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

Oldsmobile Aurora

1…3637394142…112

Comments

  • Options
    fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    If you go to the GM powertrain web page you can get the torque and horsepower curves for the northstar engines on one graph so you can see the difference in areas under the curves. Basically the STS engine has more horsepower above 5000 RPMs roughly speaking.

    there is also an interesting torque, horsepower graph in the wieck database for the northstars
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    rjs - you can also find the curves on caddyinfo.com for the SLS and STS. The SLS engine (just a different cam) reaches near peak HP quicker and then slowly rounds off. You got a very large percent of peak HP at lower RPM's. I'm not going to calculate area, but there is considerably more HP and torque all over with the SLS. You have to get well past 5000 for there to be a big difference for the STS. The STS just has the 3.71 going for it with (I'll bet) less of the extra kick coming from the high rpm HP.

    Now, I'm addressing the 0 to 60 stuff - taking somebody off the line. That's where the better low end torque and HP/torque throughout the majority of the RPM range is most beneficial. That's all I care about. That kind of racing.

    More power just on top - well, I think you have a point to cite cars that operate up in the high rpm range quite a bit. Then it matters. But the only thing that may come close is battling it out on the highway from say 60 to 90 mph. Then again the 3.71 might actually be a minus way up at those speeds. I don't think the high RPM all the time type racing you cite relates much to street performance situations. Top speed, yeah I guess, but I don't want to go there. Not interested. Give me the acceleration.

    What matters is where you will be driving (referring to the tach).

    We really need to race a new 4.0 and an old autobahn. That'd be fun. Clock the things. The 2 ton super heavyweight division.
  • Options
    knhempknhemp Member Posts: 1
    i just got back from a 300 mile roadtrip in my '97. the first i've taken in the sweet thang. Got the car in October. One thing is for sure, when that 4.0 is tuned right, it puts everyone of the 250 horses to good use. bravo zulu
  • Options
    rdl40rdl40 Member Posts: 60
    Aurora owners, need your help.
    I'll be buying a new vehicle in the next couple weeks. I was certain it was going to be a Chrysler 300M, but I dropped in on my local chevy/olds dealer (buying a truck for the company) when I came a across a cappucino colored 4.0
    What a beauty, however it was sold and was the only one they had.
    I would consider this car but I have a couple of questions.
    My questions about this car if you could address them are:

    1. resale- will it crash like a led zeppelin
    2. edmunds and autoweek complain about the handling.
    Front heavy from being fwd.
    3. skinny tires and wheels, what options do I have?
    4.what likes and dislikes do owners have?

    thanks for your help, ron
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    rdl40 - I'd expect the resale not to be good for anything in the short run, but you may be able to offset that a little by getting a great deal up front. Some of the guys here have noted the good deals to be had. If you plan to keep it for a long time then it's not as much of an issue.

    As for handling, well I laugh every time I see those guys on TV weaving a car between pylons. I've yet to drive a car like that. Let's get real. I hope nobody here gets offended, but I really think the entire handling thing is overblown. I'm either shlepping around town or doing the interstate cruise - 99.99% of the time. Aurora gets an A+ for that. But if you're worried about what some guy in the magazine writes (they have to rank everything you know and write about it to fill the paper - right down to the cup holders and glove box) about driving around a bunch of pylons, then perhaps look elsewhere. How about a Lincoln LS? Rear drive better balanced car - very quick too.

    Skinny tires and wheels? I dunno, the new 4.0's have 17x7.5 wheels and have big beefy 235/55 series rubber. (I think the old Corvette chevy rally wheels were 15x8) If that's skinny, so is Rosie O'Donnell. Are you looking for some Micky Thompson's? Just kidding. What does the 300M have?

    If you mean skinny as in short side-wall then disregard the previous statement. The 55's are there to be pretty sporty - for the handling you want.

    I've got a 98 (all had 4.0) with the autobahn 3.71 transaxle. No real complaints so far. The water pump went out under warranty at only 20k - they have a thing with water pumps - at least the older ones do. The new ones got more wood on the inside and I think leather on the door panels now, so the interior is just beautiful and "cool" at the same time. The engine is indeed silky smooth. You have to test one. I don't think you will find anything close to it in a V6. The Aurora 4.0 is a Caddy northstar with a smaller bore. That's the only real difference - so you are getting the very best V8 with the 4.0.

    Good luck. Get a good deal.
  • Options
    hardestyhardesty Member Posts: 166
    Resale: If resale value is ever going to be a concern, don't even consider an Oldsmobile.
    Handling: Both twisty road and emergency handling are excellent in the 2001/2 Aurora 4.0L. I think that people who are snobish about rear drive take points off before they even get in the car, but then I am snobish about the Aurora.
    Tires: If you don't like 235/55-17s, you can get an Aurora 3.5L V6 with 225/60-16s or look after market for whatever suits you, lots of other wheel and tire combinations will fit.
    Likes:Power, handling, luxury, safety, 5/50 warranty. Being the only person on the road with one (In 16 months, i've seen 3 other 01/02 Auroras on the road). Did I mention POWER?
    Dislikes: You can't get Bose sound and navigation system together.
  • Options
    HenryHenry Member Posts: 1,106
    Whatever HAPPENED to ZINC1 ?????
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    zinc1 - if you are out there, post #2000 has been set up for you. Since you were No. 2 poster (really the first one) go for # 2000.
  • Options
    aurora50aurora50 Member Posts: 8
    I have had mine 3 months and like it very well. Mine is 4.0 Cappachino. We got heated seats and the Bose 12 speaker system. That is it as far as frills. No 12 cd changer, moonroof or chrome wheels.

    I looked at Aurora for 3 years before I bought. It came apparent to me that the reveiwers were people that DID NOT OWN the car or drove it for a period of time. Most of the Auto magazine reviews were very positive of the car.
    The reviewers on other automotive boards that just go out and do a test drive of the car and write down critical comments seem to me to be inaccurate and short sided.

    Our dealership got on the GM locator system and found exactly what I wanted within 300 miles of the dealership. I also got a " GM Supplier " discount. What that is, as it was explained to me, if the business you work for does business with GM, then you qualify for the rock bottom- no haggle price which I found out was Great. ASK FOR THE GM SUPPLIER DISCOUNT.

    With the discount and very few options, we got our car for 32K AND CHANGE. Financing rates are great. We wanted to put our money into getting a V-8, just a personal choice. Also with the V-8, a lot of items are standard equipment and the V-8 engine to boot!!
    I plan to drive my car 15 to 20 years so depreciation or trade value is not an issue.

    HANDLING-GREAT NO COMPLAINTS

    TIRES- The michelins do have a bit of road noise but do great on hugging the road in rain as I took my first 200 mile trip yesterday. Handling is superb.If you are on smooth interstate asphalt, the noise and ride is quiet. Minumun window and air noise. On the interstate, mileage was 24mpg at 75mph average. In town is 17-18 mpg. I USE REGULAR UNLEADED (87 OCTANE RATING) AND IT RUNS GREAT!!! Mileage shuld increase a little as it get broken in good. A certain amount of re-design of the engine has paid off. IT IS QUIET AND AS SMOOTH AS BABY S***.

    Lastly...be patient...as it sounds like you are..
    Good luck, good hunting, and good fishing...
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    Aurora50 - wow, 32k for a V8. The Bose is incredible. I got it in the 98 (not as many speakers as you) and it really sounds great. I don't want to leave the car. Suggestion - how about smooth as a baby's bottom.

    Do the new 4.0 Michelin tires have a tread life of 400 now? I think so. The MXV4's on the 98 are 300. The tires are very good, but the life span is not the best. Since I'll be getting the 17's for the new Aurora wheels I got, I was considering the MXV4's again. I hope they live longer now.
  • Options
    aurora50aurora50 Member Posts: 8
    My tires are michelin MXV4 PLUS. Rated 98 H.
    Radical XSE P 235/55 R 17.
    Treadwear-400
    Traction-A
    Temp.-A

    I hear that the ones on the 16" factory are Goodyears? and offer a softer ride?
    Mine work great but the car is built a tiny bit stiff for me but I am not complaining. Stiff for the younger buyers they are trying to reach but soft enough for the old folks on trips.

    Good luck, good hunting and good fishing...
  • Options
    rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    rdl40:

    The only reason you should consider the 300M is price. The Aurora is just plain better than it. As far as resale, the Aurora might not be great, but then what makes you think the 300M will be? Especially when the 300N comes out. The Aurora has a way nicer interior, a smoother engine, and considerably better crash ratings. Plus, side airbags and stability control (the 300M has traction control, but it is low-speed only. The Aurora not only has all-speed traction control, but also the PCS yaw/stability control system). I too considered a 300M and an LS and an SSEi before buying the Aurora. I too agree that the handling is a non-issue because the Aurora is very crisp until pushed to ridiculous extremes. I test drove an LS with the sport package, and while it might handle better in 10/10ths driving, in everyday driving it is darty and overly sensitive (and I was driving a Z51 Corvette at the time, so I was used to an absurdly fast steering ratio). The 300M just wasn't as smooth (more noise carried through) and the V-6 was not cool sounding when you got into it. It sounded a bit rough and a bit loud. (The LS didn't sound that great either. It was all intake sucking, which I never cared much for. It sounds like it has asthma or got punched in the gut. When I think of performance, I think of sonorous exhausts not Dirt Devil intakes. Nobody talks about the beautiful symphony of a wide-open Ferrari V-12 intake suck.) The Aurora sounds sooooo sweet. Also, you can't get OnStar on the 300M, and other things like dual-zone climate control, rain sensing wipers, MagnaSteer II, and GM's cool interior lighting scheme. I believe the trip computer on the Aurora is also better. The 300M has crappy safety ratings from the IIHS (www.iihs.org), and I always am skeptical of Chrysler's quality. If you are worried about tire replacement price, I believe the 300M comes on 17" tires too. If you mean the Aurora's just aren't very meaty, then that's crazy. The 300M has 225/55-17's compared to the Aurora's 235/55-17's. The 300M special has 245/45-18s which probably don't up the handling all that much, but certainly up the chance of damaging the wheel. The warranty is better on the Aurora as well. Another small thing is I believe the 300M requires premium fuel. Anyways, other than offering a lower price, I don't believe that there is much of anything that the 300M does better (it is a little bigger in the back seat, and slightly bigger trunk). I thought the gauges on the 300M looked neat, but were pretty hard to read. They were a bit hard on the eyes. I think it was the double lines at each mark, and the font of the numbers (they seemed compressed).

    To summarize:

    Aurora features:
    - dual zone climate control
    - rain sensing wipers
    - V8
    - luxury interior
    - stability control
    - side airbags and high safety rating

    300M features:
    - low price
    - crumminess

    Lastly, I hope you weren't hoping to get an unbiased opinion from the Aurora board... :)

    Aurora50: I believe if you look again, you will find that your Bose system only has 8 speakers, not 12.
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    rjs - I'd say you've really covered it.

    aurora50 - I'm glad they are 400 now. The older 300's just don't hold up so great. I'll probably get the MXV4's again. I find them very quiet.

    Since crash tests have come up, check this site out. http://www.crashtest.com Somewhere on the site they address the factor of weight as well. They note that it may be more important than all the other factors combined. It's simple physics, but it never seems to be addressed in most crash test discussions. The Aurora is plenty heavy and is therefore all the safer.
  • Options
    rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Yes, weight is a big factor in crash tests (probably the biggest single factor). However, test results are useful too. At the least they show how well a car will fare against a similar sized or lighter car. The reason that the IIHS and NHTSA don't mention weight is that they don't want people to buy bigger, heavier cars that consume more gas. The NHTSA and other gov't agencies are totally against this (the IIHS isn't a gov't agency and isn't nearly as bad. They can be pretty reasonable). Unfortunately many of their decisions have more to do with politics than the welfare of the consumer (just look at how the NHTSA handled airbags). Now, I don't like seeing tons of heavy SUVs driving around at high speeds either, but I realize that a consumer should be able to buy the product they want. Also, if I want to be safe, I will buy a car that is safe. I won't try to make others buy a car that is safe when it hits me...
  • Options
    rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    This came from Car & Driver's Daily Auto Insider on their website:
    "General Motors said it would shut down its Orion Township, Mich. assembly plant, from Dec. 17 through Dec. 21, The Associated Press reported

    "The plant builds the Buick LeSabre, Buick Park Avenue, Pontiac Bonneville, and Oldsmobile Aurora, the sales of which have been poor recently. The shutdown affects 3,200 workers."

    I thought the Aurora had been selling better than expected (especially since Olds announced it's closing). I guess not... I guess I should have figured since I see about one other '01-02 Aurora a week, and usually it is an '01 (exhaust tips aren't chromed). Plus, they are probably the same ones I keep seeing.
  • Options
    fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    Aurora sales for the year are about 600 behind last year and for Novemeber about 500. This is from autosite. But they are probably ahead on production for everything relative to sales, so they are shutting down for a week. Aurora sales so far this year are nearly 24000.
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    rjs - I just re-read you post #2003 again. The dirt devil comment kills me. Somehow I think you might hate the sound of my air box mod. I don't hear it for regular driving, but you get a nice growl when you stand on it. I love it. The box on the old ones is just that - a big box that resonates pretty good - hence the inner liner on the top part(which I removed).

    I think it is interesting that our Impala 3.8 V6 does not have such a liner but has no intake noise. The box design has the clean air cover section up very close to the filter and the air is fed to the dirty side by a tube that comes right up to the filter too. I figure this eliminates most of the resonation by literally taking the volume away from the "drum". It's quiet, but the air flow characteristics are really bad. Perhaps 5 or 6 square inches of filter area get used. Everything is pushed through this little area.

    I swear I could design a free flowing and quiet air intake for most any car. The factory systems seem to be pathetic after-thought "designs". You could taper all the flow direction changes to eliminate 90's (resonation should drop off because of it), and if you want to double wall the thing for more quiet, then put the liner on the outside - not the inside. The K&N FIPK kits could give them a good start for ideas. More free power and mileage.

    I think you were describing some mods you did for the air intake. Did you get any noise? I had a hard time understanding it. Does the top part have an inner liner? Did you remove it?

    What is your opinion of exhaust "noise" or as it has been called "note"? What about cruising down the highway with a slight rumble/drone/burble/note to be heard? I'm talking about something probably blocked out by wind noise from a window or moon roof open - or the radio up just a little. You said you had/have a vette. What is that like on the highway, and how does is wear on you on a highway trip? These are things that made me stop and hold off on a custom cat-back for my 98 at the last second. I became very unsure if I'd like it in the long run, so I held off. Maybe I should not have. The factory exhaust cannot be heard in the car with the windows up or down. There is a little burble I guess at idle (standing next to the car).

    I think you can get a cat back for the new Aurora from Corsa now. I know they did one for a 4.0 for a near-by olds dealer. I'm sure they could give the number for reference. You seem to like the exhaust "note" thing.

    Hey go easy on Chrysler. J.D. Powers 2001 new car survey has the Intrepid beating Camry and Accord for initial quality. I think they're pretty good really - I just hope their trannies make it past 60 or 80k now. I had a 91 sundance -and it was very reliable. Great little car for dirt cheap nothing.
  • Options
    aurora50aurora50 Member Posts: 8
    I went and checked my system and had 8 speakers just as you said. The basic radio system has 6. I got confused with the 12 cd changer number.
    Sorry- I had a Brain Fart...
  • Options
    rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Garnes (and everyone else):

    Yes I do dislike the sucking sounds, but I can understand the motivation. I haven't made any mods to my airbox (not even a K&N). I am going to wait until the filter is dirty to get a K&N. I believe you are right when you say you could make a high-flow airbox without the noise. It seems to me that it would be the restrictions that cause the noise because that is where the airflow is affected/interrupted. Also, it seems to me that the noise barriers that prevent tire howl from entering the cabin would also block much of the engine noises. And, if it only sucks hard when you are really in it, then there should be some exhaust burbling up to cover up the sucking sound. Really what I think sounds bad is when the sucking is overpowering. Some cars you hear lots of suck and little exhaust which I don't care for. I also don't care for droning exhausts. I like the well-defined burbles that emanate from the Aurora's pipes.

    I did have an '87 Corvette with the Z51 performance/handling package and a 4+3 manual transmission. I put a cold-air induction scoop on it (it stuck out in front of the radiator) and a high-flow MAF sensor and a K&N and different intake runners. The higher flow did sacrifice low-end torque a little, but not much. I never heard it sucking air, though (from the driver's seat. If you opened the hood and cracked the throttle open by hand you would hear it suck). Mainly because the rest of the car was so loud. I had two of three cats removed, Flowmaster mufflers, and 1/4" larger diameter pipes (up to 2 1/2"). I didn't want to ruin the torquieness of the car by slapping on dual 3" pipes and a huge throttle body, though. The car had a nice, noticeable exhaust note when you got on it. However, it also had a droning sound to it. The exhaust wasn't as sharp or well defined. I have taken 9+ hour trips in it, and the steady-speed drone really takes its toll. You can turn the radio up, but that will give you a headache over time.

    I would be very careful about any exhaust changes to the Aurora. I like that it is near silent when cruising. I also like that the exhaust is crisp and well defined (by which I mean you can almost hear each cylinder pushing out its burnt fuel in a thm-thm-thm-thm rhythm instead of a continuous ttttthhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm of some cars. For an example, think of some 80's Mustangs or Camaros that people have customized with huge pipes and mufflers. Often times they are really loud, but with no character. It is just a loud noise. Then think of a 2001 Camaro or especially the Mustang GT and they are still fairly loud when you crack it open, but they have a crisp delineation of pulses. Almost like someone has a machine gun that is shooting exhaust at you. The Mustang GT is especially sweet in this way). Larger pipes or an inappropriate muffler can ruin that and make for a droning. I also wouldn't want to add any noise when the tach is below about 3,000. Actually, I am pretty happy with the stock exhaust sound. It has a nice burble to it without being intrusive. I understand the need for performance, but really I bought the car for it's luxurious performance. If I ruin the luxury, then I've ruined the car. I have a feeling that I wouldn't dislike the intake sound most of you mention. I'm sure it is only noticeable to you because you listen for it, and I doubt it overpowers the exhaust.

    As far as Chrysler goes, I didn't mean to offend. They make some neat products. I didn't say they have low reliability, just that I have an impression in my mind of them being low. I always picture the 80's Caravan. I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't blowing oil in the exhaust. However, proof-by-example is not a good thing. I like the styling of the Intrepid, but it and the 300M, and some of the other "cab-forward" cars have poor crash-test performance. The 300M has a lot of features for the price. When I was looking, most of the 2001's were about $3K below the sticker. However, I don't get why they are so slow to introduce traction control and other amenities. The 300M only has "low-speed" and a nice "luxury-oriented" car like the Sebring Limited convertible doesn't have traction control even as an option (nor heated seats). It's a very nice convertible for not a lot of money, but I don't know why they wouldn't have those features even as options. I don't think any sort of stability control is available on any Chrysler product (nor rain sensing wipers or dual zone climate control, and trip computers are rare) (the Viper doesn't even have ABS. I realize it is for "performance" but I don't think Ferraris or Porsches suffer because of their use of ABS). I just think if you can get it on a Chevy Impala (not knocking it. It's a nice car. But it is a bread-and-butter family sedan), you should be able to get it on a luxury-oriented car. However, Chrysler products have exciting styling and low prices and probably great reliability.

    I see no one made any predictions about a "hi-po" 2003 Aurora. I doubt it too since it is already considered a performance luxury car. If it were to commemorate the IRL wins, it should have been a 2002 thing. Plus, the IRL engine is only 3.5 liters, so dropping in a 4.6 would seem odd. Squeezing more out of the 4.0 by the factory seems unlikely too. I guess it will just go quietly... I thought for sure they would do something with the Intrigue even if it was just an appearance package to make it look somewhat like that recent show-car Intrigue. GM had the money for an appearance package for the Impala, the Monte Carlo, the Grand Prix, the Camaro, and the Firebird, but none for Olds??
  • Options
    lobstermanlobsterman Member Posts: 31
    changed my spark plugs recently with bosch platinum 4+. car runs like a dream. however, it was quite difficult. i had to take all the stuff on back off, plus the ignition coils to get to the rear ones. mileage, power, starting is better now. have a happy holiday to all.
  • Options
    rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Garnes:
    No, you are right. A cat-back system would probably have no negative affect on the torque of the Aurora. I just mentioned it because on the 'vette I owned, if I had gone to much larger pipes, plus the removal of two cats, and free-flow mufflers, then it would've been an issue. I think a nice cat-back system could be great on the Aurora as long as it was somewhat conservative. I get the impression that the Corsa system fits that bill. Also, I understand where you are coming from about wanting a little more sport from your Aurora. I wouldn't mind an exhaust upgrade and a little freer breathing if the cost to luxury was small. Even if it had a noticable growl to it, but it was only when you pushed it, I would be for it. I would consider the Corsa if my exhaust were to fail or if it had a few more miles on it. It's just hard to justify spending $1K when the car is brand new and I like the current sound.

    I don't know exactly why more airflow hurts low-end power, but it can. I think it is like the exhaust. When the air goes in easily it doesn't swirl as much and that sort of thing. Larger throttle bodies, shorter/bigger intake runners, and larger sized intake plenums can really help an engine breath at high rpms, but can really take a toll on low rpm power. The same is true of higher duration cams. They keep the valves open longer for more flow, but can impact low end power. There are a lot of delicate balances with an engine, so it pays to be careful when modifying one. I doubt the airbox mods will do anything but help. There is enough restriction in the throttle body and plenum that you wouldn't have to worry about low vacuum or too much air or anything. The airbox just isn't that radical a modification.
    I know I mention Corvettes a lot (I like them) but from 1991 to 1992 this was a good example. The L98 (1991 vette) had 350 lb-ft at like 3600 rpms (it made 280 lb-ft at a mere 1600 rpms), but only 245-250 hp (at like 4800 or so). The L98 had long, narrow runners and low duration cams. The LT-1 (1992) wasn't much different but it had very short runners, longer duration cams, and freer flowing heads. As a result they made 330 lb-ft but not until about 4400 rpms, and the 300 hp was at like 5600 rpms. The LT-1 was much faster, but it's torque around 1-2,000 was noticably less (however, the LT-1 was still tuned for torque more than horsepower. Just not to the ridiculous extreme the L98 was. I mean, 350 lb-ft but only 245 hp??). Oftentimes high horsepower comes at the expense of low-rpm torque, and vice-versa.

    As far as the 'vette sound goes, I've never been in one newer than my '87. However, I have heard the '90-2001's driving and they have a nice growl when you plant it. I know cruising resonance was a problem on some of the LT-1 ('92-'96) body styles. But to some extent you expect that in a Corvette. Mine had some drone, but I put Flowmasters on right away to pass inspection (I bought it 10 yrs old).

    No one could accuse me of American car bashing. I love American cars. I'm a pretty big foreign car basher, actually (I'm not rude about it to people with foreign cars, though). I certainly didn't mean to bash Chrysler. I just think the Aurora is the better bet than the 300M, unless money was a big factor (when you get over $30,000 I would think it isn't as big a factor).

    I hear you on reviews, though. Big time bias sometimes. What gets me is how little weight they give to price. I mean, is it surprising when an $85,000 Mercedes seems nicer than a $50,000 Cadillac?? It is probably about $5-10,000 nicer, but not $25,000 (another car) nicer. And a Porsche 911 Turbo might jump all over a Corvette Z06, up until the Corvette owner pumps an additional $70,000 into it. I think BMW 3 series get it the worst. I mean, for $45,000 a car with a mediocre 6-banger and a puny back seat had better handle well... Well, I don't want to step into shaky ground and have to recind my posting. Suffice it to say, I meant no ill will to Chrysler.
  • Options
    fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    a 30 inch intake manifold length boosts low speed torque, while an 8 inch is best for high speed. A variable length will give good low end torque and high speed performance. Cadillac did that with the catera.
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    rjs - thanks for the info. Really interesting. I still kind of think of the throttle body as being more like an air box mod. I may be ignorant of the mechanics here big time, but it seems to be just a butterfly valve controlled port that lets the air in. I'd think bigger is just less restrictive. Maybe there is more to it than I know.

    The exhaust - I have to get in and ride in a vette and talk to my buddy about it. I'll use that for comparison.

    Well, you and I have the exact take on import/domestic issues as well as the car reviews. I wonder what these guys would do if they could not comment on "cheap plastic vs good plastic", cupholders, and glove boxes. Much of the reviews are loaded with subjective judgements based on no qualitative/quantitative comparison. They read as an insult to anybody that truly has some first hand experience with the car(s).

    I would love to get a 97 or newer vette - hatchback. You can go on a nice road trip and I could literally fit my fishing gear, and a guitar, and maybe my amp too. They have a lot of room and are still 100% sport. On Crank&Chrome TV gearhead show (on the web too), they added a K&N induction kit to a 2000 or 2001 vette and got +21 HP at the wheels. I think you could push 400 HP pretty easy if you wanted without spending too much - maybe just induction and exhaust. Wheel to Wheel (they do the GM pace cars) offers better heads and stuff if you really wanted to get into the engine. I'll have to wait awhile though for that fun. It's not like I'm going to stop maxing out on the 401k just to have a vette. Hopefully they will be more affordable in 5 years or so.

    Does the vette have variable valve timing now? If not, could this be implemented in the future?
  • Options
    rdl40rdl40 Member Posts: 60
    Guys thanks for input it will help in making my decision easier as to which car to purchase.

    Just so you know, I'm looking at the 300M special
    not the base 300. The special includes 18' wheels, lowered ride height of 1/2 ", 5 more hp (wow!)
    dual exhaust, 3.89 final drive axle ratio.

    But maybe your right, I could get the v-8 olds for right about the same price as the 300.
    Also, are their any significant differences between the '01 and '02 aurora. The local dealer has 3 '01s but no '02s.

    Thanks Ron
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    rdl40 - Glad to help. Sorry about all the other rambling. Can't help it.

    I think rjs mentioned that the 02's have chromed exhaust tips. The cars should be pretty much the same. You should be able to get a better deal on an 01.

    You other new Aurora owners - were there any quality issues with the 01's that the 02's corrected? Same car?

    Anyway, did you test drive one? It's just silky smooth - very refined engine. It's been around since 95, but it's still holds it's own with the very best. Now some are cranking out more power per inch with variable valve timing (and probably 20k more) - but nothing radically greater unless you literally spend 50k more. And again that 4.0 is really smooth.

    How about the interior? Is that thing inviting or what? The 300M is great looking too inside and out, but there is something about the way the Aurora interior wraps around the driver. Lots of high quality wood and leather. I've had my 98 (a little less wood and no leather on the door) since March and I'm still thrilled to get behind the wheel after work. If I need more, I turn up the Bose (gotta be Brian Setzer), still more? - put the toe into it and wind up the V8 - more? - slide the top back.

    Cool car.

    The 3.71 is plenty quick. I'm not sure I'd want more than that unless there was more overdrive - like in a 5 speed manual as previously suggested here. If you ever wanted more performance, look into the Corsa exhaust system and a K&N filter (if available fo rthe new ones yet). You'd be over 270 HP easy.

    If you get black - hand wash only. Even the soft cloth ones have a lot of grit on the pads from the last slob that went through. I've written off car washes. Touchless is good if you can find it.
  • Options
    realyecatrealyecat Member Posts: 29
    Same engine (3.5 Aurora), almost the same basic features except wood trim. The Aurora is heavier and not as quick as the intrigue.

    Any comments please?
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    realyecat - did you test drive both? What do you think?

    I find it a little hard to believe you can get the Intrigue for $7,000 less than an Aurora 3.5. The Aurora 3.5 can be had for well under 30k I believe. Somebody here just got the V8 for 32k and change. We got a new Impala LS loaded (very similar price to Intrigue - a little less really) and with the special discount through work it was still mid 23's. You'd have to get a loaded Intrigue to even begin to compare and that has to be at least 24k out the door.
  • Options
    rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    The Intrigue is a nice car, and very competent. The GLS has most of the features (and more trunk and back seat room) of the Aurora for less money. However, The Aurora certainly has more luxury. So it depends on what price you put on luxury. Also, the Aurora has rain sensing wipers that can't be had on the Intrigue along with side-impact airbags, adjustable lumbar, and real wood trim. Also (and don't think I'm some safety nut, because I take crash ratings with a big grain of salt) the Aurora was an IIHS "best pick" while the Intrigue was not. The Intrigue has rear seats that fold down, instead of the pass-through on the Aurora if you are in to that.

    The only changes to the Aurora for '02 were chroming the exhaust tips, some new colors (that were available late in '01 I believe), the "I'm stuck in the trunk" release, and the option for the Nav system. Other than that they are the same (as far as I know). There were some service bulletins for 2001's that I'm sure they addressed in 2002's. However, if you had any of those problems, the dealer would fix it. I'm sure you could get a better deal on the '01s. If you use something like a supplier discount, though, then go ahead and order a 2002 exactly the way you want it. The price is the same (if you use the discount) whether you buy from stock or order it. If not, them I'm sure you could make a great deal on the 2001. If you get crazy with a 3.5 and get all the packages, then you really ought to think about a 4.0. A loaded 3.5 is only about $1000-2000 less than the 4.0, and the V8 is pretty sweet...

    Garnes:
    I am not sure how the air thing works either, but I know it does. A bigger throttle body wouldn't make any difference in part-throttle, because you would just crack the throttle less to allow the same amount of air (assuming the throttle position sensor were recalibrated). However, power testing is done at full-throttle. The larger throttle body would let more air in, just as larger valves would or more radical cam timing would. These do hurt low-end torque and help high-end power. That is why things like variable valve timing and variable-length intake runners are used. It is to have more restriction at low rpms and then shift to less restriction at high rpms. The ZR-1 had two sets of intake runners and two sets of fuel injectors to help it have more low-end torque (it had a lot less low-end grunt than the L98 in 1991, but of course it would dust an L98).
    None of the current Corvettes use variable valve timing. They aren't even overhead cams. The cam is down in the "V" as it has been since Olds started it with the "Rocket V8". This was the predecessor to the Chevy small-block (correct me if I am wrong about this please).
    Ever since the LT-1, Corvettes have responded very favorably to airbox and exhaust modifications. I'm not sure why they don't just do that at the factory. Unless they want people to be excited about the Corvette as a modifiable car... (selling the Corvette is all about excitement. No one would buy it if they weren't excited about it. It isn't a choice of practicality.)

    P.S. The base price of the Aurora 3.5 is $31,665 while the base price of an Intrigue GLS is $28,502. Quite a bit less than a $7K difference.

    P.P.S. I handwash my car too. I don't like swirl marks. I specifically asked my dealership to touch the car as little as possible before giving it to me. They had to do the pre-delivery inspection, though. They washed and waxed the thing and that really pissed me off. There are some very light swirls in the paint that I will buff out in the spring (I want to keep a good coat of wax on over the winter. I have already put two coats on, plus the dealer's coat.) Anyone who obsesses about their car's paint should check out Meguiar's. I have their dual-action polisher and it is awesome. Works into the paint great and it is just about impossible to burn it.
  • Options
    fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    requires the intake valves to be controlled by one cam and the exhaust valves by another. GM is experimenting with ohv engines that have two cams in the engine over the crankshaft so that variable valve timing is possible with pushrod engines.

    The next generation STS has been delayed. Lutz does not want it to look like the CTS.
  • Options
    rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    I forgot... Memory seats. That's another thing you can't get on an Intrigue. However, if all you wanted was the safety stuff, you could get an Intrigue GX with the Driver package and PCS for like $24,492. That would be pretty cheap for a car with stability control. However, you'd have cloth seats and such... and not much of a comparison to an Aurora.

    Why would GM care to produce a pushrod engine with variable valve timing? The whole advantage of the pushrod is it's simplicity. I mean, GM can make a low-tech engine that gets the same (usually better) mileage, has lots of horsepower, and way better torque than a more expensive high-tech engine. GM gets razzed for its low-tech engines but they kick butt and are inexpensive. Look at a Camaro Z28(or Camaro SS) compared to a Mustang GT(or Cobra). The complaint is that GM is "cheating" by having a huge 5.7 liter engine compared to the Mustang's 4.6. However, the GM gets better mileage, and cranks out absurdly more power, plus it probably costs less (I have no concrete data on the cost). (If you question this, let me know, and I will regale you with a tale of crazy burn-outs in a Camaro and Mustang.)
  • Options
    fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    fjk / rjs - thanks for explaining things. I had a hunch that VVT was for overhead cams only.

    rjs - I agree with you about the simpler pushrod engine thing. Those engines do crank torque out and really perform well. Our 3.8 Impala gets unbelievable mileage, and beats the camry and accord while still being heavier. Performance is there too. I really liked the all cast iron aspect of the 3.8 for the wife's car. No head gaskets blowing on that - plus it has a good old timing chain. I'm really hoping for very long durable service from the 3.8.

    I still have my doubts about the throttle body hurting torque in any way. The way I see it is this - It seems it would make more air AVAILABLE, but the larger throttle in no way DIRECTLY CONTROLS the breathing of the engine as does the cam and valve action. Now I've already explained that I'm not a technician or pretend to be super gear knowledgable, but the larger throttle body just eliminates restriction. Any elimination of restriction would enhance a little denser air in the cylinder.

    - Still not convinced. However, I do understand the other factors as discussed can lower the low RPM torque sometimes.

    Has anybody seen pictures of the future Caddy EVOC or whatever the name? I was checking out the pictures on caddyinfo.com and was blown away by the side view. Too bad I may be lucky to own a used one maybe 15+ years from now. Big time pricey.
  • Options
    fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    With a V type engine, overhead cams require double that of overhead valve engines (or pushrod). GM is experimenting with a two cam pushrod engine and has a show car with the experimental engine in it. A 4.3 liter V8 that has 24 valves (1 exhaust, 2 intake) and makes 300 hp (if I remember right).

    The new V8 in the 7 series doesn't have a throttle. It has a variable intake valve opening that does the "throttle". Also has a continuously varable intake manifold length from 30 inches to 8 inches (lengths are a guess). To optimize the density in the cylinder, you want to take advantage of compression waves in the intake manifold.
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    whoa - compression waves. You are beyond me.
  • Options
    fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    The air in the intake manifolds vibrate. This is how pipe organs make music. I know this happens, but I am not an expert. Long intake runners are good for low speed torque, short runners for high speed torque and medium for medium. I need to dig up the SAE journal that delt with the northstar (if it not lost from the library (stolen)).
  • Options
    HenryHenry Member Posts: 1,106
    I have noticed the War & Peace stlye the latest postings have been using. Interesting (not).
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    I think there are at least 5 or 6 topics being juggled all at the same time. Pretty cool. Different. I'll admit I'm all over the place, but then again there is lots of cool input from people here on just about anything - all at the same time.

    I want one of those new northstars in my car NOW! (said to the tone of "I want an oompa loompa NOW!")

    I've lost it. Sorry.
  • Options
    americanstndrdamericanstndrd Member Posts: 2
    WOW. I love the Aurora sooo much, but I just can't take it anymore. My mother has a 97' that I mostly drove up until I bought my own 95. Boy was that a big mistake. Even though I shouldve learned my lesson by watching her go through all of the incovenience with her 97' I just love the cars looks too much. So after I bought my 95 with 56,000 miles on it, 15 thousand miles later, I began to notice a problem with the transmission. The dealership couldnt figure out what was wrong with it. So I took it to my moms mechanic and they told me that my tranny needed to be rebuilt. so 1,200 dollars latewr, My car was workign perfect. Well at least thats what I thought. Oh I forgot to mention that an extended cranking condition started after 2 thousand miles. that was follwed by a shudder when trying to accelerate. now that the tranny was rebuilt, I took it for a ride. It began to shudder again and was still idling extremely rough for what is supposed to be a luxury car. I still want another Aurora maybe I'll try buying a new one next time, but I just can't take GM's poor build quality and lack of refinement in their cars. Oh i forgot to mention that my gas gauge doesnt work anymore either. it'll move from full one minute to empty the next. Very inconvenient especially if youre on your way to Las Angeles from San jose and you think that youre going on a full tank. my only advice to GM is, GET IT TOGETHER.
  • Options
    aurorabillaurorabill Member Posts: 22
    I have been absent from the list due to parental care issues, but I have been reading back posts and never keeping my mind far from cars.

    In straightening up some old magazines of my father, I ran across an auto price guide for 1997. What I found surprised me. The Wholesale and Retail for the Aurora and SLS was only about $4,200 apart. For me this explains part of the challenge the Aurora has had since its 1995 debute.

    In 1995 there were substantial numbers sold, and every year many less, as I understand it. This is common with any model, I guess, particularly one as stunning as the Aurora. In some ways the Aurora was superior to the 95-96 SLS-STS (trunk space, dashboard to name only two). By the time 97 rolled on, Cadillac had improved its suspension and by 1998, it jumped up to be a substantially better car than the Aurora. Do trivia buffs know that the 98 Cadillac finally got the same chassis that the Aurora had all along?

    The 98-99 Caddy, either SLS or STS, is the car I think about most to replace my 101,000 mile Aurora. Second place would be a 95 BMW 740 I or IL. Both cars go for the $20,000-$25,000 price range.

    With any make and model, each year some of the competition changes. By 1999, the Aurora was a more dated design in many respects to the Caddie. Is it my imagination or are Caddies given a deeper wholesale (Invoice) to retail spread? As I wrote before, the Caddies seem to really be getting the deep discounts ($5K and more).

    As a side note, I actually saw a 95 or 96 Aurora with something like 70K miles being listed in the paper for around $5,000! Two years ago - almost to the day - I bought mine with 71,000 miles for what I thought - and still do - was a good price -12K.

    Yours truly, Aurorabill
  • Options
    jimr97jimr97 Member Posts: 13
    Besides volume, air has two properties that come into play when tuning intake systems. Air has mass and since it is a gas it can compress and expand. The mass is important because the intake port valve or valves are not open all the time. At low rpm when the intake valve is closed the column of air in the intake system will slow down or come to a stop. When the valve opens it takes a moment to get this column of air moving again. During this delay the cylinder is not being filled with air/fuel. By using a long intake tube length at low rpm you increase the mass of the air. Now with liquids which don't compress or expand this is not a good thing as increasing the mass means the column starts moving even slower. With a gas like air, the air nearest the intake valve will start moving before the air near the throttle valve. This creates an accordian or slinky affect. So, when the valve closes the air near the valve comes to a stop, but the air near the throttle valve is still moving toward the cylinder. By tuning the length of the intake runner, you can time the arrival of the air still moving in the intake runner when the valve is closed so that it reaches maximum compression of the air ahead of it just prior to the intake valve opening. This in affect rams air into the cylinder as soon the valve opens as opposed to having the cylinder have to generate vacuum and then have a delay as the column of air starts to move. This what is generally reffered to as a compression wave. Now the cross sectional diameter of this column of air is really established by the size of the intake port in the head and the valve opening, so it would be inefficient to have an intake runner larger than the intake port opening in the head. Likewise at low rpm you want compression of the air to occur longitudinally in the intake system, not radially, so the intake runner should be of uniform diameter. Because the airflow is tuned by the length and diameter of the intake runner, it's not likely that increasing the size of the throttle body would increase torque. However, depending on whether the stock throttle body is over restrictive at low rpm (unlikely) it could change the rpm at which the torque curve begins to rise.

    At higher rpm the intake valve is opening and closing at a faster rate. Now the long intake running is no longer tuned to deliver the intake charge when the valve opens. The way to get around this is to have a shorter intake runner. The smaller runner will contain a smaller mass of air which at the higher rpm slows and speeds up much faster. At higher rpm you also have the issue of increased flow rate.That is the volume of air passing through the valve per second. Because of the higher flow rate you can take advantage of radial compression of air as it come through the intake port in the head. This is done by increasing the total volumn of air in the intake runners. The way to do this is to not close the longer intake runner at higher rpm. Allow both the shorter runner and longer runner to be open. This is where a larger throttle body makes a difference.

    The problem with this system is that the long runner and short runner are tuned for specific rpms. Any engine speed below, between, or above what it's tuned for are not optimal. You can deal with this in two ways. With fixed length intake runners you can continuously vary the valve timing over a range of rpm so the compression wave in the intake runner arrives at the right moment. The second way is to continously vary the length of the intake runner over an rpm range. Of course the ultimate is to be able to continuously vary both valve timing and intake runner length to optimize air flow over the entire rpm range. The downside to all this is high cost and lack of reliability. Usually cheap, simple, and reliable are better for the general public. However, there is the market out there for people that can afford it and who either don't keep it long enough for it to break, or can afford to have it fixed if it does break. As Aurora owners, we probably fall somewhere in between.
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    Jimr97 very interesting. I think I even absorbed some of that. While reading, I see the need for some graphics to help show the dynamics of what is happening for the various scenarios. Thanks.

    So you don't think the stock throttle body is restrictive and a bigger one would not do much for the current 4.0?

    Aurorabill - This is just my opinion of course, but even the current Caddy STS/SLS styling is a little boxy (relative Deville look). It's a good looking car, but not like an Aurora. It's seems so hard to figure out the general public. I'd still take the Aurora (old or new) inside and out over the new Seville. The Lexus 4.0 was a 250 Hp 260 torque engine for the first few years, but then they got it up to 290 Hp by 1998 or so. I think If GM would have kept improving the performance a little bit, that would have helped. Also, if the current Aurora interior extra wood and leather would have come say by 97 or 98, that would have helped. I know that there were mechanical improvements over the years, but none that I'm aware of were of the "touch and feel" variety that the average consumer could instantly see. You definitely have a point about the Caddy generally getting better and that had to have a draw on the Aurora. Aurora should have done something to improve performance and add some interior refinements from 95 to 99 perhaps. If it was proposed, some bean counter probably said NO, we don't want to hurt Caddy or whatever.

    One thing that drives me crazy, is that it seems that the domestic cars don't give the public what it wants in one model for fear that will hurt one of their other models. Meanwhile, the consumer goes with an import and is lost entirely. Example - no V8's in a chevy, buick, or pontiac sedan. I think they are trying to protect Caddy or something. Bottom line - they have to offer the public the very most while keeping the distinctions between the lines clear. I think they lower the bar a little to keep the distinction between the lines sometimes. Backwards bean-counter thinking.

    americanstndrd - sorry to hear about all the problems. I would not kill all of GM because of it though - although it seems to be a common mind set to dismiss the entire company if you have a problem domestic car. From your standpoint, GM has definitely failed you. But my Aurora has been good and it probably seems equally silly for me to praise GM as being "all together" because of my one experience. Anecdoatal evidence is just that - anecdotal, and does not always reflect overall reality.

    I look at even the Lexus boards and read of some really crummy things happening too, but they rarely adopt that attitude. I think it is a lot about perception. No matter what goes wrong with the import, people don't seem to willing to rip on this very expensive purchase they made. I also think there is a little bit of the "emperor's new cloths" mentality too.

    Anyway, I will say that I've noticed that it seems that more problems happen with the 95's. Maybe some of that is just the additional years and miles. I don't know.
  • Options
    jimr97jimr97 Member Posts: 13
    >garnes- So you don't think the stock throttle body is restrictive and a bigger one would not do much for the current 4.0?

    I didn't say it wouldn't make a difference. I don't think it will increase maximum torque much if any. I would expect an increase in horsepower though. Let's face it, this engine it de-tuned quite a bit to increase longevity and provide smoothness. A modern day 4.0L 32 valve DOHC V8 with computer controlled engine management shouldn't have too much trouble producing 100hp per liter. That's 400hp for the Aurora V8. Will the engine and drivetrain last 100,000 miles at this powerlevel. Not very likely when pulling 4000lbs around. Will it idle smooth and sound quiet. Nope. Kind of takes the luxury out of the luxury car. Where can things be improved. First, as you found out, the intake side needs less restrictive flow. The intake manifold would certainly benefit from a dual length or continuously variable length runners (rather expensive). Probably can't increase valve lift too much, but I bet duration and overlap could be increase. However, without variable valve timing you can kiss that smooth idle goodbye. And of course a real tuned header exhaust system with dual pipes all the way back. A crossover pipe placed to maximize cylinder scavenging would certainly help boost torque. I bet the exhaust system would make a big difference. For those that haven't been under the car and looked at it, the pipe from the front bank passes under the engine then wraps back up over the top of the transaxle where it joins with the rear bank with a Y-pipe. I would think that this is far from an optimal arrangement. It sure does look nice and neat underneath though. Ever see a car before that looked so flat on the underside. There's hardly anything protruding from underneath the car. I suppose that the exhaust system is rather difficult to deal with on a V engine that's mounted transversely. This engine would probably work better mounted longitudinally. They could have still maintained front wheel drive. Chrysler has been doing it that way with the Intrepid/Concorde and a V6 for quite a while now. However, if GM were smart they would stop trying to alienate their older drivers by turning Cadillac into a futuristic sport sedan make and instead reinvent Oldsmobile as a premier rear wheel drive sport sedan maker instead of axing it.
  • Options
    HenryHenry Member Posts: 1,106
    Its Sitting in front of my house.
  • Options
    HenryHenry Member Posts: 1,106
    But for how Long?
  • Options
    HenryHenry Member Posts: 1,106
    Total bill $1,650.00

    Warranty Gold Paid $1,650.00

    Total bill for transmission repairs for
    2001 is over $5,000

    Waranty Gold Paid >$5,000.00
  • Options
    HenryHenry Member Posts: 1,106
    SEE GUYS, you can make a posting with less than 200 words.
  • Options
    zinc1zinc1 Member Posts: 133
    I've decided not to contend for the Shop King title this time around, Henry. Going to sell the Aurora for whatever I can get for it. Enjoyed most of these past couple of years, but I can't keep up with the maintenance anymore. The long, sordid story is at the site for the stout-hearted.

    Take care all
  • Options
    garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    zinc - sorry to see you go. Thanks for all the interesting Aurora stuff. These Shop King horror stories are getting to me.

    Jimr97 - Thank you for all the cool >200 word lessons. I think Caddy is fine with the DeVille. Keep it the way it is forever for the older folks or those that like big boxy land cruisers - and then there is always buick too, but I think a sporty direction is the way to go for the other Caddies. I hope the Seville replacement is a little more sleek. Your idea for keeping Olds is interesting, and it sure seems like Olds was already in that direction but got killed just the same.

    Yeah the 4.0 is a bit detuned for sure. Not like a 70's car, but when you look at how that thing breaths, it is disappointing.

    I still say that as good as the Aurora is, it is death to not continuously offer the public a little more each year. The extra wood and leather should have come earlier, and by 97 or 98, the power should have been increased at least 5% to 10%. That would have kept it in the public interest more. For crying out loud - the same darn wheels for 5 years that are just "so-so" looking IMO. I've seen that wheel on other Olds products too. I still blame bean-counter engineering/marketing for that stuff.

    I still love the car, but after 95, they rested on what they did and stopped working on the car with the effort that built the car in the first place.

    Sorry, I did not do a word count on this one. I'll always ramble.
  • Options
    matrixfrogmatrixfrog Member Posts: 180
    sorry to see ya go zinc. good luck with whatever car you decide to buy.
  • Options
    fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    detuned? My 71 Riviera had 250 horsepower from 455 cubic inches (7.5 liters). It was 250 hp because it had optional dual exhausts. 0-60 was about 10 seconds.

    zinc - buicks have been good cars for me. The 3800 is a simple engine for repairs. Made out of cast iron instead of aluminium.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles