If you guys were to buy a full size conversion van in the semi-preferably pre-96 and sub $3500 range (there's a LOT of em on CL up here) mostly for road trips, towing, track weekends etc, which of the big 3's would you choose and why?
i'm wondering about stuff like common problems, mileage consideration, general E36 M3tyness that im unfamiliar with, transmission issues, etc. the only van experience i have is riding in a friend's g20 with an awesome sounding 3" side exit exhaust.
I think any of them in the first half of the 90's are fine. Each one needs to be appraised on an individual basis for rust, previous maintainance, current condition......The Vortec Chevs have well documented intake manifold gasket leaks, the Fords with 5.4's will eject spark plugs (and threads) on occasion, and they didn't sell a lot of Dodges, which have been known to need an ECU or two.
Find the best one you can, for the least money, and go nuts. If you are towing a bunch, remember wind can be your enemy- put a trans temp gauge on it, and set your cruising speed based off that. If the trans ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.
I'm partial to Ford, but that is more out of familiarity than any concrete reason. All have their drive-train fans.
For that age and price range, condition and maintenance records are more important than the particular brand.
Having driven all three, I would go for the Ford. They seem to hold up better. Having said that, the Chevy with a 5.7L will probably tow better than a Ford with a 5.4L. I've got 5 Fords, 4-E150s and an E250. 3 with 4.2L V6s, 1 with a 5.0L and 1 with a 5.4L. All but the 5.4L are over 200K, 2 of them are over 300K. The 5.4 is in the conversion van. It tows a 20' enclosed trailer to autocrosses. It does OK. At 60 it gets about 9.5mpg. Push it over that and I have seen under 7mpg. Towing a flat trailer it gets about 11mpg @ 70. By itself it gets around 14.
Probably the most important thing, DON"T buy a conversion van. Don't buy a high top van. Everything not made by Ford in mine is falling apart. The conversion seats are crap, the paint on the top and running boards is peeling and fading. The upholstery gets dirty very easily. The high top vans drive like a sail boat on a windy day. My next one will be a regular van without all the conversion crap on it.
Another thing about the Ford Triton engines. They eat coils. I seem to average replacing about one a year.
Ford's Twin I Beam suspension is a joke. It eats tires like crazy if there's any weight in the rear (like tongue weight from a trailer). GM and Dodge have short/long arm front suspension which is worlds better. Having said that, they have their issues: the Vortec's appetite for intake gaskets and injection 'spiders' and the Chrysler's weak OD tranny and front suspension parts made from sugar wafers. I personally lean toward the GM versions.
Toyman01 wrote: Probably the most important thing, DON"T buy a conversion van. Don't buy a high top van. Everything not made by Ford in mine is falling apart. The conversion seats are crap, the paint on the top and running boards is peeling and fading. The upholstery gets dirty very easily. The high top vans drive like a sail boat on a windy day. My next one will be a regular van without all the conversion crap on it.
I suppose I can disagree with that, but I actually prefer conversion vans. Especially raised roof versions. Granted, my plan is to basically gut the interior conversion bits, leaving me with a van with additional interior height.
pre 96 i'd definitely go for a chevy with the TBI 350 - the engine is bulletproof. if you go for a 90-93 it has the best incarnation of the 700r4 transmission before going electronic and i've logged over 200k miles on several of them doing hard work and towing.
All early 90s Ford vans are pushrod 5.0 or 5.8 engines, the Modular engines started in the vans later.
Jensenman wrote: Ford's Twin I Beam suspension is a joke. It eats tires like crazy if there's any weight in the rear (like tongue weight from a trailer). GM and Dodge have short/long arm front suspension which is worlds better. Having said that, they have their issues: the Vortec's appetite for intake gaskets and injection 'spiders' and the Chrysler's weak OD tranny and front suspension parts made from sugar wafers. I personally lean toward the GM versions.
Hmm, my E150 has towed about 30K in the past 18 months and I have had no issues with tire wear, coming up on 200K, runs like a top, has been to the Mitty (towing) the 24 twice and has collected most of my collection.
It is my one and only tow vehicle, is a factory Ford Chateau, wife loves it for it family use, it has even done a few courier jobs for me.
I get 17mpg with the 351 and 15 with my bulky wedge trailer and a car on top.
Mechanical faults have been, one fuel pump and one alternator.
Only down side, rust, if it has side steps, be very aware of the rust.
This was last weekend with a 5500lb Range Rover on a 2800lb trailer, towed 150 miles without a problem
Jensenman wrote: Ford's Twin I Beam suspension is a joke. It eats tires like crazy if there's any weight in the rear (like tongue weight from a trailer).
14 years, 100,000 miles and I just started on my second set of tires last year.
When is this going to happen to me?
BTW, I have a slide-in camper that I use with the truck and I pull a car trailer from time to time.
I like my truck. Vans were created to punish mechanics.
Shawn
FWIW, the Ford van was available with the infamous Powerstroke diesel giving plenty of towing capacity and pretty good mileage to boot.
Finding one in your price range will be harder, although the E250/350's seem to be cheaper than the trucks.
-Rob
I have a 01 2500 Ram Wagon Dodge up here in MA(I bought it a few years ago on CL in Tyngsboro). I don't drive it much,but it has been mostly bulletproof. The only issues I have had are front wheel bearings(known problem going in),a clunk in the front suspension which is probably ball joint related,but I have done nothing about it yet,fan speed resistors that blow out oh maybe every 6 moths or so(another known problem),and now It needs a rear o2 sensor.
Other than those problems it starts every time I use it which isn't often(10k miles in 3+ years),and towed our 23' camper trailer,and now our large 14' pop-up no problem. It seats my kids real good with the centre bench seat removed for easier access,and storage space.
I think you can't go wrong with any of those choices,but if I had to do it over I really wanted a GM,or Ford van at the time,but they were hard to find at the time in a passenger van(I hated every conversion van I found) without 10 million miles on them.
I understand the pre-96 thing as well,but I liked the interiors,and such of the later vehicle,and the rule had not changed yet for emissions testing.
Fords illustrious I-beam front end does have it's issues. Alignments are important. As stated earlier, the $40 alignment at the local tire shop done by the kid who started yesterday will eat tires. I have all of my vans done at the Ford dealership. The conversion van is alligned with 3-400# in the back of the van. Fords alignment changes with load. They need to be aligned with the same load they haul including the driver. The 3-400# in mine is to simulate tongue weight. If the guy doing the alignment isn't hanging from the front bumper while reading the machine, he doesn't know what he is doing.
Cheap tires will also go to pieces quickly. My conversion van gets 30-40K out of a set of mid price range tires. The last top of the line set on my work van went a little over 80K.
The I-beam system is a throw back from the dark ages, but when aligned properly works well and is bullet proof. The pot hole on the side of the road isn't going to knock it out of alignment unless it bends something. In the three quarter of a million miles I driven Ford vans, I have never had that happen. I take that back, I did screw up the front end on one when I broadsided a box truck. 
The Twin I Beam's inherent problems can easily be seen by jacking the front up and watching the movement of the tires in the bump steer and camber directions. The early 1970's through mid 1990's were really weird, then there was a redesign about the time they quit with the forged arms and went to the stamped ones which improved things but didn't really fix the basic issues. I went through the front suspension of an Excursion that simply gobbled tires with no load in the rear. I had to set it for 1/2 deg negative at rest (way outside of specs) to get it to work.
Its pluses: cheap and tough. Minuses: super weird geometry outside of a very limited amount of travel, not much adjustability.
Pre 1996 you can also get the 300 I6.
All that will be left after the nuclear holocaust will be cockroaches and running Ford 300 engines.
Shawn
Also worth noting about the 300 inline, it pulls better than the 302W
Jensenman wrote: The Twin I Beam's inherent problems can easily be seen by jacking the front up and watching the movement of the tires in the bump steer and camber directions. The early 1970's through mid 1990's were really weird, then there was a redesign about the time they quit with the forged arms and went to the stamped ones which improved things but didn't really fix the basic issues. I went through the front suspension of an Excursion that simply gobbled tires with no load in the rear. I had to set it for 1/2 deg negative at rest (way outside of specs) to get it to work. Its pluses: cheap and tough. Minuses: super weird geometry outside of a very limited amount of travel, not much adjustability.
Camber curve.. yeeee ha
ignorant wrote:
That's not the twin I-beam, that's the TTB (twin traction beam) front end, which was Ford's half-IFS/half-straight axle. Twin I-beam was used under 2WD trucks, TTBs under 4x4s.
96 and newer GM vans get my vote. Geat ride, good mileage, and lots of foot room. Try one, then look at the others. (again, note foot room)
How long ago did Ford drop the twin I beam ? One thing I noticed on the TIB was the need for very good shocks.
iceracer wrote: How long ago did Ford drop the twin I beam ? One thing I noticed on the TIB was the need for very good shocks.
I believe that went away in the F-150 chassis with the introduction of the 96.5 models, and in the 250/350 with the SuperDuties.
I never felt the TIB was much of an issue with my '90 E150. As far as I could tell, the shocks were probably original. I know I never replaced them in the 8 years I had the van... and judging by the condition of the interior when I bought it, regular maintenance was not a primary consideration of the previous owner.
To the OP would you be interested in buying my 01 Dodge Ram Wagon 2500? I know it is newer than you want,but it is in good shape,and the miles aren't way out of control for its age.
Dad had a couple of these. A 92 GMC hi-top that broke down rear and front springs like it was overloaded..... and after a trip to the scales it WAS overloaded, empty. He later had a 98 regular top. Ran great, had no problems when he traded it in with 160k. THe 92 he sold with 180k. Both were solid runners, and while the 98 was better to drive, I always felt the 92 was a better built beast.
Very old post bump because its a cool thread.
I'm looking at a 97 Ford Conversion with a 5.4L, 88,000 miles and $1500, probably can talk them down to $1250.
Planning on stripping the interior and reducing weight where ever possible. Having a hard time locating just the passenger version with the conversions flooding the market.
That sounds like a good deal for a 1997 Ford, but watch out for the coil packs and spark plugs some 5.4's like to spit out plugs but not all of them make sure the plugs are at the proper torque. I have my eye on a 1997 e250 5.4 that we have at work, when it goes on sale I am tempted to try to buy it to replace my 1986 GMC Rally van.
You'll need to log in to post.
