Talk:Ford Aerostar

"A healthy majority of 1997 Aerostars were purchased by previous Aerostar owners who knew this was their last chance to replace their beloved vehicle with something close."

Is there any substantiation for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.245.178 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2006

I don't think so. It sounds non-NPOV to me, so I'll go ahead and remove it. --ApolloBoy 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I soucred this from dealerships at the time. Most had older Aerostars traded in on the new ones, and low mileage, excelent condition used ones are still popular and often are used to replace older, high mileage ones since people have limited choices if they like their current vehicle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnTaurus (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 July 2006.

Relation to Ranger

I removed this info because the citation was not a reliable source. It came from an online public rating site, and the reviewer couldn't even get the introduction date correct. Actually, I would be inclined to say that the Explorer relation is incorrect as well, as my experience with these vehicles is that they are quite different. --Sable232 00:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I am so sorry that you are perfect and I made a mistake, I dont appreciate the attacks there, if it was a mistake then FIX IT. And who are you to decide its not a credible source. 67.59.10.54 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I intended no attack. epinions.com is a public rating site. Because somebody posted that the two are related doesn't mean it is fact. If this can be backed up, maybe by an early automotive journal review, that's fine. I checked the '86 Motor Trend Car Of The Year article, where the brand-new Aerostar was a contestant, and there was no relation mentioned. --Sable232 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Aerostar is based on the Ranger platform, but it is a unique version which is a welded unibody to a frame, and there for not an exact replica of the Ranger underpinnings. The engines (2.3L, 3.0L, 4.0L), transmissions, and even wheels are shared by these vehicles. -JohnTaurus

self ref to Piper Aerostar

Ninety-nine percent of the people who search the word Aerostar are looking for the car, but a few are looking for the airplane. Instead of inconveniencing almost everybody with a disambiguation page, Aerostar should redirect directly to the car, but have a self-ref at the beginning of the article for airplane people who may not be aware that the Aerostar was manufactured by Piper and my not think to try to look for Piper Aerostar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTrimble (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

status of page

As it stands now, the article likely no longer needs the

tag that has been at the top for over a year (or two?). Admittedly, the article could stand for increased use of sources (although nothing on here is blatantly OR, there are some who want verifiability). There probably are two other issues: length (for some, it may be a bit long, but it is shorter than other articles for comparable vehicles) and format (the type of sections at the end and/or how they are presented) --SteveCof00 (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The layout is still very poor. The "interior details" section could easily be merged elsewhere. The trim levels section is mostly listcruft, and the "legacy" section is unreferenced OR and could probably be merged with other parts of the article. --Sable232 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Support As it is, the bottom section can definitely be merged out. Admittedly, the article suffers from perhaps a little too much detail (it's not necessarily a bad thing, but there needs to be room made for useful infomation, perhaps). The Lincoln Town Car article's section dealing with similar information seems to a better job with it, if anyone is looking for an example on how to condense things related to interior/trim details. --SteveCof00 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

page re-formatted

So far, the article has undergone a major working-over in terms of its format. Several of the weaker sections have been merged into other sections, and I reformatted the "main text" into a more consistent layout (each "generation" now has the same basic set of subsections). I also cut down on the number of images, as 2/3 of the Ford Aerostar Commons category seems to be included in the article (however, an image of a Aerostar cargo van, a rear picture, or a good shot of any of its badging would make for a nice addition). There are currently parts of the article that might be long for some readers, but I'd rather leave them in for potential verification rather than cut out for length (I have cut out some "trivia", though.)--SteveCof00 (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's coming along. I'd suggest integrating the "year-to-year changes" lists into the prose. There's still way too much minute detail with each of the trim levels; Wikipedia is not a buyers guide, we shouldn't have lists of standard equipment there. The Aerostar timeline ought to go, it really doesn't add much to the article for how much space it takes up. --Sable232 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little more editing to cut down on level of detail somewhat. As such, I've really tried to keep it down to what is "unique" to each specific model/variation. It should probably a bit less like a buyers guide now, but I'm split on whether changing the year-by-year changes to entirely prose or not would work out better. --SteveCof00 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Some more changes I've re-written most of the page to the point where the content that is "important" is still there. There's somewhat less minute detail. For the most part, the "overview" and the 1992-1997 lead-in can't be condensed too much further; most of what is there is fairly relevant. As far as the trim/model subsection goes, I have an idea: changing it to "Aerostar Variants" and focusing primarily on the cargo van, the extended-length, the AWD, and possibly the Eddie Bauer version (the latter, since it's unique among Ford vans). Otherwise, the current format with that section may only need a few minor adjustments. The "phaseout/decline" section has been cut down a bit for purpose of relevance and also for ease of eventual verification. It may need some more attention down the road.

For the most part, the

tag is almost ready to be removed. --SteveCof00 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

changes made

As the format changes seem to be mostly complete for the time being, I've changed the cleanup-rewrite tag to an expert needed tag. I've also added a number of citation needed tags to help along the verification process and show what's most needed right now. I'm not sure if I went overboard, but currently, the only reference for the article is for the Motor Trend award. --SteveCof00 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Did discontinuing the "Space Shuttle" ad campaign affect Aerostar sales?

According to The Best of Uncle John's Bathroom Reader (The Bathroom Readers' Institute, 1995, pg. 363), there was a substantial advertising campaign for the Aerostar in which the vehicle was compared to a Space Shuttle; indeed, the Aerostar's resemblance to a Shuttle was a distinguishing feature. After the 1986 explosion and loss of Space Shuttle Challenger, this ad campaign was (not surprisingly) dropped.

Of particular interest in the Bathroom Reader description was the claim that the "Space Shuttle" ad campaign was of great importance to the Aerostar because Chrysler's minivans posed tough competition. In addition, after the Challenger disaster, the Aerostar-Shuttle resemblance became something that was ignored and the Aerostar did not sell as well as its Chrysler counterparts. Of course, mentioning this aspect of the Aerostar's marketing and sales would require a reliable source; it is not clear if the Bathroom Reader qualifies. -- Elegie (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm Skeptical For one thing, the disaster happened about 6 months after the release of the vehicle; Ford seemed to have done quite well to have kept it 11 years afterwards. As far as actual sales/production numbers, finding those has been kind of tricky so far and would be an addition to a "to-do" list for this page. As far as Ford not outselling its Chrysler counterparts, that is likely true, for a couple of obvious reasons: Chrysler had the competitive advantage of being first. Additionally, Chrysler sold minivans across 2 (later 3) nameplates; there were no Lincoln-Mercury versions of the Aerostar. -SteveCof00^{My Suggestion box is open} 12:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about generation(s)

Going through the article, in comparison to others, I've questioned whether this model is really produced in two generations or a single generation with several (minor) updates over its production run. While the change from 1998 to 1999 Ford Windstar are indicative of different generations, the change from 1991 to 1992 Ford Aerostars is harder to explain, with the content even saying "no exterior sheetmetal was changed".

I'm just trying to get some thoughts on this... --SteveCof00^{My Suggestion box is open} 09:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I certainly would not consider the Aerostar a two-generation vehicle. The exterior updates were extraordinarily minor. There's a greater visual difference between a 1965 LTD and a 1966 LTD than there is between a 1991 Aerostar and a 1992 Aerostar. In fact, you could change the 2 LTD years to 1973 and 1974, and that would still be true. ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Aerostar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301031158/http://www.bluesarthouse.com/ford/plant.htm to http://www.bluesarthouse.com/ford/plant.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Aerostar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222140551/http://www.limerick.eu/media/belltable%2023.pdf to http://www.limerick.eu/media/belltable%2023.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Ford VN platform to Ford Aerostar

VN1 The VN1 platform is a platform that was developed by Ford for use for mid-size vans, specifically the Ford Aerostar. The first Ford vehicle to use an alphanumeric platform designation, the VN1 platform architecture is mechanically unrelated to the E-Series van, sharing only its rear-wheel drive layout. While using a dedicated chassis, the Aerostar was designed with a high degree of parts commonality with other Ford light-truck products of the time (initially, the Ford Ranger/Bronco II and the later Ford Explorer/Mazda Navajo), sharing major components including the brakes, front suspension, wheels, and powertrain. One notable exception is the rear suspension layout; the coil-sprung live rear axle uses a 3-link configuration, similar to the Ford LTD Crown Victoria and Fox-body Mustang. In contrast to the E-Series van, the unibody chassis of the Aerostar was designed with additional full-length frame rails; this construction was also used on the Chevrolet Astro/GMC Safari vans, the Jeep Cherokee XJ, and the Honda Ridgeline pickup truck. Vehicles using this platform include: Ford Aerostar—mid-size van (1986-1997), code named VN1

Coming from the deletion decision, this is the content that needs to be migrated here. While it is somewhat easy to locate documentation of the E-Series model codes, any documentation of the VN1 model code is nearly impossible to find (most likely, because this vehicle has been out of production for 24 years). At this point, while most explanatory content looks to be duplicated (and sourced), it should just be checked before final removal. -SteveCof00 (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)