Scotty what are your thoughts on the 1996-2001 Chevrolet Astro van is it a good van and should I buy one
Imperator territory @mountainmanjoe
I don't think buying a 20 to 26 year old GM van is such a hot idea. They were sort of okay Vans back in the day but most are all worn out now and those vans are really held to work on because of their design
they're hard to work on because they have a short wheelbase, and a short nose, which to me are advantages.
On the plus side, you have beautiful up close access to the engine from the inside, and you can work on them in the rain and stay dry 🙂
I agree with Scotty. You missed that boat. They're too old now.
The other thing about those vans, is that they used a lot of parts that are unique to ONLY that van. Since the Astro was discontinued 16 years ago, finding parts isn't going to bring you any joy.
One in good condition with low mileage might be worth a few hundred bucks, but from what I've seen, people want absurd amounts of money for them. You're better off spending that on a newer SUV or something.
what was wrong with Scotty's first answer?
The computer store I worked at long ago had an automatic transmission 4 cylinder Astro and a 6 cylinder manual that was a couple years older and fun to drive. On the plus side, these were considered trucks- they had body on frame and rear wheel drive. The 4.3L V6, essentially the 350cid V8 with 2 cylinderers cut off the end, offered plenty of power. They were versatile in how they could be configured. You could have a nice passenger van, a bare cargo van or a combination of both or a loaded conversion camper. To me, they were the perfect size- more economical than full size van and a bit more sturdy than front wheel drive unibody vans. The later models had available rear 'dutch' doors, the top half opened upwards and the lower half split in the middle and 2 doors opened outward.
The negatives of buying an Astro nowdays were already mentioned in previous answers. To change the engine on these things, you have to lift the body off the frame to get it out. If you really want one and don't intend to get a 2nd mortgage on your house to fix it, pay a reputable shop to take a couple hours to go through it and get their blessing or bad news.
In my experience the V6 was still a bit underpowered. Sometimes if you got it stuck in soft ground, it didn't have enough power to get out or even spin the wheels. A 4 banger would have been total joke.
It didn't technically have a frame. More of a cradle for the engine and tranny. The rear axle was sprung directly to the body. But yes it was pretty stout and had respectable towing capacity. The body would still flex considerably to the point where doors didn't open properly.
You're right the size was perfect. Big enough that you could haul full sheets of lumber in it, and camp in it for weeks, but short enough that you can do a 180 on a two lane road in one turn, fit in underground garages etc.
I know the 2.8L V6 was a boring engine in my '88 S-10. If I held out for an '89 S-10, I could have had the 4.3L motor.
Scotty should what are your thoughts on the 1996-2000 Chevy Astro van is it a good van and should I buy one