visible, with no glazed areas at all. The "German Built" 4.0L used Nikasil Bore Liners.

4.) My neighbor (an aircraft mechanic with meticulous PM habits) runs S10 and Blazers exclusively with the 4.3L, and he is a dyed in the wool bow-tie man. However, ask him about the "Made in Mexico" 4.3L blocks, and he turns evil. He's replaced 3 4.3 blocks before 85,000 miles. All due to cracked blocks in the crank area. He blames it on thin casting technology that hasn't been perfected in mexico.

5.) The front seats in an Astro are too short and have absolutely no lateral support. The captain's chairs in the Aero are some of the finest automobile seats made. I have recieved multiple complements for their comnfort.

6.) Since the Astro freezes your left knee, it compensates by leaning your right calve against the plastic doghouse. When you finally exit the vehicle, after a long drive, your left knee is frozen solid, and you lower right leg is soaked with sweat.
5.) The Astro does offer eight passenger seating by virtue of its three place center seat and wder body. However, there's no leg room in the middle or rear seats. GM did allow the seats to slide fore and aft to compensate, but it comes at the expense of room elsewhere.
6.) There is very little cargo space in the back of an Astro, if the middle and rear seats are being used for passengers. On a trip to the Grand Canyon, my Aero easily accomodated four full backpacks flat on the floor behind the rear seat. When we got to McCarrin Aipport in Las Veas, we rented an Astro, and it was difficult to fit four backpacks at all, let alone flat on the floor. Much more usable cargo space in an Aero equipped for passengers.
7.) The radio/cd player is much better on the GM product.
8.) Ford did goof on a few things. The original AC Compressors were prone to failure and the cooling system would have been better off with an electric fan.
9.) The transmission, "Made in France" did fail at 117,000 miles, which bettered the average, according to the tranny guy, by about 30,000 miles. Most of the failures were related to fluid loss past the front seal and an inadequate tranny cooler.
10.) Overall, the Aero rides better, handles better, and is much more ergonomic than its GM counterpart. Expect hard to perform repairs from either, as both have the engine installed under the dashboard. GM does give you a much bigger doghouse opening.

 

Just like the post the aero's have more get up and go is true...I have a 91 aero and i will smoke gmc safari's and astros all day long no matter what year...

 

The 3.0 is very durable my cousins 93 has over 250,000 and they are mostly town and country driving with a few highway trips. The 4.0 heads cracks are real engine failure problem but the 3.0 normally if it gets cracks they are in the valve area and do not cause failure, you just need new heads when you rebuild and this is when its found. They are not the cause of the rebuild.

 

I also agree that the 4.0 Aerostar has plenty of power (0-60 in 10 secs)
The hp numbers may not match the GM but it is faster and the 60 degree v6 is oh so smooth compared to the ancient technology 4.3. (Someone told me the 4.3 is a 350 minus 2 cylinders but I'm not sure if thats true.) If so at least it's got good ancestry. Astro rides more like a truck and interior has the typical GM cheap feel to it (but nothing like the dodge). My 1992 Aerostar has 200,000 km on it and has been only nickel and dime repairs so far. I am an Aircraft mechanic so working in the tight confines of the Aerostar engine compartment is liveable. I also was faced with choosing between these two vans for the RWD but chose the aerostar extended XL sport and we still can't find a new van that has what this one has. Our next van will be a 1997 AWD 4.0 Aerostar unless the honda Oddysey suddenly drops 30k in price.
Bottom line, if you don't mind changing thermostats, heater cores, rads, coolant hoses, etc all in a near impossibly tight engine compartment and can live with the constant signature power steering pump whine, the Aerostar is the better of the two.
007BRONCO