Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Out of the hole however is a different story. The Aurora doesn't have a chance there. The G35's strong pull at high speeds is interesting as well. Perhaps it has a nice low drag coefficient combined with a smaller front surface area as well. That would really explain a lot. Wasn't it advertised as such??
Again - other than 160 lbs, which I don't see as making a large difference, you have two identical cars, but one has substantially less power across the curve. If anything, the old C&D numbers are consistent with the new Aurora numbers. And as stated before, C&D accounts for the atmospheric conditions. I believe it's Road and Track that practically has a disclaimer regarding their tested performance numbers citing varying atmospheric conditions as affecting the results.
I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the possibility of the 3.48 being tested. I've read plenty of tests where they test what they get - and it isn't always the go-fast option car. I'd almost expect that on a car like an Aurora. It's not a Mustang where you obviously want to know what the V8 GT does and who cares about the V6.
Just for the heck of it, I'm enlarging the 2002 graphs to try to read it better and plot the two against each other. I believe the torque difference will show to be an undeniably large factor.
I believe the Autobahn wasn't all that common. Very few Aurora's I see have the MXV4's. Yes, you don't always know if they are the originals, but I rarely see it. I don't see the typical new Aurora buyer as wanting this option or even understanding what it is either.
I'd bet that very few if any that post here are typical Aurora owners too.
As for the car that C&D tested being a "ringer". Hmmm. Why would Olds only send a "ringer" to C&D. Yeah, pre production - whatever. I don't see why they couldn't send whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, to whoever they wanted.
I don't see what's so radical about two nearly identical cars having nearly identical performance with the ever so slightly quicker one being the one with considerably more torque.
For the classic:
1000 rpm - 210 lb-ft
1500 rpm - 230
2000 rpm - 240
2500 rpm - 244
3000 rpm - 248
3500 rpm - 255
4000 rpm - 259
I'll try to enlarge that graph and take a straight edge to it. But at 3500 for example it looks as if there is a 20 lb-ft difference. Again, I'll have to look at that new graph more closely.
The old engines had a peak in the torque near 2000 RPM's and then the main one at about 4000 (4400). The new engines seem to have a gradual increase in torque from 1500 to 4000 (4400). I assume that the aurora engine is similar. The old aurora engine had the peak near 2000. That little peak is what kept the low end torque up to 90% at 1700 while the new engines seem to drop below 90% at about 2300. But there seems to be more torque from ~2500 to 4000 in the new engines compared with the old.
The graph for the new Aurora seems to show
2000 rpm - 232 lb-ft
2500 rpm - 236
3000 rpm - 236
3500 rpm - 234 (it seems to drop a tad)
It's flat and really doesn't seem to have that gradual increase you mention. It shows it dropping below 90% at 3500 rpm or so. Even with an error of several hundred rpm, it seems to drop below 90% way before 2000.
I enlarged it to fill an 8 1/2 x 11 and carefully delineated it with an engineer's ruler and 90 degree lines. The graph is pretty rough but you can pull the numbers off if you are careful.
One interesting note, the torque graph is screwed up at least at the upper end. It shows peak torque as 276 @ 4700 or 4800 rpm. Even though the peak numbers are shown too high at a higher rpm, I doubt the 2000 to 3500 rpm numbers are any lower than I scaled. Past 3500, that graph is goofed. But still, there seems to be a big difference between the classic and the new. The new one just doesn't go anywhere after 2000 rpm for a long time with torque.
The Hp graph seems to have an area in that upper 2000's to lower 3000's where the rate of increase slows as well.
At least YOU will eventualy grow out of it.
I replaced 4 sets of pads and one rotor on my '97 last month. As I think you found out, the calipers do not need to be completely removed to replace the pads and retaining springs. After you depress the piston for clearance and remove the bottom bolt, the caliper swings up and out away from the rotor. That top bolt is a mystery to me; I haven't done this so don't understand it for sure, but the service manual describes moving the caliper either in-board or out-board (I don't remember which) to disengage from the top bolt. The replace the one rotor I had to remove the mounting bracket with caliper attached.
Has anyone found the proper tool for bottomong the rear pistons in their cylinders? I used a tool that I had for my '86 Toro, but it didn't fit that well.
Stock spark plug wire size is 7mm. That surprises me, especially since the Riviera has 8mm. I am beginning to research what is available as replacements. I like the MSD 8.5mm super core, but they don't seem to be available as a set for Aurora (no surprise); looks like I would have to order bulk wire and attach the boots myself -- which is not a problem as long as I can be sure I can get the right boots to fit.
Thanks for the information. My '97 is exhibiting the same symptoms. Stock AC Delco replacement is $63 list from Olds dealer; I have found one who will discount at about $45.
Last year I did ten zero-to-60 runs; all came in between 7.35 and 7.99 seconds. None of the launches felt good -- of course I'm comparing to my 1970 4-4-2 4-speed which had 500 ft-lbs (gross) torque and weighed about 200 pounds less (I weighed less then, too). And some launches were obviously better than others. My technique was to hold the brakes and bring the engine up to 1500 rpm, then launch. Traction control OFF got better results. I think I needed more wheelspin to keep the engine from bogging down, but I can't afford transmission repairs so I didn't go to higher rpms. The only performance enhancement was a K&N air filter. Time measurements were by my GTech Pro; I do not know how accurate it is. I want to get out to a drag strip this summer, if I can, to get another set of measurements.
I have never heard the pump on my '97 run for more than a few seconds at a time. Sounds like a leak or a misadjusted switch.
My classic has its original shocks which I want to replace to tighten up the handling. I guess I'll go with the stock AC Delcos, but would like to know of alternatives other folks have found. Several people have claimed there are Cadillac shocks that are more "sporting," but no one has come up with the part numbers yet.
I had a few problems during warranty period: CD player replaced twice and gas filler door solenoid failing twice.
There has been a recent (6 to 9 months) recall for the rear seat belt retractors.
Mine is still a great car.
I am going to check the pump out to see if there is an adjustment that can be made. The trunk does have some light weight items in it, so I am going to experiment on emptying the trunk out to see if that helps.
Garnes, the reason C&D would have gotten a pre-production car is that there weren't any production cars yet. A ringer off the production line is a *lot* less likely. A pre-production car is handmade anyways, so engine pieces can easily have smoother flow surfaces and such (I don't mean it has hot cams or anything, but smoother surfaces than those off an assembly line can really goose the performance). The reason other car mags probably got a production car is the date. They were tested considerably later (or at least the articles appeared months later) than the C&D test. Olds doesn't send whatever they want. They have a press pool. Once the car starts production, the pre-production cars are crushed and regular production cars make up the pool. Also, I do think that Olds wanted the car to make a good debut and they did want it to be perceived as a fast luxury car. It's also pretty common for pre-production cars to make a bit more power and have a bit less fit & finish than the production models.
C&D claims to use NHRA adjustment tables for their acceleration times. These only apply to 1/4 time and trap speeds, though. There are no NHRA tables for 0-60 or 30-70 or anything (at least not that I know of). Also, all major car mags standardize their test procedures like filling the fuel tank and such. If you run your car with a tank that is less than full, you will probably notice an increase in the car's measured performance.
The autobahn gear ratio is 3.71 compared to 3.48. That's a 7% increase (reduction, whatever) in gearing. It's hard to imagine that trimming almost a full second off the 0-60 time.
I did find the dyno chart you referred to. However, it's like 1" x 1". The fact that the torque peak doesn't match up on the graph doesn't help it establish credibility...
I don't think we are dragging it out either. I think it's an interesting discussion and I like hearing your opinions on it. If you can post those dyno pics, that would be great. Or send them to me and I'll post 'em (after some "adjustments"...
These are for the 4.6 engines (2000 model year). I don't know how the aurora engine compares. But these curves are different than the previous northstars.
http://www.geocities.com/aurora402002/powercurve.html
Actually, looking at the curve of the old Northstar and the new Northstar, the power curve of the old one seems to match up the best with the 2002 brochure curve for the Aurora (I wish I could scan it in). I wonder if they just reused the power curve from the old Aurora in the new brochure. It wouldn't be the first thing they reused. GM Powertrain doesn't seem to have the 4.0 listed at all (except on their media.gm.com site which doesn't have any torque curves).
I would think the curve for the 2001+ Aurora would have the same shape as the 2000+ Northstar since they are so similar. It seems a bit suspicious to say the least that the curve in the 2002 brochure looks so much like the 1996 Northstar curve instead of like the 2000 curve.
BEREA, OH – In the tradition of past Indy and Daytona 24 Hour pace car C5 Corvettes, CORSA Performance's patented* Power-Pulse RSC™ exhaust systems were selected for this year's Oldsmobile Aurora Indy Pace Car, and the special Cadillac Seville STSi safety cars used to pace the 24 Hours of Le Mans.
CORSA's patented Power-Pulse RSC™ (Reflective Sound Cancellation) muffler technology provides a totally unrestricted, straight-through exhaust path with up to 40% more flow than stock. This unique technology cancels unwanted interior exhaust noise and resonance by canceling the offending frequencies inside of the muffler, allowing the pleasing power pulses to be heard. The sound is bold and powerful at full throttle and whisper-quiet at cruise and highway speeds.
GM's luxury sport sedans are capable pace cars right off the showroom floor, however, preparing for severe duty and having the opportunity to showcase the car's full potential is what pace car programs are all about. When it came to getting "just the right exhaust sound" both the Aurora and Seville pace car development teams chose CORSA.
CORSA founder and president Jim Browning remarked, "we really like working on these pace car programs with GM. We tune our Power-Pulse RSC™ mufflers to each specific application. This is a good development exercise for us and it is a good way to expose our muffler technology to groups of factory engineers and race fans around the world."
Now I need to scour the web for pictures of the 2000 Aurora Indy Pace Car from behind...
Found some: http://www.indypacecars.com/2000.html
I've never seen the 3.5 Aurora with the reverse color scheme. Interesting. The tips on the 4.0 look like the stock ones, but it's hard to tell.
You seem to dismiss a lot.
* C&D accounting for atmospheric conditions while R&T states they do not. Sure, the other standardizing stuff you mention is well - standard. But the magazines do differ on atmospheric conditions - do they not? I've seen it in their own print.
* Possible 3.48 as a factor.
* Less power from a nearly identical car. Other than 160 lbs difference with LESS power, what difference is so magical about the new Aurora that would make it faster than the classic with the Autobahn. Please explain the logic. If you are going to deny that there is a power difference - then we are just on different pages.
You can go on forever, but it really boils down to two nearly identical cars but one has less power.
Also - sorry, but the "ringer" thing just seems to be a stretch. At least one of the mags also shows an early date as well. Where is the evidence of this?? Let's see, the classic was a ringer, and the poor new Aurora was tested maybe with only 87 octane.
Yeah the new Aurora was supposed to be faster - but faster than what?? The 3.71 or the 3.48?? The C&D article I read on the new Aurora noted this claim from the factory, but then noted that the results showed it to only be slightly quicker than the classic. HOW can they make that statement when their own data on the classic was a tad better?? Perhaps they are indeed referring to the standard classic with the 3.48. I know, they have data on a non-"ringer" that they are not telling us about. That's it.
Ok, I went to the Aurora website and downloaded the aurora brochure. Down in the middle or so they have the torque and horsepower curves. Looks much like the old engine, but the picture is new, not like the old advertising pictures. The torque curve is dependent on the manifold tuning too, which may be the same, while the 4.6 engines may have new manifold tuning.
Garnes, I hope you aren't mad. Your post seemed sort of angry. You're a nice guy and I don't want you to be pissed at me.
It's fine if we don't agree. I enjoy hearing your thoughts about this.
I am pretty sure C&D uses NHRA tables for their adjustments. I could swear I read that. This would only affect the 1/4 mile stats.
Ringer is perhaps too strong a word. I didn't mean to imply that Olds was trying to fool us. However, pre-production cars are handmade. And a handmade engine is likely to have smoother flow surfaces which will improve performance. Just like a polish job on an otherwise unchanged engine. I thought the evidence that the car was a pre-production was in the on-sale date of May 1995, and the magazine's delivery in March of 1995. Do you not think it was a pre-production model, or do you think it was but had the same level of performance?
Car and Driver did not say the car was faster but just barely. Here is what they said: At the car's introduction in Carmel, California, Oldsmobile engineers claimed the revised V-8 -- in concert with its lighter body -- would be good for a half-second improvement at the drag strip, but our numbers suggest otherwise. We hit 60 mph in 7.6 seconds and ran the quarter-mile in 15.9 seconds at 88 mph -- almost exactly as before. They also mention specifically that the 2001 Aurora they tested was a pilot-build car which means it came off the assembly line (very early on).
What did you think of the Northstar graphs? It looks like the new Northstar has the flatter torque curve, and the old one is peakier. What do you think about how the Aurora graph maps up to them? fjk57702, I hear you on the manifolds, however the Aurora got the same new center-feed intake manifold the Northstar did. Also, the Olds info on premium fuel is wrong. As is the assertion on the same media.gm.com page about the compression ratio being 10.3:1 (it's 10.0:1), and the EPA ratings of 18/28 (it's 18/26).
Mainly I question why Cadillac would redesign the Northstar, and thus Olds the Aurora, to make less power. I wouldn't think that there are a lot of people who spend $40-50K on a car and then complain about paying for premium fuel. In spite of some German car shoppers' opinions about the Seville, Cadillac views it as a sports luxury car with heavy doses of sport. I can't imagine them trimming back the power just so it can run on 87 octane... That just seems odd...
I do have that dyno graph in my brochure, but I don't have a brochure for a classic Aurora so I have nothing to compare it with.
Is there anything I should know before I do the plug wire/plug install?
Come on - that quote does not say that it was just barely faster or anything. How does "our numbers suggest otherwise" and "almost exactly as before" magically equate to your barely faster??? I'll admit that is creative though. 7.4 vs 7.6 - yeah I'd say that is almost exactly as before and would qualify the "suggest otherwise".
By the way - I think atmospheric conditions would affect 0 to 60. You seem to say no. But, hey if the car makes more power on one day, it's going to give an extra kick to 60.
The graph in the brochure looks nothing like the graph for the classic - and that's consistent with with fact that the new engine supposedly doesn't maintain as much of the peak torque over the power band. It's a crummy graph, but nonetheless shows some major differences between new and old.
Hey - making a change to market it as running on 87. You'd be surprised as to what motivates the general public. And even if it's wrong, that doesn't stop GM from doing LOTS of goofy things. If I had a nickel for every time someone has posted "why did they do that!??".....
The guys posting here are the farthest thing away from your average car buyer - especially an average Aurora buyer. I would not gauge a design decision as to what we here think.
Last note - My understanding is that the 1995 Aurora came out in 1994 as an early 95. So those dates you are mentioning don't seem to be pre-production or whatever. I thought Joe Public was buying this car as early as 94. Perhaps someone else here knows more about that.
I'm not saying atmospherics don't affect 0-60. I'm saying the NHRA tables make no provision for adjusting 0-60 times. C&D said they use NHRA tables, if I recall correctly. Those tables are only for 1/4 mile times and trap speeds.
I'm sorry, I was putting the wrong year on those dates... The article was April 1994, which means it was delivered to readers in March 1994 (not 1995). The Aurora went on sale in May 1994. My mistake... That was probably really misleading... Not sure what I was thinking or how I missed that. My point is the same, just substitute 1994 for 1995...
The car magazines did have a preproduction model that they all drove and wrote articles on. Most liked that car better than the production models. So I think that the test reports were actual production models. I'm sure that they were very early production models.
Pat
Sedans Host
#2866 of 2924 Dyno&heatshield by 800wattaurora May 14, 2002 (08:28pm)
800wattAURORA
My point is that Olds (and other manufacturers) have precedents for supplying "ringers" to automotive test magazines. Admittedly this was a long time ago. Whether this was the case for the 1994 C&D test is pure conjecture.
Here are some observations regarding acceleration. Its true -- its about a 6.1. I have driven 6.5 cars and a 5.9 car (BMW 540), so I feel it's accurate. I liked plenty about the car. Two reasons I probably won't buy it:
a. You need to order an upgraded package (2K) in order to get power driver seats. Plus the window sticker is very misleading about this. It implies that you are only getting the passenger power seats with this upgrade (like its already in the base package).
b. The 0-60 acceleration is fine, but I take issue with how it responds in normal sub-highway passing situations (40-60, for example). It hesitated before it made its move and its solution was to do a winny downshift. Admidedly with more experience, I could probably find a way around it, but I declined to order the car. BTW, my opinion is that black on tan is *the* color scheme to own in this car.
I still have my Aurora, but there's a 90% chance that my mechanic will okay a used car which I have put a deposit on. I should know by noon Saturday, but may not be able to write a little story about it til early next week.
So that I do not jinx it, I will keep you in suspense until then, and report to you a bit on how this car compares with the mighty Stratocruiser, AuroraJan (Jan is Persian for beloved).
Until then, everybody have a great weekend.
Aurorabill.
Definitely use the big fan in front. This will help you cool off between runs.
I see your point about the assembly/disassembly. Any heat shield would be cumbersome to go back and forth. It wasn't so bad just switching air boxes and filters.
I understand your ram-air question, but I don't understand the exact routing you are suggesting. Anyway, it sounds like you are going to try to pull air from down low somewhere. I agree that if the tube has vertical travel, gravity might help some with the water. The only way to really know is to go out on a rainy day and hammer it a bunch. Then open the hood and see what is going on for the worst case scenario. I did this with the air box mod. I found that the stock set up gets some water on the paper filter and the modified box situation was about the same - maybe slightly more. (I had two clean paper filters to test with too). I have had no problems with it. Just monitor the mod for a month or so by checking.
One thing to remember, When you are just tooling around and not really on it, the air velocity through the suction is a lot lower than WOT. A WOT situation will help pull more water droplets in. So, if you are concerned, don't hammer it in wet weather - it's not a good idea anyway. Again - you just have to experiment.
Again - perhaps you can bend a flange at the bottom of the heat shield metal and screw that into the metal below the air box. Drill it and use self tapping screws. Just a thought. The screw holes would be really small. No big deal.
I would not worry about a perfect tight fit around the intake tube. A little leakage probably won't amount to much, and as long as the filter has a big open area to draw from, I don't think much will pull from "leak" areas. Air or fluid will flow such that the friction loss or resistance is the same from all areas.
Good luck, hope this helps. If not, post again.
I personally think your results with the G-tech using the K&N seem reasonable for the 3.48. I think your method of launch is consistent with the magazines too. They seem to pretty much do what is necessary (with several tries) to launch it the best they can. I imagine that gets really tricky when you have 350 or 400 HP engines. Probably an art.
How do you like the Box mod with the filter?
You can use a differnt type of sealed battery,if you wish as long as it fits. LarrFL has done this, he needed to get a longer ground cable. I plan on looking into an Optima battery. These are sealed by the way. They have a much higher cca-number and are designed for high electric demand systems, like mine. Probably more expensive than AC-Delco though, around $150 for Optima I think.
Story Time- One day I was driving in my Aurora. Stuck in rush hour traffic, rolling along. I notice a guy driving next to me whi is admiring my car. After a little while he signals me to roll down my window at a stop light.
He says"Nice Car"
I say, "Thanks"
He says"I had one just like it."
I ask, "What happened to it?" (he was driving a beater multi-colored rust bucket, by the way)
He ansered, "I loved that car. Untill one day the back seat caught on fire, it just started to BURN!!!"
I said, "Really?"
Light turned green, we nooded, and keep driving.
Pretty weird, the guy was young looking Gang-banger type. None the less, He probably replaced his battery with a cheap vented battery that was probabably the Calprut to the death of his Aurora.
Don't let a cheaper vented battery KILL YOUR AURORA. LOL
800wattAURORA
BTW, it wasn't me who put in another battery - I think I still have my original - but I remember there was a post about that earlier this week.
A slight surge or speeding up around 40 mph for 1 second, just slightly, like coming off Interstate going down exit ramp or...
Sitting at a stop light and feeling a slight stall in idle for a second? NO particular pattern, time, engine temp, etc. Usually happens once a day at say the course of a dozen stop lites.
Could this maybe be an a/c compressor starting or stopping as I leave compressor on?
I have not hooked in my OBD II tool in yet to look for codes.
Anyone...any thoughts? Thanks in advance...Steve
I do have the weird 1-2 shift still. It only happens once the car warms up. On light throttle application, it will shift rather firmly up from 1st. When I took it in, they couldn't find a problem, but I suspect that their diagnosing probably cleared out any stored data. This is because I did notice when I got the car back that it didn't do it anymore. Then over the next couple weeks it gradually reappeared. I'm going to ask if they can reprogram my car. I also have a weird problem when I lay on the horn. If I hold it down a while (with some force like when someone did something dumb), the "check airbag" light will come on and the DIC will display an airbag message. This might just be my fault as I can lay it on pretty hard when I get pissed.
Matrixfrog, are you replacing all the wheels or just the bent one? You can try local places like Hubcap Heaven. They buy factory wheels when people replace them with custom ones. They usually have a few of any type of cars wheels on hand (at least they used to).
On an aside, and a little off-topic, I was behind a red Jaguar X-type today for about 10 minutes on a 2-laner. It was a really red red. Bright red... I mean, it was shiny and all but it was like all red. It just looked so crappy on that style of car. It made the car look like a Hyundai, what with the bright red and the chrome strips. I supposed there is a reason the Aurora always had darkish or deep red colors... The Jag would have looked nice with a darker, deeper red instead. It's more of a luxury color I guess.
I have to say, I don't quite understand the X-type, or the IS300, or the 3-series. Why would anyone want a car that costs over $30K and has luxury pretentions to be that dang small... I wonder if the CTS will lure the people who buy those. The CTS is a much more reasonably sized car, but still has the dose of sport. However, do people who would consider an IS300 care about size at all? It's hard to imagine they do... if they did, how could they possibly consider an IS300...
Also, the fog lights won't come on unless the head lights are on. Has anyone on this board been able to wire around this? The 95s don't have daytime running lamps, and I'd like to use the fog lamps for this purpose.
Thanks for your advice.
New 1995 Aurora bump maybe needs front shocks...