Hi,

Just wanted people's opinions that have owned both 3L and 4L engines with the aeros, etc...

I know the 4L is more engine, and faster, etc... but I wanted to know what you all thought as a comparison between the two.

are there any more problems with the 4 than the 3, or vice versa?

 

The 4.0 definitely feels gutsier and is less likely to downshift when accelerating. The 3.0 gets a little better mileage and is a shade more durable. All things equal, I prefer the 4.0 but a well maintained 3.0 is actually probably a small notch better all the way around except for those times when you need to accelerate in traffic and prefer that the engine does it in a more laid back manner.

 

Really? What made the 3.0L more durable?

The thing I hate about my 3.0, is climbing hills, esp on the highway, seems like it really has to work to do 65MPH up some hills... I would think the 4.0, can smoothly climb anything...

What were the known problem areas of the 4L?

Thanks,
Bob

 

one will run out of mountain curve nerve before a 4L Aero runs out of power...have scared the ???? out of myself on mountain roads with my '96..
main problem with pre 95 4L Aero engines is overheating and resultent head warping and coolant leakage....auto tranny also overheats far easier on long hard pull when overloaded and pushed hard....external large owner installed cooler helps keep the tranny alive
Ford had to beef up the auto tranny to take the extra power...took them a few years to get the package right.

combustion chambers do carbon up causing pre detonation and lose of power...easy to solve

 

I did not own a 3.0 but did have two 2.9 in Rangers with 5 spd. High praise for both - vehicles - great engine in my opinion. The last Ranger I had was a 4.0 with auto. - I found a considerable drop in mileage and a huge increase in power - great power from the 4.0. Over all I would say the 3.0 and the 4.0 are both great engines from others that I know that have owned both - with the opinion that the 3.0 had a very good reputation for a long life very relianble engine while giving better mileage.

 

Mediaman - I don't think the durability is that much different, just that the 3.0 Vulcan is very highly rated, and most would put it slightly ahead of the 4.0. I can't quote documented stats on it, so it's pure opinion. The feel of the pants is real, and real nice. Who knows? Maybe the 4.0 gets better mileage if you accelerate and climb at the same rate you would with a 3.0.

I share your feelings on hills, especially when using cruise control and the hill kicks it off and that gas pedal comes flying back up from the carpet and your speedo drops like a rock. Fortunately, I'm a avid cyclist. There is no better small van for taking taller bikes straight in and straight up without removing one or more wheels. Because I'm a cyclist, I know how much I'd be suffering if I had to ride up the hill myself so I have full sympathy if my 3.0 wants to climb it a little slower as well. ;-)

Someday I hope that someone comes up with a replacement for the Aerostar. It won't likely be Ford but hopefully something like that might come from Toyota (the Hi-Ace is a small RWD van) or the Koreans. I just hope they resurrect a straight 6 to go into it. Better balanced than even a 60 degree V6, narrower to allow for better cooling, and hopefully allowing easy access to all the plugs they could make it a major torque monster that would even rival the 4.0. Just as long as the keep the rear hatch with a 45" tall opening!

 

So, 96, if I were to buy a used Aero, I would ideally want a 97, 4.0L AWD, with under 100K on it? could I get another 10 years out of a van like that?

 

It's tough buying a vehicle that hasn't been made in 9 years and having specific requirements. I had been looking for a newer Aero to replace my '91 (rockers are gone and it has a loud lifter) and it took me since the end of the summer to find one. I ended up with a '97 that has 51k miles on it and no rust. It has the rear A/C, PDL/PW/PM that I wanted, and a grey interior was a big plus but I had to forget about getting the 4.0 litre and the extended body that I really wanted. Fortunately, this 3.0 drives better than any of the 4.0s I have test driven recently. I wish the interior on this was as clean as it is under the hood! Unless you really need the AWD, I would skip it because most of the AWD vans on the market are generally high mileage and need new CVs, boots etc and that can get expensive really fast. I have also heard that the AWD vans take all of the thrill out of winter driving.

I'm thinking the '97 will be good for 4 to 6 more years and anything after will all be pure bonus. Rust is what kills 90% of the Aeros around here.

Just suggesting you go look at as many as you can and stay flexible. Good luck.

 

I'm actually now considering an Explorer, say a 96-99, but yeah, I know what you mean... My Rockers are starting to rust from the inside out, and I'll be lucky to get another 2 years out of it... they quoted me $2200 to do all the rust and body work, needless to say, I will not put that kind of money into a 17 year old van.

I just want something reliable that I can drive 200 miles at a time without having to worry about traction or breakdowns, but I don't have 20 Grand :-)

I guess if it died tomorrow, I can always say I got my money out of it, but she only has 125K on her... I was hoping to hit 200K before I needed to replace anything :-)

 

[QUOTE=mediaman67]Hi,

Just wanted people's opinions that have owned both 3L and 4L engines with the aeros, etc...
/QUOTE]

I've had the '91 and '93 extended Aeros, both with the 3.0 engine. My '91 was actually more powerful than the '93, but not by much. Both vans got about 22-23 mpg on the highway, and that was fully loaded down with 6 passengers. The 3.0 is really durable, but I guess some people on this group would say that about the 4.0. I got over 200K with both vans and the '93 is still going strong at 210K miles. I live in a flat area and I never tow anything with it, so the 3.0 is great. I guess if you tow or live in a hilly area, get the 4.0, otherwise the 3.0 is more than enough engine.

 

I really enjoy my '91 4.0, has all problems noted in earlier posts. Mine is being repaired now for most of the above problems. I'm having to drive my Acura RL. I WANT MY TRUCK BACK!!!!!!

Ken

 

If taken care of, both the 4.0 and 3.0 will last over 200k mi easily. They just have different quirks that have been talked about here before.

Where do you get that. I like going 4x4ing with the big boys when the snow hits. It does better than most. Also you can't beat the traction on ice. I was at the stop light the other day (which is on a steep grade) with two full size pickups in front of me. They had a heck of a time going without fish tailling. Me on the other hand, I just hit the gas a little and went, no issues at all.

It took me 6 months and a 1,000mi road trip to pick up my loaded '97 AWD with 55k mi, former GSA vehicle and cost around $6gs. This thing will last another ten years easily. Luckily they don't toss salt down here so I don't have to worry about rust.

 

I guess it's the body that will do me in with my 1989... I mean, it's just starting to show signs of rust, but if you really look under there... there are some bad places for sure...

Any body have any cheap ideas to quick and dirty ways of saving the rockers on these? or am I either going to have to bite the bullet or sell the van?

I think the year is what will kill me on resale... 1989's are hard to find still running, at least around here... the guy at the ford dealership had a friend come out to see it, because he couldn't beleive I had an 89 with our winters...

Yeah, I know SUV's are more money usually... so, I guess I will have to see what I really want, or can find... but at least the 89 I have runs :-)

 

Sand the bad parts to bare metal (helps if you have a drill and some sanding wheels.) If you go to any auto parts stores you can pick up black paint that with rust inhibators. Put that under neath.

As for the rockers, Do the same thing and get some matching paint.

Not much else you can do.

 

most 4wdr pickups have to throw 1000 lbs of inner tube sand bags in the back to get the snow and ice traction that an Aero has...and there goes their gas mileage and ride

AeroHawk...have u gotten those funny looks from the 4wdr's when you pull out in slick spots and they are still spinning in the wind and fish tailing like a NASCAR at 200 mph on blown tires.