Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Oldsmobile Aurora



  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    I did a build you own on GM's buypower and found that the 2003 Aurora with nav and stuff that was standard in 95 would run about $37,000+. Not bad. Cheaper than the CTS. Best deal would be to find one at a dealership already made->probably with a sunroof that I can do without. Then with a 7 year-100,000 mile extended warranty, an Aurora might be a good deal. The CTS's nav comes with a dash 6 CD changer though, which I would like better than a trunk system I think.
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    rjs - I was just kidding, but if the comparo were ever done, no points would be given to the Aurora for offering an awesome V8 with more power for the same or less money.

    Anyway, I'm still amazed that a loaded up ES300 would take you over 40k. I'm sure they are great cars, but not 40k great. I guess I'm just a domestic car owning rube that doesn't get it.

    As for Old's demise I have to agree with RJS and also have to acknowledge that FJK's assessment of the Aurora not quite being a sports sedan. It's an awfully sporty luxury car. It a bit too heavy and the FWD omit it from the sport sedan category. Yeah, I don't give a rip about RWD either. I haven't run across the pylons in the road yet but I have seen some real nasty slop every winter. Just give me good looks, lots of room and comfort, and as much power as possible and I'm happy.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    When I went from my 78 Old 98 to FWD with the 83 Buick Skyhawk, I really liked the FWD on icy roads. But this was before anti-lock brakes and traction control. Now, with anti-lock brakes, traction control and other goodies, RWD should not be as bad as it was. My 86 'Vette was really fun.
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    yeah, I've wondered how much the traction control helps with RWD. Probably a lot. I think TC on a FWD car is not really needed, but you gotta have it on any car in that price range. The Aurora gets going in snow pretty well.
  • javidoggjavidogg Posts: 366
    Ever planned an Aurora gathering. I was over at the Alero's site and I was looking at some pictures from their Alero & Grand Am gathering from 10.5.2002 in a suburb in Elk Grove Village, It think that's were it was. I would like to see everyones Aurora from in a gathering or event of sort. Peace.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    that a while ago there was talk that the 275hp Northstar and the Aurora V8 had the same cam timing? I don't think anyone ever had concrete evidence, though? If so, I apologize. I found a post on GMForums about the specs of the 275hp Northstar from 2000 (so this is for the new engines, but maybe the same for the old ones).

    The cam timing specs are exactly the same. He didn't post the lift, so I don't know (although I'd guess they are the same). Duration @ .150mm lift, Intake: 242 deg, Exhaust: 236 deg. The rest of the specs like overlap and centerline are the same too, but I didn't want to flood with numbers (at least not more than I already am).

    He lists a cylinder head combustion chamber size of 48.6cc. I wish my manual listed that spec, but alas it does not. I imagine if the stroke is the same, either the combustion chamber or the pistons (besides just their width) would need to be different or else the compression ratio on the 4.0 would be lower than for the 4.6. But since the pistons have to be different anyway (different bore) maybe the pistons handle the compression change. I'd really like to know, though, because it would give some insight on how to bore to a 4.6L block. The chamber depth-to-surface is listed for both, and both are the same at 10.470-10.710mm.

    The valves are not the same size, though. So even if the heads had the same combustion chamber, the valves would need changing (which may not be very hard). The exhaust valves are the same with a head diameter of 27.880-28.140mm. The intakes are not with the Aurora having 34.090-34.350mm and the 275hp Northstar having 36.090-36.350mm.

    Interestingly, the 3.5 V6 has the exhaust valve listed as 28mm (not a range) and the intake as 36.2mm which is basically the same as the Northstar motor. Although the 3.5 does have a cylinder volume that is like the 4.6L V8, not like the Aurora V8 (a 6-banger Aurora V8 would be 3.0L not 3.5). Also, the 3.5 does have the combustion chamber volume listed (this is in the same manual as the 4.0 info, so I don't know why it isn't listed for the 4.0) at 56.0cc. The 3.5 has a 9.3:1 compression ratio. I can't think of anything to infer from the 3.5 info, though. Just thought it was interesting (and maybe you all can come up with something).

    Anyway... I just thought someone might find this interesting.

    As far as the FWD/RWD discussion. I would imagine TC helps a lot on RWD. But it helps on FWD too. So since FWD gets better traction than RWD when no electronics are involved, I'd think that the TC on FWD would have more to work with, and so FWD would still be preferrable. I don't think RWD would change my driving experience in any way, so I'd prefer FWD for those bad times. Also, traction control doesn't cut down on the huge hump that runs through the floor of a RWD car... :) Although, I can see having RWD on like the XLR or even the CTS. But the Seville or Aurora? I personally don't think they should (but I think the Aurora and CTS have different audiences). Interestingly, nobody gripes about Acuras or Audis having FWD.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    I think that the Aurora is a low priced STS/DTS alternative. Cadillac is moving the STS to RWD to make it into a highend (read 5-series BMW) sports sedan. The STS was always aimed at the sports sedan market - thats why the suspension is stiffer. With the DTS, the STS no longer makes much sense. The STS really does not replace the RWD Fleetwood sedan. A RWD STS won't replace it either, but I can see a sigma platform based on the STS that might be a Fleetwood replacement.

    As for the hump - if I remember right, the FWD Toronado/Eldorado did not have any hump. But my Aurora does have a hump and with bucket seats in front, humps don't matter much anyway. My Aurora isn't wide enough to carry 3 big guys in back very far anyway. So if you figure that you've got a 4 passenger car anyway, then the hump doesn't matter much.

    Regarding the tuning: Since the Aurora's peak horsepower matched up with the 275 hp northstar, I assumed the tuning was similar. One would think that they could have had the HO tuning part of the autobahn package. Part of the tuning is the intake manifold tuning too.
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    I really think the 275 er is the "high output" tuning IMO. It's got loads more torque almost everywhere on the curve. The difference of 5 on the peak is misleading. Also, it has a lot more HP all the way to 5000 rpm. I think the 275 engine mated to a 3.71 would be quicker to 60 and maybe even the 1/4 mile - or at least very close.

    I think a lot of the 300 Hp thing is simply being able to say "300 HP". Marketing. The torque curve and most of the HP curve on the 300 engine really give up a lot just for that high peak HP. It's sad. Finally the VVT is coming though - a bit late IMO.

    So, if the Aurora is tuned like the 275 4.6 that sounds good to me. If I ever were to put the 4.6 in an Aurora (I have the 3.71), I'd want the 275 HP engine.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    The HO northstar gives up a lot of lowend torque to get a little more highend horsepower. The Aurora's torque peaks at 4400 just like the HO northstar, so I wonder about that. Still, some back of the envelope calculations suggest that the 4 liter Aurora engine would probably not do any better than 260 hp @6000 if it was tuned more like the HO. And then the low end torque would be bad. The VVT is a good thing but for now is only going into the RWD cars as the cooling system is changed for RWD. So the Devilles won't get VVT for a while.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    if you scale the 275hp motor's output down by the displacement difference, the Aurora should only make 240hp. However, it makes 250, and the torque curve peaks at little higher rpm (perhaps because the torque curve is more extended due to better efficiencies, which would explain the higher hp rating). I suspect it is because of some higher efficiencies with the smaller displacement. Also, as I've said before, the Aurora is more of a stroker than a scaled-down 4.6 would be. Plus, it has basically the same intake and exhaust, yet it is a smaller engine (displacement-wise). So I'd bet with the 300hp tuning, the Aurora would make more like 270hp. Anyway, I too would prefer the current state of tune and the fatter torque curve. I didn't think the 275hp and 300hp Northstars had different intake manifolds, though. I thought it was all cam timing (and probably ECU programming).

    I have to say, it sounds like Garnes theory is close. Now that there is a better Northstar, the engineers seem freer to discuss the FWD one. If you read the press release on the new RWD Northstar, they mention how the new one doesn't suffer from the 300hp engines crummy torque curve. I guess they have to explain why 315hp is really a better improvement than it sounds like. I've also read a few other articles where GM reps mentioned it. They say the engine could be tuned to either deliver high horsepower or high torque as if they were mutually exclusive in the FWD Northstar. It sounds like that's a polite way of saying the 300 hp Northstar wasn't really the best.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    They can still add a variable length intake manifold (like mercedes' 3.2 V6) and get better lowend torque (with a longer manifold) plus (with a short length) better highend performance. This could be done with the VVT engine as well as the FWD northstar.
  • HenryHenry Posts: 1,106
    What is the real difference between the two? I always thought of it like voltage verses amps (electronic major in high school).

    meaning that like Voltage, horsepower is the potential power of the engine.

    torque is like amps - the ability to transferr that potential into actual power.

    The greater the amps/torque, the more watts/power you actually have.

    In other words, birds can sit on power lines because there is voltage (i.e horsepower) but no amps (i.e. torque). The circuit is not complete so the bird just sits there. If however the bird becomes grounded while on that power line, the amps flow and the bird is cooked.

    Is this how the horse power torque thing works????
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    Except they are mechanical. I started to write a description, but instead, check this out.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    Torque is roatating force. Force is like when you push on a wall - you generate force. But since you can't move the wall, no energy is produced. But if you apply the same force to a chair, it will accelerate and you will have done work in some unit of time = horsepower.

    An engine usually produces some amount of torque over a speed range (from ~2000 RPM's to ~5-6000 RPM's) The torque decreases at high speeds because not enough air/fuel can get through the intake valves, so the engines torque decreases fast. But for a given amount of torque, the faster the engine runs, then more horsepower there is. So @5250 RPMs 300 ft-lbs is 300 horsepower, but at 2625 RPMs, there is 150 horsepower.
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    Very cool. Thanks.

    NOW, what is going on with the message boards? I can't seem to access the other discussions as in the past. I'm sorry if I'm an internet rube, but things seem different for no good reason.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    I am seeing everything OK at the moment. At times I have needed to be logged in to see some things. I think the problem is Edmunds, but exactly why you are having a problem and others are not, I don't know. But it has happend to me at times.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    I think garnes may be used to accessing specific boards via the Make/Model search feature on the left. That got broken last night, but it is now fixed -- try again.

    If you are still having trouble, send me an email telling me exactly what you click on and exactly what happens when you do so.
  • HenryHenry Posts: 1,106
    I been looking at the pictures on the photo board. I cant help but notice how nice the cars look when they Have All Of Their HUB CAPS.

    Okay, I feel better now.
  • mike98cmike98c Posts: 293
    ordered some blue signal bulbs from abtivan for the turn signals, for about $16.00 I will see if they look to outrageous or blatantly illegal, saw an aurora with white signal lights on the front a couple days ago on the freeway. (Actually late at night here in Minnesota), looked pretty cool, He sped up and so did I but had to back off (low on gas then came up on a nasty accident). If you get a louder exhaust be prepared, I seem to be getting a lot more challenges since the converter has almost hollowed itself out. I saw high flow converters on the J.C. Whitney site that trumpet 400 cells per square inch. (going by my notoriously bad memory) as something special and having 20> percent less back pressure than most oem converters.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
  • HenryHenry Posts: 1,106
    Thanks for the laugh!
  • I was under the rear of the car Sunday and noticed on both mufflers on the bottom on the side closest to the front of the car, there was some soot on the bottom of mufflers, just a little. Do those stock mufflers have weep holes?

  • HenryHenry Posts: 1,106
  • HenryHenry Posts: 1,106
    I have found over the years that the Classic looks best at night under a street light. The street light cast shadows on the car that highlight the curves on the body.

    Unfortunity, this is the hardest picture to take and reproduce on the web. You are dealing with a low light situation to begin with where you are looking to highlight the shadows on the body. Add to that the tendency of computers to darken a picture on your computer screen.

    And of your car is black . . . . forget about it.

    My car is "Light Antelope".

    Why did I say all of this??
    Because it would be a nice picture to see if somebody actually had the skill to do it. It would make a great wallpaper.

  • HenryHenry Posts: 1,106
    An addendum to the above.

    On a few occassions I have had folks that have seen my in the day time comment on how much better it looks at night. It is always the same
    comment. "I never saw the lines in the body before."

    Either night or day, its still the best looking sedan on the road.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    I don't have a classic. But I suppose I can try it one of these times. I'd suggest a high-speed film like 400 or 800 and using a tripod. That way you could have a long shutter opening and avoid a picture-ruining flash. I'm no great photographer, though. I have plenty of crappy pictures to go with the few decent ones. Henri, I have a picture from an Aurora ad that is similar. I just returned my scanner, though, as I was unsatisfied with its performance. When I replace it, I'll scan it on up.
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    Not a bad idea.

    I know some empty lots with the street lights.

    I could do this. I have a tripod and a really nice SLR camera and a good scanner that may not ruin the picture. I've taken night shots before and with the shutter open a long time and a tripod - anything is possible. My car is black and I still think it would work.

    A really good digital SLR is still many thousands of dollars. Someday that will be the thing to have. I know that good digital cameras that aren't SLR's allow adjustment of the shutter speed, but I'm not sure they would allow night shots or allow you to make "cotton candy" out of flowing water or anything. Maybe they can.
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    Is the Warranty-By-Net advertised through Edmunds reputable?? Anybody have any experience?? I've never been a believer in extended warranties, but am a new convert.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    While you are waiting for some feedback you might want to check into the conversations occurring on our Finance, Warranty & Insurance board. Sometimes I think that particular board is the Town Hall's best kept secret. ;-)
  • larryfllarryfl Posts: 214
    Since we're on the subject of warranties and such... I just got an estimate for replacing a leaky oil pan gasket in my '95 classic:
    9.7 hours labor??!!!?!?!?

    The service guy tried to tell me the exhaust manifold goes through the oil pan and all that has to be removed?? WHAT???

    I can add A LOT of quarts of oil for that! Now, if I could just find a good detergent to get the stains off the driveway......
  • cwiley1cwiley1 Posts: 82
    I just got my '97 back from the Olds dealer here in Wichita, KS. I had a high pitched whine coming from the engine compartment, it increased with the RPM. The Olds dealer replaced the alternator and that took care of the problem. The cost including tax was $519.32. Thank goodness for the extended warranty. I have the $50 deduct able. That is almost robbery.

    garnes--- I have the Warranty-by-net on my '95 but haven't had to use it. I've had it almost a year now. The '95 seems to be under control now as far as problems. I don't think you can be without the extended warranty if you own any expensive car.

    The only good thing about being at the Olds dealer was I did see an '03 Arctic White one on the show room floor. It really looked great. I asked the salesman what the chances were of ordering one with the 4.6 Northstar, he just smiled.
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    Pat - thanks

    cwiley1 - thanks. No warranty on the 97? You gotta like a two Aurora guy. Pretty cool.

    larryfl - I just had my car in for minor oil leaks. The factory warranty on my 98 runs out December 21, so I'm getting all the little stuff fixed. It has never dripped, but when I do the change I can see it's creeping down the pan. Anyway, what they have to do to replace the pan gasket is drop the engine. It's a big job. The guy at the dealer said they had to remove the engine but upon asking further he said they actually put it on a lift and drop the engine to do it.
  • larryfllarryfl Posts: 214
    Garnes: Thanks for the insight... BUT, this is a hard one for me to grasp. I think I'll just be adding a little extra oil for the time being -- it's still not leaking enough to use more than a quart between oil changes (3500 miles)- most times not even that.

  • gisomgisom Posts: 144
    I get that whine also on my 95 but not every time you start the engine. I suspected it had to be the alternator. It does not look like an easy job to replace either.

  • HenryHenry Posts: 1,106
    I have the same problem on my 95. The shop has replaced the power sterring pump and the alternator and it is still making that noise. They also replaced a few pulleys.

    It is now an official mystery as to what is causingthe sound. The current thinking is that the power sterring replacement unit was defective.

    Anybody els out there with this issue pleas let me know how it was settled.

  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    I had a whine that was the powersteering pump. Now I have an oil leak! That showed up after the pump was replaced, so I suspect the new powersteering pump, but who knows.
  • I've got that same engine whine happening. Going in for it on Monday, see what the dealer says. I was thinking Alternator, now I read powersteering pump, Replace them both if steering is the culprit. My amps I'm sure would like a New alternator and might as well get a new battery too! Sad to say there's more to this visit. Recently My traction Controll is acting up Bad. When the car idles in park, traction active comes on ever 45 sec or so. Sometimes it comes up traction off and ABS light come on together and stay on. Dealer said sounds like it's the Traction controll pressure modulator, there expen$ive he $ay$. Oh boy. Only have 2K left on aftermarket warrenty untill 90K. Hopefully they'll cover everything! Can't forget, I also need a rear. Power window motor went out too. I was just there for the other side 10 days ago @ $250. Both rear window motors died within days of eachother. Hum, I hardley ever roll them down. As if this dealer visit isn't pleasant enough, I'm going to try to get both Front windows replaced. There's that nice size scratch in the glass from the door mechnism that everyone has been talking about.

    Looking Forward to Monday,
  • larryfllarryfl Posts: 214
    My '95 has been intermittently possessed since last July with an evil spirit. Symptoms have included:

    1-The accelerator tapping against my foot during cruising accompanied by a loud clicking noise under the hood. This would sometimes occur even after I turned the car off and pulled the key out of the ignition.

    2-Low speed surging - typically when pulling in to parking slot or up to a red light. Even would unexpectedly surge forward while I was stopped in traffic (I got to where I would leave a good 8-10 feet between me and the next car).

    3-High speed cruising (80MPH +,-) the car would suddenly jolt for no reason.

    4-The car wouldn't slow down. It would ride for miles at a somewhat constant speed with no cruise control and foot off the accelorator. Slowing it down or stopping meant jamming the brake.

    5-The "check engine" light would occasionally (4 total over the 3 months) come on, but would be off the next time I started the car.

    Of course, the two or three times I took it in, there were no codes written in the computer and the car would act perfectly for the mechanics.

    FINALLY, I took it back to the GM dealer I bought it from (Buick/Pontiac - not Olds) and it acted up for them. The Idle Sensor/Program had gotten all out of whack. $ 150 to reprogram / relearn the programs and it's done!

    Car drives like a dream again. As good as the day I bought it. Halleluiah!
  • gisomgisom Posts: 144
    How can I get new clickers for my 95? Is the dealer the only ones who can reprogram them? That whining sound I get does not look like it is affecting the amps on the dic board and the classic is so quiet inside that you almost can't hear it until you open the door while its running.
  • HenryHenry Posts: 1,106
    I dont think the dealer will charge you to program the clicker. Well maybe mine wouldn't charge me because they named a parking space after me in the service bay.

  • has anyone ever put falken[$61] or nitto[$68] tires on their classic?
  • javidoggjavidogg Posts: 366
    The Nitto eXtremes NT 555 size 235/40ZR18 tires on my Aurora. There not bad at all. Peace.

  • gisomgisom Posts: 144
    on my 95 and got a lot of comments of how wide the tires looked on the car. I must warn you though, tires did not last but maybe 25k before they started losing air all the time. I went back to Michelins after that. Bought falkens at NTB tires.
  • Has anyone ever tried to rig the fog lights to stay on without the headlights? I know it's possible on other cars. I have a '95 without the DRLs, and would like to keep on the fogs during the day for visibility. They're not all that bright, and they are low to the ground, so I don't think they'd be a distraction for other drivers.
  • according to the DIC, on a 1500 mile trip this weekend from Charlotte NC to Ft. Myers, Florida and back. This is about 0.5 mpg better than a similar trip in February. The only difference is I replaced the OEM air filter with a K&N just before the recent trip. Does anyone know if the K&Ns usually make that much difference? Does this seem right?

    2001, 3.5L V-6, 31,000 miles
    ~400 pounds load including 2 people and luggage
    65mph-77mph highway (speed limit plus 5-7 mph)
    Mobile 1 oil and K&N filer
    30psig in the tires, AC on all the way

    It looks to me like the K&N improved mileage by 0.5 mpg. Has anyone else gotten better mileage from just switching to the K&N?

  • Has anyone experienced rough starting on their classic? Mine seems to only occur when it is wet and/or cold outside (below 40 degrees). It takes a little bit longer to crank, then it seems to misfire for a split second, then it is fine. At 77,000+ miles, I am fairly sure that the plugs/plug wires are in need of replacement, but I just wanted to check before I donate the money to the auto parts store.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Posts: 539
    A tail wind can make a big difference in fuel consumption too, so I'm not sure that you can assume the difference is all due to the filter. I have gotten over 30 MPG with my 98 Aurora with a strong tailwind. And did average 29 on a trip to California (~5000 miles round trip). The DIC tends to give the most recent MPG, not an actual average. If you compare the number of gallons used (from the DIC) and mileage traveled with the average MPG (from the DIC), they don't agree perfectly.
  • gisom: I bought a pair of keyless remotes for my '98 on ebay, $16.50 brand new. I programmed them myself. I suspect the procedure for your '95 is the same, but not sure.
    If you need the procedure, let me know.
  • I did a lot of web research after I acquired two new remotes for my '95, and was never able to track down a method that was consumer-friendly. Every time I thought I was getting somewhere I would learn that the 95's definitely require you to use equipment normally only available at a dealer.

    If someone knows anything to the contrary, please let us all know.

  • oldsman2:

    Except for the wet/cold connection, your problem sounds similar to a defective fuel pressure regulator that I and several others have experienced. A leaky FPR dumps gasoline into the intake manifold causing a rich/flooding condition. I replaced mine at about 76,000 miles. I had suspected plugs and wires until my motor "exploded" and burned the underhood insulation because of a backfire.

    Two weeks ago I replaced the plugs and wires at 83,000 miles. Symptom was intermittent missing; motor usually started OK.
Sign In or Register to comment.