lws@hou2d.UUCP (lwsamocha) (10/11/85)
+++ I AM POSTING THIS TO THE NET FOR I AM NOT TOO SURE IT WENT OUT +++ Is there any particular reason for looking at the Astro as opposed to the Aerostar or Chrysler couterpoints? My experience, admittingly bias: I looked at both the Voyager and the Astro, (the Ford wasn't out yet) last June. I did read about the Ford and talked to an in-law who had worked at FOMOCO on vehicle development. He said stay away from anything new during the first model year introduction. There are too many bugs the factory is working out for a new vehicles production. This is why Ford came out 10 months late with their minivan- Ford couldn't even get its van to meet minimum production or reliability standards. I would expect this is true for any new vehicle, so I looked at the Astro, then the Voyager, then the Astro, then wife drove Voyager, then Astro, then Astro, then Voyager again. I purchased the Voyager mainly because my wife wanted a vehicle That SHE could drive all day, could handle well, and got good gas mpg. I bought the 2.6L, auto trans, seating pkg, luxury pkg, handling pkg, vinyl seats (kids!), no special perks or add-ons for $13200. Sticker was $15400. I believe I got a good deal. A dealer 50 miles away had what I wanted in stock and he would deal. Unless you intend to tow a boat or trailer, the fwd Chryslers are, in MY opinion, a much easier minivan to live with. Motorweek, a PBS program for testing and evaluating autos, did a program on the Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Toyota vans just last weekend. The Chrysler 2.6L auto was quicker than the V6 of the Ford or GM in a 0 to 55 off-the-line test (surprising!) and 55 to 0 braking came in at 130-or so feet, quickest stopping distance. I attribute this to lower GWT of the Chrysler. Turning circle was large at 40 feet, but handling superior. The GM, Ford and Toyota had limited room up front due to engine placement and access- the Toyota is a mid-engine design. The GM had no room up front for feet, had roadability problems, noise problems, and service access problems. I concur on the room, I'm 6-2 and the Astro was tough on leg room. It did rate a first for towing and capacity. The Ford rated a first on roadability, mainly because of a 'big car' suspension (read soft!). The GM and Ford had 'hold yer breath' moments while trying to get them in an 'average' garage. The Toyota placed last in all categories. The Voyager/Caravan was the overall winner for size,, function, handling, garage-ability, and service (5/50 warranty). I get 24 to 25 mpg regularly at h-way speed (75+ Escort). Having bought a 'loaded' minivan and driven some 10K since June, I own a Mazda, have had Hondas, and stayed away from USA junk for lots of years- my last Chrysler was a 65 Fury (JUNK!). Yet, I enjoyed my Camaro, but couldn't live with the Buick tank-wagon this van replaces. But I really like this van! Mr. Iacocca has made me a believer! If you are still confirmed on the Astro- Wait til the bugs are out first!! I expect other netters will concur on this point. LWS hou2d!lws