Hey everyone, still searching for the right aerostar. I'm thinking more on the lines of getting or building an aerostar that gets maximum fuel economy. So far I know I want nothing larger than the 3.0, 2WD and also want a 5 speed manual shift. But I noticed that the original/early aerostars came with the 2.3 engine and their mileage actually approached 30 mpg, which is really good for a vehicle of this size. Of course finding a vehicle that old in decent shape won't be easy, plus I want the extended version which I dont believe they made until later. And also, of course I know the vehicle would be a bit of a dog, but it shouldn't be that bad. Certainly nothing like the old VW microbuses with their 40hp engines!

So I was thinking about three options I was hoping to get some advice on:

1. I'd really like to go diesel, but here in the states smaller to mid-size diesel engines are hard to come by (that produce around approx 120hp give or take a few ponies). I might be able to find an old mercedes from a sedan, but I'd think they're very expensive to buy/repair/rebuild (without a zillion miles on them). Plus don't know much about diesels and all the stuff that would go with them...any thoughts?

2. Can the 3.0 be tuned or otherwise modified to improve its mileage? Or is it more a matter of driving with a very light foot? (something I'm not very good at )

3. The most realistic option I'm thinking of is taking a newish 4 cylinder out of a recent model Ford Ranger truck etc and transplanting it into the aerostar (along with its manual tranny). From what I've heard those engines have almost as much power as a 3.0 and still have lower displacement, which I would think improve gas mileage up to about the old 80's aerostar with the 2.3. What do you guys think about this one?

Thanks in advance to everyone for any advice/opinions.

 

IMHO, you aren't going to see any fuel savings until you can lighten and decrease the drag coefficient. A smaller engine will just make it work harder and might even decrease mileage because of it.
A better exhaust system might help tiny bit. Porting and polishing, maybe. Just keep those tires inflated and make sure she is tuned up and hope for the best. Or do what I did and get a small car for your daily driving and spare the Aero for the big jobs.

 

there is no need to sacrifice HP for MPG.... the place to start is with the computer. i (Think) you can buy a (programable) chip to increse your MPG.. if so plase post a link for others.. also buy a set of light weight skinny aluminum rims.. .. install a MSD twin spark ignition and wrap your exhaust manafolds with high heat exhaust wrap and toss your air conditioning unit. buy a set of trucker style electric fans to keep you cool.. also add electric fans to cool your radiator and toss your clutch fan. strip the intereor of any seats you don`t use and replace side and rear glass with NHRA approved plexy-glass and you will have a very fast light weight van with increased MPG.. i know this all sounds a little extreme to most but you would be suprized how much a stack of glass and two bench seats weighs . .. . . .. . you may also want to check into a propane/natural gas conversion ... if you find a good conversion kit please post the link for others . . i am also considering installing a kit on my van. ..

 

My God! Do all that and you might as well get a bicycle

 

One quation! How many diesel aeros in the USA? I guess there are no! I posted some messages/threads how to do it. There are 3 in Lugansk only. There are so many donors with small diesels in the USA, but noone did swap.

 

diesel is not a discount price fuel in the US.
most of the time it is 10 to 20% higher than gas especially in the winter time

also most of DIYers don't want to mess with a diesel engine

there are very few small diesels in the US that will give anywhere near the performance that even a 3L gas will in an aero, unless one wants to pay a fortune for a late model computer controlled turbo'd Mercedes diesel

 

Agreed. If you really want to go to extremes, getting rid of the interior panels and sound deadening stuff aft of the front seats will lose quite a few pounds, too. Or you can just start with a cargo van & all the removal is already done.

I have seen many good suggestions here. Removing the clutch fan and installing an electric fan gave me a couple extra mpg (quieter, too). Removing the factory roof rack is easy and won't cause leaks (Ford put RivNuts in the roof panel). The high-miler fanatics even remove the windshield wipers and side mirrors to reduce drag. Then again, some of them close-draft trucks (following at 10 feet or so)

But you also have to weigh the pros and cons of any changes you make. Will the money you are going to spend will get paid back in fuel savings? Removing unnecessary dead weight is free, but calling a tow truck with a flat because you left the spare at home can easily wipe out your gas money savings.

 

Will an air dam work on a van the same as on a car?
Years ago I read somewhere that dams didn't work to improve economy on motor homes and I'm wondering if the same is true with vans.
Ray Mac

 

They do not have almost as much power as the 3.0L, but they would be adequate. My dad has a 2.3L ranger, and despite the fact that it is not that powerful, when combined with the 5 speed, they can move quite quickly when you need it to. Don't ge me wrong, you wont win any races, but you can easily get around on the freeway and pass all the slow motion Buick and Cadillac drivers with ease, and get up to speed and get around without forcing the guy behind you to slow down.

In terms of power, the 3.0L produced around 145 hp, while the 2.3L excluding the latest generation version, was about 110 hp. The latest Duratec 2.3L gets as much as 135 hp, give or take a few. We did some modifications on our 3.0L that bumped its power to 160 (unofficial guestimate, not dyno tested), but the mods harmed fuel economy.

If you are aiming for gas mileage, the 2.3L would be fine. You would want to select your gearing very carefully, low enough to give some good performance, but high enough to give good economy. I would aim for 4.11 or 4.33 or something like that.

 

.... copper ... roomer has it that in my aera gas could hit 4bucks soon.. roomer also has it that in the next 2 years americans could easily end up payig 6-to-8 bucks a gallon. . so it could take drastic measures like this so you don`t wind up on a bicycle ... . somone had the idea of starting out with a panel van.. wich is a very good idea.. you also want to stay away from vans that have all the bells and whisles... just stick to the basics and try to find one with a 5speed trans .. . ohh *by the way* has anyone found a good propane convesion kit yet?? or a good programable MPG computer chip?? . . . it would be so nice to plug in your lap-top and tweek out your gas millage and horse power wile on the fly ..
PS .... if you want to save gas the easy way you can always toss your 10speed bicycle or electric scooter in the back.. .. lol

 

Aero is a heavy lump to get much better MPG's. Probably the easiest way would be to change the rear axle ratio. But of course acceleration could suffer a bit. Diesel engines seem to be more economical than gas in a heavy vehicle.

Aeroman.

 

it is my opinion that it is much easer to strip down a van and some how tweek the computer for MPG then it is to do some kind of engine swap. and the results would be about he same.. .. . JMO

 

Thanks for the helpful info everyone. I looked at the atsro/safari vans for comparison and it looks like they're about 500lb heavier. That combined with their bigger 4.3 motors probably mostly accounts for their lower gas mileage (although the 4.0 aerostar and the 4.3 astro are close in mpg's).

VanGo you said "IMHO, you aren't going to see any fuel savings until you can lighten and decrease the drag coefficient." I know this is true for some vehicles with certain powertrains, but I do not believe it is true for the aerostar. The 3.0 2WD aerostar gets much better gas mileage than the 4.0 2WD (and 4WD of course). And the old 80's 2.3 aerostars get much better gas mileage than the 3.0 aerostars (same basic body on both vehicles), and that's with 20+ year old fuel injection (or carb) setups. I think if a modern 2.3 with recent FI upgrades in place would do even better and have more power/torque to boot. And all of this with the same basic vehicle, just a smaller engine and a manual shift. So as you can see improving fuel economy is very doable with a smaller engine.

Also, apparently Ford does have a 2.5 (a stroked 2.3) that it offered within the last ten years. The 2.5 produced 119 hp and 149 ft·lbf, which is getting close to the 3.0's output. They also have the 2.3 Duratec (mazda designed) 4 cylinder which is used in the Ranger. It produces 143 hp with 154 ft·lbf, which is pretty much the same as the 3.0 puts out. I'm sure either one of these engines would do a good job in an aerostar and significantly improve gas mileage (especially with a 5 speed manual shift). Plus even if it's a bit underpowered that's ok, the tradeoff would be worth it. I don't mind downshifting up a big mountain hill and driving 50 mph instead of 65. As long as it isn't a total dog, and it can easily keep up with traffic, and can easily maintain 65-75 mph on the highway, I'm fine with that. I'm not interested in a hotrod aerostar, I want functionality above all else.

And pablo I saw your mercedes conversion, looked great. But here in the states small-midsize diesel engines are hard to come by. And mercedes stuff is very expensive here. Plus diesel fuel is considerably more expensive than gasoline because our environmental agency has forced the oil companies to highly refine diesel fuel so that the sulfur and particulates in it are almost zero. The old cheap, smokey, dirty diesel fuel of 20 years ago is gone here now. Today diesel fuel is very clean burning and more expensive than premium unleaded gasoline. And since the sulfur has been taken out of it, it can destroy old style injector pumps that relied on the sulfur for lubrication.

Anyway, I'm thinking along the lines of a 2.3 or maybe a 2.5 if I can find one. Transplant the whole motor and trans right out of a ranger p/u. What do you guys think?

 

I hear you and I feel the same pain. Unfortunately (or fortunately???) we have 4 kids and I can't even dump one row of seats to lighten it up. My 3.0L shorty gets me about 21 mpg combined, and I just live with it since I have no choice. Funny as it may sound, I DO get around on bicycles for short trips to the nearby supermarkets.

 

My .02

Instead of wasting the time and money doing an engine swap where you are more than likely than not to run into major issues with wiring, computers, and mounting.... How about try finding a good 3.0L 2wd with a low rear end 3.27 or 3.45.

Spend the money that you would have spent on a swap on maintence. A very well maintained/running vehicle will always get better millage. Plugs, Wires, air filter, fuel filter, syn oil, syn lubs, new thermostate, new coolant, syn tranny fluid with new filter, new O2s, good touring tires properly aired and aliagned, all new suspension. I can go on and on, but you get the gist.

Also watch that right foot. The easier you use it, the better gas millage you will get, no matter what you are driving.