Ford vs. Chevy?

[LeeRevell]

The Ford vans have a different chassis than their trucks, at least for the Gen Two and Three. Springs and axles are not directly interchangeable, making putting a 4X4 truck axle system under a van difficult - different width.

 

[Gary68]

it takes about 10 year for bugs to become know unless they are catastrophic

so stay away from the fords with the bad engines

 

[highdesertranger]

well here you go. I have a 1978 chevy 1 ton 4x4 = K-30. 73-87 chevy's are super cheap to maintain, easiest vehicles from this era to get parts for, once you have gone through everything they are super reliable, there are many upgrades, they are simple. because it's a GM of this vintage, parts are readily interchangeable. all that said, by todays standards they get poor fuel economy and they drive like a truck(novel concept).

I also own a 2001 F-250 super duty 7.3 diesel 4x4. it's an ok truck. gets double the fuel economy of the chevy, 14-20 mpg. it has basically been trouble free except for a few things. the stupid front wheel bearing pack, I hate this on newer vehicles. the front wheel bearings are non serviceable, you have a problem you have to replace the whole pack. the electronics suck. there is always something electrical that doesn't work.

I regularly take the chevy into the back country(five star) something I am hesitant to do with the Ford I can always get the chevy out in case of a break down. the Ford not so much. the Ford has to many electric doo dads. while the 7.3 is an excellent engine I cant give the truck 5 stars for remote travel. btw I would not have any other engine in a Ford, the 7.3 was the last good Ford engine imo.

so in summary the 38 year old Chevy is much more reliable then the 15 year old Ford. I am in the process of rebuilding the Chevy this will include a diesel engine which should bring the MPG up close to the Ford. highdesertranger

 

[anewbiewannabe]

Thanks for all that HDR.

Part of me is leaning toward the older chevys, but dang the mpg stuff really makes me take a step back. It sounds like for the older gas engine trucks/vans the mpgs are 6-8 at the midrange. Is that about right from what you've found? I really like that they are easier to work on and don't have all the electronic crap but still the mpgs.

I can't do diesel no matter what I get because if I inhale a breath of it I can't breathe so a gas engine is my only option.

 

[Vagabound]

... 73-87 chevy's are super cheap to maintain, easiest vehicles from this era to get parts for,  once you have gone through everything they are super reliable,  there are many upgrades,  they are simple.  because it's a GM of this vintage,  parts are readily interchangeable.  all that said,  by todays standards they get poor fuel economy and they drive like a truck(novel concept).
...
so in summary the 38 year old Chevy is much more reliable then the 15 year old Ford.  

Agree, thanks for the good info.  In general, do you think that your truck comments just above apply to Chevy vans ?

 

[NeedAnEscape]

The old "big block" motors, (460/7.5l in Fords and 454/7.4l in Chevys being the most common in trucks/vans), especially those without fuel injection are going to get around single digit MPG. The best I ever have done with my carb 460 is 10mpg after a long 45mph backroad drive.

It's a shame that Dodge never put the 6bt (or even a 4bt) in a van. It's undeniably the best of the pre-computer diesels used in pickups.

 

[Vagabound]

OK, great answers so far.  Keep 'em coming.

Continuing with this theme, but adding a different angle.  For this next paragraph and the sole question, I'm assuming starting with both older and newer vehicles at about the same level of mechanical roadworthiness.  

Without starting a nitpicking cage match, but in order to ask this next question, let's just agree to agree that, in general, older vehicles are more simplistic and so can be easier and less expensive to repair and maintain, and maybe more reliable; while newer vehicles might have less wear-and-tear, and so fewer related problems, but their increased gadgetry and other complexity can lead to a new set of problems, which can make DIY repairs tougher or sometimes impossible, and so, maintenance and repairs can be more expensive.

Considering the above to be true enough for this purpose, what do you think the sweet spot is for both Chevy and Ford vans?  

I'll define said sweet spot as a range where the van is "old enough to get the old vehicle benefits and escape new vehicle complexities and headaches, while also new enough to be able to find parts without the help of H.G. Wells"? 

That's probably as clear as mud, but hopefully it is good enough to produce some good range info.  I should probably say that the range info that would make the most sense to me would be in "years" (such as 1993-1998), but a range by "engine type" or something else that makes sense would be fine also.

 

[highdesertranger]

in with my chevy now I have a 454ci engine. I go from a low of 5.5mpg to a high of 9.8mpg. with an average 7-8. my truck is very heavy about 10k, geared low 4.10, no overdrive, has all the aerodynamics of a brick. the 5.5mpg is going up a long grade, the 9.8 is cruising about 45mph.

the chevy vans from that era can be just as reliable, same basic drivetrain. but after the drivetrain I do not see the support for the vans like I do for the trucks. you can buy almost any part for the truck for the van not so much. just go to LMC Truck and look though the truck catalog and then look though the van catalog. highdesertranger

 

[VanGrrl57]

To each his/her own, but I love my '88 Astro.

VanGrrl57

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

 

[drysailor]

Yeah, the age-old argument.  PC vs. Apple.  Coke vs. Pepsi.  Ford vs. Chevy.  Actually, I'm hoping to avoid arguments and just collect a little info.  Didn't seem to be an existing thread on this topic.


So, what can you offer on this topic?

The only Ford I've owned from the suspect-engine era was a 2000 F150 / 5.4. / 4x4. Bought it new, kept it 15 years/75K mi, and the only repair in those 15 years was a proportioning valve in the ABS system. Two additional F150s I drove from that era (work trucks) were similarly reliable. I put 120,000 miles on my work F150 (2007) with it's only repair being shocks (drove a lot on rutted roads in the desert).  The other work truck was an F250/5.4,  2001, 45K miles, heavily loaded, no repairs.
Based on that experience, and not being aware of the spark plug thread issue, I bought a 2-year old E350, 5.4 last summer - no issues so far (@28K mi), other than I should have bought an extended cargo van, vs the standard pass van I have.
Consumer Reports stopped rating these vans some years back, but I did come across a December 2008 issue which lists the Chevy Express (no other identifiers) from 97 to 2006 as a " Used Vehicle To Avoid". I didn't see any particular reasons given, but can tell you from experience that it takes a lot to make that special list. Yugo would be at home there. If anyone has kept the April Consumer reports from those years, there may be other info there. Don't remember when they stopped reporting detailed info on the vans.
I do think the Chev/GMC 2500 extended cargo, with a smaller V8 & 6 sp trans, would be my choice if buying today, if I could find one near new for the right $$. Newer Ford Transit Hitop would also be high on my list, if I was sure I would never be towing, although it's too new to have an established reliability record. Think this is the best combination for van conversion & performance, but I'd have to have A/C and cruise.

 

[Gary68]

ok heres the difference in old 73-86 carb chevy/gmc and modern 5.3/6.0 chevy/gmc
the modern engines are about 2x better in every way,hp,torque and mpg but kinda expensive parts not bad they have made a lot of them so part can be easily found

but if you are out in the middle of nowhere and you break down with an older rig there are thing you can do to get running and back to civilization,in a newer rig you are dead in the water unless you brought a diagnostic laptop,new computer and all the censors

i have looked into it and you can turn a 5.3 into a "dumb" motor,add a intake/carb and new timing gear cover to convert it to distributor but at a cost and in the end how much better would it be then a 350?

it come down to what you value more,efficiency/power or ruggedness/fixability and there are a lot of if's involved

my 85 chevy 4x4 305/700r gets 15-20 on flat hwy and 10 on hills where it is woefully under powered and me and hdr can exchange pretty much every part on our trucks,if my 305 blows a 350 is a direct fit but if a 250 6 or 454 is there all i need to change is exaust,same with the trans,they all bolt up to each other,chevy/gmc are like lego's

 

[highdesertranger]

another often overlooked weak point of newer vehicle is the serpentine belt system. a serpentine belt is far superior in all aspects except one, redundancy. with the old V-belt system you can have one or even two belt driven accessory fail and still make it to a town to get repaired, just as long as you are still turning the water pump. with a serpentine belt any one failure leaves you dead in the water. not only that but they have an idler pulley and a tensioner pulley two more potential failure points. just thought I point that out. highdesertranger

 

[Bandelay1965]

My own lack of knowledge keeps me from understanding this part.  Are you talking about a possible greater tendency of the longer wheel-base vehicles to bottom out on bumpy roads?

A lot of the forest roads I travel around Montana have many bumps and dips, often with large rocks sticking out of the top of the bumps. The longer the distance between the front and back axles, the better the chance the center of the van will bottom out on top of the bump.

This pic illustrates my concern, although this bump is just a little guy.



By the way, this pic makes me realize it's just a matter of time before the door steps will have to come off....

 

[Vagabound]

another often overlooked weak point of newer vehicle is the serpentine belt system. ...

I have two old memories attached to the word "serpentine" that don't involve apples and gardens.  Both induce a flinch -- trouble and $$.  Thanks for unearthing that buried mechanical nightmare from my head.  Uuuugh.  Anyone figure out yet how to be a desert nomad using public transportation? ;-)

Seriously, though, thanks for pointing that out.

Vagabound

 

[Vagabound]

...
Consumer Reports stopped rating these vans some years back, but I did come across a December 2008 issue which lists the Chevy Express (no other identifiers) from 97 to 2006 as a " Used Vehicle To Avoid". I didn't see any particular reasons given, but can tell you from experience that it takes a lot to make that special list. Yugo would be at home there. If anyone has kept the April Consumer reports from those years, there may be other info there. Don't remember when they stopped reporting detailed info on the vans.
...

(Emphasis above added)  Thanks for mentioning this.  I'd be very interested in seeing the details on that -- CR typically does a good and trustworthy review.  Main reasons I'm interested is that so many people seem to either have similar vans in that time range or seem to talk about them as if they are desirable.  Sets up a strange conflict with the possible CR report results.

Thanks,

Vagabound

 

[Vagabound]

it takes about 10 year for bugs to become know unless they are catastrophic

so stay away from the fords with the bad engines

Gary,

Are you referring to bad engines already described in this thread, or do you need to mention which those are?

Vagabound

P.S. - And one of these days, please tell me what the heck "the hyphenization of America" means.

 

[Vagabound]

A lot of the forest roads I travel around Montana have many bumps and dips, often with large rocks sticking out of the top of the bumps. The longer the distance between the front and back axles, the better the chance the center of the van will bottom out on top of the bump.

This pic illustrates my concern, although this bump is just a little guy.

... (photo removed)

By the way, this pic makes me realize it's just a matter of time before the door steps will have to come off....

Thanks for the explanation and visual aid.

I responded in detail, but in a different thread that is focusing on ground clearance:

https://vanlivingforum.com/Thread-H...our-fulltiming-adventure?pid=223242#pid223242

Vagabound

 

[akrvbob]

lot of the forest roads I travel around Montana have many bumps and dips, often with large rocks sticking out of the top of the bumps. The longer the distance between the front and back axles, the better the chance the center of the van will bottom out on top of the bump.

While there is no question that's true, it's equally true that have the very long departure angle makes the Ford van much more likely to drag its rear end and get stuck that way. 

The distance for the rear axle to the rear bumper on a Ford extended van  is huge and the odds of it grinding and getting stuck are quite good. The Chevy van is so short I've never been on anything that even came close to grinding it. In fact I've got a hitch haul on my extended van and I've tried to grind and it I never have--the departure angle is just too short and the hitch haul is unusually high. 

My Chevy van with the extended wheelbase has a very high ground clearance and I've taken it over many many bad dips and never had it high-center in any way. I consider it a non-issue.

In the picture below, my rear axle is in a hole that is deeper than it looks and there is no chance it's going to high-center. But look at how low my bumper is, just inches off the ground. Because it's so short the departure angle is very shallow and my bumper never touched, not even the hitch haul. If this was a Ford with it's extra 2-3 feet behind the axle they both would have ground through the dip and possibly got stuck.  

Departure angle is the more critical issue and it's horrible on a Ford Extended van. 

 

[steamjam1]

My Dodge (when it was still a 2wd) did alot better off-road then my current extended Ford does. It's short wheelbase made for great maneuverability, it had better ground clearance, not much rear overhang, and no various kinds of tanks to scrape on the ground. It was also MUCH lighter.

 

[cortttt]

In my opinion the GM 4.8, 5.3, and 6.0 are some of the most reliable gasoline  engines ever made. The 5.0 and 5.8 Fords are also great engines. It's to early to say how the new V6 engines from Ford are going to last. I have a 2015 Transit 250 with the 3.5EB, I love it, amazing power, good MPGs I just hope it lasts as long as a V8.

What kind of MPG are you getting?