What's new
What's new

OT: Are Chevy Astro cargo vans any good?

Michael Moore

Titanium
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Location
San Francisco, CA
I've been without a van for a half year now and I've got to get something fairly soon as I need to get some steel for projects and I hopefully will have a motorcycle together so that I can at least hit a few track days this year, if not actually get to a race. A half-ton van has always been enough; 2-3 bikes, two people, some tools and gear.

As some will recall parking in my area of SF is not noted for being spacious. The legal length I can park in front of my house is 192". One neighbor's space is about 5-6" shorter, the neighbor on the other side is about that much longer. The E150/B150 Ford/Dodge seem to have dropped the SWB models in the late 1980s or early 1990s. They fit as they were about 187/188" long.

I've not considered the Astro as I've never gotten a good impression about their reliability. Mostly "they'll nickle and dime you to death" types of stuff. But it appears that they do have a model with 111" WB and 190" overall length. I'm really squeezing for inches here, and might have to consider removing the rear "step type" bumper on an Astro as that adds an unnecessary 4-5" of length. I haven't been able to find out if that length of Astro will take a standard 4x8 plywood sheet lieing flat on the floor with the doors closed. That's pretty much my standard gauge for "does this van have enough room inside?"

I'd like to get something nice enough that I can not only go to the track (including out of state events), but also justify selling my Ford Focus and using the van on the occasional around town errand when I don't really need to haul something. I can do without power locks/window stuff, but AC would be nice but not a mandatory item. We'd still have my sweetie's Integra as the "family car" and since I don't have a commute anymore I don't have much justification for both a van and a car of my own.

Starting off with something 15-20 years old at the newest isn't real appealing. I've been offered a 1973 Dodge 1T by another racer, and in the photos it looks very clean. But he says it measures 192" so I don't have mcuh leeway if someone grabs my usual parking spot.

I need something that isn't going to be a mechanic's special because my garage is full of tools, with no space to work on a car except outside in the single-car driveway or on the street (with weekly street cleaning requiring it to be moved regularly).

The Astro appears to have been dropped from the model line a couple of years ago, but that still gives a much more recent batch of vans to look at presuming that they are worth having. There does seem to be a moderate number of them around in commercial use.

So was it just that the early Astros got a (deserved) bad rep and Chevy fixed them later, and if so when did they get to be acceptable? Or am I going to be better off finding an old SWB E150/B150 and dealing with getting it through smog every year or two?

If only the lots out here were 26' wide instead of 25', it would make things sooo much easier.

cheers,
Michael
 
That is actually the bike hauler of choice
for my buddy, who periodically visits family
in the fla area, and brings his bmw R65 along
for the ride. He bought one of the AWD models
used and has been pleased, there's enough room
for the bike and his gear. Sometimes his wife
as well.

Aside from the ECO for modified transaxle fluid
(van felt like it had bad CV joints or something
till that was flushed and changed) it's been
trouble free.

Jim
 
I bought an astro van last november to haul all my tools and materials. The springs aren't up to hauling 1000 lbs or more constantly but 4 leaf Chevy S-10 springs fit right in (if you have the steel spring versions) This adds 800 lbs capacity but jacks the rear end up if the tools arent on board. Now I'm worried about too much load for the axles and brakes. Put 10 k miles on it since mid november. 184k and still rolling. Wipers have some gremlins, they work fine until it gets wet. then they only work on fast.
 
I've looked at the stepvans running around town. My impression is that a stepvan that is long enough inside for my needs is not likely to be significantly shorter than a regular van.

I don't need a huge payload, just an adequate one. And the race tracks/riding areas here are often 3-6 hours drive away. How is a stepvan at 75mph on I-5 for hours on end, especially if it is in a brisk side or headwind?

Jim, how do you think your friend's van would be with 2-3 bikes (vintage MX/trials or vintage RR with fairings) plus tool boxes/spares/fuel cans/EZ-Up etc? I have zero need for AWD, and I'm not convinced that I need ABS either. The van is going probably spend most of the time sitting at the curb waiting to go somewhere on the weekend. I generally have little difficulty staying under the 3000 mile/year limit to keep the cheaper "low annual mileage" insurance on my vans.

But I am getting tired of donating vans after they've sat through 4 or 5 days of rain and then won't start. Since I'm 4 blocks from the ocean corrosion is a problem. Whatever I get next is going to have every plug in the wiring harness I can disconnect packed with dielectric grease. If I got a pre-smog (1975 and earlier) carb'ed van at least I'd stand a chance of being able to diagnose and fix things without having to drag it somewhere that has a way to read the ECUs.

JH, how does your's seem for driver legroom? That seems to be a common complaint. On the E150/B150s I've had the legroom has been adequate, but certainly not spacious.

I've also heard that a lot of these later fancy automatic transmissions (AOD etc) aren't as bullet proof as the old three-speed automatics. Any comments on that?

cheers,
Michael
 
75mph on I-5 for hours on end, especially if it is in a brisk side or headwind?

Ask a UPS driver. They do 80+ around here.

I drove tractor trailer trucks, not bread trucks.
I've always thought that the standard van was fine for a family bus or a locksmith, but I kinda need to stand up.
IMHO, it would be the preferred set up for my business.
Otherwise, a 26' dryvan straight truck with lift gate is the next ticket. Makes a nice little portable machine shop.
 
I bought an Astro cargo van new in 1993, the EXT model is about a foot longer than the standard and a sheet of plywood fits in the ext easily. It only has 93,000 miles on it and has been totally reliable except a pesky warning light that was finally traced down to some smog control vacuum valve??. It gets 20 MPG on the freeway and is comfortable to drive on long trips. I pack a lot of tools around in it and have hauled lots of 20 foot long purple heart 2 by 12 timbers and gobs of metal so I am sure a few bikes would be no problem. It is the perfect size in my opinion for ease of parking and securely hauling tools around economically.This is the first American car I have bought since I was a teenager and I have been totally happy with it. Jim
 
Here's a forum http://astrosafari.com/
I had a 99 Astro, one of the best trucks I ever had.
There is a problem with the limited footroom (wheelwell intrusion) in the front. With the two back rows of seats removed (no tools req.)it will haul full sheets of plywood. The dutch doors will let you haul long stuff out the back, but it is difficult to load with a forklift (the "barn doors" are better for that). The best fuel economy i got was 24 on the road during several moving trips from central Ca. to Wa. I would still have it if I didn't need 4WD where I'm at now.
 
I am still driving my GMC extended version I bought in 2000. Very few problems. One the brake warning light and another was a broken grab bar on the passenger side. Typically 23-24 mpg on long highway runs. I have been very pleased, but wish it did not have the driver side intrusion in the foot well. I would love to trade for a new one, but GMC stopped making them. They were the ideal size for me.

TMD
 
A vintage racer buddy of mine tells me he bought a new one and put 220K on it and has another one that he bought used with 80K that now has 140K, and he's very happy with them.

That all sounds pretty good, and I'll check out that forum. I did find a site that had some interior dimensions and it confirms the standard plywood sheet will fit into the EXT version with a couple of inches to spare.

I'll hit a few of the dealers next week and see what I can find out. 2002 appears to be the last major revision when they went to multiport EFI. I'd rather pay a bit more upfront to knock down the starting mileage on a used one, and then hope that puts any major repairs significantly farther into the future.

Having this as an option is nice, as I was feeling really "hemmed in" with a lack of choices.

cheers,
Michael
 
"Since I'm 4 blocks from the ocean..."

I'm picturing Outer Sunset, and you still have problems with parking?

I once rented an Astro for a trip to Mexico and was pleasantly surprised with the interior room for pax and cargo. I come from a Ford family so we're pretty skeptical of those Chevys (of course, I've only owned 1 Ford, my 64 Econoline, all the rest have been Hondas).
 
I've owned 3, and still have two. A 87 (gone), a 94 with 260,000, and a '03 now with 70,000. The '94 has lived its whole life on a gravel road, my first location they put chloride down for dust control. The back bumper is gone, but the body is ok.

The 4.3L is GM's Energiser bunny of engines. Water pump will go between 125,000 and 175,000. It doesn't start to leak, it just dumps everything with no warning. A egr valve, 2 starters, and an alternator is the extent of engine repairs. At 260K, still does 20 mpg.

My conversations with others scream stay away from the AWD versions. The transmission on the AWDs is good for 50K to 75K between rebuilds. Plus, it will cost you 2 mpg.

And my sister has a '96 conversion with 130K. Shop hard and you will like it.
 
The 4.3L is just a chevy small block V8 with two barrels sawed off. Just as bullet proof. 4.3/6X8=5.7. Most internal parts interchangable.

Stay away from all but the modern fuel injection. The carbureted and throttle body versions are less reliable and use more fuel.

My experience is with S trucks, no vans. The weak point for me has been the submerged fuel pumps. Very expensive to replace but you can hear them going out before they die. Last one for me, $300 in parts, R & R, $500!

Bob
 
The "M" van is based somewhat on S-10 hardware, so you're getting a decent vehicle for loads. The "L" van is the AWD, which I'd also stay away from....

Personally I like the 4.3L TBI (RPO = LB4) but those are getting long in the tooth. The TBI is very simple, can be diagnosed with a paper clip and none of the components are super expensive to replace. The L35 engine (same 4.3L base but new heads and some more midrange power) is a little better but has the OBD2 controls which need some interface hardware and software to diagnose. The LB4 or L35 could be found on a sticker somewhere inside the vehicle and has all the 3-digit/number "options" for that vehicle, could be in the glovebox, could be by the tailgate, not exactly sure.

I haven't personally worked on an M-van 4.3L but I suspect there's the typical limited access under the hood.

A friend of mine had an early one he changed engines in, seemed like he found that the heater pipes for rear heat were starting to rust from the outside but he just replaced them all with heater hose and life went on.
 
bobo, I'm at 46th and Judah, a couple blocks south of GG Park. As I mentioned this is mostly 25' wide lots here so parking is definitely not like it is when living in the suburbs. We've still got the odd earthquake cottage here and there that doesn't even have a garage or driveway.

I have zero need for or interest in AWD. Chevy seems to have put some effort into marketing cargo vans to the trades, and that's all that I need, not a people mover.

cheers,
Michael
 
When I co-owned a machine tool repair business I owned or co-owned 7 Astro/Safari vans from 1984 to mid 90's.. They were great to drive and worked well hauling lots of tools. We never had any major wengine or transmission problems but were nickeled and dimed to death with piddling problems, usually at inconvenient times. I came out of a plant one Friday night 250 miles from home and found the engine would only run max RPM, it took awhile to nurse that home. I had a serpantine belt tensioner fail driving down the road losing brakes and power steering. I had fuel injectors fail to inject until a block from the dealer. The front ends were rubber, had to be aligned every set of tires. Had A/C trouble. The bumpers were worthless, got rear-ended by a Little car which suffered no damage but ruined the Safari bumper. I loved the van for driving and usefulness, wish somebody besides GM had made it. I haven't even shopped GM since I got rid of the last one.
 
The 4.3L is just a chevy small block V8 with two barrels sawed off. Just as bullet proof. 4.3/6X8=5.7. Most internal parts interchangable.

Stay away from all but the modern fuel injection. The carbureted and throttle body versions are less reliable and use more fuel.

My experience is with S trucks, no vans. The weak point for me has been the submerged fuel pumps. Very expensive to replace but you can hear them going out before they die. Last one for me, $300 in parts, R & R, $500!

Bob
I bought a new Chevy back '94 1500 shrtbed pickup with the 4.3, 5 speed 3.42 gears.
I've hauled 2000 payload lb @ 75 miles per hour without a hitch.

I've babied my truck all these years.
I used to put 5000 miles a month on it.
The TBI has yet to give me trouble.
However, I am partial to the old carbureted system. I put a 750 3310 on my 502. A little big but doable.
Fuel economy is proportional to engine size, accessories driven, weight of vehicle, transmission gear ratios, rear axle ratios, tire diameter and width and tire pressure, wheel alignment and finally skilled driving techniques.

You lean the mixture at higher altitudes and enrich the mixture at lower altitudes. You can do this manually or via temperature and barometric pressure controlled systems apparatus.
True, this is manual stuff. Granted the electronics are far more convenient, they are destined to fail. The Old school is not for everyone. Certainly not for the lazy mind.

IMHO, the old Small block and big block chevy remain kings in my book. The old 292, 235 and believe it or not the grand-daddy babbit pounding 216 were all great engines.
All this new tech have to prove themselves.
My truck's shakedown period is still on-going.
Endurance is my thing.
My '94 doesn't measure up to the trucks of the past. Cheap materials are in the process of degradation. My dashboard is starting to dry out, my armrests have shrivled.
My '53 I just repainted the dashboard.

My approach is original body, updated drivetrain.
However, the components selected for update ends at 1998.
You see there was a period of improvement in several areas of design, then a period of screwballing, and then a period of engineering insanity.
IMHO the new stuff rolling off the assembly line at GM is no more durable than a twinkie.

Btw the way, you'll never flood an updraft carburetor.
 
I used 4 of them. '88, '92, '99, and '01. 3 out of 4 went 300k with no major engine woes. I did rebuild trans on the '88. the .92 was the best. 307k and no real issues. Just traded it because the rear main seal went and I figured 307k was far enough. I wish I had bought another instead of the '03 Ford Expedition I have now. It's cost me $12,000 in the last 15 months. Back to the Chevys for me from now on.
 








 
Back
Top