Welcome back to Holy Grails, the Autopian series where you show off some of the coolest, most underrated cars that you love. Since starting this series, we’ve received requests to write about truckloads of obscure, forgotten machines with something special about them. Some of these cars haven’t even been on this continent! Today, we have a Grail recommended by a Minnesotan named CJ, who showed David Tracy his incredible stickshift Aerostar last year. Well, now he’s purchased another. Here’s why it’s special.
Today we talk about Ford’s first minivan, the Aerostar — The Blue Oval’s answer to Chrysler’s powerhouse minivans. Ford didn’t copy Chrysler, instead it built a futuristic rear-wheel-drive van that could carry lots of people while towing a camper behind it. And if you look hard enough, you can find one of these with a manual transmission.
Last time, reader JamesRL sparked quite the discussion about the Dodge Spirit R/T. Most enthusiasts today may see a Dodge Spirit and dismiss it as a disposable pile of trash. However, JamesRL says that there is a version of the Spirit worth looking at, and it’s the Spirit R/T. The Spirit R/T is a sedan motivated by a 2.2-liter turbo four making 224 horsepower and 217 lb-ft torque. That engine and the vehicle’s small size made the Spirit the fastest sedan built in America at the time. It outgunned the Taurus SHO and Chevy Lumina Z34, and Dodge was so confident in its performance, its ads dared you to buy a Spirit R/T and go after the European imports, too.
Today’s Holy Grail is a departure from most of the vehicles featured in this series thus far. This van isn’t the fastest thing on the road or a secret hot rod. It wasn’t built out of a need to solve a silly issue or the most important vehicle built by its brand. Instead, it’s a first-generation minivan. Chrysler kicked off a craze with the 1983 introduction of its minivans. Families now had a comfortable way to transport seven people with a vehicle that got good fuel economy, carried lots of cargo, and could be parked in a garage. Other automakers put their own interpretations of the idea to market, and soon, America was in love with the minivan. The Ford Aerostar was one of those different takes on the minivan concept, and Ford’s idea was for a van with even more capability.
As Hagerty writes, the beginnings of the Ford Aerostar come from one of those responsible for Chrysler’s minivans: Lee Iacocca. In the early 1970s, Iacocca was an executive at Ford, and he had ideas for products that Ford should put to market next. One of them was for a van that sat no higher than six feet, or short enough to fit in an American 7-foot garage. Iacocca saw sales in a vehicle with the practicality of an Econoline but in a smaller form factor. In 1972, Iacocca’s idea became a prototype called the Carousel. It was smaller than a Volkswagen Bus, but maintained the body-on-frame construction and massive 460 V8 of the Econoline.
Then the 1973 Oil Crisis rolled around, and Ford pumped the brakes on the project. In 1978 Iacocca would find himself at Chrysler, where the garage-able minivan would become reality.
Back at Ford, the smaller van concept didn’t die, and the concept evolved. Now in tune with the times, Ford’s van concept would now focus on fuel economy, targeting the same fuel economy as a compact car. This van wouldn’t just target compact car fuel economy, but Ford also wanted it to seat seven people in luxury sedan comfort, carry cargo, and have a tow rating similar to a full-size vehicle. Oh, and the van would be all of that and still fit in a garage.
Ford would spend more than $300 million putting this van together. This was a ton of money, but not as much as the Blue Oval spent on other projects at the time. The Ford Taurus cost $3.5 billion and the Fiesta $870 million. And Chrysler committed $700 million towards its minivans.
Despite the smaller investment, the Aerostar was unique. Departing from the norms of the Econoline, the Aerostar would be a unibody van reinforced with frame rails, and instead of metal bumpers, it would get integrated plastic bumpers. Plastic would also be incorporated into the hood and tailgate. It would carry seven people, 4×8 sheets of plywood, and more with its 2,000-pound payload. And important to Ford, it could still park in a garage and haul a trailer. The fact that it could tow a trailer was a selling point.
In 1985, Popular Science wrote a showdown of all of the American minivans on the market and coming to market at the time. In that comparison, the Chrysler minivans went up to bat against the Chevrolet Astro, the then-upcoming Aerostar, and what was supposed to be American Motors’ effort, the Renault Espace.
In the article, Ford and General Motors touted their rear-wheel-drive minivans as being able to tow 5,000-pound trailers, while the front-wheel-drive Chrysler minivans could at best tow 2,000 pounds. Chrysler fired back, saying: “Ask them how their vans handle in snow and ice.” The Chrysler and Renault vans also offered low floors thanks to their FWD layouts. And no matter which van you chose, you got a variety of seating options from beds, reversible or removable seats, or bucket seats for passengers.
The Aerostar would do it thanks to a thorough parts-bin raiding from Ford, with the Ranger giving up its brakes and looking inside, you’ll spot all sorts of parts that were used elsewhere.
At its 1986 launch, you could get an Aerostar fitted with a 2.3-liter Lima four making 100 HP, a 2.8-liter Cologne V6 making 115 HP, or a 3.0-liter Vulcan V6 making 145 HP. The Lima engine shared a home in the Ranger as well as the Mustang. The Cologne V6 was shared with the Ranger and Bronco II. And the Vulcan was found in the Taurus. Later, the Aerostar would get the 4.0-liter Cologne V6 making 160 HP that was shared with the Ranger and the Explorer. The Vulcan would make a later appearance in the Ranger, too. And that’s just a sampling, as these engine families were found in the engine bays of lots of Ford models throughout history.
You could pair these engines to an automatic transmission, but David and reader CJ think the Holy Grails of these vans are the ones with the manuals. Yep, you could get your rear-wheel-drive V6 cargo van with a row-your-own. From an email CJ sent to David:
Don’t know if you remember me or not. I showed you my “Holy Grail” manual Aerostar when you stopped off in Minneapolis Last year. Well, I thought I’d share with you my latest purchase (ok I bought it October 2021) but I have added another Manual Ford Aerostar to my fleet.
This one is quite different. It is an extended cargo van with the ‘barn doors’ on the back. I think that makes this one quite unique being extended cargo and not just a standard length one.
It’s very basic, vinyl seats, A/C that sort of works, and no cruise control. Oh, and if you’re wondering, this one has even less rust than the one you looked at.
Now if only I could find a good rear bumper cover 🙂
Anyway, hope you enjoy.
We very much enjoyed the photos of his van. For further context, David was bitten by the manual Aerostar bug back in 2018, and he had this to say about it:
Obviously, 145 hp and 165 lb-ft of torque aren’t amazing figures, but come on, it’s a 3,400 pound minivan with rear-wheel drive and Ford’s M5OD five-speed manual—a Mazda-sourced stick that, while maybe not the heaviest-duty trans, is a hell of a lot of fun to row through, and its parts are readily available. (A version of this trans was used in the Ford Ranger, F-150, Bronco, Explorer and a whole bunch of other Fords from the ’80s to the 2000s).
That Vulcan was just five horses short of the 2.5-liter turbocharged inline-four that powered the fabled turbocharged Caravan. Though, the Aerostar weighed at least 500 pounds more than the Chrysler. In David’s older piece, readers suggested that the weight wasn’t too much of a hindrance, as there was more than enough power to spin those rear wheels. Apparently, if you try hard enough, you can be a hooligan with an Aerostar.
A total of 2,029,577 Aerostars were produced between 1985 and 1997. How many of them are manuals is unknown. But if you live where I do, these vans have become rare simply because rust has taken so many of them off of the road.
David, Jason, and I saw a minty one just outside of our Airbnb during our California stay for the 2022 Los Angeles Auto Show. We couldn’t stop looking at the thing. David wondered if it was a manual, while Jason couldn’t stop looking at some sort of auxiliary light that was added to the van’s side. We briefly thought about knocking on the owner’s door to ask them about it.
In the end, vans like the Aerostar were overshadowed by the powerhouses that were the Chrysler minivans. But the Ford was important, too. It was a different take on the same idea and an interesting evolution in people haulers. Today, these vans probably have limited practicality. The few of them I’ve seen in recent times were junk haulers and Gambler 500 rigs, plus that weirdly minty one in California. The good thing about old minivans is that they’re dirt cheap. So, if you find one of these in your area, chances are they’ll be cheap. Then, you can own a time capsule from a time when SUVs weren’t yet king.
Read more on The Autopian
- The Dodge Spirit R/T Was The Fastest Sedan Built In America And Nearly As Quick As A BMW M5: Holy Grails
- Holy Grails: The MG ZT-T 260 Is A Super Rare British Wagon With A Ford V8 Heart
- Holy Grails: The South African BMW 745i Is The M7 BMW Never Gave The Rest Of The World
- Holy Grails: The Mercury Tracer LTS Was An Underrated Performer With The Body Of A Practical Sedan
Want to write for The Autopian? Pitch us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
Growing up, a friend of mine’s parents had an Aerostar that was blue-silver-blue with a stick shift. They would let my buddy take it out in the cul-de-sac down the street and practice whipping shitties in the snow when he was like 14 or 15. It was awesome.
I didn’t know about this configuration until seeing it on the American version of Top Gear some time ago. Pretty neat. When I was a kid around ’89, I remember my friend thinking his family was hot shit when they got an Aerostar. He even gave me crap because our Caprice Classic wagon was old-fashioned. I was like, “Cool, I guess, but does your back seat face BACKWARDS? Thought not!”
Ford spent 870 million on the Fiesta? I loved mine, but geez, the car only had a few dozen moving parts.
The VW Vanagon.
Rear wheel drive? Check
2 to 9-Passenger Seating Options? Check.
1500lb Load capacity? Check
2000lb Towing capacity? Check
Fits in most Garages? Check
Torch had one the other day.
https://www.theautopian.com/who-let-the-gipper-drive-cold-start/
Back in the late 80’s, I was still a relatively young sailor stationed in Orlando, FL training recruits. My partner- a surface Electrician Chief- had bought his wife a basic-ass, bottom-line Aerostar with the V6 and manual trans. Vinyl seats, rubber floors, no radio, hand crank windows; the only options being the V6 and AC (mandatory in Central FL). He showed it off to me and while I complimented him, I could only ask “why the heck would he get a manual in a minivan?”
One day we were close to graduating our recruit company and decided to gift them with a pizza party for doing so well in training. We ordered the pizzas from the local pizza joint and I had to go pick them up- not happening in my ’85 Subaru XT coupe. I borrowed his van and scooted over there, and I discovered something- the damn thing was fun to drive! Adding that silly stick shift made it more engaging, and for a short period, I considered getting one myself! I still think about finding a Chevy Astro or GMC Safari cargo van- I always liked that one over the Aerostar’s funky style- wonder if I could find one with a V6/manual combo?
I had always thought they were just a 2wd Ranger chassis with a minivan body bolted on top. had no idea they were actually reinforced unibodies.
pretty cool.
I’m pretty sure the transmission or at least the bellhousing from these are commonly used to swap the Yamaha-built Taurus SHO V6 into rear wheel drive applications.
These things were everywhere when I was a kid in the early-90s, relatively more than other places thanks to the available AWD. I hadn’t seen one in forever, then, strangely, I’ve seen three in the past week, all in good condition, all long wheelbase Eddie Bauer AWD. Then this Holy Grail article shows up. A sign?
Absolutely killing it with these Holy Grails! My Father-in-law’s buddy had a manual Aerostar. Bought it new and racked up 500,000 miles on it before he retired. As far as I know it was still running just fine when he traded it in but I guess he didn’t need a van in retirement.
“LOL”
-Supercharged, mid-engined RWD Toyota Previa
Yes, but you could also get a RWD previa manual. Or an AWD supercharged. And it was futuristic (or egg shaped)
There was one or two glorious years you could get a 5MT all-trac previa. I think 1992-1993. No 1990 van and I believe they launched as RWD only. I think could get 91-93 or maybe 95 5MT..I don’t recall exactly when the killed the stick.
1991-93 is correct – ’94 they dropped the stick, the same year the supercharged engine became an available option.
” Ford didn’t copy Chrysler, instead it built a futuristic rear-wheel-drive van that could carry lots of people while towing a camper behind it”
I supposed it was shaped in that generic space-shuttle “future” look, but the truth is the Aerostar was a parts bin stopgap and its clear they didn’t want to invest too heavily in it. It was also a piece of crap. The structure may have well been made of cheese for all the stiffness it had, the engine and trans mounts were know for catastrophically and dropping out, and Chrysler was right, they were down right scary in the snow.
The Windstar was an effort, but the Aerostar was “get something out the door to compete with Chrysler now!”
The real hero in this category was the Astro/Safari. What a world to have a boxy AWD van that could tow 5000 lbs again. I mean, its basically just crossovers, but still.
I guess a testament to that fact is that I never see any Aerostars in Southern California, but this place is lousy with Astro vans. It’s frankly crazy how many are still kicking around, it’s like they never stopped making them. There is also a shocking number of Previas on the road here as well, but I’ve yet to see one that is more than 50% primer and isn’t making a horrible noise.
The AWD Astrovan was the king. It’s funny but the dustbuster vans looked so futuristic when they came out. They did age very poorly though.
Starting a new car design in Automation (video game) – that ’72 Iacocca Carousel Concept needs life. 460 D0VE “Mini” Van with 70’s van aesthetic? Yes please.
I got one of these with a blown transmission and 199,000 miles on it for free in high school. Put a junkyard transmission in it and drove it until the engine (Vulcan v6) went at 230,000. Lots and lots of one-legged burnouts (you could do it if you brought it to redline and dropped the clutch), lawn donuts, and other ill-advised activities. Almost bought another one a few years go, but the only one with a stick that I could find was absolutely thrashed.
I always assumed that the Aerostar was a van body on a Ranger chassis. I had no idea it was a unique design.
My dad had one of these that we used as a family trip hauler, but also as his work truck. First thought on seeing one is “They can hold full sheets of plywood!” because I heard it about 10M times growing up haha.
I always thought these were built on a Ranger frame, the window regulators were made of pasta and changing the windshield makes Audi’s service position seem logical. My dad had a manual one and I remember him picking me up, my wife got the passenger seat and I got the lawn chair in the back, as a die hard Chrysler guy I have no idea how he got that thing other than it was cheap
We had a 1988 Eddie Bauer Edition Aerostar, similar to the top picture, but in red with the steelie caps, sadly in automatic, but that wasn’t too much of a hindrance. It was also my first car when it got handed down to me in high school. It was a blast to drive and had just enough power to keep me from being irresponsible. Also great fun in the snow, slip sliding around.
Fun fact, the digital speedo capped out at 85mph, but if you pressed the mph/kph button and switched to metric, it would continue to increase past that…..
OOh, didn’t know that about the speedo my ’87 had the digital one (was hilariously 80s), my 18 y.o. self would have appreciated that…
I did the same trick with the digital speedo in my Lincoln Mark VII.
I don’t think I’ve seen the Aerostar concept before! Interesting that they used a facia that would later show up on the Tempo’s final restyle, but the production model used the then-current Tempo look.
I once had an ’87 Aerostar with the manual, it was very good to me, carried me and all my stuff through two moves (including my motorcycle, inside!). Sadly, it became too rusty, and I had to find something different – a 2000 Ford F150 with a manual, and an 8 ft bed.
I had a ’92 Voyager that had a manual transmission. The Astro/Safari could be had with a manual transmission as well, in the early years. Are stick shift minivans unusual? Yes. Rare? Perhaps not as much as you think.
Holy Grail is a term thrown around way to much with cars. Is it 1 of 1 available? No? Then it’s not a Holy Grail. Is it one of one because it’s a horrible options combo – also not the Holy Grail.
I knew someone who had the Astro manual cargo van. Cheap transport for a college student at the time.
With a few tweaks the Concept Aerostar would have looked better.
And why do I miss the fake-ass wood paneling of the late 60s and 70s? I mean, Chrysler had it in the 80s, but on a K-car.
And the ’90s too. My father still mourns his various Jeep Wagoneers and his absolute favorite, a ’90s Cherokee Briarwood, all with that stuff.
I loved how it was both vinyl (the face) and plastic (the outside trim), so like double fake!
Unless you are using some sort of manually-selectable transmission, stick or paddles, to choose RPMs on corner exit, I think the manual transmission is just more work (though at the time it may have been less expensive). In an Aerostar, I think I’d just have taken the auto.
As someone with a stickshift diesel manual Chrysler Voyager, I’ll just give my two cents: The manual MAKES IT. My van with an auto would be clinically boring. With a stick, I love it. But that’s totally just my personal preference.
I have a ’10 Focus, which at the time with an auto was a classic rental/great recession special – good enough for most people for daily transportation but otherwise kinda unremarkable.
But a manual totally changes the car’s game. You can easily chirp the tires (good rubber even) on the 1-2 upshift and wring the most out of the wonderful Ford-Mazda engine.
I gotcha, but I don’t think the use case for a Focus and a minivan are the same. I’d take the stick in a Focus too, no problem.
The Focus with a manual vs. automatic was such a night and day difference. With a manual it’s quick and fun, with an auto it was a total dog. Which I first noticed when I test drove a manual one in the mid ’00s, loved it, considered buying it, and told a friend. He test drove an automatic, and called me to ask why I would suggest he drive something so bog slow and terrible.
Then I was in a relationship with someone who had one and yeah, the automatic sapped all the life out of the car.
Which is also an endorsement for a manual van of that era and earlier. Even if it’s not fun, per se, it’s still going to be a lot quicker which matters just as much in boring situations as it does in exciting ones – like accelerating to highway speeds.
Fair enough David. But you and I have…EXTREMELY different definitions of fun. 🙂
At the time both cheaper and more efficient. Can’t forget that autos were significantly less efficient until very recently.
Also, even if you don’t get any joy out of the manual (it certainly makes crappy/ boring cars fun) you can’t avoid the advantages in ease of engine braking as well as low-traction situations. Unwanted shifts on slick corners are not good.
Good point, they did save a couple of mpg.
Must say, though, I’m not an engine braking guy. Brake pads and tires are cheaper than clutches. EDIT BUTTON
That’s fair. I’ve lived in a few places where certain sections of road smell like burning brakes 24/7 so I’m quite fond of it.
Brake pads – yes. Tires maybe not so much.
Tire cost is kind of irrelevant here. Any stopping force applied to a wheel hub is going to use the friction between the tire and the road. So, unless you are some sort of driving psychopath with binary braking habits (on and off), then tire wear should be reasonably equal whether engine- or disc-/drum-braking.
You’re very right about tires (EDIT BUTTON). As you say, the contact patch doesn’t care why the wheel is being slowed relative to the road.
I do I think the cost of clutches and drive lines are very relevant. That wheel can be slowed by either the brakes, which are designed for exactly that purpose and are easily replaceable, or by some form of transmission clutch, which is not designed to do that and which are far more expensive to replace. There are also a whole bunch of couples between that clutch and the road wheels, which are also stressed and worn. And, while I suppose bad brakes might be very on/off grabby, I don’t like the idea in a “low-traction” situation of a transmission forcing me to shift whenever it needs to and abruptly changing the load on that contact patch or, if an automatic, doing that without my intervention.
Sure, I grew up near Pittsburgh, and I can believe there are roads on which you need all the help you can get. And I haven’t driven a grossed-out 18-wheeler. But I don’t think it’s a good plan otherwise.
P.S. I think I know why I said that. To start driving, I have to climb a very steep hill from a dead stop. I can either slip the clutch or burn a little rubber on fairly slick cement. So I pretty much dump the overbuilt clutch and learn to love a little smoke.
Made comment below, trying here because it got moderated, not sure why. Maybe this will work:
P.S. I think I know why I said that. To start driving, I have to climb a very steep hill from a dead stop. I can either slip the clutch or burn a little rubber on fairly slick cement. So I pretty much dump the overbuilt clutch and learn to love a little smoke.
Same here, and solid logic. My dad was a big proponent of it, but I am not a fan.
Back at my first job in the mid-80s, my co-worker had a 1985 Aerostar cargo van, base model 4-cyl with two seats and a stick shift. He explained that it had been a college graduation gift from his parents, who allowed him to choose any vehicle within a certain budget, and he chose the Aerostar because he was a musician and needed something to haul his gear.
Anyway, sometimes we would be driving up a grade in stop-and-go traffic, and he would need to heel-toe it in order to get enough revs to go forward instead of rolling back into the car behind us. Rinse and repeat continuously for 30 minutes or so. In other words, this vehicle was made *considerably worse* by the presence of a manual transmission, and you stick shift junkies are just delusional. (Respectfully.)
The Aerostar is one of those “where did they all go?” cars. Like, they sold a ton of them, and when I was a kid they were everywhere, but they’re all gone now. From the GM shop across town the Lumina APV et. al. are also like that.
And yet, somehow, first and second-gen Caravans? Still see them on a regular basis.
The Aerostars were terribly prone to body and chassis rust. They all went to the crusher long ago, I think.
they were family trucksters, not often reserved for the future sales or all that well maintained. Like Tempo’s and Chevy Cavaliers, the few remaining are those previously owned by the Little old lady that rarely drove and handed them down to kids to either resell or more often trash because they really wanted the newer Mustang or whatever instead.