Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Oldsmobile Aurora: Acceleration

aurora5000aurora5000 Member Posts: 168
edited July 2014 in Oldsmobile
It seems under half-throttle the car takes off in the 3500-4000 range and really pulls hard.

Anybody else notice this? Kinda like the back 2 barrels of a 4bbl. carb. system.
«13456

Comments

  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Well, I was going to Target around lunchtime to pick up a few things today. I was on my way there, driving briskly, when I noticed a charcoal gray IS300 weaving around traffic behind me. He got around everyone and rolled up to the left of me at a red light. We were both in the front row. It was a short light so I had to work fast. I clicked the shifter down into 2nd and flicked the traction control off. I looked over at him but he was busy watching the light. He was a young (late 20's) guy with spikey hair so I figured he was gonna go for it. The light changed and I lit them up and looked over at him. He was looking at me with this shocked/surprised look on his face as I blew past him and left him in the dust. He was probably planning on just driving briskly to pass the "Old"smobile next to him. I guess if he'd looked over at me he'd have figured out I wasn't about to let that happen easily.

    Then, on the way home from Target I was stopped at a longer red. A youngish (30's) chick in a Boxster convertible with the top down pulled up on the left. I looked over as I was shifting into 2nd to see if she was gonna go. She had a rather arrogant look like she thought I was checking out her cool machine (I hate Boxsters... what a ween car. If you want a Porsche, buy a 911.) Anyway, being as it was a chick, I didn't want her to feel intimidated or anything so I didn't look at her too long and I didn't say anything. I did however left-foot brake and gas it up to about 1500 rpm. She kept rolling up a little as she watched the light. Once it changed I dropped the hammer and peeled out ahead of her. She had this astonished look on her face like her world just collapsed as this big Olds barrelled past her and her upper-class sports car. The IS300's guy's look was great, but this chick's look was classic. Anyway, it seemed like she had gotten on it pretty briskly but as I rolled past her she backed off. It made me think of Jerry Seinfeld saying "I refuse to race", as if she wouldn't be able to handle it if she did get on it and couldn't catch up. I got hung up at the next light and she eventually caught up and was making a left turn. She had the left-turn arrow before she got there, so she punched it a bit as she passed me to give me a little Boxster growl.

    I swear I love my Aurora. It is like a stealth bomber. No one even sees it until the tires are barking and the exhaust is snapping a stern lecture at them as it passes. I can't wait to get the Corsa's... I actually haven't had anyone car try their hardest to race me yet (the Sunfire was planning to punch it anyway). I usually look over at people when I want to try it. That's all it ever took with the Corvette. People were always looking back. I'd just flash a little smile and look back at the light and it was on. With the Aurora, people don't even look over, and when they do it seems to be because they are wondering why I'm looking. I guess I'll need to start rolling the window down and saying "Hey, let's race". I really have no desire to start doing that, though. I guess they just don't think that big Olds next to them is going to try anything. Even people in comparable cars who obviously spent extra money because of the "performance" cachet that comes with their car. People in Bimmers, Audi's, Mercs, and even LS's. They just don't pay attention until I light them up or they catch the growl of the race-bred V8. If we happen to catch the next light together, they act spooked. They don't look over and pretend like they aren't paying attention. I guess by then I've shown my hand and they don't want their pricey car getting spanked.

    As far as the Aurora being slow in the lower speeds, I really don't think it is. Obviously it would be quicker if it were lighter, but it does pretty well I think. About two weeks ago my wife and I were driving back from a trip to Monticello (Jefferson's home, pictured on the nickel). We had just stopped to fill up with as much gas as we could squeeze in the tank ($1.33 a gallon for premium!) and had started back on our way home. A young (late teens early 20's) kid in a new Sunfire GT was working through traffic and was working his way up on us. I was in the middle lane when the light turned red and he got over into the left lane, which was going to end shortly after the light. This guy was definitely trying to take us before his lane ended. I nodded to my wife and switched off the traction control. The road was at an upward slant for the intersection, thus giving an advantage to the lighter car. Anyway, the light changed and I feathered the throttle a little to keep the wheels from spinning and the Sunfire stomped it. He didn't stand a chance, though. He slowly started to fade back to the rear doors as we worked up to about 40-45mph. The Aurora was belting out a beautiful tune, really sounding smooth and muscular compared to the Dremel sound coming out of the Sunfire. By 40-45 mph, he had to get on the brakes and fall in behind the Aurora. Even to 40 mph with a really full tank and two occupants the Aurora managed to hold it's own against a substantially lighter car. I was proud of the car. I probably could have really disgraced the guy if I'd left-footed the brake and didn't feather the gas. He probably wouldn't have even needed to brake to get in behind me.
  • hammen2hammen2 Member Posts: 1,284
    RJS, I guess I'm not the only one who enjoys the Stoplight Olympics. It's amazing the number of folks who pull into the right lane (where there's only one through lane) and think they're going to get past my Aurora. Mine's an Autobahn black/black with chrome wheels, so it hardly looks like an old person's car (I once had a rental white/gold trim Deville DTS in San Jose - 18 miles on it - and, at virtually every intersection, people tried to go around me. Heh heh heh).

    I push in the "power" button (my wife knows that's the cue), take off the traction control, and left-foot brake. When the light changes, I push down on the pedal, but don't mash it, and watch the shocked look on the other driver's face in my rear-view mirror as I pull away :-).

    In Milwaukee there's Highway 100 in Greenfield/West Allis, which is the local cruising strip. I don't make it a point to go there on Friday/Saturday nights, but, if my wife and I are out, I certainly don't hold back (and haven't lost yet :-). As an aside, my wife is a former Detroit street racer (she drove 'cudas and Camaros up and down Woodward), and she now drives a white Grand Prix GTP sedan (the special edition one with the hood vents, the black roof fencing, and the special spoiler and wheels). I guess we were made for each other :-)

    --Robert

    P.S. She and I are both dying to take one of the new CTSes out for a spin (but I'm trying to hold off until the new 3.6L V6 comes out, or the CTSi, or the new Monaro GTO)
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    RJS/Hammen2 - I love those stories. Great. Rjs, actually from what I've read, that IS 300 is about the same as the new 4.0 to 60. If you get the jump and a good launch, forget it for the IS. I guess the same could be said for other cars that are supposed to be quicker.

    RJS - yeah, the 4.0's launch pretty decent, but they really shine for the passing power. These 4-something transaxle cars jump off the line and get to 30 in a hurry, but I think some fade a bit from there. You are so right about how hard it is to pass or be passes once you have the momentum and are already past somebody. Even a much faster car has to work hard just to make up the lost ground. If you get the jump off the line or while passing, it can be pretty demoralizing for the other guy unless he's in something really fast.

    The Corsa with the K&N filter will certainly go a long way at the Olympics.
  • blk97aurorablk97aurora Member Posts: 573
    rjs, hammen2,

    My '97 gets the same lack of respect that you have observed. My most satisfying encounter to date was with a BMW 528. I saw it coming up behind me, weaving in and out of traffic, then we were both stopped by a traffic light; I was in the right lane, the 528 in the left. This set-up is virtually the same as rjs's IS300 story. I knew from the way he was driving that he would punch it as the light turned green, so I was ready. We launched and I was 1/2 to 3/4 car length ahead and held it up to about 60 mph when I had to back off to make my planned right turn (much too fast for conditions, anyway). He backed off too, then floored it again as he passed me. There was no point to that, except to show his frustration.
  • musclecar97musclecar97 Member Posts: 111
    Unfortunatly I got all of you guys' tips AFTER I got back today. Nevertheless, I feel pretty good about the results. Again this is with the Garnes Airbox modifications and a K&N filter, new AC Delco plug wires and new platnium bosch plugs. I ran 92 octane, quater of a tank of gas, sparetire and jack out, and NO DONUTS! The altitude of the track is 500 feet above sea level, the humidity wasn't very high that day and it was 76 degrees out. I'm really dragging this out, huh?

    Okay, here we go right from the slip: 15.837 @ 87.99mph. Reaction time was a good .523. If the humidity had been higher and the weather cooler and my tires had a bit more rubber (old tires which were replaced two days after the run), I think a 15.3 may be possible. The other two runs I did in higher heat with slightly slower reaction times were: 16.043@87.29mph and 16.089 @ 89.19mph. Really the tires didn't spin too much but every little bit helps.
  • musclecar97musclecar97 Member Posts: 111
    I was surprised that the 15.8 time was better than the best runs of the following cars there that day: 64 Chevy 2 with a 327, 71 stock Monte Carlo with a 350 (the car only had 23,000miles on it), '68 chevy pickup with a built up 350, and a 66 Buick Skylark GS with a 401v8 that produces 445lbs of torque. The Buick had problems getting traction, as he didn't have posi, the same with the pickup, the Monte Carlo was close, but we took it everytime. The best run was beating a Plymouth GTX by a hair (the GTX cutout for a second off the line, then caming flying up behind me and passed me just after the finish line. The whole thing was a major blast and if I had more $ I'd go for the port & polish and bigger TB. Once my muffler's go, I may try straight pipes from the catback that or glass packs, I just don't think going with the full exhaust mods will add that much over just dumping the stock mufflers.
  • shucknetshucknet Member Posts: 98
    Is your car an autobahn or regular?
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    That's not a bad time. A friend of mine had an 89 Z28 with the 350 motor. It ran about 15.7-15.8 too. It had about 100,000+ miles, but it's a decent time. Why do you think you can shave an extra half-second? That's a pretty big chunk of time. What were the problems that when corrected will yield such a drop?

    Was it you that posted earlier the 7.3 second 0-60 from the G-Tech? If so, this might be a sign that those accelerometers can be shaky. It isn't that they aren't good, but more that it's very difficult to find a completely level piece of ground anywhere. That's probably why they match times on the track, but can be a bit optimistic off the track. Anyway, thanks for posting your run! You might send it over to Bruce at caddyinfo.com so he can put it up. There aren't any Aurora times up there yet, but he welcomes them. Hopefully I can join you with some times. I'd like to hit the track this Friday. We'll see, though.
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    Very cool. That does sound like a blast. I read your post and wished I was in the seat.

    I think those times are great considering the tires. My personal experience on the tires is this: I had the original 235/60/16 MXV4's with about 6/32 (maybe 5/32)tread left on the fronts. New is 10/32 legally worn out is 2/32. So, my fronts were half gone/half alive. Since I put the new aurora 17's on, my new tires are 235/55/17 MXV4's. The difference is HUGE. They really grab. The old ones spun and jumped around when I nailed it. Some of the difference is the slightly wider tire and .5 inch wider rim too I guess. I have no idea of how much of a difference they would make, but it could be a lot. I say that only because the old tires would be slipping and you really noticed the pause before things started to grab and move. I can't say enough about what a difference the new tires have made.

    From what I've read, it sounds like getting the perfect launch is an art form, and judging by the wide variety of acceleration times for any car from different magazines, I'd say that's a big factor in addition to atmospheric conditions.

    Also - any comments please - would a new tire be softer than one that say 3 or 4 years old? I've wondered if older tires harden a bit and have less traction.

    Again - very cool and thanks for sharing. And BTW, is yours a 3.71 autobahn?
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    The guy with the G-tech is BLK97aurora. His is a 3.48. I think he was getting from 7.3 to 7.9 to 60 with a lot in the 7.6 to 7.8 range.

    Different car. I think he had the K&N and maybe had opened up the box a little.
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    BTW - I found a TB for 175 and am mailing it to RSM today. Total cost is 425. I guess you could get by for as little as 250 if you just send your original TB in. Based on 800's results, it sure seems to be doing something significant, hence my decision to try it. Also, it really doesn't seem to tough. 800 has talked me through it and after looking at a TB off the car it's even more clear.

    Exhaust - you should consider the Corsa system. It's all straight through - no baffling. I don't know how you can get less restrictive than that. It's wide open all the way all the time. We will be visiting and maybe additional systems can be made. Supposedly, opening up the exhaust is the biggest (simple)performance improvement you can make - especially on something bottled up like an Aurora.

    800 - I have written in my notes from talking to RSM some time back that the TB is 82mm. Hey, the TB I got came with a tag that even includes the VIN number from the donor car. It was a 97. Pretty cool. There is a note on it saying it was still attached to the intake manifold too.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    My mistake. They both have 97 in their name... :) So then does Musclecar have an autobahn? I remeber the G-Tech guy (Black97) didn't. I seem to recall that Musclecar does, but hey, obviously my memory isn't great.

    The TB with the VIN is the one from RSM or the one from the junkyard?

    As far as dynoing, have you thougth about just hitting the track? It's probably more fun and it's about 1/5 or less of the price. I guess it depends on whether you want to say "It added 20 horsepower" or if you want to say "It shaved half a second". Both are pretty impressive.
  • musclecar97musclecar97 Member Posts: 111
    Thanks for everyone's support, I was as excited to let you guys know how things went as I was to make the runs ...well not quite that excited.
    Mine is an autobahn with 79,000miles on it. The tires were terrible and the new ones I've put on since the run make a huge difference in ride and traction. I got Toyo tires which are just H rated, (130mph) and had the forced road balance. All the vibration and steering wheel shudder is gone. I can't believe how sensitive this car is to tire balance.
    I was only guessing on the 1/2second improvement, I really have no idea, but I understand that humidity does play a big factor. As for the runs I had traction off, the shift selector in 3rd, and the AC off. I left foot braked and took her to 1500rpms before dropping the hammer. The stall converter seems to be at 1700rpms. I wish I had the new tires on and left the shift selector in 2nd, though it did seem to shift at redline each time (not that I was paying much attention to the tach). I've got the old Car and Driver article which has the Classic's best run and I'll check and see what it was. I'm convinced the new Aurora's would post faster times as the car is lighter being built on the Bonneville and LeSabre platform.
  • mike98cmike98c Member Posts: 293
    It's not just age that hardens tires. Successive heating and cooling cycles cause the rubber compounds to harden and lose some of their traction. Tread depth is not a reliable indication of the condition of the rubber.
  • musclecar97musclecar97 Member Posts: 111
    C&D in April of 94 got 15.7@89mph, I was hoping the airbox mods would improve on that, though they may have gotten a hot pre-production model. I was very happy to break 16.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    The new Aurora isn't built on a Bonneville/LeSabre platform. They moved to a version of the Aurora platform. They actually have a cheaper version of it, and they are not called G-bodies. They are H-bodies, so the platform is different enough. They moved up, the Aurora didn't move down... Why'd you have to badmouth the new car?

    It's a good run Musclecar. You can try 2nd gear and some new tires, and possibly some bolt-ons if you're interested. So don't worry. You can also try having the oil on the low end of the dipstick (but not to "low"). I don't think I'd drain any oil, but I might keep a track date in the back of my mind each time I check/fill it.

    I second what Mike98 said. When I bought my Corvette it had tires from 89 on it. I bought it in 97! Anyway, they had less than 10,000 miles on them, and plenty of tread depth. They were squirrely as heck. They were a death sentence in rain. I'm a cheap dope and didn't change them until 2001. The tires were Goodyear VRs (gatorbacks) which have a notoriously short life. I put about 40,000 miles on them for a total of almost 50,000 miles on the tires. I swear, they had as much tread depth when I replaced them as they did when I bought the car. I think those tires would have lasted for eternity provided you could avoid wrecking the car in a turn.

    In a fairly common move, I replaced the tires, got cross-drilled rotors, stainless steel brake lines, and replaced all the weatherstripping only to sell it about 5 months later... I didn't know I'd sell it when I did all that, though. Needless to say, all that work and expense added nothing to the value of the car... ugh...
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    I was just reading back through your track impressions. You said if the humidity was higher it would be better. Wouldn't low humidity and low temperature be the best thing? What would high humidity help?

    P.S. Your "hot pre-production model" comment is going to land you in hot water! :)

    P.P.S. Really, email your times to the guy at Caddyinfo.com. I want to see some Aurora times showing up there!
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    Mike98c - thanks, but that's like saying old age doesn't kill you, it's getting up to many times to go to work. But thanks for the actual cause and effect there. I hear you about tread. It can look good and still the tires have assumed a new personality. Anyway, I noticed a huge difference all right with the new ones.

    Musclecar97 - The way I see it, you almost matched the magazine time with crummy tires. Pretty cool. I don't know how much weight you dropped from the car, and if that was a big factor. Try again with that new rubber. It's amazing too how much affect the later warmer temps had. There are so many variables.

    Humidity - I have also heard that humid air as opposed to dry air was better for performance. Don't know the science of it. But I've heard that too.
  • musclecar97musclecar97 Member Posts: 111
    rjs - when I was at the track everyone kept saying if the humidity was higher the cars would run better, I had no idea why. The next day I was watching the NW National drags on ESPN2 and the announcer says "there's alot of moisture in the air today which will really help these cars breath and get better traction." I have no idea how the better traction or breathing works but thats what he said. I checked the caddy page and I don't want to post the slowest time up there with our Aurora, wait till Tyler does his runs and hopefully runs in the 14s so we have some bragging rights. I also noticed none of the times posted were from a track but rather using a G-tech. How accurate that maybe I don't know

    Garnes - Thanks for your supportful comments. Unfortunatly the track is 400 miles away and I won't be running again for a year. I was just really curious as to how the car would perform.

    Bonnevile/LaSabre comments- I wasn't bad mouthing the new Aurora, just commenting on its reduced weight. I'm convinced its faster than the classic. As far as looks go, I prefer the new model's nose and gauges over the classic, but those hips and shoulders on the classic made it THE CAR.
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    800 - good deal. Call him in awhile to make sure he knows it's for real. 2 cars.
    I want it NOW!!! Did that sound like "I want an Oompa loompa now!!!
    Yeah, I'll have to check it out at GM Forums.

    Musclecar97 - you really are trying to light it up again with the new aurora vs. old aurora thing. Anyway, RJS was pretty diligent and got some decent curves on the new aurora from GM. Comparing them to the nice graphs provided in the classic brochure shows that the classic has a lot more torque almost throughout, and more HP too except the new 4.0 has some more HP at the top end of the curve before leveling at 250. However, the classic is 160+ pounds heavier. So, I think they are essentially the same.

    Hey you could look at your track results this way: With bad tires, +9 HP, and a little less weight, you crushed the times reported by some other magazines. 16.3 Motor Trend. 16.5 Road and Track.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Go ahead and post your times on Caddyinfo. I guarantee it won't be the slowest. I'll just pull the band-aid off quick here. 16.06 @ 85.77mph.

    Now for the disclaimers. My wife and I went last night on a sort of spur-of-the-moment thing. It was lots of fun. However, I had just filled the gas tank the day before. By the end of the night, the DIC was showing only 7.0 gallons used (of 17.5). Also, when we showed up at about 5:15 pm, the temp outside was 102 degrees. 3 hours later and it had only dropped to about 95. I was given a confidence boost by talking to some other guys there. A guy with an Integra Type-R said he usually got into the 14's but tonight his best was 15.83 (He couldn't believe I'd pulled a 16.05. He was like "What is this thing?"). Some Camaro SS's and Firehawks with the usual bolt-ons were running 13.7-13.9s. Clearly the heat was affecting the runs.

    My very first run, I didn't even really know what I was doing. I had to ask the guy where exactly the staging lights were. Once we were both staged I sort of expected the christmas tree to start, but it didn't for a while. So I was looking around to see what was going on. Next thing I knew it had started and my RT was 1.289 seconds. The timing lights at the end were screwed up so I didn't get a time for the 1/4. I pulled back into the lanes two more times before I figured I'd take a break (I probably could have made 5 or more runs if I kept staging and we stayed all night). Early in the evening it wasn't very crowded and I got in three runs in about an hour. By the second run, my RT got consistent at around .74. I went on the last yellow. I think it was a pro tree (pro tree is .4 sec between lights, regular is .5) because the only redlights were for RTs under .4. I saw some guys in the .4s that didn't redlight. So maybe for a pro tree I should have left on the second yellow, although maybe that would have put me at .34. After those three runs (one of which got no time) I parked the car and we watched some of the action (only the street cars really interest me). Well, when we decided to leave, I found that the staging lane had me blocked in. It went way back too (the parking lot there is a zoo) so the only way out was to get in the back of the line as it went by and make a run down the track! By then I'd put the car back to streetable condition (pressures fixed, spare back in, and the cooler and my wife's purse were in the car), so that run was the worst.

    Here's what I did, before the first run, I lowered the front tires to 31 psi (hot) and the backs I raised to 40 psi (hot). I removed the spare tire and jack. While waiting to run, with my hood up, I was amazed by how hot everything was. The plastic airbox was incredibly hot. I think a cone would help even if it took in hot air too, because the airbox had to be heating up the air. Before my best run, I removed the driver's side headlight to get cooler air into the airbox. The headlight screws were so hot I couldn't hold onto them! This gave me my best run, but not by much. This run was the closest too (I lost them all...). It was a late 90's Volvo wagon with a turbo engine. They guy had some work done, but I'm not sure what. I beat him off the line, and I was ahead most of the way. In 1st and 2nd gear I was holding him at bay. Then, as happened all night, the shift to 3rd is what screwed me. It just didn't pull hard enough in 3rd. 1st and 2nd both pulled real hard, but 3rd just didn't feel the same. I guess it's too much gear for the car. Not much I can do about that, except maybe run on 14" wheels...

    Anyway, here's the stats:

    Run 1 5:37pm
    RT: 1.2893
    60': 2.5108
    1/8: 10.5332
    1/4: ?? @ ??

    Run 2 5:54pm
    RT: .7553
    60': 2.4244
    1/8: 10.4453
    1/4: 16.0983 @ 85.7259 mph

    Run 3 6:28pm (I'm posting the Volvo too, cause it was close, and keep in mind the ETs don't count his reaction time. The Aurora was quicker to the 1/8th)
    RT: .7412 Volvo .7980
    60': 2.4216 2.6406
    1/8: 10.4024 10.4517
    1/4: 16.0559 @ 85.7711 mph 15.9659 @ 89.8738 mph

    Run 4 8:14pm (trying to leave)
    RT: .7410
    60': 2.4475
    1/8: 10.5080
    1/4: 16.1916 @ 85.6630

    Oh, I kept the car in 2nd, traction off, and I left-footed the brake and gave it about 1500 rpm. I was hesitant to go more rpm because sometime the lights didn't start for a bit and I didn't like having the car sit like that.

    I want to go back sometime in September when the temps are at least 30 degrees cooler (and I have less gas in the car). If it gets too cold, though, then traction can get harder. There was no traction problem last night! They sell 100 octane at the track. Maybe I'll try that (although last night I'd have had to fill up, and it would only raise my octane to about 96 or so...)
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    I want the TB and some better intake, and of course the Corsa. I'll have to look around for some intake ideas. I emailed that company that fielded the 2000 One Lap Aurora. They didn't get back to me yet, so maybe I'll call them. I'll also try that place Garnes suggested with the Monte.

    I was really surprised by how incredibly hot the airbox was. Even before the first run, it was so hot from the drive up there that you couldn't comfortably rest your hand on it. It was really really hot!

    I took the engine cover off before I went because I thought it might let a little more heat escape from the intake. It made a noticeable difference in the sound. It sounded much more aggressive. I wouldn't leave it off all the time, but if you like the intake sound, try it.
  • musclecar97musclecar97 Member Posts: 111
    I think thats a great run with that much gas and the temp being so high outside. I was trying to stomp on it on the second yellow after stagging with both lights on. Again having never done this before and trying to take in everything around me and keep an eye on the tach was distracting, I'm convinced that if a guy did it somemore and got comfortable he'd do a bit better.

    What was the altitude for the track? That can make a difference too. You said you left it in second gear but that the Volvo got you in third, did you manually shift to third? I can't remember if the automatic ever shifted to third on my runs, but I imagine it did just before the finish ( I'll have to go out for a test drive and see what speed it shifts to third at WOT.

    Again I think that was a great run given the conditions and thanks for making it and posting about it. I'd encourage you to go again. Okay who's next? We are in the right thread aren't we since we are "testing" our modifications?
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    The car will shift into third when it hits the redline in 2nd. It doesn't matter that the shifter is in 2nd. However, the first time I forgot to bump it into D or OD while slowing down. As soon as the car drops into a speed that 2nd can handle it downshifts to 2nd. It is a bit disconcerting since you are slowing down and suddenly the engine jumps up to like 6 grand.

    The altitude of the track is 500'. I also found out it's a .5 second tree for me, but it was .4 for the Outlaw guys that were running. If you had bad RT's don't let it bother you. In the end it's really your ET that matters, and that isn't really affected by your RT. However, if you want better RT's next time focus on your staging. I believe you can pull up until the Pre-Stage light goes out (deep staging). This way your car has to travel less distance to clear the Staged light (which stops the RT clock and starts the ET clock) so you'll have quicker RTs. You'll also be closer to the end of the track, so you'll have a tiny advantage over the guy next to you. It usually means slightly higher ET's than if you stage shallow, though, because if you're shallow, then by the time you pass the Staged light you already have some speed built up.

    I agree that the first time there is a lot to take in. It was a lot of fun, though. Now that I got pretty consistent RTs I will mess around with launch rpms, staging, and maybe try one just punching the gas. I wouldn't be nearly as nervous as the last time. One thing I could never figure out, though, is where the 1/4 mile trap was. After the trap, the track slants up at about 25-30 degrees to help you slow down. I was usually flooring it until I got up on that. I'd sail by the other guy and turn off at the second or third exit. There is like a light post at the 1/4 mile trap that lights up on the side of the winner, but I could never see it when I was driving.

    I think this forum is better than the sedans board because it will be easier to go back and find it again. However, it would be great if we could have a new forum made in the Owner's Club for Acceleration Stats or something. Then it would be easy to go back and see what other people did. Maybe one of our hosts will do that and move our 1/4 mile posts there...
  • musclecar97musclecar97 Member Posts: 111
    Thanks for your explaination of reaction times and their impacts on ets. I think I'm finally begining to understand. Initially I thought you could subtract your rt from your et to see how much better you would have run if only you had a faster reaction time. One guy was showing me his slip with a 1.5 reaction time and saying his 1/4 mile time on the slip would have been a second faster if he had staged a .5 reaction time. I understand now thats bogus. His time on the slip would have been the same, but he may have beat the guy he was racing against by the one second difference, again at the track, but not on the slip. Am I getting this right?
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    That's right Musclecar. The clock is counting your RT up until you clear the Staged light. It then starts counting your ET until you cross the 1/4 mile light. So RT matters for beating the guy next to you, but it doesn't matter for your ET (except as related to staging as I mentioned). If you sit for a second before you go, you'll probably lose but your ET will be about the same. So it's possible to lose with a better ET (called beating with a hole-shot).
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    Very cool. I take it you were using your K&N as well. Hey, I would not worry about the Air box getting so hot. The way I see it, air is always moving through it and the contact time it has with the plastic is minimal. I remember figuring the air velocity through the horn at 5000 rpm and it was something like 60 MPH. At WOT, several hundred CFM rip through that box so fast, I'm not sure the air is heated much. Of course with the engine hot and just idling, that box will sure get hot.

    An open cone just sitting there will get hot too. What I like about the good ol' box or a heat shield is that you know you are pulling air from somewhere other than the engine compartment.

    One thing that I'm not sure about is if any of the STS's have that big hole under the air box. With that big hole, a cone without a heat shield may be OK, but I'd still add the shield.
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    You guys gave me an idea. My dad was a major gear head and built dragsters with his brothers and raced all the time in the early 60's. It was their life. I think they worked just to eat and build the cars.

    Maybe I should take him to a track. He might have a blast too. Then again, he's actually been stuck back in his seat experiencing stuff that not to many people have, so maybe he would just laugh at the idea of floating down the track in an aurora.

    It all sounds like a lot of fun.
  • blk97aurorablk97aurora Member Posts: 573
    garnes:
    rjs200240:

    Sorry to take so long to respond. Good memory -- I posted my G-Tech Pro 0-60 times last year. Ten runs ranged between 7.33 to 7.99 seconds. My '97 is a non-Autobahn 3.48 with K&N filter and restrictions removed from the airbox. No other performance enhancements to-date, except possibly Mobil 1. I never considered M1 for enhancing performance, but I have seen some claims that it does due to reduced friction.

    I was pleasantly surprised by the results. I am a bit suspicious of the G-Tech, although the manufacurer claims it to be quite accurate. As far as picking level surfaces for my 1/4-mile runs, I was very conscious of that and would trust my eyeballs more than I'd trust G-Tech. Still, I want to take it to a legitimate track and compare track timing with my G-Tech Pro.

    I think I posted before that none of my runs felt strong coming off the line. I staged at 1500 rpm with brakes on, then launched. I tried both traction control on and off. Off got better results. Either way the motor bogged down. Higher rpm is probably the answer, but I can't afford to replace the transaxle, so I stayed conservative.

    On a different but related topic: high temperatures in the air box. Garnes, you'll remember that this has been an interest of mine for some time. I can support your claim that temperature of air in the airbox is not a concern because it moves through fairly quickly. My measurements with an inexpensive remote-sensor thermometer show the in-box air temp to be a VERY consistent 2 to 3 degrees F higher than the reading shown on the dashboard outside temp indicator. This is when the car is moving at 30+ mph.

    HOWEVER, on a 90+ F degree day in stop-and-go traffic, I have seen the air-box thermometer max out at 158 degrees F. Given the rule of thumb that power decreases 1% for every 10 degree F increase in temperature, our cars are down over 15 hp in that situation. That's why I'm still looking for an outside-air induction solution.

    BTW, for anyone who has lost (due to curbs, parking lot bumpers, etc.) and not replaced their front air dam (baffle), my thermometer consistently showed 14 to 16 degrees F higher than the reading shown on the dashboard outside temp indicator after I removed mine. I believe the same temp increase is experienced in the cooling system.
  • shucknetshucknet Member Posts: 98
    I have noticed a similar situation with my car. I have really sticky Michelin Pilot MXM tires on my car and I can't get them to spin on launch no matter how hard I try, but if I mash the pedal at 20 mph, I can light them up.

    As a matter of fact, I was running the other day just to check out how she was performing, and from a dead stop I couldn't get any tire spin at all, but as I passed through 20mph, the tires actually started to spin and I had to let up on the throttle a little to get them back to 100% traction.

    My car is a 98 autobahn with K&N and "garnes" airbox modification.
  • aurora5000aurora5000 Member Posts: 168
    How do you like your Michelin Pilot's?

    I am having problems with my factory MXV4's.
  • musclecar97musclecar97 Member Posts: 111
    So what were your quarter mile times with the G-tech?
  • shucknetshucknet Member Posts: 98
    The tires are great from a performance standpoint. I can't get them to let go of the road. They suck terribly in snow, but they are strictly performance tires. If you drive your car in the winter, you'll need to get a set of snow tires to put on.

    My complaints on the tires are:
    1) noisy on concrete. silent on asphalt.
    2) noticed a 2-3mpg drop in economy when I put them on
    3) could handle better, laterally

    But overall - a great tire. Not a cheap tire, but a good tire. It cost me over $900 to get 4 of them mounted and balanced. And that was after I got sears to give me the tire rack price.
  • aurora5000aurora5000 Member Posts: 168
    Do you know what's the difference in your new tires and the standard michelins put on the Aurora?

    Thanks,
    Steve
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    According to Michelin, the Energy MXV4's are more tuned to ride quiet and long tread life while the Pilot MXM's trade more of that off for performance. If you really want a performance Michelin, Ive heard good things about the Pilot Sport A/S. It's new and is supposed to have an excellent coupling of high-performance with all-season abilities.

    I tried their tire selector, and the Energy MXV4 Pluses came up if I desired "Balanced handling and comfort for popular Luxury Touring Sedans" and the Pilot MXM4's came up if I chose "Exceptional handling for world-class import coupes,sedans and Roadsters". There doesn't seem to be any choice that yields the Pilot MXM's.

    Hey, what does this have to do with Acceleration? At least say "Which tire can you do more burn-outs with?" or something... :)
  • aurora5000aurora5000 Member Posts: 168
    I am just trying to find info. on a tire that has a stronger sidewall since that is where I have had problems but I still want the smooth ride.
  • aurora5000aurora5000 Member Posts: 168
    When I get new tires, I am looking at Michelin's "Run Flat" MXV4. Don't know a cost yet.
  • 800wattaurora800wattaurora Member Posts: 187
    Where to start, Well Monday I got my new intake tube from RSM. This one was bent the way I wanted it. I put it on that night and I'm fully satsified with the angle of my intake kit. Now it's in place for a heat-shield. I Started to make a cardboard mock up this week. My father will duplicate what I make out of sheet-metal next week, than I'll paint it w/ high temp black paint and install it with some spliced rubber hose over the sharp edges. Going to turn out pretty nice I think. Should have some good seperation from the engine compartment. I'm also thinking about putting some kind of scoop in the fender. Today I pulled out the leaf blower with the old man (turned 55 yesterday) and felt a nice current blowing right inside that fender. The old man suggests get a funne, cut-it up and re-shape it to the shape desired. Don't leave as a funel, cut it to only like 2/3s is left and theres, bend to size and there's your scoop. Good Idea. So I'll be picking up a funnel this week and play around with it. Slight concern of scooping in water with that air stream. I'm also going to screen up those two intake hole in the fender. Maybe with the scoop outside of the screen, water will deflect and run down, not into the filter area. Looks possible to block/deflect water. I think its worth trying. Over a C&C Wheels where they did Tim Allens 398HP Deville, They made a scoop in the fender. Mine won't be spectaular but should do the job. I'll take pics of it while I do everything.

    What do you guys think?

    I finished a roll of film this week, finally will have some pics up by the end of the week. The heat-shield and fender scoop will be on the next roll. Along with some pics of me at my first stereo competiton on Aug. 25. Can't wait to see how my JL Audio amps and subs will score me. I just want to know, I don't plan on competing, just checking out my systems stats in SQ and dB's.

    800wattAURORA
  • 800wattaurora800wattaurora Member Posts: 187
    So, after Modays new intake pipe install, it got my thinking of racing and accelaration. I contacted my local race track, Route 66 Raceway at Joliet,IL, earlier in the week, Tuesdays is there TestNTune night. Out of no where I ask my father, "Wanna go to the Track tomarrow?"

    Never guess what happened Tuesday, We went to the strip.

    In planing for the trip to Joliet, I realize that I just filled up the tank on Sunday, (Only use 93 from Amoco/BP). Full tank of gas, that's gonna slow her down, I'm going anyways. Spur of the moment thing and my Dad was on vacation, so I had some company. Trying to waste gas from Monday night to Tuesday after work isn't easy when my commute is only 15min. By the time I got to the track, 55mile away, the gauge just cracked the full line. Next time I'll plan ahead, 1/4 tank or less, maybe get some 100 octane. There's a pump by my house that has it or it's $4 bucks a gallon at the track.

    The track was packed by the time I got there, Must of been 200-300 cars. I only ended up getting 2 runs in. If I would of gotten there 1 hour earlier, could of gotten 3-4 runs in just in that 1 hour. Next time I know get there at 4PM, for more runs. There were many Pro cars there, they got to make two runs everytime the street cars got to take one run. I guy in fornt of me in a 93 Eclipse GSX-T got 3 runs in before I got my first run in. Get here early if you've got a street car. he was running 13 flat, in that damn eclipse, turbo at 21 lbs of boost on upgraded turbos

    Ok, I'll just pull off the band-aid here (quote RJS)
    first run
    R/T------1.698
    60--------2.379
    330------6.767
    1/8------10.325
    --mph---69.92
    1000----13.334
    1/4------15.911
    --mph---86.92

    2nd run
    R/T------1.321
    60--------2.405
    330------6.765
    1/8------10.295
    --mph---70.41
    1000----13.289
    1/4------15.858
    --mph---87.20

    This was my first time, there was definatly some inexperience with these runs, R/T times of 1.698 & 1.321 are terible. I guess I waited to see the green light, not going on the last yellow. The tree was a .5 for the street cars. I left the gear shifter in 2nd and just punched it both times. After the first pass, waiting in line for the 2nd run, I lowered the front tires to 28psi, this helped some. I realize now after I was done for the night that I forgot to Bring up the RPM's at the launch. So I had no launch RPM's. Duh. No wheel spin either. I did light them up in the pre-stage area in overdrive when I brake torqued it. The runs were all in 2nd, those new Dunlops just gripped. Temp was around 85 and the air was dry. I guess everything was running slow I heard (except for the jet-dragster runnnig 6's at 330mph.) My first run was against a newer Firebird V8 that only got a 14.614@95.50. Second was against a newer Mustang GT that beat me off the line but must off let off in the middle cause I passed him up, his time 17.485@81.27. I wouldn't be hard for anyone to beat me off the line either with the reaction times that I got. Next time I will be much less nervious, there's alot to take in the first time. I'll remember to brake torque too, launching RPMS gotta help shave a tenth or two.

    When I was making my cardboard heat-shield yesterday, I realize that I installed the new pipe pretty low. The bottom of the K&N cone was resting on the bottom, next to the hole in fender. I think that it was probably not in it's optium placement, there was probably some restriction there at the track. With lifting the filter higher, launching with some starting RPMS around 1500rpms, 1/4 tank of gas, maybe 100octane, and my future heatshield and fender scoop, gotta be good for 3-5 tenths. Can't forgot the Corsa Exhaust either. And then there's those port & Polished heads and intake manifold maybe in my future, maybe a casper TPS enhancer too. I figure I'm probably going to hit low 15's now, maybe break into the 14's if I Get the ported heads and TPS.

    I guess I really can't complain with my 15.858 @87.20 for my first time down the strip, with no launching RPMS and a full tank of gas, and high engine temps. Next Time down the track I will do better, I don't want to promote my time at caddyinfo yet because I don't feel the the runs where under optium conditions. Next trip down the strip it will be with Corsa Exhaust, I hope. Hopefully track season won't be over when I finally get the exhaust put on.

    A company www.philsinc.com is sponsering the track, they had reps walking around in the staging lanes promoting. One of them was talking to me, when I realized that Phils inc is where I ordered my KYB struts from, there in Evanston. They had cheeper prices than tirerack. I told the rep this and he came back a couple of minutes later and gave me a free run pass at the track. So I get to race for free one night by the end of the season. Hope that Corsa's on by then, I'll have the heatshield and fender scoop by then too. So when I go, that will be my offical time, this time was a learning experience. Next time I'll be prepared!!!!

    800wattAURORA
  • musclecar97musclecar97 Member Posts: 111
    Way to go Taylor. Thanks for doing the runs at the track. Your right there is a lot to take in the first time. Yeah your reaction times were awful but they don't effect your posted 1/4 mile times. I'm sure you'll do much better next time you go. I think getting the rpms up with the brake on and then releasing the brake and jamming the gas will help alot. Turn the traction control off also. Those seemed to be good times with the full tank of gas and no launch rpms. What is the altitude of the track as that makes a difference also. Now you can run her every Tuesday eh? Looking forward to your next run and results. Good luck.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    That tank of gas will drop about 100+ lbs., so it's like making a run with someone riding shotgun. It will definitely help next time. I guess Musclecar holds the Aurora trophy so far. Also, you can try it in the fall when it's cooler out. That should help a bit too. I sent my times to Bruce to put on Caddyinfo, but I think he figured he'd spare me or something. He hasn't put them up yet, but did send me an email about how high temps really affect the Northstar/Auroras so I shouldn't be discouraged. I still want to make another trip without any mods (except the K&N) when it's cooler. I want to see what it can do stock.

    Don't sweat the RT's. It isn't a big deal. Just focus on that last yellow next time. The launch RPM's should help a little too. I don't know how much difference 2nd makes, but it can't hurt (I do it too, and the car shifts at 6200 rpm whereas often on the street if in OD, it shifts at 5800. Don't know if it's because of being in 2 vs. OD or what). It would be interesting to see how 100 octane helps. That's nice you can buy it locally. That would allow you to get the tank flushed with it so it's all 100 octane, and still keep it low. I'm not sure how I can fill up at the track without having more fuel than I want (except trying to coast into the dragstrip on fumes, which I'd rather not do).

    My experience was exactly the same. I made three runs in the first hour. Then a fourth over an hour later. It really fills up as the night goes on. However, that gives you some time between runs to let the car cool down and to do any tinkering. My first runs, I could hardly even walk away from the car because they were shuttling us onto the track so quickly. That's funny that you burned out in the pre-stage area. I just avoided the water. Treaded tires can hold the water and get it on the track. They don't like that. Plus, I've never really had a traction problem with my car. It peels a little and takes set. I dropped my front tires about 3psi (they were hot, so it was hard to tell what the cold psi would be) and I put about 4psi into the rears. That way the rears have less rolling resistance. It can't hurt.

    Hey, what was your impression of the car as it made the pass? How was the power curve and all? My car felt really strong through the first two gears, but it really fell off in third. I don't know if it was the heat or what, but it would shift at about 80mph into third and then it seemed like it took about another 4-5 seconds to get to the end of the 1/4 at which point I was only going about 85mph. My run against that Volvo (I know, I know, you're getting tired of hearing it) really illustrated it to me. I was gradually pulling away more from him right until I hit 3rd gear. Then it was like I stopped accelerating as he moved up. Did you notice anything like this in your runs? Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm glad that people are taking the Aurora to the track now! It's exciting to hear what these babies can do!
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    First of all, 21 lbs of boost - that's basically blown - isn't it. Good grief.

    Those times sound really good to me (car's times not 800's :> Just a thought, sure hope I don't spark a goofy theory debate here - C&D posts something like a "rolling" start from 5 mph. The times listed are WAY slower than the "0 to ..." times for any car.

    So, if those tests are what the car can do when punched "flat footed" with no additional rpms (you're already rolling at idle) then that might give some idea of the difference from a true "launch" and a flat footed start from idle. I'm just guessing at what that time has meant. Seems logical though.

    Just a thought.

    Scoop - 800, when I would check my air box mod after driving in the rain, there would be water up on the inside of the fender. That air does seem to move right along the side of the fender - right above the seam between the upper and lower body panel (when I did the leaf blower thing too). Give it a try and check for water intrusion on a rainy day. Some is normal. Even the stock air box pulled water in and got the paper filter a little damp.
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    I believe the Joliet are mentioned is around 600 feet in elevation - give or take.
  • 800wattaurora800wattaurora Member Posts: 187
    More runs are needed for further examination in my opinion. I just wasn't prepared in my launches. Good launches are the key. I will go back this year though for more testing. Maybe more than once. I'm not planning on going back untill I do my next mod. I wanna wait till the Corsa exhaust is on, but who know when that's going to happen. Going to call Corsa next week Garnes and see what's going on over there. Hopefully sooner than later.

    Anyways, it was hot and dry out side that night, around 90 when I got there and 85 after my 2nd run. The Firebird I was against on the first run, only ran a 14.614@95.5, It was a newer one with the 350 V8, those cars are much faster than that. Anybody now the stock time of a 97Firebird? Gotta be 13 something right? He said it was slow for him, he usally runs in the 13's, he had a helmet for that reason. So I guess the the temp/humid played into effect that night. Makes he think hopefull thoughts of breaking 15 next time, if he ran at least .614 slower to (just making helmet law at under 14.) that should bring my time down too. Maybe a Hopefully 15.2-3? I'd be happy with that. Next time NO DONUTS!

    800wattAURORA
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    Yes, hassle Jim Browning Jr a little to let him know 2 systems are for real.

    RSM is working on the throttle body. I should have it in a couple weeks. They said they bore it out as big as they can without breaking it. Maybe that answers any questions as to why the stock unit is not bigger. I guess it's sized adequately for reliable mass production. The more I think about it, the TB port is pretty small for all that air.

    Check this out: At 350 cfm, the velocity through the stock TB (75mm right?) is 83.6 mph. At 80 mm, it's 73.5. The stock TB has a velocity through it that's 13% faster. Interesting. Now, I don't know about air, but with water, pressure losses are a function of the velocity squared. I'll bet a similar relationship exists for air. Just for fun, square 73.5 = 5402, square 83.6 = 6989 which is 29% more than the larger TB! Hmmm. I can see why boring the TB out a bit can help so much. Same for polishing the heads.

    Anyway, look into that "rolling" start thing listed for any car in C&D. It's from 5 mph with no "launch" I think and is much slower than the launch from 0. Perhaps that may give you an idea of what you missed out on. Your times seem really impressive for the conditions and how you took off. 85 or 90 is certainly a lot less than ideal conditions as well. Too bad there are so many variables and things to learn. I have to try this some time.
  • 800wattaurora800wattaurora Member Posts: 187
    As for stock Aurora(classic) times, the average seems to be around 16.2-5 is what I believe.

    The one tested in 94 had to be "special". Probably like the somewhat recent Ford Mustang HPclaims. It turns out that the demo was a hand-built model that got the intake and heads polished when assembled. The manufactures cast's weren't glass smooth, little bit rough. That 94 time was before the car was offered to the public. My opinion. Ok I said it, let me have it.


    Allt times after the 94 that ran 15.7@89mph that I could find where low 16's. I found a track that had a data-base on some cars that have ran there, a 95 Aurora ran a 16.3. Motortrend claims 16.2. I'm sure theres more than that, I rember Garnes posting 16.5 from somewhere. I really don't care all that much though, I like how my Aurora drives and Acclerates, it's faster than most cars on the road. If I can get a little more out of it, great. I'll be happy with a time when I go on different nights and get repeatable times. 2 runs on my first time isn't sufficent for me. Gotta beat musclecar, I can't be second.


    http://www.tweak3d.net/videos/perf.shtml#Oldsmobile


    I'm thinking about that 100 Octane, Don't know how much at the Road Pilot, 5-10 minutes away. I put it in my previous 86 442 a couple of times. I could notice the difference from 93. Tells me it's doing something. It only cost aroun $2.60 gallon 2years ago, now 4bucks? Last time I was at that gas station (spring) it was $3.75 and they didn't have any. The only have it on 2 pumps with it, they probably only stock it during the summer. I'll have to check it out.


    Take a vote-Should I go for the 100 octane next time?


    Hum, what else? I dropped off the film today, pick-up my photo CD on wensday, try to Finally get some pics up that night, got a couple of me at the track. The heat-shield should be made be next week, gonna check out that fender scoop. Lets move the heatshield/fender scoop discussion to the modification section.


    800wattAURORA

  • sbeaupresbeaupre Member Posts: 21
    21lbs is pretty easy is an Eclipse/Talon. I had a 91 Talon FWD turbo up until about 2 years ago. You could run 16lbs w/no other mods. $3,100 got me a bigger turbo, exhaust, fuel injectors, fuel pump, etc, etc....Good for 20-22 lbs w/100 octane. Also got me an 11.82 e/t and LOTS of tickets.

    It goes without saying that the Aurora kills it in every other area though...I do say I wish there were some bigger power mods for the aurora. Hell, I added 15% more power to the talon with a $3 fish tank valve from the local pet store. Don't laugh, but has anyone looked into that ERam electric supercharger?
  • musclecar97musclecar97 Member Posts: 111
    Since my classic has the autobahn my gearing is lower which means faster quarter mile ets than a non-autobahn which I think Taylor's is. Is this right Taylor. That means his mods are working pretty good, now if he would just swap out his gears for the autobahn gears, I'm thinking runs in the 14s? Actually I can't remember how big the gearing difference is wasn't it like 3.73 for autobahn versus 3.2 for non? I'll have to look it up again. Gearing does make a huge difference. The real racers will run 4.11 gears which work great at the track but are awful for highway cruising as the engine is running at such high rpms and gas mileage sucks unless they have a tranny with overdrive. Anyways swapping gears is a guaranteed way to faster off the line accleration. I wonder if there are any lower Caddy gears that would work in an Aurora?
  • musclecar97musclecar97 Member Posts: 111
    So when are you going to the track?
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    Go to the track. Well, I will look into that.

    sbeaupre - I just thought 21 lbs of boost was a lot for a street car. From what you are posting, it seems to be a lot.
This discussion has been closed.