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)
I’ll take “What looks like a Dust Buster?” for $2,000, Alex.
Defintiely the Cadillac of Minivans for me. But I’d rather have a Chevy Astro than either of them.
I never driven either, but I’ve always wanted to paint a dustbuster van like a Star Trek Next Generation shuttlecraft.
Olds for me today.
I spent way too much time in a Lumina APV fleet vehicle to ever go for the Silhouette, which is too bad. I like that GM actually took a styling risk. Too bad it was on such a poor vehicle. Some of the issues I experienced (vague steering, complete lack of road feel) might have been related to it being a 15-year-old clapped-out fleet vehicle, but that doesn’t explain the poor visibility and terrible ergonomics. I’ve never gotten past the fact that the driver’s seat was positioned so that the steering wheel was off-centre in relation to the driver’s body. And I can confirm that the ‘Dustbuster’ name wasn’t just in reference to styling, having operated that thing on a lot of unpaved roads. It was better than other non-convertible I’ve ever driven at bringing outside dust into the cabin.
I’ll take the Dustbuster over the… um… ah… Dustbuster.
The Oldsmobile. Another daring GM design let down by the GM bean counters.
I like both but having had a Silhouette (which was totaled when an old guy ran a red light) I have to go with it. If the Aerostar was a Safari/Astro I’d be that one for me. Wasn’t the Aerostar known for head gasket issues?
No… that was the Windstar.
Had it been the lesser V6 engine the Olds might not have ome out on top, but 3.8 for the win. and bonus, cool radwood styling.
Aerostar since it will be easier to work on. Plus, it’s design came from the Space Shuttle (at least according to the ads of the time).
Oh man. The showdown of my dreams.
Normally I’d be all about that Aerostar, but a Silhouette in that kind of condition in 2024? Hell-freaking-yeah. I want it badly. The Aerostar is probably the more useful and versatile, but that’s not what I’m looking for here (strangely enough).
That Ford looks like it’s from 1984 instead of 1994.
The only thing that says “90’s” to me is the dash not being a rectangle on a rectangle.
Aerostar, only because it reminds me of my favorite episode of The Office where Michael had to drive a concussed Dwight to the hospital in Meredith’s Aerostar. This one even has a spray bottle in it just like in the show.
Some guy in my neighborhood has one with gold basket weave wheels on it with a satin grey wrap, and some sort of exhaust. Actually looks cool. Aerostar FTW
A friend of mine drove a silver Silhouette and called it “The Silver Bullet.”
I worked at a TV station that had a 4WD Aerostar. It was virtually unstoppable in the snow and despite having 150K miles on it when I drove it, it had a very cushy ride over the cratered Rust Belt city streets.
The Silhouette, to my eye, is the better looking of the two, but the Aerostar is the better vehicle.
The Aerostar would make a great work van; it rides like garbage as a ‘car’ until it’s loaded – whereupon the 3.0V6 is underwhelmingly weak for anything but A-to-B at a very relaxed pace (mind that the engine won’t sound relaxed).
It’s a proper van-on-pickup bones, with no representation of refinement or speed.
I picked the Silhouette. Back when my dad was looking to trade in our ’89 Taurus wagon, he almost pulled the trigger on one of these. In a weird turn of events, he chose a Saturn SW2 instead.
Use case? If you play drums and you also have a minivan, you can absolutely pick and choose which band you’re in. Just sayin.
Can confirm — my co-worker had a (then) brand-new Aerostar, and he was the designated gear transporter for whatever gig he happened to be working that week. (At the time his instruments were keyboards, but he could also play drums.)
Dust Buster ftw! I bought a very similar Silhouette (same wheels and graphics over maroon) for$1400 a number of years ago that started out as our family hauler and ended up as my lawn-equipment wagon before selling it to a renter whose car had broken down and was looking for something cheap that might make it back to his home state of California. It made it and took him to his next construction job up in Oregon and back before he gave it to one of his kids. It might still be roaming around out there someplace.
At any rate, I really liked that van – super comfy, spacious, fun-to-drive, and got surprisingly good gas mileage. Overall I found it a lot more useful than the ’98 Ranger step-side I had been using as a work-truck. This one is close enough to be tempting at that price. It would look great all shined up and parked next to my ’94 Fleetwood!
Aerostar. Should be relatively easy to work on. I’d use it for Home Depot runs.
Many years ago I saw a video showing a test crash of the Lumina APV and watched it crumple like an accordion. Will never ride in one of those. Default vote for the Aerostar today,
Learned to drive on a 1993 green Aerostar just like that, albeit the XLT. It lasted 25 years, towing stuff occasionally, but IIRC you could fit full sheets of plywood in the back, on top of the wheel humps. Ultimately, some mechanic didn’t realize it was a partial unibody on a ladder frame, put his lifts on the wrong part of the car, and lifted the body off, so we had to get rid of it.
As the seller appears to have done, you could also swap the rear bench into the middle row since they used the same hooks, but DAMN were those seats heavy.
I’d use the Aerostar as a slidey winter beater/parts hauler. The Dustbuster is probably, objectively the better van, but I like my power out back when I can get it.
I like the dust buster better, but went with the space shuttle. Servicing those things is a nightmare, and I disagree that is too nice to use as a truck. That is exactly what I would do.
Import a Chevy Trans Sport from Europe, which has the Quad 4 (or possibly a Peugeot diesel) and a manual transmission.
Between the domestic 3800 and the Aerostar, get the Aerostar. Being able to change 5 spark plugs > only being able to do 3
9 out of 10 I’d go with the Aerostar as I have good memories from my childhood , one of those being an early one with digital dash, trip computer and power everything. Overall I think it’s the more capable vehicle
But that Dustbuster is the nicest one I’ve seen in over a decade and it’s the mid-cycle refresh which I like the best with the nicer styling, carefully selected options and the 3800 Series / 4T60 I which I’d take over the solid but slow Vulcan / A4LD.
And the bunch of recent service records are nice to have as even replacing plugs is quite unpleasant
I’ve driven both, extensively. I actually enjoyed the Aerostar, whereas I tolerated the dustbuster….