Well, the Aerostar isn't really a car-like unitbody, its more of a unitbody-on-frame design. It does have a full length frame underneath. Unlike normal trucks, though, the frame is welded to the body structure, making it more unitbody-like. But the fact that the frame is there gives it its cargo and towing abilities.

All that aside, the real key is that the Aerostar was designed/developed by Ford Truck Engineering, whereas the WindyFreestar came from the car side. Even if the Aerostar wasn't assembled quite the same as a typical truck, it was designed, engineered and validated to the same level that every other truck is - and that's a much more severe standard and duty cycle then cars have to meet. That's the key reason that the Aerostar has and does perform utility and cargo roles so well. It's probably also a significant part of why they last as long as they do.

So, calling the Aerostar a true truck is not inaccurate.

 

I still wonder about Ford's reason for pulling the Aerostar. They must have known about its market demand when they continued selling it for 2 years beyond the time they initially planned to discontinue it. Maybe it had something to do with new safety requirements. Or maybe they were just trying to produce a more "car-like" van, to compete with all the other vans that were more "car-like".

Many reviewers complained that the Aerostar (and Astro) were too "truck-like"; they rode more like trucks, and you really have to take a big step up to get into them. The Windstar was built on a modified Taurus chassis, for that "car-like" ride (not that it was that good), and you don't have to take as big a step to get into them. Many people thought that the Windstar seemed smaller than the Aerostar. The fact is that the Windstar is actually longer and wider on the outside than the Aerostar, but has less space on the inside. (How DID they do that?) The Aerostar is taller than the Windstar, which made it "look" bigger. I'm not sure about the weight though; I find it hard to believe that a FWD vehicle would weigh more than a RWD vehicle of similar external dimensions. If the Windstar weighed more, it's probably due to other features, such as heavier doors with more anti-intrusion structures, or more sound insulation.

Ford can continue to build a "car-like" min-van for the market that they think wants it. But I think it's a mistake to abandon the market that needs a small van more for its utility, but does not want a full size E-series.

 

Yeah! The situation in Europe is the same. 10 years ago it was imposiible to imagine FWD Ford Transit, Mercedes 100D ore VW Transporer!!!! Voyager by Chrisler was the first, but it was just the beggining. Now many cargo vans here are FWD. Just imagine how to drive overloaded van up the hill if it is a lot of snow. And how to maitane it. Well, I like 1 modern tendention - to use diesel widly. Fortunatly Sprinter, Econoline, Express, Gaselle and Sobol, and VW LT are still RWD.

Yeah! I one of the people who needs a small van but does not want a full size van. And what to do? Purchaise Dodge Ram Van ore Econoline?

 

In reverse?

 

Pablo,
how do unibody no frame vehicles hold up on Ukrainian roads especially in the rough winter conditions?

i used to do lots of gravel log road racing and driving....unibody vehicles would often split at poorly welded seams or bend in weak locations....weak shock, spring and strut mount points....weak engine and tranny mounts
saw the rear end tear loose and fly right out from underneath an Audi A4 once on a mountain curve at speed...not good

also...if you go unibody, pick one where the manuf. dips the unibody into an electrical treatment chemical antirust anti corrision bath...especially important if in a winter salted road area

the most fun is driving a FWD downhill towing a trailer in snow and ice...called suicide

 

Why did Ford drop the Aerostar? Because by the mid '90s, it wasn't really competitive in the people-mover van catagory, it lacked the 2nd slider (although so did the Windstar), it was big, boxy, dated looking. It's RWD platform was probably less then ideal for Soccer Mom, and it was less fuel efficient then the competition. In short, it was everything that Marketing thought the mini-van buyer did not want. They had spent very little money on keeping it current, and the last nail in its coffin was the need to give it a passenger airbag to keep it in production. They weren't willing to spend the money. Ford Truck actually had a 2nd generation Aerostar on the drawing boards - very much a small Econoline - but it was cancelled before it could see the light of day. It would've been a great van, from the people I know that saw it.[/QUOTE]

It funny, because this was also the same era where SUVs really began cropping up and moving in the same category (people movers/soccer moms)

 

Yeah, very strange... Why do people like SUV's so much? Good view of the road thanks to higher seating position, AWD for snowy/slippery roads, utility (thats another ball of wax all together...) and most importantly, STYLE. The Aerostar is just as good, if not better in all of those categories except style in most people's opinion. Compare the 91 explorer to a 91 aero awd... Which one sold more?

 

I thought the aerostar used the same chasis as the explorer and ranger...If so its considered a true truck

 

Nope, it is true that they share a lot of components, but the chassis is not one of them. As mentioned above, the frame rails of an aerostar are different than the tube frames and c frames found on trucks. The frame is shaped like a U and welded to the unibody structure of the van itself.

I agree, the only difference between an SUV and an aerostar is marketing. If you want to call the Aerostar an SUV, make the 4.0L standard, put a sprotier suspension, and a slightly higher ride. And give it swing open doors instead of sliders.
Bing* SUV *.

Truth be told, most of the smaller SUVs on the market today gave up what made them appealing. They are essentially obese station wagons with a suspension lift. Worthless FWD yuppy cars in disguise. The Ford escape is a Focus. Same engine, same trans, and I think a very similar chassis. Funny how that works.

If Ford had marketed what you could do with an Aerostar instead on focusing on the "carlike" ride of the Caravan, they could have been better off. Just imagine, a van that can tow like a truck, gets better economy than an SUV. If they updated the styling, maybe made it more trucklike in appearance without loosing the unique Aerostar look, they could have toppled the Astro earlier, and had a nice reliable utility vehicle. And hey, maybe if they also proved that they were more reliable than the Caravan, they could have made more sales to the average consumer.

 

_________________
weak shock, spring and strut mount points....weak engine and tranny mounts.....
_________________

Yeah! But this problems apperes in spring, when there is no snow on roads and they are in bad condition. Well, lets say something good about FWD vans. It is easier to drive them fast.

 

Someone once posted that the Aerostar shares engine/drivetrain with Ranger, but the front end, or at least the steering, is Mustang.

Could use about 1 to 2 inches more ground clearance to make crawling under for oil change easier.

 

I believe that is a myth. FWD is cheaper for automakers, and has nothing to do with safety or speed. It is harder to spin out it is true, but that is only because if the fronts spin you loose steering, not steering to turn the car sideways, no spin. You can recover from a spin as long as you can still steer.

 

Easier, maybe, but not faster. A FWD car requires less skill to drive fast, that much is true. But a RWD car (driven with skill) will always be faster. A FWD car will recover from an oversteer skid easier, assuming the front end has some traction, then a RWD car will. Sort of point and shoot. Of course, a good AWD system will allow you to do that too. And a real good one will still allow the superior dynamics of RWD. The Aerostar's AWD system is actually almost there, if you can make the lock-up clutch reliable.

FWD had found favor in part because it cost less to manufacture, but also because it allowed better use of packaging space in a small car. In reality, the two reasons are pretty closely tied together though. That it worked better in winter for traction reasons was more of an added bonus.

 

What I see locally on our local roads is cars that have slid off the road on curves are FWD or AWD dominantly FWD vehicles. They were going to fast at the turn, couldn't steer and when straight off. The understeer benefits of FWD sound good in theory, and it works on pavement, but on ice, and at slightly higher speeds, it just doesn't work. As I said early, the FWD being safer is a myth, it creates the feel and illusion of safety. But the moment I start fishtailing in a RWD, I know to take corrective action. I have driven FWDs that were starting to slip, and it is often hard to feel it.

 

When I lived in Detroit, I saw all sorts of cars going off slippery roads; FWD, RWD, AWD, it didn't matter. A common problem for most drivers is to lift off the gas too hard when they first notice the slip. If the car has an automatic transmission, or a manual and the driver forgets to release the clutch, it's like applying the brakes at the same time. So if they started out sliding head first, they go off the road that way. If the RWD was losing the rear end, that lift-off will cause the rear end to come around. If you're able to lift off and completely remove any force from the tires, like releasing the clutch or shifting to neutral, you have a much better chance of avoiding a slide. You may be more aware of your driving than most people to realize that some of your tires are losing traction.

Along this line, I've throttle-steered a FWD car around some of the turns at Buttonwillow. Its suspension was pretty well set up, so I was able to feel the fronts slipping in the turns. Back off slightly, and the turn is tighter; a little more gas, and the turn widens, just like a RWD. The difference is, in the FWD, if I give it too much gas, and the front wheels break loose, I go off track head first. In the RWD, too much gas breaks the rear, and I go off the track tail first.

Now, I wonder if my AWD Aero will make a good off-road rally car if I stripped it down to those two frame rails and a floor pan?