Do buy a '95 3.0L with 108K miles for $2400 or put the $2400 into my '93 3.0L with 202K miles? Are there many differences between the '93 and '95 engines/trannies?

Michael
'93 Aero 3.0L 2WD EXT
'93 Aero 4.0L 2WD EXT

 

There is no difference between '95 and '93 except for the third brake light on top of the lift gate. The '93 model doesn't have that.

 

what cond. and how is the 93 running? fuel mileage? used for?

if you are a DIYer, keep the 93 and put the money into it
engine will last until at least 300k
put a cam chain/gear set in it now, overdue, every 100>150k

no way to know for sure condition of the 95 until driven for several months, upkeep on older rigs is not a high priority with many owners.

 

Didn't we get a passenger-side air bag sometime after '93?

 

I don't think Aereostar ever got a passenger side airbag. My 96 has none on that side.

 

That always got me too my 96 doesn't have a passenger airbag either.

I thought in 95 it was mandatory for passenger side airbags I always wondered why the 95 and 96 Aeros never got them?

 

My '97 doesn't have a passenger side bag...

 

so what? the passenger airbag won't kill any children. Everyone should wear belts.

Ken

 

I don't believe the DOT or NTSB required a Passenger side Air Bag in a truck in 96

FBp

 

Thats correct, I think one of the reasons why the Aero production came to an end was that in 98 it DID become a requirement & the Aero could not easily be redesigned to fit one.

I dont often have a front passenger, so it does not worry me too much !

BTW get a 96, got a better , faster computer & 160,000 km major service interval. Also has coil pack ignition (no distributor) Sequential fuel injection, EEC V computer, OBD-2 (more monitors) & more......

ATB Aeroman

 

Aeroman,

The 4L engines had coil packs as part of their EDIS since 1990.

I think in 1996, the fuel injectors went sequentially timed, instead of bank fired like before.

 

Yes,,,,, but I'm thinking the 3L is the more reliable configuraton, & also I believe the datalink (obd plug) terminal is non functional on the 4L engine, (or so it says on the dust cap). Anyways it's lot more metal flying around for another 20 or so BHP.
I guess 4L's would be better for towing a 2 ton trailer.

 

actually, the reason Ford in it's infinite wisdom dropped the Aero from production was the high cost of manufacture...the separate body on frame design is expensive to produce...the solid axle rear end does not produce a car like ride....the Aero body shape was dated, not sleek and stylish like the GM and new Chyrsler soccer mom toys...the 4L OHV design was dated and had reached the end of it's production life

Ford's answer was the infamous WinlessStar with it's headless 3.8L, an auto tranny that bombed by 75k and the only slider door worse than an Aero...many bought the power slider and never got it to open again after pulling off the sales lot. but they were sleek, stylish, and road like a car which they actually were on a unibody suspension....far cheaper to build on assembly line with FWD engine package all in one...Ford made $5,000 on each WindlessStar that was goodied out with options
the Honda Odessey and Yota van were the end of the WindlessStar

passenger front air bag was the excuse given by marketing when so many happy contented Aero customers howled at end of production...did Ford end the F150 when it came time to stick a second air bag in it?

 

I don't know if my 4L engine has an OBD port other than the EEC-IV test port. I've used it to run the EEC KOEO and KOER tests, so I'm sure it's active.

The loss of the Aero really is a shame. We can moan about it all we want, but I doubt that Ford will make another van like it. I seem to recall that it was supposed to have been terminated after 1995, when the Windstar came out. But there was too much demand for it, so they kept making it for two more years. They should have gotten a clue then that there was STILL demand for it. Plus, they must have spent a bunch of money to change the engine and transmission control computers for the 96 and 97 models years. It would have made some economical sense for them to continue selling them for a couple more years to recoup those costs.

By the way, I'm not sure what you meant by "headless" 3.8? I think that engine made close to 200HP in the Windstar, which was better than anything they did with the 4.0L.

 

I would go with which vehicle is prettier. I once read an article on used car purchase that said to put a piece of masking tape over the odometer and look at everything else. I agree with that. Engines are easy to repair, interiors are not.

ken