Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site houligan.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akguc!codas!peora!ucf-cs!novavax!houligan!tgoodwin
From: tgoodwin@houligan.UUCP (Tom Goodwin)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Plymouth/Dodge Mini Van Query
Message-ID: <270@houligan.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Feb-86 08:50:17 EST
Article-I.D.: houligan.270
Posted: Mon Feb  3 08:50:17 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 20:41:48 EST
References: <287@ihlpf.UUCP>
Organization: Gould Electronics, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Lines: 18

I have been looking into the mini-vans lately, and find I like the
ford aerostar better.  It is rear wheel drive(can be rated for
towing larger trailers), and has more seat width in the back seats.
It also has more power(with the v-6) and yet gets better milage in
reports I've read.  Because it is rear wheel drive, the aerostar is
taller(6 feet), but the slippery shape seems to make up for the extra
drag.

The chevy/GMC minis have more power than the ford, but also get worse
mpg.  Road and Track reported 14.5 mpg for chevy, 18.5 mpg for ford,
and 17.5 mpg for dodge, all with largest engines.  In my view, the 
larger engines are needed, as these are 3500+ pound vehicles.  I am 
holding off for now, as later this year ford is due to start using
the new taurus v-6 in the aerostar.  With 140hp vs 115, and probably
at least equal mpg, I think it may be worth waiting for.

		Tom Goodwin