A few years ago, there were a multitude of minivan models that roamed suburbia, doing an admiral job of providing an incredible amount of utility in packages that were largely efficient to run. Of course, we all know what happened; the world decided minivans were no longer hip and we had to have SUVs take over, which saw the loss of the incredibly convenient sliding door and second-row captain’s chairs all in the name of style. The Ford Aerostar was hardly stylish but by God, did it haul a lot of gear and people. Find this 1997 Ford Aerostar XLT here on craigslist for $2,400.
Now, a note about this particular Aerostar: Barn Finds reader Mitchell G. sent us in a listing for another Aerostar, but it sold before I had a chance to write it up. When I went looking for a replacement listing, the first three I clicked on had all been removed from craigslist, indicating a sale had likely occurred. What in the tarnation is going on when three Aerostars (four if you count the one Mitchell found) all sell in the same span of weeks? I haven’t heard of the Aerostar becoming a regular fixture at the local Mecum auction, but perhaps the average enthusiast is waking up to how good these cargo and people carriers really were.
The seller’s Aerostar looks sharp on later hubcaps, but it’s the original decal and stripe that remains affixed to the side that I truly dig. You could get the Aerostar in a few different varieties, from a panel-style work van to pop-top campers conceived by the aftermarket. All-wheel drive was even an option, along with a high-end Eddie Bauer trim. All of those are quite hard to find these days, and this XLT trim seems to be the easiest one to track down. The Aerostar is likely equipped with the standard 3.0L V6 and a four-speed automatic transmission, with the engine good for a meager 140 horsepower.
That’s not a lot of power to lug around a vehicle of this capacity. Surprisingly, the Aerostar weighed just under 3,500 pounds, which strikes me as a fairly low number for a rig with close to 140 cubic feet of interior space. I have to believe the fact that this is a rear-wheel drive wagon versus a vehicle saddled with the weight and complexity of an AWD system is a big reason why it’s not heavier. The middle row has been removed; hopefully, the seller still has it sitting in the garage. He notes that it “…was taken care of until parked,” so hopefully the trail of neglect isn’t much longer than the year it has been supposedly left to sit.
Finally! Not some exotic, more the chariot for the masses,,that didn’t buy a Chrysler, the shadow the Aerostar seemed to live in. After the old man couldn’t get his big Caddys anymore, he switched to mini vans. His 1st was a regular Aerostar, that I ended up getting for my growing family, and loved it, another one of the few cars my ex couldn’t kill. He then got another extended van, very similar to this. After my divorce, I took my 2 kids to Fla. in that van. Again, non-stop, except for a nap around Atlanta, it was one of the few vehicles I could drive non-stop. AND,,,for the long time holdouts that still didn’t trust front drive, this was perfect. Engine, trans, driveshaft, rear axle, good old Ford truck parts they grew up with, how God meant it to be, or so my old man thought. To show the ignorance of many, including my old man, he was getting pretty bad, and he replaced that van with a Windstar, and I don’t think he ever knew it was a front drive.
This is an awesome deal, except( sound of tires skidding), oh, oh, it’s in Canada, hey, and I ain’t got the papers, and no, I’m not getting one( passport). I’m pretty much over buying a motorhome of any kind, but I have the opportunity to possibly buy a van, and for any travel, much easier. If you CAN cross the border to our great cousins to the north, I wouldn’t drag your feet on this one.
So Howard, have you or anyone else reading this done a full blown tune up on one of these?Plugs,cap,rotor,wires…
We had an extended -body Aerostar,& it worked out
great for us.For some reason owners overall loved the
long wheelbase models.Ours was a ’93,& was really comfortable
and had good power.It had a 4.0 Litre engine,which,to me,
is the only one to have.
Heck,I even towed our TR6 and Ford Corsair with it.
Hardy Prentice would tow his EP TR3 with one.
Admirable?
Admirable, and can tow the ski boat to the lake Rex 👍
Good luck with that!
We had a high-end Aerostar: long wheelbase, 4.0, all wheel drive, styled wheels and white letter tires, a “conversion van”. Which meant aftermarket interior and a three-tone silver/gray/black paint scheme. It was really sharp. And it served our family well.
Jeff your excellent write-up got me to thinking. The mini-van was (and is) an excellent concept, but unfortunately got the “soccer mom” label and became, as you say, un-hip. In many ways, it performs its family-hauler job better than a SUV. When might the pendulum swing back?
I always thought Minivans are great to travel linger distances in. Comfortable rides, ample room without being too huge. This Aerostar looks solid, and is another reminder of a very common everyday vehicle that seems to have disappeared over time. I always preffered the Aerostars over the Windstars. Like Howard already mentioned above, I prefer rear wheel drive and a truck frame under me. ( but thats me).
I always thought the Aerostar and the Chevy Astro were pretty neat minivans. They dared to be square and looked good doing it. They lent themselves rather well to customization too. If the pendulum does swing back you could do worse than this, but all the cars and trucks I see on the road have single occupants, two if your lucky. Is there a need anymore?
I remember when they were both offered. I’ve never owned either, nor have I driven either vehicle. But at the time I found the Aerostar the best looking of the two.
Lovely looking Ford Aerostar van. If only more pictures were posted. I’ve always believed that the more people see of a car, the better.
Logical and efficient transportation, with huge carry capacity. And I assume the dohc 3.0 was a option in these. At $2400 a valid utility buy still
Needed a vehicle for our family of 4, and 2 large dogs in 1997. Pride and love of wagons kept me out of these and into a 1997 Taurus wagon instead. Not a horrible choice, carried us all tent camping, with a sears cargo carrier on top. And the fwd was superior getting to our off road cabin. And much easier for my 5’2” wife to help put a 16’ canoe on top.
And I still think the wagons will be future classics.
My aunt and uncle had 2 of these. The first one was a year 1 and, honestly, had some issues. The second one was about 4 years into the model run and was a very solid vehicle. When they let it go I know it had over 200k miles. Not “sexy”, but a solid family hauler.
Really…not collectible…not found in a barn…a 97 mini van…looking like Craig’s list..again
…the european version was better looking. Main difference was in the more ‘streamlined’ front fascia treatment.
I had a ’93 AWD, 4 liter, long wheelbase. It replaced my ’74 Club Wagon as our NASCAR race “limo.” Great van, but the full time 4WD cut the gas mileage down to Club Wagon status. My favorite memory was taking it to the local E-Check. Where the bozos running the place tried to put it on the wheel drum, for the emissions test. And looked for 5 minutes, trying to “turn off” the 4WD. I just stood behind the glass and smiled.
I had a 4.0 litre extended version for a work Van my first one of many and put over 600.000miles on them they worked hard and were always reliable. along with my many Ecoline vans and Cube vans and taurus wagons. All were super reliable.
I live in an area having a housing boom. I see a lot of contractors still using these and Astros for work. None of theirs looks as nice as this one, though. It’s refreshing to see one not all beat to hell for a change!