Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Oldsmobile Aurora



  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    I did a build you own on GM's buypower and found that the 2003 Aurora with nav and stuff that was standard in 95 would run about $37,000+. Not bad. Cheaper than the CTS. Best deal would be to find one at a dealership already made->probably with a sunroof that I can do without. Then with a 7 year-100,000 mile extended warranty, an Aurora might be a good deal. The CTS's nav comes with a dash 6 CD changer though, which I would like better than a trunk system I think.
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    rjs - I was just kidding, but if the comparo were ever done, no points would be given to the Aurora for offering an awesome V8 with more power for the same or less money.

    Anyway, I'm still amazed that a loaded up ES300 would take you over 40k. I'm sure they are great cars, but not 40k great. I guess I'm just a domestic car owning rube that doesn't get it.

    As for Old's demise I have to agree with RJS and also have to acknowledge that FJK's assessment of the Aurora not quite being a sports sedan. It's an awfully sporty luxury car. It a bit too heavy and the FWD omit it from the sport sedan category. Yeah, I don't give a rip about RWD either. I haven't run across the pylons in the road yet but I have seen some real nasty slop every winter. Just give me good looks, lots of room and comfort, and as much power as possible and I'm happy.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    When I went from my 78 Old 98 to FWD with the 83 Buick Skyhawk, I really liked the FWD on icy roads. But this was before anti-lock brakes and traction control. Now, with anti-lock brakes, traction control and other goodies, RWD should not be as bad as it was. My 86 'Vette was really fun.
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    yeah, I've wondered how much the traction control helps with RWD. Probably a lot. I think TC on a FWD car is not really needed, but you gotta have it on any car in that price range. The Aurora gets going in snow pretty well.
  • javidoggjavidogg Posts: 366
    Ever planned an Aurora gathering. I was over at the Alero's site and I was looking at some pictures from their Alero & Grand Am gathering from 10.5.2002 in a suburb in Elk Grove Village, It think that's were it was. I would like to see everyones Aurora from in a gathering or event of sort. Peace.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    that a while ago there was talk that the 275hp Northstar and the Aurora V8 had the same cam timing? I don't think anyone ever had concrete evidence, though? If so, I apologize. I found a post on GMForums about the specs of the 275hp Northstar from 2000 (so this is for the new engines, but maybe the same for the old ones).

    The cam timing specs are exactly the same. He didn't post the lift, so I don't know (although I'd guess they are the same). Duration @ .150mm lift, Intake: 242 deg, Exhaust: 236 deg. The rest of the specs like overlap and centerline are the same too, but I didn't want to flood with numbers (at least not more than I already am).

    He lists a cylinder head combustion chamber size of 48.6cc. I wish my manual listed that spec, but alas it does not. I imagine if the stroke is the same, either the combustion chamber or the pistons (besides just their width) would need to be different or else the compression ratio on the 4.0 would be lower than for the 4.6. But since the pistons have to be different anyway (different bore) maybe the pistons handle the compression change. I'd really like to know, though, because it would give some insight on how to bore to a 4.6L block. The chamber depth-to-surface is listed for both, and both are the same at 10.470-10.710mm.

    The valves are not the same size, though. So even if the heads had the same combustion chamber, the valves would need changing (which may not be very hard). The exhaust valves are the same with a head diameter of 27.880-28.140mm. The intakes are not with the Aurora having 34.090-34.350mm and the 275hp Northstar having 36.090-36.350mm.

    Interestingly, the 3.5 V6 has the exhaust valve listed as 28mm (not a range) and the intake as 36.2mm which is basically the same as the Northstar motor. Although the 3.5 does have a cylinder volume that is like the 4.6L V8, not like the Aurora V8 (a 6-banger Aurora V8 would be 3.0L not 3.5). Also, the 3.5 does have the combustion chamber volume listed (this is in the same manual as the 4.0 info, so I don't know why it isn't listed for the 4.0) at 56.0cc. The 3.5 has a 9.3:1 compression ratio. I can't think of anything to infer from the 3.5 info, though. Just thought it was interesting (and maybe you all can come up with something).

    Anyway... I just thought someone might find this interesting.

    As far as the FWD/RWD discussion. I would imagine TC helps a lot on RWD. But it helps on FWD too. So since FWD gets better traction than RWD when no electronics are involved, I'd think that the TC on FWD would have more to work with, and so FWD would still be preferrable. I don't think RWD would change my driving experience in any way, so I'd prefer FWD for those bad times. Also, traction control doesn't cut down on the huge hump that runs through the floor of a RWD car... :) Although, I can see having RWD on like the XLR or even the CTS. But the Seville or Aurora? I personally don't think they should (but I think the Aurora and CTS have different audiences). Interestingly, nobody gripes about Acuras or Audis having FWD.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    I think that the Aurora is a low priced STS/DTS alternative. Cadillac is moving the STS to RWD to make it into a highend (read 5-series BMW) sports sedan. The STS was always aimed at the sports sedan market - thats why the suspension is stiffer. With the DTS, the STS no longer makes much sense. The STS really does not replace the RWD Fleetwood sedan. A RWD STS won't replace it either, but I can see a sigma platform based on the STS that might be a Fleetwood replacement.

    As for the hump - if I remember right, the FWD Toronado/Eldorado did not have any hump. But my Aurora does have a hump and with bucket seats in front, humps don't matter much anyway. My Aurora isn't wide enough to carry 3 big guys in back very far anyway. So if you figure that you've got a 4 passenger car anyway, then the hump doesn't matter much.

    Regarding the tuning: Since the Aurora's peak horsepower matched up with the 275 hp northstar, I assumed the tuning was similar. One would think that they could have had the HO tuning part of the autobahn package. Part of the tuning is the intake manifold tuning too.
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    I really think the 275 er is the "high output" tuning IMO. It's got loads more torque almost everywhere on the curve. The difference of 5 on the peak is misleading. Also, it has a lot more HP all the way to 5000 rpm. I think the 275 engine mated to a 3.71 would be quicker to 60 and maybe even the 1/4 mile - or at least very close.

    I think a lot of the 300 Hp thing is simply being able to say "300 HP". Marketing. The torque curve and most of the HP curve on the 300 engine really give up a lot just for that high peak HP. It's sad. Finally the VVT is coming though - a bit late IMO.

    So, if the Aurora is tuned like the 275 4.6 that sounds good to me. If I ever were to put the 4.6 in an Aurora (I have the 3.71), I'd want the 275 HP engine.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    The HO northstar gives up a lot of lowend torque to get a little more highend horsepower. The Aurora's torque peaks at 4400 just like the HO northstar, so I wonder about that. Still, some back of the envelope calculations suggest that the 4 liter Aurora engine would probably not do any better than 260 hp @6000 if it was tuned more like the HO. And then the low end torque would be bad. The VVT is a good thing but for now is only going into the RWD cars as the cooling system is changed for RWD. So the Devilles won't get VVT for a while.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    if you scale the 275hp motor's output down by the displacement difference, the Aurora should only make 240hp. However, it makes 250, and the torque curve peaks at little higher rpm (perhaps because the torque curve is more extended due to better efficiencies, which would explain the higher hp rating). I suspect it is because of some higher efficiencies with the smaller displacement. Also, as I've said before, the Aurora is more of a stroker than a scaled-down 4.6 would be. Plus, it has basically the same intake and exhaust, yet it is a smaller engine (displacement-wise). So I'd bet with the 300hp tuning, the Aurora would make more like 270hp. Anyway, I too would prefer the current state of tune and the fatter torque curve. I didn't think the 275hp and 300hp Northstars had different intake manifolds, though. I thought it was all cam timing (and probably ECU programming).

    I have to say, it sounds like Garnes theory is close. Now that there is a better Northstar, the engineers seem freer to discuss the FWD one. If you read the press release on the new RWD Northstar, they mention how the new one doesn't suffer from the 300hp engines crummy torque curve. I guess they have to explain why 315hp is really a better improvement than it sounds like. I've also read a few other articles where GM reps mentioned it. They say the engine could be tuned to either deliver high horsepower or high torque as if they were mutually exclusive in the FWD Northstar. It sounds like that's a polite way of saying the 300 hp Northstar wasn't really the best.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    They can still add a variable length intake manifold (like mercedes' 3.2 V6) and get better lowend torque (with a longer manifold) plus (with a short length) better highend performance. This could be done with the VVT engine as well as the FWD northstar.
  • HenryHenry Posts: 1,106
    What is the real difference between the two? I always thought of it like voltage verses amps (electronic major in high school).

    meaning that like Voltage, horsepower is the potential power of the engine.

    torque is like amps - the ability to transferr that potential into actual power.

    The greater the amps/torque, the more watts/power you actually have.

    In other words, birds can sit on power lines because there is voltage (i.e horsepower) but no amps (i.e. torque). The circuit is not complete so the bird just sits there. If however the bird becomes grounded while on that power line, the amps flow and the bird is cooked.

    Is this how the horse power torque thing works????
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    Except they are mechanical. I started to write a description, but instead, check this out.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    Torque is roatating force. Force is like when you push on a wall - you generate force. But since you can't move the wall, no energy is produced. But if you apply the same force to a chair, it will accelerate and you will have done work in some unit of time = horsepower.

    An engine usually produces some amount of torque over a speed range (from ~2000 RPM's to ~5-6000 RPM's) The torque decreases at high speeds because not enough air/fuel can get through the intake valves, so the engines torque decreases fast. But for a given amount of torque, the faster the engine runs, then more horsepower there is. So @5250 RPMs 300 ft-lbs is 300 horsepower, but at 2625 RPMs, there is 150 horsepower.
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    Very cool. Thanks.

    NOW, what is going on with the message boards? I can't seem to access the other discussions as in the past. I'm sorry if I'm an internet rube, but things seem different for no good reason.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    I am seeing everything OK at the moment. At times I have needed to be logged in to see some things. I think the problem is Edmunds, but exactly why you are having a problem and others are not, I don't know. But it has happend to me at times.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    I think garnes may be used to accessing specific boards via the Make/Model search feature on the left. That got broken last night, but it is now fixed -- try again.

    If you are still having trouble, send me an email telling me exactly what you click on and exactly what happens when you do so.
  • HenryHenry Posts: 1,106
    I been looking at the pictures on the photo board. I cant help but notice how nice the cars look when they Have All Of Their HUB CAPS.

    Okay, I feel better now.
  • mike98cmike98c Posts: 293
    ordered some blue signal bulbs from abtivan for the turn signals, for about $16.00 I will see if they look to outrageous or blatantly illegal, saw an aurora with white signal lights on the front a couple days ago on the freeway. (Actually late at night here in Minnesota), looked pretty cool, He sped up and so did I but had to back off (low on gas then came up on a nasty accident). If you get a louder exhaust be prepared, I seem to be getting a lot more challenges since the converter has almost hollowed itself out. I saw high flow converters on the J.C. Whitney site that trumpet 400 cells per square inch. (going by my notoriously bad memory) as something special and having 20> percent less back pressure than most oem converters.
Sign In or Register to comment.