Just old wine in a similar bottle with a new name?
Written: Nov 26 '03 (Updated Jun 20 '05)
Product Rating:
Pros: Ride quality, interior materials improved, safety features
Cons: Lacks agility of others, rear seat room and comfort
The Bottom Line: The Freestar has a couple of strengths, but lacks agility and, more importantly for this segment, the seat comfort and space of the leaders.
I always thought “Windstar” was a dumb name. Well, it’s not looking so bad now that they’ve updated the Windstar and renamed it “Freestar.” Why the new name? Well, someone high up at Ford decided it would be neat to begin all Ford car model names with the letter “F.” The Mustang and T-Bird get grandfathered, but all other Ford car names that begin with a letter other than “F” will soon be history. Why do this? Well, beginning all SUV names with the letter “E” seems to have worked well. Also, “Windstar” had a lot of baggage. (But apparently not so much to get rid of the “star” bit.)
The downside of this new strategy is that it seems to be resulting in some awful names. The upcoming Mazda6-based “Futura” isn’t bad. But the upcoming large sedan, the “Five Hundred,” makes no sense to me because there are no other cars whose names are numbers. And “Freestar,” what’s that? At least if they name a car “Freebird” they’ll have a jingle ready to go.
Aside from the new name, Ford has made a number of changes to its minivan. The third row now folds Honda-style into the floor. A full battery of safety features is now available, including stability control and curtain airbags. The interior materials have been upgraded. And the 200-horsepower 3.8-liter V6 has been replaced by two engines, a 193-horsepower 3.9 and a 201-horsepower 4.2, both based on the 3.8. Why bother upgrading the 3.8 to a 3.9? One reason might be to suggest that the problematic, head gasket blowing 3.8 is history. Well, the basic engine is still here, but hopefully the 3.8’s weaknesses have been eliminated.
This model year has seen new minivans from Toyota and Nissan as well. Reviewing the Honda recently, I concluded that none of the existing vans was perfect. Each had significant weaknesses. But I had not yet driven the new Ford. I never thought much of the Windstar. One I drove years ago felt much cruder than other minivans. But might the Freestar somehow surprise me? I took one for a test drive to find out.
Ford Freestar Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Ford Freestar rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.
To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling
The styling of the Windstar always looked awkward to me. Something just was not right with the proportions. For the Freestar most of the sheetmetal remains unchanged. The front fenders and hood are new, though. The new front end is more massive than the old ones and is cleanly styled much like Ford’s current range of SUVs, with a large trapezoidal grille. Thankfully the long side of the trapezoid is on top. With some Windstars it has been on the bottom, suggesting a frown.
At any rate, the new front end seems to have done much to lend the van better proportions. The fender flares from the Windstar remain, but they look better on the Frestar’s larger front fender. Overall, the exterior styling of the Freestar is not strikingly attractive on interesting, but it appears thoroughly tasteful, even somewhat handsome now. Later in the model year optional 17-inch alloys will further improve the look of the van judging from the photos in the brochure. The Toyota Sienna is the new ugly queen in this segment.
The interior possesses little in the way of style, good or bad. Unless you find the Passat’s interior stylish, because the Freestar’s interior is a blatant knock-off of the VW sedan’s. The basic forms are square, most notably the nearly square center stack. Few curves are to be found. The instruments, with their chrome rings, are probably the nicest looking bit. Most off-putting is the fake wood in the SEL trim line. The three lower trim lines (S, SE, SES) have matte black on the center stack and a strip of faux aluminum dividing the darker upper part of the instrument panel from the lighter lower part (the rest of the interior is in the lighter shade). With the top-of-the-line Limited both pieces are faux wood. With the SEL, however, only the strip is faux wood. It doesn’t look so good. Maybe the Limited, with more of the stuff, will look better. Sadly, if you want leather you need one of the top trim lines, so you’ll be getting some faux wood with it.
Aside from this bit of trim the quality of the interior is superior to the Windstar’s. The low gloss materials do not look luxurious, but do look durable. They aren’t quite up to the Passat’s, but they were clearly an attempt in that direction compared to past Fords. The leather has a thick, durable feel to it. The top of the dash is soft-touch material, the lower part is hard plastic, typical of this class of vehicle. The various buttons feel a bit higher in quality than those of past Fords. The controls are conventionally arranged; unlike the Nissan there is nothing crazy here. Overall, the appearance of the Freestar’s interior is at least mid-pack, better than the Nissan and GM, perhaps a bit nicer than the Honda, and trailing only the Toyota and maybe the Chrysler (the latter comes across as classy overall, but does have some cheap bits).
Accommodations
The Freestar at 201 inches is within an inch of most competitors. Yet the interior is tighter than all other extended vans with the possible exception of GM’s (it has been a while since I sat in the back of a GM minivan).
The front seat is roomy enough, with good comfort. The driving position is not my favorite, as the bulky-looking instrument panel is a half-foot higher than the beltline (bottom of side windows). Especially in a Chrysler the view forward is much more expansive. But some people might prefer the more closed-in feeling of the Ford, as it might make them feel safer. As in the Windstar the interior front door panels actually rise a few inches above the beltline, effectively reducing the side glass area. I suspect some market research lay behind this decision.
Ford continues to offer a second, wide angle rearview mirror to keep tabs on the rear seats. A useful feature that Toyota has copied.
The pedals in the minivan I drove were adjustable. With the pedals all the way back I had to position the seat all the way back, even though I’m only 5-9, reducing rear passenger room. I like an arms outstretched driving position, but would likely compromise this when carrying adults in the back.
The driver’s seat itself is memorable for neither discomfort nor exceptional comfort. Still, the front row is easily the best in the van.
The second row captain’s chairs feel a little on the small side for adults and are a little too close to the floor to provide good thigh support. Luckily these include build in armrests, for there is none on the door. Get the bench (standard on the S, SE, and SES) and I’m not sure what passengers will do with their arms. The second row seats tumble forward to provide access to the third row. I found it nearly as easy to simply walk between the captain’s chairs.
The third row is perhaps the most cramped of any extended length minivan. It sits low to the floor, providing no thigh support, and because of very thick sidewalls (the left one contains the rear A/C) the shoulder room in this row is only 51 inches, more than a foot less than the second row and about a half-foot less than you’ll find in the rear seat of the typical midsize sedan. Notably, the Honda Odyssey provides over ten inches more third row shoulder room. Yet only two people sit in the Ford’s second row even with the bench, while three sit in the third row. I don’t get it.
Legroom, or more specifically footroom, is also limited in the third row. The culprits are very thick inner pedestrals under the second row captain’s chairs. Between these pedestals there is only room for one foot to squeeze in. Where should the second foot go? The second row seats adjust fore-and-aft a few inches to juggle legroom. However, although the seat moves the pedestals do not. So moving the seat doesn’t help unless you move it so far up that third row passengers can put their feet on top of the pedestals. At that point the second row will have no legroom.
Overall the Freestar’s rear seating and roominess is very disappointing. Compared to the Toyota Sienna, it offers 2.2 inches less legroom in the front seats, 1.6 inches less in the second row, and a huge 6.8 inches less in the third row. As moving seats back and forth shifts legroom from row to row, these numbers are cumulative, for a total legroom disadvantage of over ten inches. This despite the fact that the Freestar is an inch longer than the Toyota in both overall length and wheelbase.
The Freestar's third row seat does stow into the deep well provided for it fairly easily. Three clearly labelled steps are involved, one more than in the Odyssey. The extra latch permits the seat to be rotated rearward 90 degrees to serve as a bench for tailgating while the van is parked. Unlike in the Nissan, the tether used to pull the third row into the well is long enough to extend outside the well. The split bench in the Toyota is the easiest to stow, but the Ford edges out the Honda, and the Nissan is by far the most difficult (and finger threatening).
In the Ford, unlike in the Honda and Nissan, the headrests do not have to be removed before stowing the seat. The downside is that they, and those in the second row, are not high enough in their lowest position to protect adults.
When the third row is in place the deep well can be used for cargo. It is a good size to hold grocery bags upright, preventing their contents from rolling about the entire floor. The maximum cargo volume, 134 cubic feet, is about ten cubic feet shy of the extended minivan norm. Probably those thick rear sidewalls again.
On the upper trim lines a center console is a $150 option. It isn’t very tall, not even coming up to the level of the seat cushions, and contains only a sedan-sized storage compartment. It is not very wide because the parking brake, like the Windstar’s, is between the front seats. The center consoles available in the Chrysler and Toyota vans are significantly larger. Other storage compartments are located in the Freestar’s center stack, roof console, doors, and atop the center of the instrument panel. A fairly large glove compartment is also provided. There is plenty of storage aside from the optional console, but some people will still want it because of its handy location.
On the Road
The 4.2-liter’s 201 peak horsepower trails all the GM vans’ 3.4-liter among extended length minivans, but it leads them all in midrange power, with 263 pounds-feet of torque at a moderate 3650 RPM. Even the 3.9 produces 245 pounds-feet, tying the Chrysler 3.8 and leading all others. Unlike the Honda, Toyota, and top-line Nissan, however, Ford continues to use a four-speed automatic. Perhaps because its gearing is thus taller than the others, or because the revised engine still falls well short of Honda’s and Toyota’s in refinement, noise quality at full throttle, and willingness to rev, acceleration with the 4.2 feels just adequate. The Japanese vans and especially the Honda feel considerably quicker. That said, how quick does a minivan need to feel?
From behind the wheel the Freestar feels larger and heavier than the competition, partly due to the relatively high instrument panel but also due to the chassis dynamics. The van understeers heavily in turns and generally communicates that it does not wish to be hurried. The steering is not overly light, unlike many past Ford products. Lean is moderate.
The payoff for this below-average handling is excellent ride quality. This ride quality I suspect that Ford’s engineers derived their priorities from those of van buyers. I drove the Freestar along a road full of chuckholes and very uneven expansion joints. Cars generally ride poorly on this road, but in the Freestar imperfections were heard only a little and felt even less. This ride quality was obtained through intelligent design, not simply through ultra-soft suspension settings. As a result, the van remain composed over rough surfaces and did not bobble about.
Safety
Like the Windstar the Freestar should ace crash tests. It offers traction control, stability control, front seat airbags, and curtain airbags in all three rows, as much safety equipment as can be found on any minivan. Topping the others, the last as in the Explorer is linked to a rollover sensor and functions as a canopy keeping people from hitting the ceiling in the event of such an accident. I doubt many minivans roll over, but if one did this would be good to have.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
The Freestar tends to be priced thousands higher than its competitors. Hence the huge rebates, after which the price is still too high.
Last Words
The Freestar was the only extended minivan I had not driven. I expected little based on my evaluation of the Windstar, but was prepared to be surprised. I was not surprised. The Freestar rides well and has a fairly nice interior, but its handling, room, and seat comfort are at best marginally competitive. I cannot recommend this vehicle. The Honda and Chrysler seem the best products when price is considered. It so happens that both will be revised for 2005. As I suggest in my Odyssey review: If you can wait, then wait.
Update: Among Fords I much prefer the Freestyle to the Freestar. Although not a minivan, the Freestyle offers about as much functionality in a better handling package.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, visit www.truedelta.com.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.