There’s a part of the automotive landscape that has sadly gone away, and no, I’m not going on another sad rant about the demise of the wagon body. Instead, it’s this: the giant domestic van, a genre of vehicles that slotted these sliding door-equipped behemoths somewhere between a full-size van and a station wagon. The Ford Aerostar and GMC Safari were perhaps the greatest examples of this novel design, and despite being somewhat unloved when new, there’s a new appreciation for a clean example like this 1993 Ford Aerostar listed here on craigslist with just 44,000 miles.
Thanks to Barn Finds reader Rocco B. for the find. The Aerostar truly was in a class of its own: it was a cargo van more than anything else; to call it a minivan was simply not accurate. The design featured a surprisingly slippery shape, and it packed engineering features not commonly associated with such a design. It offered V6 power and all-wheel drive, and for a short time, you could even order one with a manual gearbox. There was eventually an Eddie Bauer edition, which is a handsome king’s chariot, if you could ever find one, and it offered seven-passenger seating within a “garage-able” design, which is to say it would fit in most American garages. For the early 90s, it was a serious standout.
Was it particularly attractive? No, not at all. That was not a strong suit of the Aerostar. However, this did not stop it from becoming a success story in the company’s 90s lineup. While it’s not the sort of vehicle we think of today as being synonymous with success, especially in light of how competitive the minivan segment was and how often Chrysler gets all the credit for owning the category with its Caravan nameplate, over two million Aerostars were produced across a 12 year production run. That’s not anything to sneeze at, but it doesn’t make survivors like this low-mileage ’93 example any easier to find.
A few different engine choices were offered and Ford even briefly considered a turbodiesel option, which would have made this oddball van even more of an outlier, but eventually the simple and proven 3.0L “Vulcan” V6 is what came to power most Aerostars (the earlier models had the option of being equipped with the venerable 2.8L “Cologne” V6 from Ford of Europe). The seller’s van is said to have full power and to be equipped with a towing package; more importantly, it appears to be in excellent condition inside and out, and its Pacific Northwest location likely indicative of rust-free condition. And for under $7,000, it seems like a very fair deal for one this clean.
I always thought these resembled an anteater. I remember the big deal with these is the heater core replacement was a dash out windshield out procedure. That alone would get a pass from me. I think the Promaster van or the Ford Transit van requires windshield removal for some service work like front struts. Pretty stupid if you ask me.
I have an 89 Aerostar with A/C that I had to put a heater core in. Access was easy, just drop the glovebox and there it is. The real PITA part of the job is how Ford attached the heater hoses to the core. You need a special tool to take them off and they are a real PITA to get back on so that they do not leak.
Ever do a complete tune up,with plugs,cap,wires and rotor?
Rw,
I did a cap and rotor once which was not too bad by just taking the little dogbox off. I never replaced the plugs or wires.
The GM version’s, Chevy Lumina APV and the Olds Silhouette were called a ‘Dustbuster’….plus, they had the tail/brake lights all the way to the top of the rear end that looks beyond deranged?
So, if both were entered in an ugly contest, I would vote the GM vehicle’s to get the ‘best of show’ and Aerostar second.
Just my oponion!
What would you do you with this though. No soccer mom anywhere is going to accept driving this thing in 2024
Why not? It sure beats the price of a new SUV and is far more practical. Not every family has to “keep us with the Joneses”.
Because it looks hideous? Because for $7k you can buy a used Sienna or Odyssey that looks and performs 100x better? Or you can buy a much newer 3rd row SUV for the $7k? This thing is a 100% Dorkmobile
Uh JCA? Tell us where, on the model car, where the Aerostar hurt you.
BigC This is just another car that people want to be nostalgic about but won’t buy. It’s not rare, it’s not a performance model, it’s not significant and its outdated as daily driver. It’s fine as a $2k car for a struggling family but at $7k it’s a waste of money. No young mom would ever want to be seen in this, that’s just the reality. With it’s short wheelbase and getting 16 MPG it’s not practical. For $7k and16mpg i’ll get a 4 door pickup or a more modern van that it safer and better equipped for a family
You find that struggling mother a 44,000 mile Honda Odyssey or Toyota for $7,000. And, they feature mundane vehicles on here, everyday.
I’d gladly use it as a daily driver if the price was right and the AC works. Those are my only requirements for a daily driver vehicle anymore. Working AC and cheap 😎
Rally van, 100% . Put some beef coilovers on it, OZ wheels and some good tires, slide it about.
The article neglects to mention, for those unenlightened, that it’s a RWD minivan. There’s no end to the fun you could get out of it.
Nah heater core was five minute replacement with quick disconnect tool no windshield out. Amazingly tough vehicles with good highway manners and great mileage. Ran many over 200k til the tin worm ate em
. . … 16 mpg’s ? We bought a 1992 shorty in 1995, 52,000 miles for $8,000.00. 5 speed manual, 3.0 V6, 4th child in the oven. It got 24 mpg on the highway. At 130,000 the wife was T-boned . ..
I respectfully disagree with the author’s thesis. I remember these vans being advertised comparing to the Chrysler minivans as direct competition by Ford.
Yup, these and the Chevy Astro/GMC Safari were what those mfrs. initially offered up to compete with the original Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager minivans. Sure, they were a bit larger than the Mopar competition, but still nowhere near as large as a full-size “giant domestic van” like the Econoline. Main reason for their not-so-mini size was that they based them on their compact pickups, the S-10 and Ranger, so that RWD body-on-frame chassis architecture made them rather taller and bulkier than the Mopars’ more efficient FWD unibody packaging.
On your comment regarding the chassis constructions I assure you these were not body on frame. I was working at a Ford store in the 80’s when the Aerostar was introduced and Ford recalled them for faulty unibody welds due to the fact that the engineers hadn’t predicted that the welding tips on the assembly line needed to be replaced nearly twice as often due to the fact that they were using galvanized steel. The service required about 160 rivets and a over a dozen reinforcement brackets. Some vehicles that had failed were bought back at the time. This type of repair would never pass muster today.
Yep, not body on frame.
Ford Aerostar
I never thought I’d see the day when one of these would be in Barn Finds.
Hahahaha, how true!
Great write-up Jeff. 10 years ago, I picked up the companies Aerostar cargo van at our local tire store for new front breaks. My friend/co-worker drove me to the tire store, and then was driving behind me on the freeway as we both headed home. I was in the fast lane as most of the rush hour traffic was gone, when the front end shuddered violently. I straightened it up and for a second it was ok, then the front drivers wheel came off as the rotor/front end crashed to the ground at 65. Sparks we’re flying through my open window and I had to fight like a madman to pull it over to the shoulder. I looked up and saw the tire/wheel hit the k member and fly up and into oncoming traffic. I honestly thought I had just killed someone as it crashed into a Caravan, but thankfully no injuries. Miracle.
I think selling 2 million of these vehicles over a 12 year period speaks alot about the Aerostar itself. Maybe it wasn’t the most attractive in its class but it must have had people interested otherwise 2 million people wouldn’t have considered buying it.
Well the benefit to this van versus the Chrysler mini van was its full frame construction where Dodge Chrysler and Chevy GMC were unibody giving the ford better weight and pulling power. In the pictures its missing the rear seat and the add doesn’t mention if they have it or not. If they do have it I bet a family in need of cheap reliable transportation will snatch it up quickly we put 200,000 miles on ours before dumping it for something else
My memory might be going but I don’t remember these as having a full frame.
They were built on the same frame as the ford Explorer and ranger
Your right. They were a unibody design with a front subframe. I work at a Ford dealership at the time. The first engine replacement we did was a drop the subframe operation. Then later ones came out the front.
Tune-ups were a breeze once you had done a few. Plugs were accessed thru the small doghouse, wheel wells and under hood.
These were unibody construction. I will never forget my first month after starting at a new body shop and wondering if I made a huge mistake. I had to fix an Aerostar that needed two new frame rails sectioned in up front. I had to drop the motor out for access and they did not have a hoist, I had to do it all with only a high lift floor jack. I did succeed in earning the shops respect after completing this job.
Definitely no separate frame on these turds but they were a heavier duty vehicle compared to the competition.
I’ve owned two of these and I’m almost positive they were a full frame like a truck. Completely different design than the unibody caravan. Looks like there’s a lot of disagreement on whether this was unibody or not!
So with all the disagreement here, I just looked it up and… turns out it’s both!
The body was largely unibody, but they also had full-length frame rails for reinforcement allowing better cargo/towing ratings, and to facilitate using the Ranger’s powertrains and running gear as-is with minimal alterations.
Similar situation with GM’s Astro/Safari twins (based on the S-10) and the Jeep Comanche pickup (based on the unibody XJ Cherokee).
The two full length frame rails were welded to the structure making it a unibody. The rails could not be unbolted like a vehicle with a frame.
I thought they were interesting looking when they first came out. The marketing compared the shape of the Aerostar’s profile to that of the space shuttle’s nose.
We called them the Ford anteater. Watch the bumper covers as they will shatter just like GM body fillers.
I drove one of these on a 1,000 mile trip hauling 7 big guys and it handled very well. I would say it would be a bargain in today’s market.
Man, these used to be everywhere. They were Fords true replacement for the station wagon until the Explorer hit the scene in 1991. A lot of t-ball/soccer moms hauled a lot of kids and gear with those Aerostars. They were far better than its replacement, the Windstar. For some reason I remember the Windstars eating head gaskets a lot, and having Tranny problems.
I loved our ‘94 Aerostar. It was roomy, especially in the front seats, with a ton of cargo room even all three rows of seats in. As I remember, the rear two rows would come out, the second row two chairs if I remember correctly. They were heavy but latched into the floor. Removable seats were a big selling feature.
The trailering package was a big plus even if you never pulled a retailer as it included a larger radiator (I believe) and a limited-slip rear end. The Aerostar (and the Astro/Safari) was nominally rear-wheel drive, adding power to the front wheels when four-wheel drive was engaged.
And four-wheel drive it was. The center transfer case was electronically activated, giving 100 percent lockup whenever slippage of the rear wheels was detected. I never heard of anyone having trouble with them either.
With winter tires, it was unstoppable even with snow piling up against the front bumper.
There were two versions, a short tail and a long tail. The short tail was truncated just behind the rear wheel arch and were usually what was used commercially. Long tails were the family vans. Leave the rear seat in and you could still load enough to vacation.
Oddly, although they seemed identical between the front and rear axles, the long tails would rust out their rocker panels when the short tails wouldn’t. The Astro/Safari didn’t rust as badly as did the long tail Aerostar.
I had one back in the day. It was good for us. And fun fact, I pulled a Chevy pickup with a plow out of a ditch with it. He slid off the neighbor’s driveway while plowing.
I had a 1990 Aerostar that needed transmission work,the shop couldn’t figure out the electronic trany,they had to call Ford on how to fix it.
I had a red shorty Aerostar with the “holy grail” 5 speed manual with floor shifter. I also had a shorty Astro 5 speed. Both were window vans. The ONLY reason I bought them was the manual trans-
I had a ’93 AWD long wheelbase. It was our NASCAR, SCCA, and NHRA people mover for years. Never had a problem. One caveat though, it got the gas mileage of a big block pickup truck!
Wow, Flashback! Over the years that our kids were growing up, my wife had 4 of these in succession (each one a different color). Never failed to get the kids to school, service or family vacation time. They weren’t the prettiest vehicle on the road but affordable and reliable as a family hauler. No negatives here!
Wow, Big Daddy, I want to copy your wording and just repost…except we had only two, a 1990 and a 1994.
This sure is a pleasant flashback.
It’s really unfair to compare early nineties technology/styling to 2024.
Sure, they weren’t the most beautiful vehicle around, but other mini vans looked nurdy also.
I suppose it could do things that a station wagon did in the seventies, except this was a much more stylish way of doing it.
People’s likes and dislikes seem to change without prior notice?
Good post Jeff.
Just my oponion!
$5,000.00 tops – out the door – all wrapped up – no hiccups – and you might just have a deal. The 44k miles and no more than 5k for the price, might just get this Ford Aerostar mini van over the finish line…. maybe. Good luck.
my ’87 went 385,000. not problem free but close enough. three sets of rotors, seven sets of pads,three of plugs. I blew the tranny (not fords fault) and yes the model airplane plastic bumpers were “unique”. find me a ’87 to ’89 unhit unit with only 150K on the clock and i’d go $15K in a heartbeat. from ’90 on, they went with a smart trans that destroyed towing capacity. my fuel numbers were 19 local and 26 on the highway and i lost 1.5 miles/gallon when towing and could legally tow more than a modern f150. put that in your pipe and smoke it. i would.
ALL Aerostars had the same 118.9 inch wheelbase, whether “standard” or “extended.” The latter was longer behind the rear axle. I e always referred to them as short-tail and long-tail.
And they were NOT based on a pickup truck frame—the rear axle was on coils, not leaf springs— and they were unitbody.