Welcome back to another week! I hope everyone’s weekend was good, and didn’t involve a trip to the emergency room like mine did. I sliced my scalp open on an exposed nail while working in the attic. I had to get two staples in my scalp and a tetanus shot. Bled all over, scared my wife half to death… I wouldn’t recommend it.
But don’t worry; I’m not going to let a little thing like a minor head wound slow me down. [Editor’s Note: Mark, did you not already have a tetanus? That was part of the new-hire contributor welcome pack, was it not? Do you know how much danger you put yourself by working here at The Autopian — where articles like this are churned out — sans tetanus? Anyway, I’m glad you’re okay. -DT] Not when there are old cars to discuss, and the big Autopian meetup happening on Saturday. So let’s see how our French imports did over the weekend, and then we’ll see what today has in store.
Close one, but the C15 has it. That would be my choice too. There are just so many things you can do with a box on wheels. It might be the most practical form of four-wheeled transportation there is.
Which brings me to today’s subject: minivans. And today we’re going to look at one that used to be really common but isn’t seen much anymore, and one that never quite caught on. Here they are.
1996 Ford Aerostar – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0 V6, 4 speed automatic, RWD
Location: Roseville, MI
Odometer reading: 236,000 miles
Runs/drives? Excellent, according to the seller
The Ford Aerostar is another of those vehicles that used to be on every street corner, but have almost entirely disappeared. The last of the Big Three’s minivans to appear on the market, the Aerostar is a unibody, and rear-wheel-drive. This particular Aerostar uses the same 3.0 liter “Vulcan” V6 as Ford’s Taurus, coupled to a 4 speed automatic. Five-speed manual Aerostars do exist, but they’re rare.
I’ve driven a few Aerostars over the years (including a manual), and I really like how they drive. Less “trucky” than the Chevy Astro and GMC Safari, but more substantial-feeling than a Dodge Caravan or Plymouth Voyager. This one, with the 3 liter engine, will probably be a little lethargic in modern traffic, but that just gives you more time to enjoy the view out that great big windshield.
This van has a ton of miles on it, but the seller says it was all highway (but don’t they all say that?). It runs well and doesn’t look bad at all, but there is quite a lot of rust showing in the photos, particularly along the rocker panels. Characteristic of a Midwest car, for sure.
Inside, it looks comfy and well-kept. In fact, this is another one of those vans that I don’t think anyone has ever sat in the back of. If the owner was a traveling sales rep or something, I imagine those rear seats have been stored in a basement somewhere for a couple decades. That could explain their condition.
1993 Volkswagen Eurovan – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.5 liter inline 5, 4 speed automatic, FWD
Location: Lakewood, WI
Odometer reading: 185,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep, but may have transmission issues
VW vans have always had a sort of a cult following in the US. Those who love them really love them, and everyone else just gets stuck behind them on uphill two lane roads. (I kid, I kid…) The Eurovan replaced the Vanagon in the US in 1993, finally bringing VW’s vans in line with what was rapidly becoming the standard transverse engine/front-wheel-drive layout established by Chrysler’s minivans. In this case that engine is a 2.5 liter inline five that won’t do anything to dispel the “VW vans are slow” stereotype.
As is typical of VW vans, the Eurovan was available as an RV, complete with stove and pop-up top. This isn’t one of those, but it is the “MV” model, which came with curtains for the side windows and a third row of seats. The middle seats can turn around to face the back row, and I think there’s a table that folds out from somewhere as well. The back seats also fold down into a bed, so technically you can camp in this one, you just can’t cook in it. But that’s what campfires are for, right?
This van runs and drives well, but the transmission seems to have an overheating problem: the seller says it “acts up after a couple hours on the road.” Hard to say what might be going on, but it would be worth taking to a shop that knows VW automatics to find out more. It also needs a muffler, but that’s no big deal.
Condition-wise, it looks pretty good, but again, there is some rust showing in the rocker panels. Road salt is hell on cars in the Great Lakes area. You just learn to live with the rust. But I don’t miss it at all, now living on the west coast.
So that’s Monday: a couple of old vans that you don’t see on the road too often these days. Same price, same purpose, close to the same size, radically different ways of going about it. Which one speaks to you?
Growing up my family had that exact same Aerostar, and I know people who still drive one as a light work vehicle. Great little vans, and being able to remove the rear seats make it infinitely more practical than the VW. Gotta be the ford for me.
Going with Aerostar today. It has the edge mechanically with a working transmission, RWD, funky wedge styling from the 80’s, but with a 90’s interior. I HATED the look of these when I was a kid, but they have grown on me over the years. I knew several people who had them, and they are stout vehicles. They get bonus points being built near my hometown at the Hazelwood, MO Ford plant (RIP).
You cite “unibody”, but as I recall, it was more of a hybrid of unibody and body-on-frame with full length frame rails complementing the front sub frame with coils all around and a very truck-like rear axle. This made it quite the tow rig when compared to the true unibody Chryslers.
Not saying they are completely fault free, but the 2.5 5 cylinder VW motor was very reliable for me in my Passat. I would want that over a VR6 or TSI 4. the Aerostar is not really the same kind of special, so I would go with VW either way here.
So my father had two Aerostars, the first model year (which was garbage) and an 89. While I hated the 89 because of the color and lack of creature comforts (like rear A/C), the van was dead reliable. However, I’m no fan of rust. My ex’s car was from the midwest and every time I had to work on it, something else would break because it was all rusted. My heart is with the Aerostar but my brain is leaning towards the VW.
Remember the Aerostar ads comparing it to the space shuttle?
OMG, yes. And how quickly they pulled them after the Challenger disaster.
I don’t think it’ll surprise anyone to know I voted VW and didn’t need to read the post to decide (I still did, of course). Always liked these and love the color. I do like the look of the Aerostar also, but that filth beige color is a dealbreaker. Growing up, we came *so close* to getting a eurovan or transporter every time it was family car shipping time, but my folks could never justify the price premium new and they just didn’t ever exist used near us.
There was one eurovan that lived in my town throughout my childhood, about two years older than me, and my dad always commented approvingly when we’d see it driving around, but that was probably the only one I ever encountered in the wild.
My family owned this exact aerostar, I would think this was our one but we trashed the interior and the body rotted out quick.
The transporter is the way to go, vr6 manual swap it in a weekend and blast up and down mountain passes. Turbo it and get an awd setup shipped over from Europe if you are feeling especially frisky.
I would have voted for the Aerostar if it wasn’t a Michigan vehicle. I’m in Ontario and these are pretty much all gone. The only one for sale within 500 km of my location is decent but asking $7500 with still a bit of visible rust. Salt consumption in Ontario and Michigan are similar so I don’t expect a 237K mile vehicle to have much subframe left (if it spent it’s entire life in MI).
You don’t see Aerostars much anymore, but every time I do see one it’s dropping an off-brand yellow pages directory by my mailbox.
Talk about head-or-heart competition here
Like half the other commenters, I grew up in the back of an Aerostar. 10-yr old me had big plans for dad’s van in 6 years, but it wasn’t in the cards. With all that, the RWD and parts availability, I should go for Ford’s first little van that could.
Then I look at the VW, and see the many ways that it’s just a more thought-out product. The swivel seats, the fold-out table, the more functional dash storage, the bed thing, the roof rack bars, the acres of glass all around. Oh and the way the taillights are integrated into the design compared to the Ford’s. That and the insane values of other VW vans says this is the one to get.
Mark, it sounds like the lesson has already been learned, but I always wear a hardhat when I’m in the attic for exactly this reason.
There’s no love lost between me and Windstars. Maybe it’s all the Boy Scout camping trips I did from one, or just the styling, but they don’t speak to me.
Now, weird old VW van? Check. L5 engine? Okay, yeah. Folding bed in the back? Shut up and take my money.
Either one of these is going to require a lot of work to keep running for years to come. Given that, the VW is a very weird, wild one-off and parts/expertise will be hard to come by. The Aerostar is infinitely more repairable, and the nice interior seals the deal.
Aerostar for me. Same price with no known issues sealed that deal.
FIL once had an Aerostar – and that thing just kept encountering problem after problem. About as reliable as Andy Dick claiming to be sober.
Andy who?
RWD > FWD all day, er’yday.
Having said that, I wonder how well the 3.0 takes to boost.
Also, if I want a VW van to tool around, I’ll go borrow a real one from my pops, a ’74 VW Type 2, with the pop-up camper top.
Its also RWD.
I believe there are a few 5.0-powered Aerostars running around, which is probably simpler than boosting the V6.
SHO Taurus v6 swap would be the more likely choice here.
Agree the VW edges out the Aerostar:
a. FWD vastly superior for snow driving
2) VW has better overall build quality
III: Resale value; ford will only decrease in value as more miles are added
VW was not known for build quality in ’93. Then again, Ford’s wasn’t exactly a high bar. I’d rate them equally.
I am surprised by the results so. I like the VW but I grew up riding in the back of a Blue 1990 Aerostar. Ours was the extended version with the long rear window, the AWD system, and captains chairs. Lots of time spent in that van going for SW Kansas to Denver and back.
I remember my mom having a bag phone in the van, but I don’t recall ever seeing her use it. I also remember another family at the daycare where we all when drove an identical van except for the wheel covers, one day when my mom was picking me up we walked to the wrong van and got in and it took a couple of seconds for her to realize we were in someone else’s car. My sisters and I used to “call seats” and they were all named. The seat closest to the door was “the one seat”, the other captain’s chair was “all the way over” and the back, obviously, was “the way back”.
They got rid of that van in like 99 for a champagne Pontiac Transport, and shortly after got another green Transport Montana. We were a two van family for most of my early adolescence.
Not that any of that matters to anyone but thanks for the trip down memory lane.
My parents bought an Aerostar when they first came out. I wasn’t quite legal driving age when they got it, but I didn’t let that stop me from driving it around on the back roads near my house when they weren’t home. A few months later they decided to sell nearly everything we owned, packed what remained in a U-Haul trailer that was almost as big as the van, and we hit the road from Maine to Alaska. After spending a few weeks not finding anyplace in Alaska were they wanted to settle down we drove to Newport, Oregon. We stayed there for a couple of weeks before the decided that maybe we should head back to Maine. So we rented a house down the road from the one we sold and lived there for about six months before loading up the Aerostar again and driving to Seattle whereupon it was shipped to Kodiak, AK where we lived for nearly a year before driving back to Maine. We did this little song and dance a few more times, but the Aerostar was only there for the first two trips. I can confirm that it was a capable and comfortable long distance hauler.
Were your parents spies running from the government agents hot on their heels? From one of the country to the other multiple times, WTF?
My father was a fishing boat captain. He saw the writing on the wall for the New England fishery before it collapsed and took a very lucrative contract on a joint venture providing fish for Soviet processing ships. My mother wanted to be closer to where he was working, but living in AK is kind of extra, and she never really took to it.
As my user name would suggest, it’s the Eurovan all the way for me. Given the overall condition (even taking the rust into account), it’s worth getting the transmission serviced at this price point. Hell, if you wanted to convert it to manual, the parts are out there! The 2.5 ain’t a powerhouse, but it’s a solid motor that should have a lot of life left in it at this mileage. The seating configuration and fold-down bed in the rear are just so cool.
The Aerostar, however, is just a turd. They were turds when they were new, and are even moreso now. Where I live, the few that remain seem to be the official vehicle of copper theft and mobile hoarding. Hard pass.
I actually want both of these vehicles. I always liked the Eurovan (like the Safari, it is a “cool” van), but the Aerostar looks nicer and appears to be in good mechanical condition. So if I have to choose only one, I’m going with the Aerostar.
For whatever reason, I have always liked ’80s and early ’90s minivans (vans built before driver-side sliding rear doors were common). They are simple, understated vehicles that pack a hell of a lot of utility into a modestly sized package. They are also comfortable. I could see ’80s minivans becoming cult classics. Everyone over 30 or so has memories of driving or riding in these things. Plus, they were seen as expendable transportation devices, so no one bothered to keep them up. ’80s minivans probably won’t ever be valuable as classics, but they could be cool things to preserve for future car shows, if you can find one.
I’m not the only classic minivan enthusiast, right?
Nope, you’re not alone. Minivans are about as great of a practical box on wheels as you can get. I’m more partial to minivans that were made after Stow-n-Go-style seating became the norm, though. Earlier ones you would have to unbolt and remove the rear seats, which is so much more cumbersome. Being able to just fold the rear seats into the floor is so much more practical, and you don’t have to deal with seat mounts interrupting a flat floor.
You’re definitely not alone. My buddy ran into a guy out west that loved those old Aerostars so much that he picked up 3 brand new when they went out of production, and just cycled to the next one as he hit 300K on them. He was putting off putting his last time capsule into service a couple years back, as he had darn-near used up the second one. I guess he got a good deal on them. Still, F*ing crazy.
The fold-out table in the Eurovan MV (multi-van) is the gray rectangle between the rear seats. The price on this one is so incredible that I was about to send the seller a message.
However, that transmission gives me pause. Eurovans are already known for lunching transmissions and this one overheats just driving around Wisconsin. In theory, you could solve the overheating issue and be fine…or you could be looking at a rebuild/replacement down the road. It’s a really cool van with a big gamble.
Thank heavens I just spent a crapload of cash on a wedding dress, or I might be taking that gamble.
My dad got one of the RV versions when he retired. He spent a couple of years touring America visiting transmission shops in various states. He finally sold it for something more reliable, and MGB.
Yeah. Oddly enough, the EuroVan has a typically VW hardcore enthusiast following. The MV is only slightly less desirable than the full camper conversion, since it also has the table and facing seats.
I’ve toyed around with the idea of getting one, but I really can’t justify having two vans. And I already have an R320 that takes a bit of work to keep how I want it.
If you want an example though, get the five cylinder with the manual tranny. That’s the one to have.
I took my family around the US in a 2002 VR6 Eurovan with the same interior and a roof tent up top. Way cheaper then the Westy setup and the transmission had been replaced already. It was a fantastic road trip/memory machine. I still see it 10 years later around my area. My VW/Audi mechanic said they used an Audi sedan transmission and so it was overstressed. If it had been manual I would have probably kept it.
I feel like you’ve buried the lede here.
Eh, without the camper conversion it’s just an old dirty minivan.
Tried an Aerostar on for size back then. In my all the way back seat position that enormous B post was about all I saw when turning my head to the left.
I couldn’t decide so I ended up going Eurovan solely because of the color. It’ll probably bite me in the ass choosing it this way but at least it wont blend into everywhere.
Neither will blend in anywhere. Even as common as the Ford once was, they are a rare sight these days.
I’ve driven both, and it’s Aerostar all the way. It’s an undeserved compliment to call the Eurovan “slow.” A better word might be “glacial.” The Ford is no racer, but will make better progress than the wheezy Vee-dub.
For the kind of money the sellers want, I’d expect rust. And high mileage. That’s what makes ’em “shitboxes.”