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
has anyone replaced or repaired their load leveling compressor?
I replaced the rear shocks on my '95 about a year ago. I replaced them with the stock GM replacement. The Olds dealer also installed them. The total cost for the two shocks and the labor was about $320. They have really worked out well for me. I had about 85K on the car at that time.
the rear shocks on my 95 were replaced less than 2 months ago. i bought them and installed them myself, only cost me $94 for the pair and about a half hour's time. and they were the factory AC Delco reactek shocks.
www.yoursource-autoparts.com.
i haven't found better prices yet than this site.
Why? WHY? why?
Is there a rough group of Aurora owners out there stealing hub caps?
Of all the things to take off a Classic, why the hub caps?
Now I know how the Mercedes owners felt a few years back when the kids were taking the hood ornaments off the car because a music group member wore a Mercedes emblem.
However, I dont see wearing an Aurora hub cap as being COOL.
I have a 97 and the 97 manuals also. They should suffice for your 96 as the main changes are additions: larger front brakes, a compass in the rearview mirror, an outside mirror reverse tilt-down feature, and cast control arms. All of the 'classic' things we need to change should be the same...
--Robert
http://www.cardomain.com/id/javidogg
Whatever you get or got - just don't take it to that garage you mentioned on your site that goofed up the Aurora.
Just thought you all might want to know.
I usually drive with the fog lights off.
Just looking for opinions.
It also annoys me when they say it's the only $40,000 mid-sized lux car with a V-8. I suppose it's true, though, as an Aurora would never cost that much. I guess a car has to have an analog clock in it to be a luxury car...
RJS - maybe you should skip the magazines. I will be glancing once in awhile, but rarely buying. Perhaps writing letters to the editors would make you feel better, but overall, if they are serving crap, I'll spend my time and money elsewhere. These magazines get a lot of advertising dollars and are basically staffed by people that are import oriented (I'll bet that's what they have in their garage). So it's just human nature that objectivity will be as far away as the (maybe) closest galaxy. Come on, these guys aren't going to put a domestic car over what they spent their hard earned money on.
It's kind of like these mutual fund managers that would go on the financial shows and talk up the stock they where holding in the fund.
If you buy a car and it's really important as to what some pin-head thinks about how it feels going around pylons, and your ego is on the line as to what this pin-head thinks, then the magazines may be important. But if you look at things rationally and analytically (like an engineer) and know a slab-sided featureless car when you see it (even that can be an objective point), then you are never going to be happy reading these things.
I sure hope the new STS looks good. I'm a sucker for good looking sheet metal and interior. Assuming the quality is there, the styling just has to be there for me if I'm going to spend a lot of money.
I like the look with them off also.
Henri
P.S. - Finding the hub cap center piece is proving to be a royal pain. Now I know why mine got stolen. Some guy probably "ordered" one from a less then reputable shop.
Henri, I haven't had a center hubcap piece turn up missing yet... but since I've seen you and a few others post on the board about it, I've notice at least one other classic in my area without the front ones. How strange is that? Is this the new thing to rip off, a' la the Merc and VW ornamentation of years past?
RJS - I agree with you 100%. As a former Infiniti Q45 owner, I tend to keep up with Infiniti. I really like the latest Q and the G35... but the M45 is uglier and duller than a camary! I don't know what Infiniti was thinking, but these car magazines continue to show their complete and total biased for anything non-domestic.
Actually, the website should get fixed, and the weight distribution thing on the media.gm site is now correct. So the media.gm site should be all correct now. I emailed a nice person within GM Communications who was very helpful about getting them corrected.
The polymer thing struck me as not making much difference. I'm basing that on the fact that my 2 oil analysis (and comments from the lab) has showed that there is almost no wear going on in my engine. If you are insane and use M1 oil and change it every 3k, there is very little, if any, friction that could be eliminated by some other advancement. Just MHO. Last test showed only 1 ppm of iron and 1 ppm aluminum. That's as low as they can detect. Also, there just doesn't seem to much of an accumulation of dirt (the small stuff that the filter can't get)to wear things when you are changing that frequently. I'm sure the polymer stuff is great for withstanding some abuse, but if you are a maintenance nut, I don't see it making any difference.
I really like that the pillars are felt-covered. They are plastic in the new car. The classic is much more cockpit-like with all the buttons on the doors. I think it's neat, but sort of prefer the cleaner interior on the new car. I also like the center cluster and instruments on the new car better, although the center cluster on the classic is neater (more in keeping with the cockpit theme). However, the trip computer is a great idea with the flip-up cover because you can just select the info you want to see rather than scrolling through it like on the new car, and you dont' have to see all those buttons all the time. Visibility seems a bit better in the new car because it feels a bit more upright. However, this is not everyone's preference. I like how the dash and doors integrate on the classic much better. It's much cleaner. And the vents on the doors really direct air at the occupants better. I didn't realize the dual-zone control was on the passenger door on the classic too. I really think that's neat. Oh, the new Aurora has framed windows. I tend to prefer that because when the window is partially down they bang around when opening the doors. However maybe they don't do that on the Aurora. I didn't try it. Framed doors also tend to have fewer leak/alignment problems. Non-framed windows look cooler when the window is down and the door is open, though.
Driving, the classic feels a little more floaty. The new car is more buttoned-down. However, the classic is better over potholes and transfers less noise. My car makes a "thud" over potholes, although very little feel is transmitted. Just the noise. But the classic didn't "thud" nearly as much (I drove on familiar roads, so it was a good way to compare). The steering is noticeably lighter on the classic. I like how the wheel has thick parts right where your hands go. But the new wheel is thick everywhere.
Ok, please no anger, but my car feels faster. I punched it a few times, and one time I punched it from a light on a 55mph road. I put it in 2nd, trac off, power button on (in). It laid down a bit more of a patch than my car can, but it feels like my car pulls harder above about 3500 rpm. I stayed on it until about 70. The car was an autobahn, the fuel tank was at about 1/4, and it was a nice 80 degree day. It was just me and my wife in the car, and I've punched it in 2nd/TC off in my car plenty of times with her riding with me. Of course, feel is very subjective. The amount a car lifts up, the engine noise, and all sorts of things can skew the impression of acceleration. So take it with a grain of salt. Oh, the engine noise is different. I really noticed that there is more intake noise on the classic. It's not objectionable, but there is a difference. I think it allows a little more exhaust burble to come through on my car since the intake isn't as loud.
Driving both, it is easy to see where the new car came from. Many similarities to the classic. They are both really excellent cars. The tranny on the classic was sooo smooth. Even under hard throttle the shifts were quick yet not jarring. It really helped underscore that mine shifts hard. It isn't hard compared to other cars, but it is smooth sometimes and hard others. Which is why I thought something was up. So I guess I need to shop around for another dealer. Mine just says it's normal (and a mechanic on a ride-along tried to tell me the 4T-80E is supposed to be a hard-shifting tranny...). So maybe I'll try a Caddy place. It was nice to take a classic for a drive. I'd never been in one before. It really is a great car. I can't believe it didn't sell better, or that Olds is gonna be gone soon...
http://209.61.155.43/division/powertrain/press_kits/future_tech/index.html
I hope that the CTS will not be inflated in the same way. The CTS is probably the car that the Aurora should have been in the first place - rear wheel drive, good handling, luxury options. I am waiting for a decent engine and hoping that the SRX will not cost too much.
I always say that HOPE is whats left when reality fades away.
Henri
FJK, I'd have to disagree with the CTS being what the Aurora should have been. I wouldn't buy a CTS even if the exterior looked like the Aurora. The interior is smaller and I hate the interior design. I like the wood and all in the Aurora. I hate the lack of it, and that angled steering wheel, in the CTS. I also prefer FWD as I don't notice any torque steer, I didn't buy the car to autocross, and FWD is much more predictable and useful in bad weather. I don't know why Cadillac wants to go RWD for the Seville (except that they want to be BMW for some idiotic reason...). RWD also intrudes on the passenger space more, and vibration can be more of a problem with the driveshaft. And I think the Aurora has good handling. Especially for the driving I do. I would also find it very difficult to pay $35,000 for a vehicle with a 6-banger.
You are right about the price. At least on the classic. I think between 95 and 96 the price went up like $5000-6000 so they could offer more rebates. Pretty dopey. The 2001 was noticeably cheaper than the 1999, even the 4.0. Plus, it had extras like stability control, 17" wheels, and Solar-Ray glass. So I don't think price was nearly the problem with the current car. I think lack of advertising was the problem for it. Plus, Olds really didn't have time to turn it around. It wasn't until 2000(2001) that they really had the Alero/Intrigue/Aurora lineup (in 1999 they still had the Cutlass, LSS, and 88). And the next year Olds got killed. That's just not enough time. Oh well...
The 3.6 "high-feature" V6 has been in the works for the CTS for a while now. It will most likely be the new base engine. That 3.2 isn't really that great. There will be a whole line of "high-feature" V6's in varying displacements. They will probably replace engines like the 3.5 and 3800s in more upscale-ish cars. The downscale-ish cars will get versions of the 60-degree OHV V6's (3.4 and 3.1 currently). Apparently they've been updated to be more reliable (fewer leaking problems) and to be a bit more powerful and efficient. I doubt there will be anymore 90-degree V6's. Apparently the CTS V-series (the new name for Caddy performance cars) will have a version of the Corvette V8. But I doubt that will happen in other Caddy V-series cars. Really, it seems a bit too rough-and-tumble for a Cadillac in my opinion.
But I guess time will tell. I think the new Northstar looks good and the prospect of a Cadillac V-12 is awesome. I just wish a Cadillac with luxury, style, and a V8 could be had for under $40,000. Maybe I need to buy another Aurora, seal it in a big bag, and open it up in about 5 years... There was some talk of a small high-tech V8 for front-drivers (no bigger than about 4.0 liters). I haven't heard any GM news on that for a while, though. It was supposed to be a 75-degree engine so it would be quite a bit smaller than the Aurora V8 (which isn't that small. Supposedly it can support up to 5.4L of displacement).
I for one do not like the Aurora repair costs. $1200 to replace a valve cover seal is bad. I would guess if the car were RWD, that cost would be much less. To replace the power steering pump requires removal of the radiator first! Of course with a RWD probably you would still have to remove the radiator to fix anything on the front of the engine.
The CTS is aimed at the 5-series. The next STS is aimed at the 5-series V8. The CTS is really aimed more at the highend 3-series/lowend 5-series. The SRX is said to be a CTS wagon, so the northstar should also fit into the CTS. But I think the SRX will be a bit wider body. I do agree that the CTS interior is too lowend compared to the Aurora - which is way too lowend compared with my 86 T-type Electra. GM interiors are just too much plastic now.
The 2001 Aurora price is better, but now its a LeSabre (not a Park Avenue/Deville), so its still overpriced. With nav and other stuff the price is $40,000. The CTS with nav, sport pkg, zenon lights is close to $40,000 too. I hope a RWD (not AWD) SRX with goodies will run only a bit over $40,000 and have lots of room for stuff. The CTS does have 5 speed automatic.
They have an archive of their reviews on their website. I found one of the 2001 4.0. It's pretty good. I noticed a few little things like they mention the power recline/lumbar on the drivers-side only (the driver's and passenger's seats have the same adjustments) and the transmission-life monitor. I wonder if they had an early car or if they just looked up some of that info later and it was listed wrong. Anyway, I thought this was one of the best reviews yet. Of course, that's because I agree with most everything they said in it.
Greg, so far I haven't noticed any comparos in AutoWeek. Even their car reviews are pretty short. I think they focus more on breaking auto news and motorsports. I like it so far (as there just isn't as much opportunity to be offensive). Maybe I'll let my subscriptions to Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and Road & Track run out and just read AutoWeek and watch MotorWeek. But then I'll miss out on C&D's tuner showdowns and R&T's excellent photography of exotic and classic cars. I guess I won't miss anything in specific about Motor Trend. I'm not really sure why I started subscribing to it.
Does it seem like the board has been pretty slow recently? Is everyone out enjoying an early-fall drive through nature? If so, post a picture and a narrative about it...