Oldsmobile Aurora

Henry

We went through the 7.5 quarts thing. So the oil pans are the same size. Are you saying that they are shaped differently? This should be easy enough to find out since you can see if the oil pans have the same part number.

mike98c

The poster suggessted that the oil pans were indeed shaped differently. Of course they will bolt up to either engine.

kayaman420

Not to come off sounding harsh , but if someone out there wants the 4.6 engine so bad maybe the wiser choice would be to just sell your Aurora and by a Caddie.

If you think about all of the porblems that will occur from the swap and all of the thousands you will waste buying the engine and then getting it to work in an Aurora . The cost would be astronomical. I guarantee that for less money you can sell an Aurora and buy one hell of nice caddie. Then you would have the great engine plus all the other great features of the Caddie.

The engine swap just doesnt make any sense to me.

Henry

Kayaman420, to be serious.

When has modifing any "Classic" car been cost effective?

You modify or restore a car because you like the car.

800wattaurora

I think you should jusat keep your 4.0 and spend the money on the swap for chfarb's port polish and cam job. That will add 75hp with the middle cams, making 325hp than add intake, 80mm TB and Corsa, roughly add 40hp and you got your self one fast 4.0 there for a lot less money, time, headaches from a 4.6 swap. probably cheepier too. You can do this because your obd-1 right? They will make a program for it all to work, too.

Save the Aurora, it's an extinict species. RIP

rjs200240

I agree with the naysayers. Why go to all that trouble to get a Northstar? It's an Aurora, and it should have an Aurora V8. You can get a lot of power from those 4 liters. You could also have it bored or stroked if you need more displacement. I think that would be easier than swapping out everything.

Just a little reality check, but how much power would you all really want from your car? I like that it is quiet when cruising, idles smoothly, revs smoothly, has a nice broad torque curve, and gets good economy. While I too am compelled by the thought of extra power, it almost always comes at a price.

fjk57702

My Seville gets about the same mileage on a gallon as the Aurora did, but the Seville has a 3.11:1 axle ratio while the Aurora had a 3.48:1. If one could just drop the 4.6 into the engine bay without a lot of modifications then an engine swap would make some sense. I think the Aurora should have the Aurora engine in it. The Seville is a nice car too. The Aurora is a more exclusive car because there are fewer of them.

mike98c

It would be identical to the 4.6 with none of the hassels of trying to make everything fit properly and even if you get a 4.6 cheap I would think the bore job, which is the only difference in displacement between the 4.0 and the 4.6, would be cheaper. Since the heads would be off, you could even get them ported and polished if the timeserts they would be putting in after stripping the threads in the aluminum block, didn't consume to much of the budget.

95mushroom

I can get salvaged cars for cheap. Friend's dad makes a living rebuilding them. So I thought a swap from a Caddie would have been an unbolt, bolt in process. It sounds like from you guys that its not so.

Also, yes rjs200240, the idea of extra power, in the case of the NorthStar, lots of power, is my main goal. I would like at least 350hp with 400hp as a target. As far as getting that from a 4.0 would be pretty tough and probably lose reliable, fair mileage, etc.

I konw it is not that hard to get 400hp from a NorthStar. Hence, thats why I would to install one. Also, the main problem seems to be the computer. I guess I'm going to have some chip guys for some info.

fjk57702

In 1995 the Aurora chassis was all new and different from cadillacs. So the 4 liter Aurora V8 could have been bolted in differently. I'm not sure that anyone really knows. I would think that you could figure it out from the service manuals for the two engines. In 1998 the Seville was upgraded to the Aurora chassis, so perhaps there is some chance that those northstars would bolt in.

If the 4 liter Aurora engine is the same as the 4.6 northstar except for thicker inserts to reduce the bore, could you take the cylinder inserts out and put in a Cadillac one?

95mushroom

maybe, but wouldnt the 4.0 be tuned different then the 4.6?

Henry

The young boyz at teh shop are at it again, this time over the oil thing. They insist the car takes 8.5 to 9.0 quarts.

Does anyone have the TSB number that talks about this issue? I know it is for the Caddie, but I am hopeful that someone here knows the deal.

Thanks,
Henri

rjs200240

Scroll back. I posted a link to the oil capacities before (at least twice). That was straight from GM's TechLink. If they don't believe that, then I don't know what to tell you...

sinatra2

rjs200240 is right The SERVICE MANUAL reads 7 1/2 quarts with filter change. There is nothing wrong with telling the auto tech they are mistaken if he or she has the facts wrong.
This message you can take as gospel according to GM.The dipstick however is another story..........we just can't read it unless the oil is black.

mike98c

The injectors are the same as well as the throttle body and induction. The computer should have no trouble adapting, the fuel RATIO is the same just more volume.

steinhau

Hi all,

I have some info for programming the 95 Aurora Keyless Entry Transmitters. This was done after visiting two dealers and both wanted to charge for this. The service writer at the Buick dealer told me that the Tech-1 tool only shorts pins 4 & 8 via a fuse. I have the older version of keyless entry transmitter. Part number (256002667, 68,69) and here's what worked for me (Pinout at bottom of msg -). Try this at your own risk:

1) Make a fused jumper (I used a 2A fuse - but a simple paperclip would probably work as well if you aren't afraid of damaging the computer) and connect jumper to pins 4 and 8 on the OBD connector under the dash (it's hidden by a black sliding door).
2) The doorlocks will cycle once (lock and unlock) as soon as jumper is installed. No need to turn on ignition.
3) Press the lock button on the FOB (doorlocks will cycle), then press the unlock button on the FOB (doorlocks will cycle).
4) Repeat step 3 for all FOB's being used on the car. When done remove the jumper and test FOBs for functionality.
5) Done.

There's also another procedure for the 95 and later models. This didn't work for me but it may for you:

1) Connect pins 4 and 8 on the OBD connector via fused jumper.
2) Turn on ignition (doorlocks cycle)
3) Press LOCK and UNLOCK simultaneously on the FOB.
4) Doors will cycle after approx. 30sec delay
5) Repeat step 3 for all FOBs
6) Turn off ignition
7) Remove jumper

OBD connector pinout:
  ___________________
 ( 1 . . . . . . . 8 )
  \ 9 . . . . . . 16/
    ---------------

Good luck....

= Uwe =

autobahn95

hey did anyone look on Ebay to see that Aurora that was smashed up in the rear?
the exhaust tips caught my eye,nice and polished.
i couldn't bear to look at that crumpled sheet metal. i hate to see that happen to an Aurora.

steinhau

Hopefully this will clear things up... there's also a gif of the dipstick in this TSB, but I don't know how to attach it to this message.
==================================================
Engine Oil Level Indicator - Reads Incorrect
File In Section: 6 - Engine
Bulletin No.: 47-61-37
Date: November, 1994

Subject: Incorrect Oil Reading from Engine Oil Level Indicator (Measure Engine Oil Level Indicator Length)

Model:
1995 Oldsmobile Aurora with 4.0L Engine
(VIN C - RPO L47)

Condition
Some vehicle owners may comment that more than 7.5 quarts (7.0 liters) of engine oil are required to fill the engine after an engine oil change.

Cause
This condition may be caused by an engine oil level indicator with insufficient length. This insufficient length may result in adding an additional 1/2 to 1 quart (liter) over the recommended 7.5 quarts (7.0 liters) for engine oil to register correctly on the indicator. This condition will not cause engine damage. The 4.OL engine used in the 1995 Aurora required only 7.5 quarts (7.0 liters) (including filter) engine oil to properly fill the crankcase.

Correction
To determine if the vehicle is equipped with a correct length engine oil level indicator, measure the length of the indicator from the flat on the land or upset above the "O" ring to the word "max" on the tip of the indicator. The length should be 618 mm.

 Note: For an interim period, the new fluid level indicator will have a silver dot under the "T" handle of the indicator.

Whenever it is necessary to check the engine oil level in the engine, make sure the vehicle is on a level surface and, to ensure an accurate reading, make sure the engine temperature is 100~C.

Parts Information
Whenever it is necessary to replace the engine oil indicator, refer to the following part number.

Description Part Number
Engine Oil Level Indicator 12554201

Parts are expected to be available from GMSPO on November 14, 1994.

rjs200240

Whenever it is necessary to check the engine oil level in the engine, make sure the vehicle is on a level surface and, to ensure an accurate reading, make sure the engine temperature is 100~C.

That's the wierdest thing I've ever heard. I've never had a car where the oil was to be checked hot. That's about 210 degrees F.

rjs200240

Someone on the Edmunds Bonnie board mentioned a GM High-Tech Performance magazine article on the Bonnie GXP. Apparently it will have a 285hp 4.4L version of the Premium V8 (we already knew that), but will have stock brakes, a lowered stock suspension, 17 or 18" wheels, and some interior carbon fiber accents, and of course no Corsa exhaust. Price around $38-43K. That really puts the Aurora in perspective! You get a much nicer look, in my opinion. Real wood accents instead of carbon fiber, 17" wheels, and a more luxurious interior, not to mention the stronger platform (the Bonnie and LeSabre are built on a lower-cost version of the G-body, called the H-body). The only thing the GXP has over the Aurora is the larger V8. The sticker is about $4,000 higher, though. $4,000 would easily buy you the extra 35 horsepower. The larger tranny and other additions will also increase the weight of the GXP over the current SSEi. The current SSEi only has a 12 pound advantage over the Aurora (!). It will also likely get worse real-world mileage (larger engine, same tranny and final-drive, and more weight to pull around). Plus, you get a car with a proud racing heritage, and a mystique since no one knows what it is. If you factor in the discounts, the Aurora is a more attractive, more luxurious GXP at almost a $10,000 savings. It really is GM's best car.

P.S. GM High-Tech Performance magazine? Think I could trade in my Car and Driver subscription for that? I'll throw in Road & Track too! Ok, ok, C&D, R&T, and Motor Trend. Deal?

Henry

"Oil Wars Episode Two - GM Strikes Back"

Intersting point about the oil temp. The TSB posted about the Aurora would make one believe that the "under fill" condition only relates to the 1995's. But I thought foks with later years reported the same "problem."

Another question (on oil), if you use fully synthectic oil can you then go 7,000 miles without an oil change? I had heard that with synthectics, you would make every other oil change and not the 3,500 mile changes. Is this true??

rjs200240

I don't think anyone else has been putting 1-2 extra quarts in theirs. I think some of us have put in an extra 1/2 quart (I did). But having the oil hot (if it were settled) would probably raise the reading by that 1/2 quart.

Also, doesn't your car have an oil life monitor? Just go by that. The synthetic will give you more protection and confidence, but the oil life monitor should still let you see 5-7,000 mile change intervals even though it assumes regular oil. I use Mobil 1 and just go by the monitor. That way I stay on the safe side.

garnes

Yes, that GXP doesn't cut it at all. For that money you need some real wood. Everything but the engine does seem like a step down from the Aurora and the engine isn't necessarily better - just a little bigger. Too bad. I'm thinking a different route for the next car some day - the GTO. If I get one some day, I hope to keep the Aurora too. That would be a winning pair of cars for me.

Yeah, that hot oil reading is weird, but I'd say it is settled that the 7.5 is the way to go.

Henry - Use M1 and you can go 7000 miles easy. I think RJS has it right. Use M1 and go with the oil life monitor. You cannot miss with that and have that added protection (perhaps psychological too) when you drive it hard and for cold starts.

fjk57702

On the first generation Aurora, the oil monitor would give me about 4000 miles between changes in the summer for city/local driving and about 7000 on long trips. Using synthetic did not make a difference (how would it know?). The re_engineered northstars (2000 model year) have a new calibration for the oil monitor or the engines are changed to require fewer oil changes.

garnes

I think we all know that the monitor doesn't know what your using. It's just a matter of "confidence" about how well the engine is served and protected throughout those 7000 or whatever miles. The synthetic is kind of insurance. Man this winter has been very severe with some really cold starts. The M1 has an advantage in a winter like this.

cwiley1

After I finished reading the Aurora forum several days ago I clicked on Pricing a new Oldsmobile, Aurora. I keyed in my zip code and no 2003 Aurora's were to be found within my 50 mile radius. I increased the distance and found a 2003 about 85 miles from Wichita. By clicking on the VIN number it displayed, you could see the sticker price and all the options. The color was Black Onyx with neutral interior. Besides the standard equipment the options were: Convenience package, 12 disc CD changer, Passenger comfort package, Navigational radio with Bose system, Heated front seats, Gold graphics package, 17" chrome-plated wheels, and Electric sunroof. Total price with destination was $39K. After reading about the new Pontiac, the Aurora seems like a better car. To bad a person didn't get one of the last 500!!!!

fjk57702

Actually it would not be that hard (if GM would build in) for the oil monitor to ask if you have synthetic or conventional oil. GM would have to figure out if synthetic does allow for extended oil changes.

rjs200240

Here is that article about the GXP. It sounds a lot like Pontiac is trying to build an Aurora... Also, there is a shot of the interior. I'll keep mine, thanks...

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0305GM_Sudden/

fjk57702

I think that Buick will also get some version of this "new" northstar V8 to replace the supercharged V6 3800. Probably in the next replacement for the Park Avenue. The Park Avenue is now in its 7th year of production, so they will wait till the next generation (which may be called something else).

rjs200240

That would be nice. Buick doesn't currently have a V8. They will have one in the Rainier, but who cares. It sounds like the 3800 is on it's last legs as GM has announced the "high-value" V6 will be based on the current 60-degree 3100/3400. They have said it can go as big as 3.9 liters. I think a V8 is just what the Park Avenue Ultra needs to justify its over $40K price tag.

garnes

Thanks for the article. There is a lot in there to comment about.

First - "If GM's 32-valve, quad-cam motor is indeed simply a de-stroked Northstar, it is hard to fathom why money would be spent to lower displacement 12 cubic inches before installing it in a performance car. Popular opinion would see this as a large waste of money when a few simple calibration changes could be made--GM may simply see it as a hierarchical decision. "You can't give a Camaro more engine than a 'Vette," one GM insider explained. "Regarding a 300-horsepower, flagship Cadillac and a Pontiac, it's the same thing."

Yep - there goes GM again spending money to reduce performance - after all if they didn't there would be NO difference between the GXP and a Caddy - right??? Stupid GM. Just make the best darn car you can and keep costs down. Let the consumer decide. Get a clue. This "strategy" of GM's drives me crazy. It's self destructive. They have to consider the imports too.

fjk57702

The smaller northstar should get a better EPA MPG rating too, but the Aurora V8 didn't. Certainly, the Pontiac northstar could have be made without the variable valve timing (and is) which would be the Cadillac difference (on their RWD cars).

garnes

"But when factoring in the driveline loss and extra weight, we suspect that the 285-horse, naturally aspirated GXP won't be any faster than the original concept's 270-horse 3.8."

Um excuse me - the production model would not have a K&N filter or a Corsa exhaust, therefore no 270 HP 3.8. Not even close. I don't think we will see K&N filters as "stock" equipment any time soon. I think that is asking too much of the general public regarding maintenance. Just my HO.

Where do these writers come from??

garnes

"However, the GXP will share the Caddy's stronger tranny. Unfortunately, this strength comes with a price: the 4T80E is nearly a hundred pounds heavier, at 292 pounds versus 195 for the 4T65E. It has been estimated that a 24 percent driveline loss exists with this trans, which is higher than the 4T65E's estimated 21 percent."

Hey - I may have been about dead-on with my dyno measurements of the power to the wheels at about 76%. Cool.

It really makes me wonder about the 350Z "test car" I saw dyno'd in a magazine - it was giving about 85% at the wheels according to the rated output at the crank. I still say it was the first documented evidence suggesting they do send ringers to the magazine - especially Nissan. But who know maybe a 15% driveline loss is very possible and I'm unaware of it.

garnes

"Consider the inferior weight transfer and other unpleasantness associated with a front-drive, V8-powered vehicle which will top 3,900 pounds, and we're looking at mid-14s in the 95 mph range on a good day. Not lightning-quick, but it will still beat the SSEi's mid-15s like a stray dog."

Sorry, mid 14's I'd like to believe. I doubt it. I think my car's output is very much the same as the proposed GXP and I don't think I'd run a mid 14. Maybe I'm off here, but I don't think I've gone from high 15's to mid 14's and again, by modified 4.0's output is probably very nearly the same as the proposed GXP. I think that is even faster or maybe the same as the STS.

BTW - I'd consider mid 14's pretty darn quick. You pretty much have to go for a Camaro or Mustang with a strong V8 to significantly beat that.

garnes

Good point about the VVT difference. There you go. You need to be paid as a consultant for GM. A lot of us here would do them good.

rjs200240

That mileage comment is understandable. But I can't help but wonder if Caddy snuck by the requirement somehow (how different can a powertrain be and not have to re-rate it? I don't know, but I suspect there are some guidelines for this). The 300hp Northstar and the 275hp Northstar are rated at the same EPA mileage. No way the higher axle allows them to get the same mileage. I suspect the 300hp Northstar would do worse than the Aurora mileage-wise in real life. I can understand the 275hp version having better highway mileage because of the longer gearing.

Greg you are right about the intentional hp trimming. It is stupid. Let the Camaro share an engine with the 'vette. The intake and exhaust will likely be more restrictive, but even if not, who cares? Do they really think people would stop buying the 'vette? Is that all that differentiates one from a Camaro? It's idiotic...

rjs200240

The 2002 Aurora is Strategic Vision's Most Delightful larger car.

rjs200240

While there has been a ton of snow (24+ inches) here in the last few weeks, the Aurora was inside for most of it. However, last week it snowed about 3" while I was at work. It was dark out when I was leaving, and the roads hadn't been plowed. It was quiet and serene as it usually is when it snows. I started the Aurora up, and I was in heaven. That slow, muscular burble quietly breaking the snowy silence is just incredible. The drive was even better. Everything is just so quiet when it's snowing, and it's just such an experience to drive in. Usually, though, it's a harrowing one. But this drive was great. The Aurora was strong and confident. Those front wheels just pulled the car wherever I needed it to go. There was no constant fear that the slightest mistake in throttle or steering application would bring the rear end swinging violently around. The car drove beautifully, perfectly navigating the roads. And all the while playing that beautiful V8 soundtrack over the serene silence of a snowy night. Rather than being made just to handle a track, the Aurora was made to handle everything. And it does it all with crisp, strong acceleration, quick, confident handling, loads of luxury, good looks, and reasonable economy. With that symphony composed by Corsa providing the finishing touch, who could ask for anything more...

garnes

There must be something wrong with that survey. Lexus did not even place one car. Neither did MB. Notify Consumer Reports at once.

rjs200240

Here is one on gasoline and octane:
http://service.gm.com/gmtechlink/arcv_pdf/4_00_e.pdf

And here is one on PCS (though in the Intrigue, not the Aurora):
http://service.gm.com/gmtechlink/arcv_pdf/12_99_e.pdf

This one is on the 2001 Aurora, though I think I may have posted it already:
http://service.gm.com/gmtechlink/arcv_pdf/5_00_e.pdf

I'd like to find one on Magnasteer II. So if you see one, let me know.

aurora5000

Beautiful man,....Just Beautiful...

Henry

You're in LOVE.

95mushroom

http://autos.msn.com/vip/heraudreport.aspx?modelid=10408&src=- vip

under budget, they say the Aurora averages 17mpg of regular unleaded lol.

rjs200240

which is to say a crappy one. The Aurora is now "on-par" with the competition thanks to futher refined technology? Yeah, it was a real dinosaur back in 1994... I don't know how they could get 17 mpg. I have about a 5 mile commute to work, which takes me about 10-15 minutes (and I go home for lunch). I have a once-a-week drive to school, which is about 30 miles, and then any sort of daily errand driving, and I usually get about 19-20 mpg. But whatever, I don't pay those things any attention anymore. 95mushroom, the new Aurora does run on regular, though (not sure if that's what you were laughing about?).

mcclearyfl

Most computer-controlled engines will run on almost anything. If the engine is designed for high-performance, the use of a lower-octane fuel will simply reduce that performance, and such deterioration may not be evident to the casual driver.

High-mileage engines with carbon buildup (resulting in a higher compression ratio) could theoretically run into problems when using a lower-octane fuel, since the operating parameters might lie outside the range covered by the computer. However, pinging and/or dieseling would be fairly obvious.

Like others I use regular gas. I have a seat-of- the-pants sense that premium provides a tad more oomph, but you would need a race track and timers to confirm this. My supercharged Buick Regal also required premium and, in my opinion, ran equally well on mid-grade but lost a little urgency on regular.

Chris

Henry

For my Classic:

regular - not recommended, performance drop off

silver - is okay, performance loss is noticable, but livable

premium- Now you talking aROARa

Shell Ultra - a waste of money

hardesty

Here is the link for Magnasteer II info. Delphi has an incredible amount of information available to the public.

http://www.delphi.com/pdf/steeringpdfs/Magsteer2.pdf

rjs200240

Can't believe I forgot about Delphi... I thought Magnasteer II incorporated the ability to adjust for the lateral rate, and that confirmed it. I think Mangasteer is really awesome, and I don't know why it gets bashed by the auto rags. It doesn't feel artificial or disconnected, nor is there an abrupt transition of levels.

This board has been really slow lately, so how about a question. If your Aurora got stolen or something and you got $40,000 to replace it, what would you most likely buy? Myself, I'd probably buy a 2003 'Roara and another Corsa system. The only other car that has much appeal to me is the CTS, but I don't want a V6, even when it starts making 250-260 hp.

fjk57702

was to spend about $40000 for an end of the model year 2002 Seville luxury sedan (not the STS). I traded the 98 Aurora + ~29,000 for it. The Cadillac has more shoulder and head room even with a sunroof. There is no trip computer like the Aurora had, but most of the functions are there on the driver information center. Oil pressure is not displayed though. I am not sure if the new Aurora's have the same trip computer that the first generation had?