Well,this inspires reconsidering the Windstar. I can overlook a lot of deficiencies in order to get 28 mpg! Ray Mac.

That was roughly what I got on a trip from south central PA to Raleigh, NC. Almost all of it was with the cruise set and there wasn't much for hills. I don't think I had it set for anything more than 70. What really kills the mileage in these things is when you have to change your speed. The 95 to 98 Windstars were rated at 25 mpg highway by the EPA. It's not inconceivable for this number to improve as the engine loosens up. From 2000 Windstar on for the Freestars the highway mileage were only rated at 23. Adding the driver's side slider and all the extra "safety equipment" came with a price. Rad

I have a 98 with the 3.8 V6 and I get 22 mpg. For the sake of comparison I drive 15 miles to work each day. I am not below 50 mph unless accelerating. If I am accelerating I am at 75 to 100% throttle (I am usually running late). 10 miles of this trip is at 75 miles per hour with cruise. The rest of the trip includes about 5 stops and 50 MPH. I should be about your worst case for MPG if your trip is anything like mine. I am not afraid to use every pony that is under the hood (I don't want to catch them sleeping when I need them ; ).... ). I don't do too to much town driving so my mileage is very consistent. My tank will hold somewhere between 25 and 28 gallons. Even at 75 MPH with good shocks and struts it handles almost like a car plus for a 0-60 it is fast for a van. Now if I can just get a big enough shoe horn to put my 460 under the hood then it would be really fast.... hmmm. ROTFLMAO Shane 1998 Windstar 3.8 1996 Concord LX 3.3 1977 F-250 SuperCab 460 4bbl

Getting 23 doesn't sound bad considering the slanted barn door aerodynamics of the front end of an Aerostar. Considering that the newer Windstars get 2 MPH less than the older ones, it hardly seems worth it to bother with the hassle of replacing the Aerostar unless it's got some major problem. Rad P.S. Ray, why do you always post your replies as new messages? Just curious.

The Windstars are more aerodynamic and probably lighter but I have a feeling that lowered mpg on the Windstar is a result of pollution controls.  

I regularly get 22-25 in my 96 cargo Aero with 3.0 MFI/A4LD auto with overdrive,  loaded with equipment on the interstate but I have a serious couple of hills to climb and wind direction does raise and lower it. Average is 23 and I drive 62 miles each way. I had replaced my 84 Ranger with 2.3L 4cyl (carb'd) with manual 4 spd trans with this van, the Ranger topped out at 21 mpg.    

In 2000 Ford added the extra sliding door as well, which probably accounts for an extra 500 lbs of hardware.

Windstars actually weigh a bit more than a 4wd extended Aerostar. They're actually quite a bit larger and heavier than a standard Aerostar - sizewise, a fair amount wider than  an Aero, and about same length as an extended one. I'd call it more a midivan than a minivan.   Any efficiency advantage the Windstar has comes from its transverse front wheel drive. Transverse FWD has a 3% efficiency advantage due to not having to transfer power through hypoid rear gearing i.e. having to transpose drive from the angle of the driveshaft .90 to the rear wheels.   I would expect the extra door to have added about 250#. Most people would accept that penalty.   In my perspective, as a former Windstar owner and present Aerostar owner, I find they get similar mileage in everyday light-load driving, and the Windstar was better as a highway cruiser on long trips. The Aerostar is much better at handling loads and trailers. My Windstar, with a trailer hitched, dropped to 13 mpg on a trip from Louisville to Houston - always seemed strained and unable to really manhandle the load, and ultimately puked its 3.8 engine trying to do so. The Aerostar manhandles the same trailer with much more poise and less strain, and the 3.0 just seems to do a better job under load than the 3.8 in the Windstar - also got 16 mpg with trailer hitched, despite many miles of wear. Difference between a truck and a car, I guess.   AC

front wheel never has been much for a tow vehicle regardless of brand anyway, seems the trailer weight takes a lot of front end weight off and (I guess) reduces traction. Last winter when we had that snow my 84 Ranger with 2.3L 4 banger hauled a trailer up the WK Parkway into downtown L'ville without problem, seen many a front wheeled vehicle spinning it;s front wheels with the underlying hard pack snow/ice if they had a heavy cargo load in back or a trailer.   All in what you need it to do and the conditions I guess. It is pretty off that a 3.8 would be gutless compared to a 3.0 though under load.    

My '98 3.8L auto gets 18 for around town with no highway driving mixed in. I do tend to carry a lot of unnecessary stuff though, I'm sure that affects it (I mean, ya never know when you'll need tire chains here in central California...8^). Normal highway driving with some in-town mixed in usually gives me 22-23. Last year I had to go pick up some stored items for my daughter, about 500 miles away, so I took out both rear seats to head up there, and was somewhat astonished to be getting over 25, even with some city and mountain driving mixed in. Seems decent to me, and the 3.8L seems adequate for keeping up to highway speed and for passing. Gary