Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
General motors is tooling up to return to rwd on several models. There is a clamor from the performance oriented consumers for rwd.
Rwd vehicle is easier and cheaper to maintain than a fwd or 4wd. I am always replacing CV joint boots on family cars. Especially in the winter time. I attribute this to slush getting on the boots and freezing then ripping the boot apart.
And I don't remember Michigan being very hilly to require a lot of traction. All I remember are those crazy left turns where you go down a block or two and make a couple of turns instead of one. Specifically Holland, Mi.
Just opinions.
The Safari/Astro is one tough truck.
I have linked this discussion into that folder, but it will always reside here in Vans.
Looking forward to meeting everyone!
KarenS
Host
Owner's Clubs
I'm not sure why your vans would have a headlight problem. My '95 with the composite halogens are some of the best headlights I have ever seen. The highbeams will absolutely turn a lot of dark into daylight.
Jim
I tried aftermarket halogen bulbs once but they make far less difference than a good headlight adjustment.
I really like my Astro but I think the headlights are at best mediocre.
DaimlerChrysler minivan headlights were not adequate UNTIL 2001 when they were greatly improved. Our 2002 T&C eL has VERY nice headlights on either high or low beam. They appear to be twice as bright as the ones on our 99 GC SE were.
I would put about 1 1/2 cans of Chevron Techron in the fule tank and run it until almost empty before re fueling. Or spending additional money at the dealer unless it is still under warranty. That's a different story and I would be camped at the dealer with a rough idle.
The vortec sequential port fuel injection is great, but the general tried to improve the profit when doing the fuel injectors. They don't like re formulated fuel, or premium fuels. California vehicles, injectors, are particularly attacked by the fuel gremlin.
The conversion van's many times came with the 3.23 differential and due to the conversion, even another MPG. I remember 23 mpg highway rating and 18 city. Today they are rated 15 and 20 MPG.
So in 94 23 to 24 MPG for a 2wd Astro was common highway mileage, and if the HP increase as 96 as I believe, then you should expect this mileage.
The 4.3 is a 350 cid engine minus 2 cylinders i.e. the most produced basic engine in the world and is almost bullet proof. 200,000 miles is not uncommon and there are some on this site reporting 700,000 miles. As a matter of fact I have heard that a 350 engine can be retrofitted to fit these vans.
You didn't mention if you have the short or stretch version. With the vortec change they are all stretch. GM just welded on 9 or 10 inches so as to haul a 4X8 sheet of plywood or plaster board by removing the back breaking seats.
I have a 97 2wd with a 3.72 differential. I normally get 20 to 21 mpg highway mileage. On a 94 Co. driver with 3.23 gears 23 plus mpg was not uncommon. You could possibly have the 3.42 or more common rear end ratio.
If you want a little more zip, smoother idle, and better fuel mileage. Install AC rapid fire plugs. The down side is they only last about 10,000 miles. But they are expensive and do what GM says.
Suggest you change the transmission and differential fluids if maintenance records don't reflect this being done within the past 30,000 miles.
Happy trails and enjoy
Both are good engines.
1. Pick any make or model and every year thousands of people buy a new one and have nothing but trouble since the day they drive it off the lot.
2. Astro/Safari's seem to generate more complaints than other vans, at least on this forum
3. Pre- 1996 Astro/Safari's seem to have been much more reliable.
4. In spite of this the Astro/Safari fits my needs and wants.
Wondering if I should just ignore all the research and buy new with extended warranty OR buy pre 1996 cheap (there are plenty available) and just fix whatever breaks down and figure it probably won't be in the shop any more often than a new one?
This begs the more important question: How much $$'s could I really wind up putting into a used van to make it reliable for travelling all over the state?
Used is appealing since I could pay cash, save on insurance, not worry about it getting dinged in the parking lot, and would be less likely to be stolen.
Sorry to be so verbose.
The sequential multiport fuel injectors do not like California fuel, in particular. And they do not like premium fuel.
It is true that there are some bargains out there in the Safari or Astro van's I have seen 97 models in the paper for $5995.00. They may be high mileage and a piece of trash, that I don't know.
The 165 throttle body will get about 2 more MPG than the 190 HP sequential port fuel injected vortec engine.
I like the leaf rear springs vs the fiberglass that was on the pre 96 models. The newer models have slightly more leg room, but still cramped. The interior and overall feel of the 97 vs the 94 is really improved. Maybe it is just the design with close radio control and bold dash.
And if you need to pull a boat or trailer the extra HP is good to have. They are rated 4500, 5000, and 5500 lbs. tow depending on the differential ratio. 3.23, 3.42, or 3.72.
The fuel mileage rating is even less on the 2002, being 15 and 20. I believe it was 17 and 21 in 97. Anyway that is about what mine runs. The 94 would get 23 on highway trips.
The truck is like a rock, professional grade. I like my truck.
We got a NEW 1991 Astro CL (regular length)and loved it except for digital instrumentation that worked intermittently after a few years of ownership. In Dec 1990, we noticed the first mechanical problem: coolant leak. It cost $335 labor to replace the $15.50 manifold gasket.
The windshield wiper motor went out enroute to get the coolant leak fixed. I was outraged at the price of that little cheap motor made in Mexico (where GM pays very low labor wages) and the labor to replace it. I was also furious at the $32 labor charge to change an air filter.
Because of these items, we got a new 1999 GC SE on March 20,1999.
However, the Astro has many features I prefer over any other minivan: Most interior volume in least length. Large 27 gal fuel tank. MOST Torque of any minivan engine. Convenient panel doors at the rear. High seating with unequaled visibility. RUGGED truck construction.
Our 91 Astro was EPA rated 17 and 21. We had overall average of 20.7 MPG on our Astro for 7 and 1/2 years and would get 23 to 24 MPG on many 1380 mile round trips to Disneyland.
Looking back, our maintenance costs on the Astro were VERY low with only the manifold gasket and windshield wiper motor in 7 and 1/2 years. Our daughter purchased a used 1991 Astro RS XTD last fall and it has 189,000 miles on it now. My friend drove Astro vans for an airport shuttle service and told me one had 700,000 miles on the odometer and another one had 650,000 miles. He says those Vortec 4.3L V6 will run forever.
I remember something about the 94 owners manual recommended a premium fuel for the CPI engine under loaded or towing conditions. The premium was not recommend for the base TBI 165 HP engine. The 97 manual does not recommend a premium fuel. A 87 octane is recommended. The problem is that today in some states the base fuel is 86 octane and sort of leaves me wondering. So I will sometimes blend in a little premium although I have never had a problem even using the 86 octane. 87 octane is the base fuel in our state, not the oil Co. rip off 86 octane.
Personally, I don't think that the CPI and the later designed vortec engine are the same. I have thought about this and had some question about it however. The newer vortec engine supposedly has the freer flowing intake manifold, heads, and an aluminum pan. Computer controlled transmission etc.
And there have been continuing mods. on the transmission. But an additional transmission cooler is not a part of a trailer tow package on my 97, nor does GM offer one. The HD cooling is supposedly built in as standard. But tow is recommended in OD to keep the torque converter slip, as running in 3rd, from overheating the tranny.
I will double check, but I think the 4.3 in the current Astro/Safari is still a CPI engine.
Jim
Of interesting note, in the 1500 Sierra the 4.3L is listed as an L35, but with SFI.
No wonder I get confused...
Jim
bottom line: find a dealer who understand vehicle electrics. Oh, there is a re-flash program for the transmission. I don't have the TSB number handy, but it has been mentioned in the Sierra and Silverado topics. The Astro/Safari uses the same tranny as the 1/2 ton pickups. Don't get discouraged. There are a lot of Astro/Safari owners out here who have had wonderful service from these vans.
Jim
The Award was built for towability and probably weighs in at 4500 lbs. or so. It is Canadian built European design for easy tow with less than a Ford powerstroke Diesel.
I get 14+ mpg running at a nominal 60 to 65 mph in tow mode.
Runs fine and tows well. I wasted $50.00 on a K&N air filter just makes more intake noise. Want to buy a Granatelli mass air flow sensor at $220.00. But I really want someone else to be the Guinea pig and report if it does all that is claimed for it.
As to wiring for trailer brake controler. The harness in rear was very convienent. But where do you find the harness for the brake controler under the dash? Just got a factory Service manual for my 2000 Astro. It doesn't offer any help!Thanks- Andy
I had the Draw Tite brake controller installed at point of purchase along with the trailer wiring harness. The power is picked up from the fuse box under the hood and wiring ran through a small drilled hole in the cowl. The brake solenoid wires then are threaded along the frame to the rear connector.
Jim; Could there have been a change in the transmission in 96 as far as cooling is concerned. I think 96 was the medium make over, or was it 95? The change to all EXT, leaf rear springs, 165 to 190 HP, throttle body to sequential port injection, electronically controlled transmission, different cyl. heads, aluminum pan on engine and transmission, and console where you can reach the radio controls. Slightly more leg room, very slight???????
Jim
I am a lurker here and I might be a future Safari owner. GM changed the fuel injection for 2002. Do any of you know if the 2002 fuel injection system can be destroyed by using higher octane fuel?
Thank You
boxtrooper
Why would you want to run premium fuel if you didn't need to. I have bad memories of when Av gas was changed from the lower octane to only 100 octane low lead being the available substitute. But there was still so much lead that the bottom plugs would foul out with big gobs of lead deposits. The solution was to finally get an STC (supplemental type certificate) to use automotive unleaded regular fuel. I heard that some people would carry unleaded auto fuel to the airport and blend it in prior to having an STC. After all some people do think of their own life regardless of federal dictates.
I hate premium fuel.
Now I'm only going to burn that drip gas or whatever it's called in the Astro.
Isn't it a much simplier world now with just 87-93 or so octane? I see our Astro's are not on the approved list to burn the farm derived fuels.
Is there any electric after market mirror (glass and plastic enclosure)that I can buy without having to take out a mortgage to buy an original GM one?
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Any help is appreciated
Jim
creid, I was visiting my local dealer and a salesman said that the Astro is being discontinued. The ROV craze has reduced the sales volume to a very low level.
It is interesting that for 2002 model the injector setup was changed. I believe that this time it has an injector at each intake instead of the poppets and central port, later referred to as sequential port. I think it went CPI, SEFI, and now MPI for 2002, and the federal sticker fuel mileage went down by a mile or two per gal.
I am glad to know where to look for the thing as it may help me find the module in the Alero.
And I do understand that you got the last of the Astro/Safari as this is reportedly the last year of production.
But the 1500 full size van is only about 29" longer and the wheelbase is 24" longer than the Astro. The 2003 full size vans are a complete new design. The 1500 will have rack and pinion steering, Bilstien shocks, base engine is a 200 HP version of the 4.3. And the list goes on and on. But It may not fit in the average garage as the Astro does with one mirror folded.
Even will have four wheel drive full size vans. But I'm not into four wheel drive.
Anyway, I'm glad to see a commitment to real vans albeit a little on the large size. I hear that Chrysler is discontinuing the large van line. And ford is not an option that I would like.
I keep looking at the 2001/2002 slightly used Astros and want one, but then I have mine equipped for tow the way I want it. And I go wax it and I'm happy.
Good luck and happy trails with your new van.
I am an owner of a 95 GMC Safari with all wheel drive. We have been very lucky with our van. In its 86,000 mile life span we have only had 1 problem. When the van was about 2 years old with 25,000 miles it started to burn oil at start up. The problem was caused by leaky valve seals common on the 4.3L's from that time period. Other then shifting a little harder now then it used to the van runs great.
Last week I noticed the temperature gauge was going up and down alot. It never went into the red but got pretty close a few times. When I inspected the coolant it was really low. When I filled it with coolant the problem was a little better but I could smell coolant after the engine was warmed up. I suspected it might be a thermostat or a leaky water pump. I took it to the dealer and was shocked when they told me it was the head gasket. They said it failed during a pressure test and coolant was coming out of the spark plug holes. Total cost for the job is $1,100. Before I took it in I inspected the oil and it was clean. I also did not see any residue on the oil cap. When driving no clouds of white smoke were coming out of the exhaust pipes. All the symptoms for a blown head gasket were not present.
Anyone heard of the 4.3L engine blowing head gaskets? The dealer was a little shocked about it as was I. So far I have not authorized the repair. Should I take it for a second opinion?
Chris
Having the dealer replace the seals, they probably pulled the heads and did not get them installed with the greatest of care. But they could have used air pressure to hold the valves seated and replaced the seals without removing the heads.
Both of the problems you describe are characsteristic of engine over heating.
The 4.3 and 3.8 are supposedly bullet proof with long service life and rarely have a problem.
Is GM still having a problem with leaky valve seals on the 4.3L? I know it was a big problem on all GM V engines in the mid 90's but not sure if it is still happening. It would be sad if it is still happening. I think it is stuff like this that really give the American car companies a bad rap. They don't seem to fix design defects quick enough and sometimes never.
A good example of this is the Ford Windstar/Taurus. They have been using the same transmission and 3.8L engines for 15 years. The 3.8L blows head gaskets and the transmissions used in these vehicle still fails around 50,000 miles because of a minor design defect.
Chris