Fred

I'm looking for a late model used Aerostar, 4-7 years old.
Is there a good model year? or a bad year to stay away from?

Thanks in advance.

Fred

dmtaurus

For transmission issues stay away from 86 to 93's unless their
transmissions have been rebuilt using the new, drive planetary gear
set. The 94 and newer units incorporated the change.

Fred wrote:

> I'm looking for a late model used Aerostar, 4-7 years old.
> Is there a good model year? or a bad year to stay away from?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Fred

nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:09:47 -0500, dmtaurus <dmtaurus@surfbest.net>
wrote:

>For transmission issues stay away from 86 to 93's unless their
>transmissions have been rebuilt using the new, drive planetary gear
>set. The 94 and newer units incorporated the change.
>
>Fred wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a late model used Aerostar, 4-7 years old.
>> Is there a good model year? or a bad year to stay away from?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Fred

The BEST aerostar is the 1997 - last year of production, and they
finally got everything right. The corrosion issues are virtually gone,
5 speed automatic, great van, all the way round.
You can't get a 4 year old, or even a 7 year old, because the last one
built was 8 years ago.

Fred

Thankye gents!

<nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca> wrote in message
news:mf4nm11u88sf6mib3ckqfom4m9j27skl8i@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:09:47 -0500, dmtaurus
<dmtaurus@surfbest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >For transmission issues stay away from 86 to 93's unless
their
> >transmissions have been rebuilt using the new, drive
planetary gear
> >set. The 94 and newer units incorporated the change.
> >
> >Fred wrote:
> >
> >> I'm looking for a late model used Aerostar, 4-7 years
old.
> >> Is there a good model year? or a bad year to stay away
from?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> Fred
>
> The BEST aerostar is the 1997 - last year of production,
and they
> finally got everything right. The corrosion issues are
virtually gone,
> 5 speed automatic, great van, all the way round.
> You can't get a 4 year old, or even a 7 year old, because
the last one
> built was 8 years ago.

Fred

Thanks, DM!

"dmtaurus" <dmtaurus@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:436B336A.D1A33E3F@surfbest.net...
> For transmission issues stay away from 86 to 93's unless
their
> transmissions have been rebuilt using the new, drive
planetary gear
> set. The 94 and newer units incorporated the change.
>
> Fred wrote:
>
> > I'm looking for a late model used Aerostar, 4-7 years
old.
> > Is there a good model year? or a bad year to stay away
from?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Fred
>

Fred

One more question - I have gotten conflicting info. I know that the
transmission was upgraded sometime since 1993. Anyone know for sure what
year it was? I have heard 94, 96 and 97.

<nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca> wrote in message
news:mf4nm11u88sf6mib3ckqfom4m9j27skl8i@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:09:47 -0500, dmtaurus <dmtaurus@surfbest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >For transmission issues stay away from 86 to 93's unless their
> >transmissions have been rebuilt using the new, drive planetary gear
> >set. The 94 and newer units incorporated the change.
> >
> >Fred wrote:
> >
> >> I'm looking for a late model used Aerostar, 4-7 years old.
> >> Is there a good model year? or a bad year to stay away from?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> Fred
>
> The BEST aerostar is the 1997 - last year of production, and they
> finally got everything right. The corrosion issues are virtually gone,
> 5 speed automatic, great van, all the way round.
> You can't get a 4 year old, or even a 7 year old, because the last one
> built was 8 years ago.

nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:41:49 GMT, "Fred"
<testing@testing1212mouse.com> wrote:

>One more question - I have gotten conflicting info. I know that the
>transmission was upgraded sometime since 1993. Anyone know for sure what
>year it was? I have heard 94, 96 and 97.
>
><nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca> wrote in message
>news:mf4nm11u88sf6mib3ckqfom4m9j27skl8i@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:09:47 -0500, dmtaurus <dmtaurus@surfbest.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >For transmission issues stay away from 86 to 93's unless their
>> >transmissions have been rebuilt using the new, drive planetary gear
>> >set. The 94 and newer units incorporated the change.
>> >
>> >Fred wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm looking for a late model used Aerostar, 4-7 years old.
>> >> Is there a good model year? or a bad year to stay away from?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in advance.
>> >>
>> >> Fred
>>
>> The BEST aerostar is the 1997 - last year of production, and they
>> finally got everything right. The corrosion issues are virtually gone,
>> 5 speed automatic, great van, all the way round.
>> You can't get a 4 year old, or even a 7 year old, because the last one
>> built was 8 years ago.
>
1997 got the "all new" transmission.

Fred

Thanks, nospam, and to all those fine and very helpful folks who have
answered my infinitely basic questions. I just got back home from buying a
'97. Between all your help and a few phone calls to helpful dealers'
service managers, everything worked out fine.

Now here's some hints to pass on to future car buyers....

I found that the dealer service managers in this area (S. Calif) answered my
questions on the phone, but were for the most part impatient and not all
that helpful. What I ended up doing was going to www.bigyellow.com, and
finding the Ford dealers in small Southern towns. Without exception, they
all spent lots of time with me on the phone and offered many friendly tips
of what to look for.

I will try to remember to take some photos of my 97 in the morning and show
you all what this one looks like.

Fred

<nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca> wrote in message
news:fd3dn1d8aj9e3fk38fvb40khigahtr3t4m@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:41:49 GMT, "Fred"
> <testing@testing1212mouse.com> wrote:
>
> >One more question - I have gotten conflicting info. I know that the
> >transmission was upgraded sometime since 1993. Anyone know for sure what
> >year it was? I have heard 94, 96 and 97.
> >
> ><nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca> wrote in message
> >news:mf4nm11u88sf6mib3ckqfom4m9j27skl8i@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:09:47 -0500, dmtaurus <dmtaurus@surfbest.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >For transmission issues stay away from 86 to 93's unless their
> >> >transmissions have been rebuilt using the new, drive planetary gear
> >> >set. The 94 and newer units incorporated the change.
> >> >
> >> >Fred wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm looking for a late model used Aerostar, 4-7 years old.
> >> >> Is there a good model year? or a bad year to stay away from?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks in advance.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fred
> >>
> >> The BEST aerostar is the 1997 - last year of production, and they
> >> finally got everything right. The corrosion issues are virtually gone,
> >> 5 speed automatic, great van, all the way round.
> >> You can't get a 4 year old, or even a 7 year old, because the last one
> >> built was 8 years ago.
> >
> 1997 got the "all new" transmission.

BuckerooBanzai

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:49:12 GMT, "Fred" <testing@testing1212mouse.com> wrote:

>Thanks, nospam, and to all those fine and very helpful folks who have
>answered my infinitely basic questions. I just got back home from buying a
>'97. Between all your help and a few phone calls to helpful dealers'
>service managers, everything worked out fine.
>
>Now here's some hints to pass on to future car buyers....
>
>I found that the dealer service managers in this area (S. Calif) answered my
>questions on the phone, but were for the most part impatient and not all
>that helpful. What I ended up doing was going to www.bigyellow.com, and
>finding the Ford dealers in small Southern towns. Without exception, they
>all spent lots of time with me on the phone and offered many friendly tips
>of what to look for.
>
>I will try to remember to take some photos of my 97 in the morning and show
>you all what this one looks like.
>
>Fred
>
><nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca> wrote in message
>news:fd3dn1d8aj9e3fk38fvb40khigahtr3t4m@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:41:49 GMT, "Fred"
>> <testing@testing1212mouse.com> wrote:
>>
>> >One more question - I have gotten conflicting info. I know that the
>> >transmission was upgraded sometime since 1993. Anyone know for sure what
>> >year it was? I have heard 94, 96 and 97.
>> >
>> ><nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:mf4nm11u88sf6mib3ckqfom4m9j27skl8i@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:09:47 -0500, dmtaurus <dmtaurus@surfbest.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >For transmission issues stay away from 86 to 93's unless their
>> >> >transmissions have been rebuilt using the new, drive planetary gear
>> >> >set. The 94 and newer units incorporated the change.
>> >> >
>> >> >Fred wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I'm looking for a late model used Aerostar, 4-7 years old.
>> >> >> Is there a good model year? or a bad year to stay away from?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks in advance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fred
>> >>
>> >> The BEST aerostar is the 1997 - last year of production, and they
>> >> finally got everything right. The corrosion issues are virtually gone,
>> >> 5 speed automatic, great van, all the way round.
>> >> You can't get a 4 year old, or even a 7 year old, because the last one
>> >> built was 8 years ago.
>> >
>> 1997 got the "all new" transmission.
Please do not post binary attachments to our text newsgroups.
1. No one is asking to see it/them. If you think there's interest there's
better ways to get it front of interested eyes;
a. Get their email address and attach it to a letter.
b. Avail yourself of some free web page service (check with your ISP) and
post it up there, come back to the text newsgroups and tell us where to point
our browsers.
c. Post it in a binary usenet group and come back here and tell us where to
find it. This isn't very desirable as most ISP's 'free' news servers often
cap the size of a newsgroup post, oftentimes don't retain a complete set of
large binary posts very long, and also might split up the post and leave a
chunk or two of it out.
2. Offline newsreaders are often setup to grab all the unread messages on a
news server by group. That means that folks that have no interest in looking
at pictures of your Aerostar, end up with large chunks of data stuffing up
their hard drives when they download your pictures.
3. Some folks still "pay the freight" so to speak, for downloading data.
Dialup users, for instance, limiting themselves to a few minutes a day
downloading the newsgroups to read at their leisure, suddenly find themselves
taking an inordinate amount of time as your large attachment makes downloading
one message take awhile.

Fred

"BuckerooBanzai" <nospam5934@hellsouth.org> wrote

> Please do not post binary attachments to our text newsgroups.

Thanks for the good info, Brother Bonzai. Yes, it's a pain when people post
files to non-binary newsgroups. Although I had not planned to post it here,
your fine advice is welcome.

Fred