Ford vs. Chevy?

[cortttt]

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.

I wonder why Consumer Reports stopped rating vans...I don't understand that. They are my chief source for reliability. 

I looked up Chevy/GMC vs ford vans on the web quite a bit. My conclusion  was that both are solid vans (I didn't see any of the spark plug problems mentioned)- and that Chevy/GMC's  probably get a little bit better MPG and are more fun to drive.

 

[cortttt]

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. 

I agree the clearance is quite good in these vans.  It feels better than in my 4Runner actually.

 

[Gary68]

Gary,

Are you referring to bad engines already described in this thread,

Vagabound

yes