Which Year windstar 2002 or 2003

I am looking at 2 of these, the 2002 has 53,000 kms LX model, while the 2003 Sport has 92,000 kms mostly highway. What I have read on the 2002 seems
to be a better model. Any opinions?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I really like the look of the sport buts that a pretty decent jump in miles, what options does the LX have? tinted glass, front/rear air, center console, etc..

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 12:34:17 GMT, "Haggar"

Save your money. They are both scrap. (my opinion - YMMV)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Two things occur to me: - What possible business does "Sport" have in a sentence involving minivans? - Everybody I know who bought a Windstar, regardless of age and mileage (new or used, it didn't matter), later regretted it. Everybody. It probably doesn't matter what year you buy.
Have you checked the customer reports on Edmunds.com? They're often interesting. Some people like their Windstars (clearly, I've never met those people) and others are unhappy.
Good luck. Get it thoroughly checked by a reliable mechanic before you buy. Ask him if there's any way to check and see how often it has been in to Ford for service.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about: "A minivan is not a sport vehicle."

My aunt loves hers. Then again, you don't know her.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
the sport package just looks cooler, may not matter to some people but I like the look of them, mainly the wheels. I've never seen inside of one but maybe it comes with a different interior package too.
My windstar has been great, I dont regret buying it. My next minivan will either be a windstar or a odyssey but you dont know me either.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
actually if I bought another it would probably be newer so it would be a freestar and not a windstar.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And the experience a few aquaintances are having with their Freestars I wouldn't have one either. I've got a Pontiac TransSport - no prise either, but a significantly better vehicle than the Windstar OR Freestar. I've owned 2 Aerostars - and if they were still available I'd likely be driving one now.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I love my 03 Windstar. Most comfortable van on the market. I had a 95 Windstar, which had a long series of minor problems, nothing too expensive. I attributed that to the first model year syndrome. My 03 has 37k on it now and it has been flawless so far.
The depreciation on these vans is phenomenal. The original owner of mine was lost about $20,000 in value in three years. Buying a used one with low kilometers is the only way to go. At the 100k mark you can expect to start spending some money on it, as with any vehicle. I'll probably get rid of mine at that mileage to avoid the problems.
Mine is an SEL model. The sport package has different wheels, different cornering lamps in the front, a spoiler in the back. The basic windstar is really quite a plain looking van and desperately needs either the two tone paint treatment or the sport package to make it look acceptable.
I always take the Edmunds books with a grain of salt. It also rated the Chevy Venture and the Chevy Cavalier as awful vehicles and my experiences with them have been good, especially the chevy Cavalier.
--
Denis Roy
D. Roy Woodcraft
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You don't drive in salt or keep them to 100,000 miles do you? That's when the good start floating above the mediocre. Depending what year Cavalier, and what engine, they could be a real money pit - and the bodies don't stand up to the salt nearly as well as a lot of the competition. Head gaskets and broken head bolts at 50,000 miles were not out of the ordinary.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
thanks to all who replied...
The LX is a plain jane for sure, the attraction is the low KMS. While the 03 is nicer with its dressings, that KMS are higher, and under the dreaded 100,000k. so for the $$ difference, Im tempted to stick to plain jane. <clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you're still looking for feedback, I just happened to catch a copy of the latest CR Car Guide and it looks like the '02's might be a bit more reliable than the '03's. You might want to grab a copy and take a look for yourself.
Still, if the '03 had its transmission replaced already, maybe... And local miles can be hard mileage.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I happened to look at the latest CR today, the 2002 looks like it's doing slighly better in reliability history, than the 2003. Given that the 2002 also has fewer miles - and I'm presuming both are off warranty - personally, I'd think the 2002 is the better bet.
Drive the hardest bargain you can. Any money you can save now will probably be wanted for repairs sooner, rather than later, whichever Windstar you choose.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.