Am I better to try and find a newer - higher mileage Astro Safari (2004 with 180k), or an older - lower mileage example (1993 - 110k)? I don't want AWD, not planning any swaps.
I've also been looking for a I6 E150. Would that motor be anymore reliable that the Astro Safari? It was last produced in 1995.
Would it be worth it to spend $1,500 more and get a high mileage LS-based V8 GM van or GMT800?
96+ Astro vans are a lot better than the flatnose and the first year of the redesign. An 04 is no different than a 96.
Most of my issues with the Astro/Safari are design things that NEVER changed.
The 300ci ford 6 is reliable mostly because of the over-supported bottom end and gear-driven cam. It's no less susceptible to top-end issues then anything else, and that's the kind of thing that you're more likely to deal with anyway (misfires, leaks, etc). Although it doesn't have the plastic injector tubes or leaking internal fuel pressure regulator of the 4.3, but that's more the 4.3 being weird than the 300ci ford being great.
I think a bigger reliability advantage for the ford over the chevy would be the transmission although if the chevy has been rebuilt with upgraded stuff already it's probably fine.
actually the 03-05 got better brakes. the downfall is 6 lug wheels so you can't put impala ss 17's on them, nor can you run 15's and get cheapo tires. they got more piston calipers in front and the same rear discs as the half ton trucks in back.
other than that, they're all the same 96 and up. i've put lots of hard work miles on them and enjoy them for work vehicles, but now that i have kids to cart around i have an express 1500 that can fit 8 foot sheets behind the 2nd row, where my astros could fit 8 behind the fronts, only up to the top of the seat brackets. i had a $300 95 that i got from a guy on here that needed a fuel pump and brake lines. i took it from 168k to 190k then drove it in for scrap for more than i paid when it started looking too bad for work. then i had an $800 98 that got more miles put on. my mom has an 05(last year) with 19xk on it.
In reply to patgizz:
I forgot about the bigger brakes. Didn't the Blazers also get that upgrade?
Is the trans in the 2001+ Suburban any more reliable at higher mileage than the Astro/Safari or Savana/Express?
In reply to PHeller:
Isn't that the 4L60E? If so, avoid.
do not avoid, that's internet bullE36 M3.
the half ton burb, astro, express all use the same trans.
In reply to patgizz:
I'd avoid any with questionable maintenance histories. You need to change the fluid every so often, IIRC.
Yeah. the 4L60e isn't that bad.
As for Astros, I like the older ones, but that's me. All GMs received horrible dash updates in the mid 90s that generally don't hold up well. My friend had an old 92 or 93 that was fully decked out by one of the conversion van companies. It was quite the looker, by Astro standards anyway. I especially liked the digital gauges.
Top tip: don't walk on the roof of one. Turns out, they aren't made to support people. 
Is there a way at test drive to determine the condition of the 4L60e?
In reply to PHeller:
Slow to 5 MPH, then put your foot in it. If you have grip and the revs climb but the car can't move out of it's own way, you have a slipping trans. Most 4L60Es are fine under normal use, but I'd still change the trans fluid just in case.
smell fluid. if it's burned do not buy without budgeting trans rebuild. if it is brand new fluid ride it hard on the test drive.
You'll need to log in to post.
