View Single Post
  #6  
Old July 11th 06, 03:25 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
NewMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 96 Astro/Safari - any good? Opinions Please!

I talked with my shop on the fuel pump issue. You are quite correct,
the Safari / Astro has issues with the fuel pumps. They change them
ALL THE TIME.

Worse than that... If the van is 1996 or older, then this is a minimum
$500 repair. If the van is 1997 or newer - then you can only replace
the "fule pump module" which is a "GM Only" part with NO aftermarket.
The part alone is $1200 - and they are no more reliable than the
earlier models!

The shop also warned me about the $800 fuel injector! Seems that there
is one fuel injector that - in order to replace - you have to
practically tear the top end of the engine off to do! And given the
absolute lack of space to do so.....

Damn. I knew it was too good to be true.

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:52:30 -0500, "*" > wrote:

>I owned an '89 and a '92 - both with 4.3 and loaded with options including
>A/C
>
>Both went well over 200,000 miles.
>
>As a matter of fact the '92 is STILL running for another owner.
>
>Maintenance was no more difficult than most other vehicles.
>
>I did my own routine maintenance.
>
>I would suggest a "routine maintenance" fuel pump change at 100K. Both my
>vans needed one at around 125K-130K - as did my current GMC S-15 pickup
>with the 4.3.
>
>It is just "normal" GM maintenance.
>
>Both vans did around 20-21 mpg and "lost" one mpg to A/C - which I figured
>cost me around 25-cents per hour travelling down the highway in the late
>'90s.
>
>My current pickup will do up to 23 mpg on summer fuel, with a similar
>one-mpg loss for A/C, but even if it was twice the '90s cost - 50
>cents-per-hour - I feel the A/C/ is well worth it....a couple of bucks to
>be comfortable during a four-hour trip.
>
>
>
>
>


Ads