'86 E-150 vs '89 Aerostar: Grassroots Motorsports forum: Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Oct. 2, 2011 1:28 p.m. integraguy SuperDork

Saw these on CL yesterday, and got to thinking that the seller of the Aerostar must have meant "not all that great gas mileage" if you compared it to an old Chrysler minivan.

But back to the premise:

2 vans on CL, an '86 E-150 with 302 V8 and auto, and a '89 Aerostar Eddie Bauer with the 3 liter Vulcan and auto...what can you tell me about your experiences with either/both as cargo haulers?

Obviously, with the seats out of the Aerostar, it's still smaller inside. The Aerostar with a Vulcan has been know to run forever (this one is advertised with about 122K miles on it). Is it A LOT more fuel efficient than the E-150 with V8 and auto?

The E-150 appeals with is purely utilitarian look. (It's a "semi-retired" cargo van.
Oct. 2, 2011 1:34 p.m. ST_ZX2 Reader

The fuel mileage wont be that different between either, unless the E van has some sort of towing package with deep gears. When I sold Fords (92-03), my impression of the 3.0 Aerostar is that it was really underpowered.

IMO, if you want a van, get a van...meaning get the Econoline.
Oct. 2, 2011 2:32 p.m. integraguy SuperDork

In reply to ST_ZX2:

I'm thinking of a "real" van, and my research shows that the Aerostar would get about 16-18 mpg...the E-150 about 12-15. Just not sure I want the size all the time. I also found, a few minutes ago, a E with the 4.9 6 cylinder. The 6 cylinder E is smaller (the short wheelbase van) compared to the V8 E's longer wheelbase.

Price on all is in the $700+- about $50 range. Miles on the odo is where the difference lies in price.

I know from driving them, the Aerostar has (slightly) better steering and marginally better/different handling. Not crazy about the E's "feather-touch" power steering.
Oct. 2, 2011 3:25 p.m. mad_machine SuperDork

Never driven the aerostar.. but I know Ford vans from that era are SLOW.. even with the 302
Oct. 2, 2011 4:19 p.m. Ian F SuperDork

My E150 conversion van would get 16-18 mpg, but it was slightly newer with a 5.0 EFI.

I am also in the 'get a real van if that's what you need' camp. The size of an aerostar would annoy me just like my old Toyota pick up did (and yes - I do have experience with aerostars and astro vans). Of course, this also takes into account such a vehicle getting p/t use.
Oct. 2, 2011 5:30 p.m. clownkiller Reader

The transmission will fall apart in the Aerostar, buy a real van based on the truck frame.
Oct. 2, 2011 5:53 p.m. alex SuperDork

My family had two Aerostars, never had a transmission problem - although with a 20 year-old, 170k mi car, that's relatively moot. The last one was a mid-'90s Eddie Bauer long box. It pretty well bridged the gap between the newer Pentastar minivans and big utility vans. Seems primitive nowadays by family hauler standards, but it did the job back then. Far as I know, our last one is still going strong - we gave it to a family friend who did a little rust repair and I think it still driving it.

In terms of driving dynamics, look at the base vehicle: the 'Star drives basically like an Explorer, the big van drives like a truck. Take that for what it's worth. The Aerostar is a compromise, and you know how that goes.

I have pictures (somewhere...) to prove that I got two full-size motorcycles in the back of the Aerostar once.
Oct. 2, 2011 7:20 p.m. Gearheadotaku Dork

Ever tried working on an Aerostar? I a berkelying nightmare. Go for the E-150. 302 parts are cheaper and easier to get. Real tuck suspension and brakes.
Oct. 2, 2011 7:38 p.m. Vigo Dork

Man, having to pick between those options makes me cringe.

Id get the Aerostar. Unless you load it up to 80+% capacity every time you use it, the MPG difference is worth the slight decrease in capacity. Imo.
Oct. 2, 2011 8:01 p.m. Streetwiseguy Dork

I haven't seen an Aerostar on the road for 5 years, at least. No rust in your part of the world?

I think I still have scars from trying to change spark plugs on those buckets of E36 M3.
Oct. 2, 2011 8:01 p.m. patgizz SuperDork

Gearheadotaku wrote:

Ever tried working on an Aerostar? I a berkelying nightmare. Go for the E-150. 302 parts are cheaper and easier to get. Real tuck suspension and brakes.

yup, aerostar is a nightmare to work on. my buddy has an 89 with the 3.0 and the trans has puked once but it still runs decent.

i still prefer my astro over his ford.
Oct. 3, 2011 7:45 a.m. tuna55 SuperDork

I borrowed an Aerostar from a friend once, my backwards facing car seat would only fit in the back row on the side where there is no middle row in front, the spacing is that tight, and the seats don't slide. Irritating.