GMC Safari/Chevy Astro

foundonroaddea · January 2002

We are very interested in this van. Now that I am doing more research, I realize the big difference is that it is NOT AWD. How seriously should I take that as a problem. I have driven front wheel drive vehicles for a long time. This van is big. I will have precious cargo and in the random weather of Michigan, I am a little nervous. What do you think, still a good bargin?

coonhound · January 2002

Check and see if the van has limited slip or positrac differential. If it does there should not be any concern. I have had a 2wd Astro since 94 and have not found a snow problem. But we only get about two or three snow and or ice storms per winter. I don't have limited slip axle.

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.

Karen_S · January 2002

....but I'm here to announce the new Chevrolet Vans Owners club now available on Edmunds.com Owner's Club board. Please stop by and introduce yourself in Meet the Members and let me know how I can help build your club.

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

topsea · January 2002

My Astro's have all been AWD and this 2001 has limited-slip also. I climb a lot of passes here in the NW in the winter. If you are pretty much on the flat and you keep a little weight in the rear of the 2wd I think you would be OK. Our company has had 2wd ones here in Seattle and the few snows and slick streets haven't stopped them. I'd say my biggest beef about Astros is their lack of good headlights. This time of year I drive a lot of miles in the dark and my Astros just don't have very good "eyes in the dark". I can say that all the Chrysler vans that I've driven, have had even worse headlights. OK, maybe that I passed the 50 year mark a while back has something to do with it.

jlflemmons · January 2002

Topsea,
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

topsea · January 2002

I should have said that a lot, probably most, of my night driving is interstate and I seldom get a chance to use high beams. All 3 of my last Astros the '96, '98 and now the '01 suffer from "lack of light". It was especially brought out a few nights ago when I had a colleague ride with me on a 520 mile trip and he brought up the matter of lack of light. I've even paid good money to have them aimed and that didn't help after having that done. Because of this limitation, I clean the lens at night a lot, especially in winter and in the slush. Too bad there isn't an easy aftermarket fix that works with low beams.

boxtrooper · January 2002

Headlight adjustment makes all the difference. If you are lighting up the road right in front of the vehicle you will feel like the headlights are way too dim. Often headlights get adjusted using some generic template, park here, point there. These generic templates are for low down cars. I have an Isuzu Trooper which had awsome lights, but after an accident repair the body shop adjusted the lights using a template, then the same Trooper lights were awefully dark looking. So I adjusted them up to light where the light is needed and they are bright again. I adjust by parking on a deserted straight level road at night and adjust the lights up till they look bright again. I am careful that the road in front of the Trooper is still lighted somewhat and that the light will not blind oncoming traffic. Repeat with both high and low beams to find a good compromise.
I tried aftermarket halogen bulbs once but they make far less difference than a good headlight adjustment.

topsea · January 2002

Our Astro drivers agree.........the Astro's headlights are better than the Dodge and Plymouth vans that we've had in the past but not by much. I'm the only one who has paid to have them aimed.(At the local Chevrolet dealer) Mine are OK on high beams but I can't even find where the low beam is going. The low beam is not going to either side, not close and certainly not far. So bring your torx screwdrivers and come fix 5 Astros with mediocre low beams. Or maybe you can suggest someplace that will get all the lumens possible and aimed correctly too. As you are aware, these Astros have the high and low in one plastic unit, so when you adjust lows you also adjust highs. If we just drove around in the city at night it wouldn't be much of an issue. But out on the open road 5 days a week(750-1000 miles in that week)it becomes a safety issue. Maybe the best answer is to just drive with the high beams on 100 percent of the time.

I really like my Astro but I think the headlights are at best mediocre.

carleton1 · January 2002

We used the fog lights on our 91 Astro CL when the low beam seemed inadequate. We always felt our 91 Astro had adequate lighting.
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.

topsea · January 2002

Thanks Carleton1.....These new Astros aren't easy to mount afer market fog or driving lights. Lots of plastic and a poor location under the bumper. I only keep my vans about 2 years so it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a custom installation done. It's one of the reasons that I have a Garmin Street Pilot GPS and a Sony XM radio set-up. It's all portable and I can take it with me to another vehicle. I guess I'm just prone to complaining and I know GM doesn't care about the Astro any longer.

maggie27 · February 2002

My Safari has a severe jerk when I ease up on the gas peddle while traveling 60-65 miles per hour. Also, when I stop and put the can in "Park" in runs very rough and acts like it will conk out. My dealer said the computer shows nothing wrong. I do not believe it. Any advice will be appreciated/ \Maggie

coonhound · February 2002

Maggie; you asked for any advice, so here it is.
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.

pbroekers · February 2002

We just purchased a 95 Astro Van (actually a Cowboy Conversion). Paid $4400 drive out. Has 137,000. Absolutely beautiful van; drives well. I would be interested in knowing what kind of mileage to expect....I don't have high hopes. Also, any pertinent praises or problems would be welcomed. Thanks

coonhound · February 2002

pbroekers, sounds like you done good. I don't remember when the engine HP was changed from 165 HP to 190. i.e. about a 2 mpg reduction in fuel mileage. I believe it was 1996 models that were changed to sequential port injection i.e vortec with more HP but less MPG and most say a few more problems.

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

pbroekers · February 2002

I appreciate the information. I suspect this is the 190. And it is the extended version. Edmunds review says 16mpg in town/21hwy. I hope for at least this much. We'll see. Thanks again.

jlflemmons · February 2002

The 160HP is throttle body injection and uses a conventional air cleaner. The CPI engine has the air filter housing mounted on the radiator shroud.

Both are good engines.

rwig · February 2002

Been reading these posts for a long time. It is difficult not to conclude the following:

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.

coonhound · February 2002

It appears to be true that the pre 96 with the 165 HP throttle body injection was somewhat more reliable. I drove the 94 Co. van, later bought it, 80,000 miles with no defects. I bought the 97 program Astro with 26,000 miles and only have 41,000 on it at this time. I did have one injector replaced just after obtaining the vehicle. And I just put brake pads and bands on recently.

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.

carleton1 · February 2002

Keep in mind that people with problems are far more vocal than those who have zero problems.
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.

jlflemmons · February 2002

It is Central Port fuel injection. Big difference. And one of the big problems with CPI is that it does not like premium fuel. The "oxygenated" can also cause problems, but more driveability issues than the complete failure of the system. I went through five injection systems in two vans in less than 11K miles before a knowlegeable service manager told me to forget about using premium when towing (per the manual in '94) He said run the cheapest grade available and you won't have anymore problems. That was 57K miles ago and so far he has been right on the money.

coonhound · February 2002

I could be wrong dial 1-800-*&@)-)%^. back in 94 GM sold the optional CPI injection engine for a nominal $1100.00 to $1200.00 for the increased HP. But in 1996 or possibly 1995, they did the re design. Different heads, pan, transmission, leaf rear springs etc. and I believe went to the sequential port injection. I never did understand the CPI designation for the higher cost increased HP engine. Was it central port injection? I don't know as my Co. wouldn't get me one. Did the CPI engine have port injection?

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.

jlflemmons · February 2002

CPI was the optional engine in '94. It uses a single injector solenoid with six poppet style injectors. The "VorTec" designation was actually applied to the head redesign that gave a better swirl to the incoming air charge. The CPI 4.3 was available in the '92 Jimmy/Blazer as an optional engine with 200HP. Believe me, the 2Dr Jimmy we owned would absolutely SCREAM. Scary to have something that fast with such a short wheelbase and high center of gravity.

I will double check, but I think the 4.3 in the current Astro/Safari is still a CPI engine.

Jim

jlflemmons · February 2002

The engine listed for the '02 Astro/Safari is an LU3, 4.3L SFI. The CPI engine was an L35, 190HP@4400RPM, 260FtLbs@3400.

Of interesting note, in the 1500 Sierra the 4.3L is listed as an L35, but with SFI.

No wonder I get confused...

Jim

drolds2 · February 2002

Hello Everybody, I was wondering if anyone else has had problems like I have encountered, at any given time my volt meter will start jumping up and down affecting everything from the headlights to interior lights to the blower motor.....everything!! I have had the truck to GM service and they were unable to find the problem, the damp weather also seems to bring on the problems more often. I have not been very happy with this purchase and so far they have had to repair my front windshield that was leaking badly, the u.-joints are loud, and sometimes going from reverse into drive the trans will slam into gear......I own a cleaning service and the van is just the right size and this was also my first GM truck after owning 4 Ford full size vans that for the most part did not give me any troubles:-( I hope someone can point me in the right direction or know of the problem and its "fix"....thank you!!

jlflemmons · February 2002

The electrical problem you describe will most likely turn out to be a) bad ground on the charging circuit, b) bad battery (shorting cells), or c) a bad alternator. I generally don't make such sweeping claims without looking at a vehicle, but when an electrical problem manifests itself on the whole vehicle at once, you should first check elements of the main power buss. Delco OEM batteries are notorious for cell failure. Don't ask me why, they just are. Alternators are the same way, both were replaced in my Safari at less than 36K miles. The replacements have been trouble free. On an Astro/Safari (unless the '01 is different) there is a common grounding point on the body crossmember forward and to the inside from the battery. If that connection is not REALLY clean and tight, you can get all sorts of problems.

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

btorlv · February 2002

At light acclartion a get a slight rayyle noise from the front of the van. I have had the complete exaust system changed twice and all belts and pulleys. g.m.states that it is the balance shaft noise that is normal and there is a tech letter to support that. Any ideas?

mwcox · February 2002

I am thinking about purchasing a camper and putting a hitch on the ole Astro. I will be towing right at the limit. Any input/suggestions regarding this would be appreciated! BTW, 58k miles with no problems, great vehcile.

coonhound · February 2002

I have a 97 2WD Astro for towing a 30 ft. Award travel trailer. I installed Monroe load levelers on the rear and KYB Mono Max on the front. Installed TOYO 800 ultra tires that are rated at 44 psig instead of 35 psig maximum. The TOYO tires have a 100,000 mile tread wear warranty. The hitch is an ACAR from Sam's Club. The hitch is rated at 5000 lbs. or 7000 lbs. with equalizer bars. I have equalizer hitch and sway bar. I have changed the differential lube to Mobil 1 synthetic 75W/90. The transmission fluid was changed to Quaker State Semi Synthetic. I use Mobile 1 10/30 in the engine.
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.

ahelm · February 2002

Coonhound, I see you also are using the ACAR hitch from Sam's. I'm disappointed that it only bolts to the bumper mount anchors on the extention, which is attached to the rest of the frame with what appears to be a sparce number of spotwelds. Many other manufacturers of hitches for Astro also use the still present bumper mount anchors on the pre-extended frame. I have heard somewhere of some unspecified rewelding/repair for a hitch pulling loose. Just wondering if this would be the cause. I would not buy this hitch knowing what I know now. I am debating on how to reinforce or replace.
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

coonhound · February 2002

Andy; I just took another look at the Astro extension. I think for the spot welded on extension to fail the whole rear of the van would come off. The rear spring shackle outboard support frame is wrapped around and bolted to the extension. The extension cross member is folded over and spot welded to the van floor all the way across. It is a rather homogeneous extension that appears to be very secure. The small bolts for the ACAR hitch are hopefully grade 8. I checked the tightness twice on the first trip and they turned slightly, but afterwards they have stayed tight.

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???????

jlflemmons · February 2002

I went through 4 CPI systems in less than 3000 miles. GM took the van back, and after losing another CPI in the new van the first time I ran premium fuel, I was told to stick to the cheap stuff. that was nearly 65K miles ago and I have not had another problem.

Jim

coonhound · February 2002

Sounds like a winner to me. I have never been a premium fuel advocate and shy away from vehicles that require premium. The fuel suppliers are becoming tricky in States that allow it. Here in Oklahoma it is 87 and then 89 octane. A lot of States will have 86 and then 89 octane. That always leaves me in a quandary as the owners manual of almost all vehicles specify 87 octane fuel. I have not noticed a problem with the 86 octane, but towing in mountaineous country I have been known to mix in some 89 octane occasionally.

jlflemmons · February 2002

The thing was that in the '94 and '95 owners manuals the owner was instructed to use premium when towing. If you did, chances were good you wouldn't get where you were going and back without burning up the CPI. I like cheap regular. Cheap is good.

boxtrooper · February 2002

Hello,
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

coonhound · February 2002

I have been wondering why the federal fuel mileage rating is down by 1 mpg. I thought it may be due to weight increase. I don't have a clue as to your question, but I am going to check into it. The tow rating was reduced by 100 lbs. is why I thought the van got fatter.

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.

carleton1 · February 2002

And it ran very well at this higher altitude of about 4300 feet. Regular in the Rocky Mountain States is 85 octane. We would put 92 octane in the first tank when going to California and then 87 to keep the octane at 87. Overall average in 7 and 1/2 years was 20.7 MPG for our 91 Astro CL.

topsea · February 2002

That stirs up memories. What were those old fuels anyway? I used a "couple" of gallons of purple which was 115/145 and green was 100/130 I believe. Then red was...I can't remember now and there was an even lower octane I believe. Wow, I loved those high octane fuels. All gone now..........

coonhound · February 2002

All I remember is the regular was red, I don't remember if this was 80 or 87 octane. There was not enough demand so the oil Companies started dropping it, and brought out the 100 LL which still had four times too much lead. There was an additive that could be added to get the lead out, and it did help. It was called TCP, and you know what we called it. But it is really tri creasyl phosphate. Spelling????? People used to come to the airport and buy the blue or green believing that they would get this increased performance from their performance vehicle. Maybe, but I doubt it. It certainly did not help my lowly 115 HP Lycoming. I spent 6 yrs. in Marine Corps air wing, including reserve time, and should know all about fuels, but I forgot.

Now I'm only going to burn that drip gas or whatever it's called in the Astro.

topsea · February 2002

....had to be doing about the same thing at the same time. 7 yrs flying gray Navy aircraft, then several behind a 225 Continental when "we" decided we didn't need high octane fuel any longer. Yes, I remember those products that were supposed to boost the octane.

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.

triumpher · March 2002

A fellow motorist who did not know how wide his vehicle was damaged my right side mirror (1998 Safari Van) in a parking lot, and the nice person left without notice.

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

creid · March 2002

I was reading my 2002 auto issue of Consumer Reports & it stated that 2002 will be the last year for the Astro/Safari line. Has anyone else heard this before or has Consumer Reports misreported? Worries me a little due to the value will drop even more & mine is only a 2001.

jlflemmons · March 2002

My '95 Safari was factory ordered with the Canadian DRL option. The DRL's have stopped working and I cannot find the module. Since I live in Texas and the DRL's were not included in the typical USA build, I am having a problem finding a tech who knows where it is. I think it is near the steering column under the dash, but so far I have found the headlamp, horn, fuel pump, and body module, but no DRL. Any ideas?

Jim

coonhound · March 2002

It didn't take me a long time to find the DRL fuse to turn those obnoxious things off on the Astro. I have not been so lucky in finding out how to disable the Alero DRLs and auto on and off. I'll tackle that project one of these days.

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.

jlflemmons · March 2002

Contacted the dealer and they want $50 for a circuit board that costs maybe $5 to make. I know, as I am in the business. I had figured maybe $25, but for $50 the van just no longer has DRL. BTW, the module is located in the plenum behind the headlight switch.

coonhound · March 2002

Good deal! now you won't be shining those lights in peoples eye's that drive small low profile vehicles. And you will get slightly better fuel mileage and save some fossil fuel.

I am glad to know where to look for the thing as it may help me find the module in the Alero.

wooby2000 · March 2002

Just traded in a 96 Astro on a 2002 Astro. I went the local show and checked out every new Mini Van on the market only to find that the Astro has its place. All the ther vans had good points but.....the Astro size,comfort and drivetrain make it perfect for me. My 96 had a couple maintenance items like power window motors and water pump that I felt failed prematurely but overall I put 88000 miles on it and was pleased. I live in the NE and with good snow tires the 2WD is fine in the winter. So even if they quite making them I am good for the next 6 years.

coonhound · March 2002

As the owner of a 97 Astro I'm glad to hear that there are others that like the van as much as I do.

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.

747jockey · March 2002

Hello,

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

coonhound · March 2002

The report of leaky valve guide seals on the 4.3 being a problem is going to shock a lot of Astro owners as it did me. I have never seen this as a problem before on the GM V series engines.

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.

747jockey · March 2002

I suspect when the warrantee work was done they did not properly install the head gaskets. The dealer did not want to take any responsibility since it happened 60,000 miles later.

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

GMC Safari/Chevy Astro

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles