Who has a favorite van? Well, Aaron65 recently wrote about a 1970 Econoline SuperVan, which he said was his favorite van. The example he spotlighted was indeed a very cool van, and it brought to mind a topic I don’t frequently think about: my favorite van. I am an equal opportunity gearhead and tend to have a favorite in lots of categories of vehicles, be they elegant or utilitarian. In that latter vein, my favorite van is an extravagantly plain and boxy Ford.
Not just any Ford, it has to be a white, 1983-91, Club Wagon (passenger version with windows), extended body (E-350 Super Wagon in Fordspeak), 15-passenger with dog-dish hubcaps. There’s a personal reason for being that specific: I had some early, formative exposure to them.
During my grade school through high school years, I spent my summers at the Culver Summer School and Camps, a 6 week program run by the Culver Military Academy in northern Indiana, the largest camping program in the U.S. It was semi-military and we would have a Garrison Parade every Sunday. After the parade was done in the late evenings, a truck would come around and bring us milk and cookies for dessert. Often the delivery vehicle would be one of these vans. Is it any wonder I have positive feelings for these?
They were late model vehicles, I’m guessing 1986 model because that’s about when they showed up. I was enough of a motorhead even then to appreciate that, though these were new vans, in the late 80’s they were somewhat anachronistic.
The third generation Econolines came out for 1975 and were a big advancement over the second generation. Econolines went from cab over engine (1961-67), to cab behind the axle with a tiny vestigial hood (1968-74), to what seemed like a huge hood (75-91). The elongated hood minimized engine intrusion into the cab, making it much more passenger friendly and quieter. They gained a full frame, which strengthened the chassis and allowed for a lot of part sharing with the pickup line.
Apart from a new square-headlight grille for 1979, the vans hadn’t changed much in over a decade. As a kid fascinated with old vehicles, the fact that the Ford vans were basically old vehicles still being sold as new was a plus in my eyes. I also liked the old-school dog dish hubcaps, especially on the burly 16 in wheels with tall 235/85 tires (standard on Super Wagons).
The Culver vans were XL trim (middle trim level) with vinyl seats that looked just like this brochure picture. Spartan as they were, I always thought they had a well-padded look that was inviting and the low seatbacks were delightfully old-fashioned. I never got to ride in them as a camper, and if I had, it would have been in the rear benches.
I did finally get a little time in the vans. A few years after my student days at Culver, I went back for three summers to work as a counselor during college. They still had their Ford Super Wagon fleet of three vans, showing their age a bit but still looking solid and proud. I had occasion to drive them a couple of times. They had the standard 300 c.i. (4.9L) 120hp/250lb-ft (145/265 after fuel injection was added for 1987) straight six with automatic and air conditioning. With a van full of boys and A/C cranking in the summer, acceleration was leisurely while corralling 12 middle-schoolers was not. I wouldn’t call the front seats luxurious, but they were not bad at all!
In 2020, my wife and I took a short vacation in Arizona. You might recall there was a pandemic on at the time and since people weren’t traveling much, resorts were practically giving away rooms. We decided to stay at the Westward Look Wyndham in Tucson, the resort where we spent part of our honeymoon 14 years earlier.
There were only a handful of guests and the hotel was taking advantage of the lull to renovate rooms. I noticed one of the contractors driving through the resort in a very familiar looking van. It was a “Culver” van! In 2020, at least 30 years old, it was getting pretty rare to see these square body Fords in use. It was more likely you’d see a windowless Econoline version. But this was a Club Wagon, long body, in white even. Naturally, I followed it to its destination and my wife thought I was nuts, as usual.
It was a real doppelganger for the Culver vans, even down to the trim level. The only differences being interior color, cloth seats, and the removal of all the seats and trim in the back. These well-used cloth seat bottoms look a lot flatter and less appealing than I remembered.
I ended up getting a lot more time in 1980s Ford vans, more than I ever wanted, in fact. I got an EMT certification and a job with an ambulance company starting in 1995, which still had quite a few of these in their fleet. These were all 88-90 models with diesel power and high back seats. They were the oldest vehicles in our fleet and felt like it, though I can’t say they drove badly. Just very stolid and trucklike compared to the next generation (92+), which were like Cadillacs in comparison. Even with hundreds of thousands of miles, they were pretty reliable.
I haven’t seen another van like this since, and I’m thinking every day that passes it gets a little less likely I will again. I never took any pictures of the Culver vans and can’t find any online, so it was great to reunite with my favorite van and capture it on “film”.
Related reading:
Curbside Classic: 1989 Ford Club Wagon – In Life, Hope Springs Eternal By Jason Shafer
CC Capsule: 1981 Ford Club Wagon XL – The Mystery Machine By Tatra87
Is there any way to tell apart the 1983-1991 models just by looks? The school district I grew up in had owned a bunch of these vans and they seemed obsolete the moment they had the 1992s.
I never knew of any external differences 83-91. Perhaps there was a hubcap change somewhere in there?
The only tell I knew of was that the 90-91 had an overdrive transmission and they had an easily visible overdrive lockout button on the lower right edge of the instrument panel.
Possibly but they all had the same hubcap design. One of two things I liked better than the 1992 vans (nicer base hubcaps and higher front seats, but even a base 1992 model felt much more like a car than a “truck.” I still want one of the 1992-2014 Ford vans.
I think there were some minor grille texture changes every several years, but I never really paid attention.
I spent a couple summers in the mid-1980s working for a firm in the NYC tri-state area that had a small fleet of Chevrolet G-vans. I really couldn’t say if they were better or worse than the vans from Ford or Dodge because I never drove either. Every now and then I still se a G-van (or more likely a utility/box truck based on a G-series cutaway van) and I remember them fondly.
I’m the inverse of you, I don’t believe I’ve ever driven a Chevy G-van. No idea how it would compare with Ford. I did have a job that involved some driving of a Dodge van. It was a later model (~2000) and it was pretty unimpressive compared to the 75-91 Fords (let alone the circa 2000 Fords, which were in a whole different league). Steering, handling, driver position, seat, doghouse intrusion were all noticeably worse.
These are either my favorite, or least-favorite vans. Like with you, there’s a personal reason for that.
Back in 1990, when I was 17, my sister and her fiance moved from Philadelphia to Florida. Being in their 20s and both living with their parents at the time, they had little actual stuff… and even less money. So moving cheaply was key.
They discovered the cheapest way to move a mattress, a few pieces of furniture and a lot of clothes boxes was to rent a cargo van from a local Ford dealer. Their vans were newish (unlike U-Haul clunkers), and had no mileage restrictions, but the catch was that the van had to be returned to the dealership. Their vans were white cargo vans, like the one you found, but without the windows.
So I offered, along with a friend, to drive down with them (my sister had a VW Golf, so we caravaned down), and then my friend and I would drive the van back to Philadelphia. Sounded fun… but in reality driving an empty cargo van 1,000 miles along I-95 in August (no a/c in that van) wasn’t terribly enjoyable.
Bob (my friend) and I tried to make it in one day, but encountered multiple delays… both from our own fault and just bad luck. Eventually it started pouring, and after driving that thing in the dark and pouring rain for about an hour, we gave up and spent the night at a Motel 6. We then discovered the van leaked, and our clothes in the back were soaked. We eventually made it back, soggy and tired, the next day.
Anyway… a wretched trip, but a fun memory to look back on. Great find – and I’m glad you photographed this!
Definitely one of those trips that could sound better on paper than it was in reality. But now you have a great story!
Spent a fair bit of time with 1990s vans when I worked for Budget. And in various jobs. On one site we had the QuadraVan converted 4×4 15 passenger which was cool.
Two vans turn my head currently. I really like the mid 70s Dodge shorties. With mag wheels and side pipes.
And on the complete other end of the spectrum. I really am attracted to the first gen Transit Connect. To the point I may actually pull the trigger.
I owned one of these for about three or four hours. White, extended length, dog dishes, and with the (must be nice) 300 straight six. Sold it to my brother-in-law. I wrote about it here once, but cannot find the article.
It is the only one of this generation Ford van I’ve driven, but my driving was little more than around a parking lot.
I did take a high school trip to Florida in one of these in 1989, a rental from the Ford dealer in Carbondale, Illinois. It was nice inside (for what it was) but also powered by the 300 six. I remember a few different teachers driving it and all commenting on the general lack of power.
Given the dual exhaust pipes, I’m guessing this example to have a 351 or 460.
This one? https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/family-coal-via-the-cohort-1990-ford-e-350-passed-around-like-a-christmas-ham/
Yeah, I spotted the duals. Surely not the 300 under that long hood. It probably owes its longevity to having a less stressed engine than it would have had with the six.
The long wheelbase G vans with the wheels pushed out to the corners were a nightmare in close quarters but a lot more stable at speed than the half hearted approach Dodge and Ford took with tacking on the section at the back for the 15 passenger vans if I remember right.
Finally I learned why the reason why GM did that, the rear wheels were right behind the bumper on the extra length versions and it looked odd like the extra width Dodge vans ambulance companies often used in the 70s.
I bet G series long wheelbase van cost a little more than the competition due to having a different frame, driveshaft and body panels instead of a simple box extension. Maybe it was to draw people who towed trailers but by then Suburbans were the choice. They seemed rare.
Much safer and less likely to rollover.
This.
GM had already been building G series cutaway cube van chassis on the longer wheelbase for some years before entering the extended van market so it was only body panels, and the rear overhang being the same between 125″ and 146″ wb vans probably unlocked some economies of scale with those.
Ford had three versions of the van: a 124″wb shortie, 138″wb regular van with very little rear overhang, and 138″wb Super van with 20″ of extra rear overhang. Given that the regular version had such a stubby rear, the extra length of the Super wasn’t excessive for the wheelbase. They didn’t have any inherent handling problems from my experience or anything I’ve heard of.
The Chevy shortie was only 110″wb, while the regular van was 125″wb: 1 inch longer wb than Ford’s shortie but with a lot more rear overhang. They didn’t come out with the 146″wb 15 passenger version until 1990.
Your comparison isn’t really valid. The Ford had a significantly longer wheelbase in both sizes due to the long front end. Van buyers bought on the body size and cargo or passenger capacity; the Ford 124″ wb shortie was directly equivalent to the 110″ wb shortie Chevy. Same with the 138″ wb Ford vs. the 125″ wb Chevy.
The extended rear 15 passenger Ford and Dodge vans had a significantly worse record of accidents, noted by the NTSB and many legal firms, who are still litigating deadly rollover accidents with these Ford and Dodge vans. The extended bodies when filled with passengers were much more prone to rollovers or other loss of control crashes. This is precisely why GM waited to introduce a 15 passenger van and used the very long 148″ wb chassis under them.
Another major risk factor in addition to their inherent bad weight distribution was that very often they would be driven by yping camp counselors who had experience in driving such a vehicle. The handling of any van that suddenly has 15 passengers (typically exceeding well over one ton of more, especially when cargo was often carried on a roof top rack) is drastically different than when empty. This led to increased restrictions by insurance companies and such, due to the huge liability risks involved.
This is exactly right. A big factor in their instability is that a load of 12-15 adult humans sitting on those high seats raises the van’s center of gravity in a big way, so that quick changes in direction make a tipover/roll far more likely. I would imagine that so much of that raised mass being at or behind the rear axle makes this worse.
Years ago I was tangentially involved in one of those cases, a bad accident involving a university rowing team. The student who was driving got distracted and drifted outside of the lane, then corrected too quickly which caused the 15 passenger Ford van to roll over (multiple times, as I recall it). That university stopped allowing students to drive these vans after this.
Compared to the previous generation Ford vans, these were a huge advance. The old ones were trucklike in all the wrong ways. The ’75-91 presented you with a big, bluff dash that looked not unlike those in big Ford sedans, much larger windows, a much smaller engine doghouse, a smoother, quieter ride, and a better driving position. I was not aware the the ’92 was anything more than refreshed skin stretched over the same hard points and mechanicals.
Wherever you live, it looks inviting to me .
Some years before I retired I was posted out in the San Fernando Valley, some how they managed to fleet spec. one of these, dual AC. 15 passengers and even a 460 C.I. V8 1 .
My boos used to have me drive him here and there, he claimed he’d been a Hot Rodder in the mid 1950’s and once told me I shouldn’t be afraid to “let it out a bit” so I did, that thing roared to life and whizzed around corners and up a freeway ramp, soon we were going triple digits and I realized my boss had gone silent .
Oops .
Oddly he never again asked me to drive .
Vans are indeed wonderful multi – use vehicles .
-Nate
My memorable Ford van is a little more obscure. The rental yard I worked at from 88-93 had an 89 Econoline 350 window van so the same chassis but the shorter body and only 2 seats. It also had a 351 HO V8 and a tow package so it sat with a nose down stance and was surprisingly quick off the line, like faster than a stock Camaro. It was noisy and hard riding but it had an FM radio and could tow a heavy load as easily as the F350 diesel stake body.
I appreciated the Ford’s longer nose because it had decent foot room unlike the Dodge Tradesman/
Great article. I had put these out of my mind until about a month ago when my wife pointed out a really nice 83-4-5 (a sure) one of these with a diesel engine. I’ve seen the ad and it is the most loaded Ford van I’ve ever seen. His asking price? $15,000
My first exposure to these was when dad leased a new 78 E150 for his construction company. My brother in law drove it and I don’t remember it breaking.
Thanks for a trip down memory lane
I remember when these were new. A friend’s father bought a 76 Club Wagon in the middle Custom trim when I was in high school, and it was the most car-like van I had ever experienced. It seemed odd that Ford was still building it when I was over 30 years old.
I will confess that I preferred the tighter structure and the power trains in the Dodge, but these had lots to recommend them!