Want to buy 99-00 astro, 2WD or AWD, mpg issue?

[DANVAN]

I own an 88 2wd astro, always loved it but Im looking forward to upgrading to a newer nicer model. I get 19 mpg going back and forth to work, 22 on a recent highway trip. Milage is a big concern to me now with fuel prices and how much I drive.

Ive always wanted to upgrade to AWD but after doing some research here it seems that awd milage (city) seems to be any where from 13 to 17mpg.

My question is why is there such a wide range on what these vans get? I know driving habbits have a lot to do with it, but are there also different gear ratios in these awd models that affect it so much?

From what Im told, there are 3 different ratios for the astro, GT4=3.73, GU5=3.23, GU6=3.42.
Did both AWD and 2WD come with these optional gears?

Which ones will give best gas milage?

Im not even sure if I can find a 2wd model, much less as clean and with low milage like what I want. All I keep seeing listed for sale in my area is awd.

Is a conversion van with a raised roof gonna get less milage due to added weight and more wind resistance?

Any help with figuring this out is greatly appreciated.

Dan

[Kidhauler]

The AWD vans are for sale because they are gas pigs. You are doing good to get 16mpg on the highway. A higher rearend will help the mileage also if you don't need all the seats and interior a cargo will get much better mileage since they are nearly 1000 pounds lighter than a 8 passenger model

[ihatemybike]

I'm able to pull off 16-17 mpg with Grumpy (GU6 w/ inoperable OD), Green gets about 22mpg on average. The AWD vans do have more weight and drive line resistance, to lower their mileage. High top vans will have worse Gas mileage mostly due to aerodynamics.

[LiftedAWDAstro]

First question I need to ask is what is the terrain in which you drive? Is it hilly or is it mainly flat lands? If you are in hilly terrain, you will need 3.73 gears in an AWD to get decent mileage. If the land is flat 3.42's will work fine. If the van is properly tuned and running good you should see 18 mpg highway and 15-16 mpg city as long as you are easy on the gas.

[DANVAN]

Thanks for the replies.
Im in southern NH, so we have hills around here.
I think Im going with the 2WD.

[mdmead]

Thanks for the replies.
Im in southern NH, so we have hills around here.
I think Im going with the 2WD.

OK, I bought my '96 Safari AWD Hi-Top Conversion brand new at Bournival Jeep & GMC (back then they were the GMC dealer) in Portsmouth NH. I put on over 100K miles driving around there, many of those miles commuting down towards Boston every day, and then quite a few driving north (towards Twin Mountain) or northeast (towards Houlton/Presque Isle/Caribou) on weekends towing a 2-place snowmobile trailer.

My van consistently pulled down 19-20 mpg out on the interstate running 5-over the limit. My commute, which was basically running 50 minutes down Rt 1 at 45 mph with multiple stop lights was in the 17-18 mpg range. Towing was the low point with a 12-14 mpg return, but that was running 5-over the limit, but down in 3rd instead of 4th/OD. When I bought my van, the EPA estimate for highway mpg was either 20 or 21, and the 2wd was one mpg more (for both city and highway).

My van has 3.42 gears which I think are the best compromise for mileage and performance. They are marginal for towing, but worked OK in my application.

There is a reason there are mainly only AWD for sale in that region.... (I'm sure you know why....)

I think there is a 'sweet spot' in model years regarding mileage. The later vans do seem to be bigger pigs on gas and I don't know why. Whether the 99+ vans are all pigish, or if it was after that... or before that... I just don't know. (While the new electronic transfer case shouldn't have decreased mileage [should have improved it], I've always wondered if that is a factor....)

[DANVAN]

Thanks for the replies.

3.42 gears would be what I would like if I could find an AWD with them, and find it with low milage and clean too.

I know looking at a used van Im asking for too much and most likely will not find what Im looking for.
Also all the ones I do see on ebay or craigslist are all being sold by dealers, not private sellers, so they have no idea what the milage has been on the vans.

I have notice that the later models do seem to do worse on milage, I dont seem to understand that myself, the newer ones with that electronic transfer case should be better.

Ill just have to be patient and see what comes my way.

[LiftedAWDAstro]

3.42 gears would be what I would like if I could find an AWD with them, and find it with low milage and clean too.

You will actually find most of the vans you will find will have the 3.42's. The 3.73's had to be ordered and most dealers didn't bother ordering them. The low mileage, clean van is what will be hard to find locally.

[Spike99]

.

My previous van was a '95 RWD (non-Vortec engine design). For its time and physical size, it got "ok" MPGs. Wasn't as good as a "run about" small car but didn't suck the fuel like a V8 Pickup either. For an "old technology" van, it had acceptable MPGs.

My current 2001 van is a AWD - 3.42 gears. In comparison, this thing "is a pig". It's as bad as my neighbour's V8 4x4 empty pickup. Yes. My AWD has excellent traction (for my sandy beaches and winter roads) but knowing what I know today, I'd only buy a RWD Safari/Astro van next time. The MPG difference 97% of the driving time isn't worth its AWD feature. For that 3% of driving time when extra traction is really needed, I'd re-learn to drive the RWD van like a RWD van (like majority of winter drivers in my area).

If wondering, I also installed P215/70/15 tires on my van. 3.1% smaller / lighter weight then its factory recommended P215/75/15 rubber. If wondering, the 70s are smaller diameter tires and do seem to help its "too tall" of factory OD gear. Especially on wind and hill conditions. To me, the van's OD gear is way "too tall" for its chassis weight and wind resistance. I'm sure removing its heavy 3rd seat would help a little as well. As they say, `each little bit helps to gain better MPGs on the AWD design`. If you need an AWD van, do find an AWD version with lower 3.73 gearing. I hear this gearing is much better on MPGs. Especially in average hills &/or average head wind driving conditions.

Hope this helps in your reasearch as well..

.

[DANVAN]

Thank you Spike, I totally agree with u and the 97% thing, I have decided to go with 2WD, I am pursuing a real nice one right now from NY, hopefully in a few weeks it will be mine.

[Moreforles]

the 65-70-75 on tire size refers to tire width if I'm not mistaken.... 185-195-205-215-225-235...etc refers to tire diameter

[LiftedAWDAstro]

Nope moreforless, the first number in the metric designation (185, 215, 265 etc) is the tire width in mm. The second number (65, 70, 75 etc.) is the tire sidewall height as a percentage of the tire width.

[Moreforles]

well they say your supposed to learn something new everyday..... at least one day is covered now anyway.....

[thevalleyboy]

I can post the details of my vans mileage for the last few tanks if you wish - I track them all - but the basics are 15 MPG city - tops.... probably closer to 14 and I have been as bad as 12. Highway I have been as good as 19+ (and if your talking hills - I got them Banff, AB to Invermere, BC, and back to Calgary, AB) to normally 18 MPG. Decent tuned - synthetic in the drive line - axles and t-case, dino in the tranny and engine. BUT the AWD is sure footed - if you get winter you might want to seriously think about the mileage penalty - with gas being cheaper these days its easier to handle

Oh ya - and lower rear end ratios don't automatically mean better mileage - the engine needs its sweet spot

[DANVAN]

I ended up buying a 2000 2wd, 3.23 rear. Ive put 1000 miles on it so far.

Around town, low 17's, on one highway trip to NY and mack from NH, we got 21.3, Im happy with that.

My 88 was doing 18-19 in town, 21-22 highway. It also had the 3.23