Good morning! Today, in honor of the big Oasis reunion, we’re partying like it’s 1994 and looking at two American minivans with very different design philosophies. Which one is a better place to listen to your cassette of What’s The Story, Morning Glory? We’ll find out.
It looks like you all thought that Eldorado yesterday was as ridiculous as I did. It lost in a landslide to the Olds Toronado. The seller of the Caddy says it’s one of only 100 of its kind; that’s 101 too many of them if you ask me. That thing has aged about as well as a free shrimp cocktail at Caesar’s.
And yeah, the Toronado’s styling had calmed down and gotten less interesting by 1970, but it’s still a cool car, and it’s before GM softened up the suspension, but after the switch to disc brakes, so it should be a good driver. Just find some blue bucket seats out of a wrecked Cutlass or something, and go drive it as-is. That would be my plan, anyway.
The success of Chrysler’s minivans in the mid-1980s caught the rest of the auto industry flat-footed. GM and Ford rushed to design competitors by pointing a shrink-ray at their full-size vans, Toyota and other Japanese makes brought over weird toaster-shaped things with the engines under the seats, and Volkswagen soldiered along with the rear-engine Vanagon. Eventually everyone settled on the same transverse FWD layout as Chrysler, but it took a while. In 1994, you could still get a wide variety of chassis configurations under your box on wheels. Let’s check out a couple of them.
1994 Oldsmobile Silhouette – $2,800
Engine/drivetrain: 3.8-liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Topeka, KS
Odometer reading: 120,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Whenever a new type of vehicle comes along, it doesn’t take long for someone to make a luxury and/or sporty version of it. After the Chevy Astro and GMC Safari failed to make a dent in Chrysler’s sales dominance, GM tried again with the U-body “Dustbuster” vans. Following closely on the heels of Chrysler’s own Town & Country luxury van, Oldsmobile’s Silhouette brought leather seats, power everything, and in 1994, a power sliding door to the minivan market. The “Cadillac of minivans” was born.
Oldsmobile didn’t just add luxury to its Dustbuster van; it upped the power ante by shoehorning a Buick 3800 V6 into its sloped nose. The result was the most powerful van on the market at the time – and an absolute service nightmare. A ninety-degree V6 with one bank buried under the dashboard is not something you want to try to work on. Luckily, this one has had a bunch of recent work done already, and it runs and drives just fine.
If you’ve never driven one of these vans, it does take some getting used to. There’s a lot of dashboard between you and the windshield, and you can’t see where that long pointy nose ends. The seats are comfy, though, and overall the visibility is pretty good. This one is in good condition inside, and thanks to a new air conditioning compressor, it should be nice and cool in there.
The styling of these vans has always been a little controversial. Personally, I like them, and I think they have aged well. They looked like nothing else on the road when they came out, and all these years later, they still stand out, especially with so few left. This one looks clean and shiny, and would surely be a hit at an ’80s-90s car gathering – or a screening of Get Shorty.
1994 Ford Aerostar XL – $2,000
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0-liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Castle Rock, WA
Odometer reading: 158,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well, but has a battery drain
Ford’s answer to the Chrysler vans, the Aerostar, appeared in 1986 and hung around for eleven years. Like the Chevy Astro, it was rear-wheel-drive and used drivetrains from the Ranger compact pickup. Because of the RWD and the truck drivetrain, the Aerostar could tow a whole lot more than the Caravan and Voyager, and Ford milked this in its advertising. Even the ad for this Aerostar makes a mention of it.
By 1994, the Aerostar’s engine options were down to two, corresponding to the Ranger’s optional V6s: the 3.0 liter Vulcan V6 from the Taurus, and the 4.0 liter Cologne engine used in the Explorer. This one has the 3.0, mated to a four-speed automatic. It runs and drives well, the seller says, but the dome light sometimes stays on and kills the battery.
The seller claims this is the Eddie Bauer trim package, but I don’t think it is; I think it’s just green. Eddie Bauer Ford trucks have badges all over to that effect, and a much fancier interior. This is an XL model, according to the badge on the back, though it has some options like power windows. I’m not sure why the seller would misrepresent it like that, but people write weird things in car ads.
It is in mighty nice condition, and it’s the less-practical but better-looking short version. Not short wheelbase; unlike the Chrysler vans, all Aerostars had the same wheelbase and just added on extra length behind the rear axle for the long versions.
Old minivans aren’t usually this well-kept; as practical, working vehicles, they tend to get used up. These two seem to have escaped that fate. But I’m not sure what you’d do with them now; they’re too old to be used as family haulers and too nice to be used as trucks. Someone must be able to come up with a use case for them, though. Pick the one you prefer, and then tell me in the comments what you’d use it for.
(Image credits: Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace sellers)
Pretty sure Get Shorty was completely financed by GM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mohoyRj_VpU
Aerostar. My FIL’s friend had one (a 5speed Aerostar, to boot!) for many years. When he retired, it had over 500k miles on the clock.
Olds. If the Areostar had the 4.0L/5-speed combo, I’d likely pick it, as I had a friend with one and the manual was about the only thing that made it fun. But since the Ford is an automatic, and therefore the dull variant, I’d rather have some luxury while looking like I belong in either an infomercial or Star Trek in the Olds.
Aerostar for sure. Better in a crash (the “dustbusters” are notoriously poor in crashes), it has a lot of utility, and it’s not FWD-based. Paint looks good and it’s a more pleasant shade of green. Also cheaper!
Side note: the Aerostar is the vehicle that got me interested in vehicle design especially with its near-brutal raw practicality – function over form – but still looking modern (for the time) and somewhat shapely. By extension it also got me into designing my own vehicles, especially with the same taillight configuration (big, simple, effective, and with AMBER turn indicators). I made many Aerostar-inspired designs in whatever would have been the mac version of Paint (or maybe it was Paint but for mac?) in the very late ’80s/very early ’90s). Then when I discovered pre-lined paper (and later graph paper) I was able to use the lines as a template for the taillights to have the same-size sections. Ahhh, memories.
The 3800 wins the day. If the Dustbuster instead had the Chevy 60-degree V6, I’d go for the Ford.
That Olds has been taken care of. New paint? I’ve never seen one in that kind of condition in near 30 years. So Olds all the way.
The Ford is ok but nothing special. Also, why do I have to pay $200 extra ($2200) if I bring my “own” battery. They gotta fix their ad.
So do I want the Cadillac of Minivans, or the Ranger of Minivans?
I’ll take the definitely-not-Eddie Bauer RangerStar.
I nominated just such one Silhouette on sale near me several years ago for the old lighting site’s “nice price or crack pipe”:
https://jalopnik.com/for-400-could-this-1995-oldsmobile-silhouette-project-1790706570
That former lemons racer had been done up like a Star Trek TNG shuttle craft by the seller. It had a broken transmission but damn if it wasn’t in nice shape with the right livery! And for only $400!!
Did I buy it? No. So if I’m not buying an awesome one for $400 I’m not buying this one for 7x as much.
username checks out
Had I a few secluded acres where I could hide the project it might have worked out. As it is I like having functional cars in a secured garage with an empty driveway. Had I bought that van I’d probably have been shopping for a new catalytic converter too.
I could see dolling this up to look like a shuttlecraft, and my wife and I dressing up like Becket Mariner and Brad Boimler.
Chevy Astro vans can be quite easily V8 swapped just by moving the transmission crossmember and shortening the driveshaft. A Chevy small block fits just fine. I have to wonder if the Aerostar would fit a 5.0L.
It’ll probably fit between the frame rials, as you could cram one in a Ranger, but the trans tunnel will have to shift back, from memory these don’t have the removable “doghouse” of full size vans. It’s VERY tight under the hood on these (an old roomate had one) but anything is doable with enough hammers, grinders and welders…..
It does but it needs some fab work. There are a couple posted in Youtube and the install looks super clean but quite involved (aka money and time). And it needs the AOD as well because these came with an A4LD/4R44/5R55 depending on the model year
I voted for the Chevy I mean Pontiac actually I mean olds.
If I wanted a Dustbuster, I’d go back to 1988…Ford all the way. Better chassis, better looking, true van chassis.
I mean there is no contest, the Aerostar IS the better van, but my soul says Dustbuster…always.
May I say it is thoroughly enjoyable that the Dustbuster’s federally mandated
third brake lightcentre high-mounted stop lamp is actually lower than the main brake lamps.The Olds with the 3800. That thing is a hammer. The Ford with a 3.0L? Hard pass.
I’d buy it and daily it because why not?
That Olds dustbuster is in amazing condition for its age. I’ve always wanted one, and this is the only vehicle I’ve ever wanted in this color.
I’ve driven a Pontiac Trans Sport. You get used to the nose, because the length between the steering wheel and the bumper is just like an SUV. The seating adjusts just fine for me.
But you never get used to cleaning the inside of that windshield, and I imagine you never get used to digging around in the engine bay.
I’d accept these trade-offs for a Silhouette in that condition, especially at that price. It has a roof rack and I’d mount a trailer hitch-based bicycle rack. I wish it were nearer. Sure, I’d use it for Home Depot runs, but primarily, it would be my kayaking, cycling and camping van, and I’m sure it’d tow my little 17ft. aluminum motorboat just fine, too.
At these prices, it’s almost a “why not both?” situation … but you asked for use cases, so here goes.
If I was launching a mobile pet grooming service (tentative name: “Zoomie’s”) I’d pick the Aerostar for its more utilitarian interior and higher GVWR.
But I voted for the Olds, even though I can’t think of a use case other than “surprisingly cushy ride to work.”
When the GM dustbuster vans came out, their looks seemed closer to a shuttlecraft from Star Trek TNG than to any of their competitors. The ChryCo vans were still on their boxy first generation at the time and the GM vans made them look ancient.
Then there’s the Aerostar. I know this is a standard-length version, but my strongest Aerostar memory is when the extended ones came out. It was an obvious attempt to compete with the extended-wheelbase Grand Caravan, Grand Voyager and Town & Country vans that had been introduced in ’87. However like the article says, rather than actually stretching the wheelbase Ford just slapped the extra inches onto the back, behind the rear axle. This caused the extended Aerostars to resemble slightly more aerodynamic school buses, and gave the impression of a half-assed attempt to compete with Chrysler.
This is actually a tough choice simply because I wouldn’t want to work on the Olds, but with a freshly-serviced 3800 it might not need too much work in the near-term. Dustbusters get slightly-better Radwood cred IMO, so I’ll go with the Silhouette.
Incidentally, a super-clean white Pontiac Trans Sport was a prize winner at a TriangleRAD event last year in NC.
The Aerostar is a better color and has a sliding window for the second row! The 3.0 v6 isn’t an impressive engine but it should be reliable, why not save the $800 over the Silhouette, and just buy the better-looking van? Sometimes you really can have it all.
The Olds simply because we had two of them when I was a kid. I liked riding in it.
The interior of the windshield is a pain in the ass to clean. I’d rather have the Aerostar.
That 3.0 v6 was miserable, if memory serves, so Olds, I guess.
Dustbuster vans have the most uncomfortable driving position I have ever experienced. I wouldn’t take one for free. They are unrepentant horribly made shitboxes. The last one I drove, which belonged to my wife’s aunt and was a fully loaded low mileage Lumina APV, in excellent condition, had me screaming into the void, “No wonder GM went bankrupt! They foisted millions of these pieces of shit on poor unsuspecting bastards!”
I don’t particularly love the Aerostar, but I’d rather buy the Aerostar than be given the Silhouette, and that’s coming from somebody who loves Oldsmobiles.
Objectively, the Olds is the right choice here.
So of course, I picked the Aerostar.
I make bad decisions when there are no real consequences.
As soon as I saw the pictures, Get Shorty popped into my head… “The Cadillac of minivans”
Voted accordingly!
Beat me to it.
The thing about minivans is that barely anyone wants them new, and absolutely no one wants them old. So after 15-20 years, all minivans are worth the same regardless of options or condition. You can get a much newer one than these for the same money.