Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Maybe the 95 had a slight edge over the other years with the free flowing top. When I was at the dyno, one thing I did was run tests on the two different top sections with the bottom section stock. I wanted to know how much of the gains were from the opened up top by itself. It seemed that the modified top portion is mostly responsible for the increase in power between 4600 and 4850/4900 (where the shape of the curve is actually changed). In that range, I think you can find +10 HP and +10 torque when you add in the K&N.
I know I keep repeating it, but I can't wait for the northstar induction from x-m-s. I think eliminating that hard 90 out of the box will be a better deal.
I'm really sorry about what ended up being a hokey test of the MAF some time back. I do have to go back someday. But so far I can say I really like the thing. No complaints and it seems to be be doing something (could be in my head though).
Just a side note, but I keep track of all the gas I put into the tank, and I find that about 0.75 gallons (more or less) per tank go through the emmissions trap (charcoal canister) instead of the fuel injectors.
" keep track of all the gas you put into the tank, and find that about 0.75 gallons (more or less) per tank go through the emmissions trap (charcoal canister) instead of the fuel injectors."
I have been told that you can UPGRADE the shocks by replacing them with the shocks that would go on the Caddie. The Caddie suspension is suppose to be tighter.
Thanks for the info on Monroe SensiTracs. Do the rears maintain the load-leveling function?
Henry,
I've read that too about Caddy shocks, but never seen any details such as part numbers.
The 0.75 gallon difference you note -- how do you determine that? I'm asking to understand -- not to challenge your statement. On my '97 I have observed that fill-ups consistently take more gallons than the DIC shows as used. The amount varies over a range of 1% to 10%; 0.75 gal is in that range. I have thought that either the gas stations' pumps are not calibrated properly or that my Aurora's computer is off. So I wonder if what I have observed is the same phenomenon you mention.
Henri,
I guess I've just confirmed myself to be one of the "obsessed."
I have kept track of all the fuel on most of my cars, so I know that the Aurora is getting on average about a quarter of a mile to the gallon better mileage than the 95 Riviera did (but that may be due to statistical fluctuations and is on fewer miles).
Since some fuel does bypass the computer, the computers MPG is higher than actual. This amounts to about 1 MPG or so.
The long term average mileage seems to be some weighted average too. I note that if I make a short highway trip, the average bounces up quite a bit. Then it goes back down after city driving for a while. My guess is that the long term average is on about 30 to 50 gallons, but I have not gone on a long trip recently. I know that a trip that uses about 15 gallons does not bring the average up to what a trip average should be.
I do know that the average is not a simple average. The simple average would be the distance traveled divided by the fuel used and those numbers are different than the average MPG the computer has.
This question was never answered becuase they did not know the mwth behind the numbers.
THIS IS KIND OF THE HOLY GRALL for aurora owners. The formulas used by the DIC display to calculate the numbers.
GOOD LUCK!
KA-PLAH!
The long term average MPG could be done a number of ways. It could be some weighted average over the last 50 gallons used or it could keep track of short, medium and long (since the last reset) distances and fuel used to compute the average.
One thing I know is that to get an accurate long trip reading, reset it just as you are starting the trip.
However, we still do not have the exact formula. Oldsmobile seems to guard the formula for the DIC with same tenacity as the owners of the formula for COKE and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Maybe its a matter of National Security?
Here is Oldsmobile's Response:
GM does not publish fording depth information on vehicles except for the H2 Hummer. We recommend
that you avoid fording practices as much as possible, primarily because of the deleterious effect of
water on the brake pads and rotors.
Anyone have a better idea?
I mean, it's clearly more than 1", but probably less than 2'.
Fording- The closest I came to Fording in my Aurora was the time the engine stalled coming off the Freeway...acted just like my old Ford Aerostar...dadumdumpt.
If you unplug your battery for the 30 minutes, reset the computers systems, does it reset the DIC also or is it on a seperate battery backup?
How do you know that your complete system has been reset?
Thanks
More interested in a Palm type but unsure what kind and what software. Does anyone sell a "All in one" package?
Thanks
Sounds like you got a nice '97. What color and how many miles?
The car is silver (grey interior) with chrome wheels and the moonroof and autobahn package. It had 59,500 and I picked it up for $11K. That may seem a grand or so high but everything works and it has been garage kept and most of the other ones around here for sale were white or black which don't work for me (our sub is on a dirt road).
Thanks for the info. on the plugs and such, I'll probably be doing mine this summer. I'm also wondering when to replace the battery.
As for Sir Technical, well I gotta hand that distinction to guys like Fjk, Rjs, Blk97, Hardesty, and lots of others - some of whom have posted less frequently but seemed to have designed the darn Northstar. When they start talking about intake runners (if I remember that right)and compression waves and the like - that's pretty technical stuff not familiar to me. And then there seems to be a lot here that are not afraid to work on the Aurora - that's impressive too.
I always wish I had 3D moving illustrations for discussions like that.
Aurora 5000 - when I unplugged the battery, I had to reset the date. I don't think other stuff like the oil life was affected, I'm not 100% sure on that, but pretty sure. According to Granatelli Motor Sports - they say 30 minutes, but a lot of people just say to leave it unplugged over night and there is no question about it. When you do this, and start it up for the first time, tell me if the flipping AC comes on - that's kind of weird.
I'm sure some of the other techno-wizards here know more specifics, but I think the OBD-2 computer tracks the operation of the engine and "learns" driving/operating characteristics. Therefore it is recommended to disconnect the battery for a period of time to start from scratch with the computer with something like a recalibrated MAF. Supposedly if you do not, the computer will be averaging data from the original unit with the new unit and the gains will not be as effective. I really don't know anything specific about that OBD 2 - just generalities like that.
Perhaps it's all a bunch of BS, but unplugging the battery over night is easy and doesn't hurt anything.
RJS - could you post the name and number of the place you got your K&N at again??? I think you got yours for about $30 less than less fortunate people like me and mindseye.
The new 7-series BMW has a continuously variable intake manifold length, varying from 20+ inches to 8 inches (not sure about exact lengths offhand). Anyway, our library has a (simple) book on engine design, which I read through, and a long manifold length (30 inches) is good for lowend torque, while a short (7-8 inches) is good for highend (6000 RPMs) torque. And 15 inches is good for the 3-4 thousand RPM range.
Anyway, if you can vary valve timing and intake manifold lengths (continuously varying is expensive), torque can be optimized at both low and high engine speeds. All that is really needed is to have two or three intake manifold lengths to make a big difference, which is easily done with a port in the tube. It does add cost though.
I'm a civil engineer (not a physicist) and deal with fluid flow all the time so I guess that's my reason for being preoccupied with the air flow characteristics on the intake and exhaust. There is a heck of a difference between incompressible water and compressible air, but the basics of eliminating the "losses" still seem to apply. In addition, modifying the intake or exhaust is easy stuff and on my level of car work.
Thanks for the info.
The book has a lot of diagrams, graphs and equations (easy equations).
E = mc^2 is another good equation.
zinc1: I had seen that, but I'm not sure who gave the award and what it means.
I remember figuring some scenarios for time dilation (for a paper in astronomy)using the formula for figuring that out based on your speed. It was a simple formula (my favorite kind) - that was an interesting excercise.
So, you have to help us now that you have exposed your physics background. How much is time distorted when doing 120 in you Aurora for an hour (assuming you don't get caught)? Yeah, I know the answer is essentially zero, so maybe I should ask how long would you have to drive at 120 in your Aurora to distort 1 second? Probably something like 100,000 years - maybe millions. Oh well. Fill us in on the answer if you still have that formula handy. Some of may want to try this out.
I'm losing it. Sorry.
Zinc - welcome back - thanks, I've not seen that. Very cool. I'm sorry it wasn't the car of the decade for you. I wonder what HENRY thinks about that. It's certainly been the car of the century for his warranty company.
YOU still can not stay away.
Should we start a pool on how long it will take Zinc to buy another Aurora???
Will let you know about the A/C switch when I power down.
Went to the Dealers Annual Car show here in the city. On Sat. March 9, I saw the small poster with the info. about the Aurora as "Car of the Decade". The lady at the Olds booth said they just got the info. in on Fri. from GM.
The neatest thing (I thought)at the Car Show was a view of the Northstar engine display at the Cad booth. It was cut up and chromed to show almost all of the engine parts. I was really impressed with the engine up close. I suggest to all if the show comes to your town, try to make it... for me that alone is worth the trip.
Also...2001 and 2002 differences...
1)Chrome exhaust tips?
2)Trunk lid around liscense plate has a designed line of some sort on back side of trunk?
3) Navigation radio?
4) Attachments for Child seat in back seat?
Garnes, I got my K&N from Summit Racing at www.summitracing.com but I haven't gotten one for my Aurora yet. I bought a lot of parts from them for my Corvette (which I put a link to from my Aurora page) and they always had the best prices. They carry a whole lot of parts too.
1. Chrome exhaust tips (yes)
2. The trunk lid thing is the difference between the 3.5 and 4.0 (steel with insert vs. aluminum smooth) not a 2001 vs. 2002 thing
3. Navigation radio (not available with Bose)
4 LATCH anchors at all 3 rear seating positions
5. 2002 does not have strange floppy plastic in trunk (if you have a 2001, you know what I mean)
6. Modified glove box interior (make up for quick fix, early 2001s sucked papers out of box into A/C)
7. Slight differences in cup holders and the center dash cubby.
8. Better mileage rating for 2002 4.0, and while unpublished, more power across the revs (I think better programming is the cause, car just seems that little bit smoother)
Others that I have missed, some are running changes (not strictly model year differences). Only about one more year of production left.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/11.html
The v/c factor squared is 10^-14 and my calculator rounds off to 1. So we have to approximate the square root of 1 + small value. Actually we want the square root of 1 + small value squared. I think the answer is 3.5 billion years, but I may be off by a factor of two or perhaps more? Anyway this is assuming that you don't stop for gas!
Okay, the square root of 1 + delta, where delta is small is about 1/2 delta, so the answer is a bit over 7 billion years. I think that we can neglect relativity corrections. The speed of light is near 186,000 miles per second, so once you are near 1% or more of the speed of light, then things are a bit different.
Well it's a good thing the seats are fat and comfy if I'll be cruising that long.
Fjk, your leaving me light years behind on this.