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
Nice job on the car Rob.
Hey Robert (Hammen2) did you do some mods to the Aurora? You said in one post you were enjoying the new sounds from your classic. Do tell...
She was really loud when I put my foot into her. I subsequently disconnected the battery and it seems the TPS has reset so it's not quite as loud. Still sounds great to put my foot down - but I know I'm only half done. I make my last payments in April, then it's "save up for Corsa" time :-)
I know my mileage is down, and I'm sure of it's because I'm getting more air, but I'm also sure most of it's because of how much I'm putting my foot down :-)
I'm also supposed to get my car clayed and then wet-sanded for free (work next to a snowplow factory, and they had a paint overspray problem - my black Aurora has orange, yellow, and blue spots, a little smaller than the head of a pin, all over - had a similar problem when I got my '96 Lumina, only the spots were about 3x the size - very noticeable). So I'm holding off doing much more than washing it until this is done...
It took them a while to remove the paint by sanding and claying the car because the brown paint was EPOXY! If I hadn't waxed the car just before I went down the shop said they would have had to strip and repaint the car. Some DuPont Imron pearlescent might have been nice! At least they polished the tail reflector to a better than new shimmery luster!
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
I know I'm tempting fate by posting this - I have a feeling the AC may go this summer.
Bottom line is that I still really enjoy this car as much as the first day I had it - actually more now that it's a bit customized. I checked out the new GTO, and while it's a great car, it isn't visually exciting inside or out like the Aurora. I have my doubts about being excited about the new STS too. For a car that came out about 10 years ago, the Aurora has held up amazingly well - especially when you consider the wave of improvements from nearly every manufacturer lately.
Good luck with wet sanding. I had this done too when I parked under an incinerator stack (nasty stuff from the fallout). It came out pretty good but I had to do a lot more buffing at home. After sanding, they didn't do the best buff job, so I attacked it with the orbital buffer and Meguires No.7 and the rough spots came out. The finish now looks a little better than factory because it's a bit more glass like.
Actually, I'd probably take a 1990 ZR-1 in red for 1/3 the cost of the V, and then drive the Regal as a daily driver (I know the wife would work the angle to get the Aurora).
I hear you though, the car really does stack up well against the current crop of cars. And the price is the best part. I bought my Aurora brand new and I ordered it specifically for me. I paid about $32,000... What kind of car could I get now for that? Nothing remotely that good, that's for sure.
In the 200SX, I usually only get about 24-25mpg between fill-ups, whereas in the Aurora I get about 19-20mpg. Granted, the Aurora uses premium so the cost is a bit higher, but I just find this interesting. The 200SX has a 25-26% increase in fuel economy over the Aurora.
But here's the thing. The Aurora has a 117% improvement in peak horsepower over the 200SX. And it has a 141% increase in peak torque. If you could look at total hp/torque numbers, I'm sure this would skew even more in favor of the Aurora.
I just thought that was interesting. The Nissan could get pretty good economy if you drove like a total sissy, but to drive normally you really have to floor the crap out of it. I wonder how close the Aurora engine in a car the weight/size of the 200SX would do economy-wise. Probably pretty similar to the sissy 1.6L 4-banger.
But hear this.....Leased a new 2003BMW 540i with 6 speed, 7 months ago. Rotate with Aurora on 90 mile roundtrip commute. EQUALLY SATISFYING PERFORMANCE!
Cannot bear to part with the Aurora!
P.S. I'll been in a CL600 that would take anyday over any Aurora though
In my opinion, the Cadillac CTS is an UGLY vehicle.
There is no comparison, between the visual appearance between the Aurora Classic and the Cadillac CTS.
Considering that the Aurora Classic was designed in the 1992 timeframe, it is still an attractive car today, 12 years later. On a side note, it's sister, the last-generation Buick Riviera, is also a very attractive car.
Getting back to the Cadillac CTS-V, I find it rather depressing that the engine used is NOT the Northstar engine, but an "old technology" OHV engine. This is NOT "world-class" technology!
The interior of the Cadillac CTS is also unattractive and unremarkable. In may ways, it is as ugly as the exterior design of the CTS.
OHC has advantages for higher rpms because the valvetrain is all close together. However, while pushrods don't have any real advantage in low-rpm operation to a 2-valve OHC engine, they do have a huge advantage in weight, size, and cost to produce. According to the R&T article, the LS-6 only adds 60 lbs over the DOHC V6 (they don't say which one) motor.
The LS-6 is hardly a low-tech engine. It has a very high-tech design and manufacturing process. And it is remarkably efficient in power delivery (especially total power) and fuel consumption, and it has a fuel shutoff at 6600 rpm vs 6700 or 6750 for the FWD/RWD Northstar. It makes more power and gets better mileage than the RWD Northstar motor would. And being a V8, it is a very smooth motor.
I can see how the CTS might be ugly to some people and pretty to others. I didn't say I prefer the style to my Aurora (which I prefer to the classic) but I think it is a stylish car. The fact that you hate it at least means they went out on a limb with the style.
I like the Riv too, though, I find it depends on the color and sometimes the angle/lighting as to how it looks. Sometimes it really looks absurdly long for a two door. Other times I think the style is really sharp. I always find it surprising that it is about 8" longer than my car.
That being said, I would not say the CTS is ugly. I think it represents a new generation of GM design that has an edgy appeal to it. My vote for ugly Caddies would be the early 1980's "bustle back" Sevilles. I hated that cut off trunk then, and over 20 years later I still hate it.
If you want to see modern GM looking ugly, take a look at the Pontiac Aztec. Hmm, now that I think about it, there is no reason to stop at the Aztec. Just look at Pontiac (excluding the no longer made Trans-Am).
Henri
H
at least cadillac is starting to do there own thing for styling, no other car looks like them, just like the classic aurora. both are love it or hate it.
i don't get why everyone calls the Ls1/Ls6 low tech just because it isnt dohc. even IF it was low-tech, its powerful, reliable, smooth, gets good gas mileage and relitivly cheap. sounds like a good combo to me. if they put a northstar in the cts-v, it would perform like the xlr, a 14.0 car, hardly competiton for M series bmw, S/RS audi's, AMG's. pretty sweet there's a ton of aftermarket for it already.
i agree with the riv too, needs to be like right color to look good, ive seen some that i was like 'wow', others i was like 'yuck', i can say the same for aurora's too, but not as much as a yuck, more of 'its ok' or 'wow'
By the way, it is interesting to note that these cars with the "hi tech" engines often suffer a lot in performance from any kind of a rolling start (no torque wonder machine while you wait during the turbo lag intermission)and like I've already mentioned, their efficiency is pathetic.
Anybody that thinks the Corvette LS1 or LS6 is "low tech" has a shallow understanding of engine technology that ends at pushrods and counting valves. As RJS pointed out, the LS engines can do anything the OHC engines can do - and do it more efficiently to boot.
Wasn't the engine on the Write Brothers plane an overhead cam engine - homemade too. I could be wrong on that, but that was 1903.
For the 1948 model year, Olds and Cadillac had the first OHV V-8s in US production automobiles. Pontiac had the first US SOHC motor in 1967. It was an in-line 6 available in Firebird and Tempest/Lemans; the high-performance version was called "Sprint." Jaguar XK-120, XK-140, and XK-150 were DOHC starting in the early '50s. Norton and Velocette motorcycles were OHC in the 1920s.
Les
Does any expect that the Cadillac CTS-V will be sucessfully sold in Europe or Asia?
The CTS-V is not a world-class vehicle. Part of the reason is that is does not have a world-class engine or world-class fit and finish.
This original Aurora concept had all wheel drive as well as the Northstar engine.
In 2004, the Cadillac CTS-V, which is supposed to a world-class vehicle has neither the North Star engine or All-wheel drive.
It makes me wonder if GM has really changed. I doubt it.
Also, I think there were some motorcycles in the 1910's that had OHC engines from Peugot (sp). And I believe that Italian cars especially used OHC and DOHC engines in the 1920's like Alfa and Ferrari.
They are just a different way of opening and closing valves. 4 valves helps higher end breathing, but often 2 valves breath/flow better at lower rpm, and are also more centered in the cylinder. Since 2 valve operation is usually geared towards lower rpm's, pushrods work just fine, are simpler, lower the engine's center of gravity, lower the overall weight, and are highly reliable.
I don't really see how complicated vs. simple is the same as high-tech vs low-tech. They are just different, each with different advantages and disadvantages.
Ethink, what's a world-class engine? And the CTS-V is a V8 sedan for $50,000, so how is that different from the criteria you laid out for MB/BMW/Jag/etc? And who cares if a car meets that criteria? That's the magic formula for sales in Europe and Japan? Except for the part about fit/finish, what was your point with that post?
I realize this isn't really about the Aurora, but hey, we got 5000 posts people can reread about the Aurora's wonder if they want (provided this doesn't get way out of hand)...
I haven't had any problems in a while now, thanks to keeping up with regular maintainance and these posts. Lately I have had a whining noise that seems to occur when I shut the engine off. I have seen a couple of "whining noise" posts but nothing specific. Any suggestions?
The CTS is probably one of those cars that will look good 5 years from now. I dont like the direction Cadillac is going right now, but maybe they are a little ahead of their time.
That said I also think they're over pricing the vehicle. Look at the Lexus introductory strategy.
Start with a quality vehicle and don't try and make a killing off of it at the intro. Build a nice loyal customer base to talk up the line and then move farther upscale in price as more people realize what a bargain they got at the intro. price and are willing to pay more for a vehicle thats still perceived as a good value and that can have more features added as the development and tooling gets paid off.
I hope they don't run into the problem with the Chrysler Pacifica where they produced a bunch of the premium loaded v8s with a premium price and no history to back up the model and so the upscale model sits on the dealer lots while people are trying on and taking home the v6 for substantially less of a financial risk.
So I guess I'll take it down to the dump. Maybe I'll cut the tips off and hang on to them just in case. My dad wasn't interested in swapping the chromed tips onto his 2001. The hanger is on the tip, so this would probably be a pain anyway. If it wasn't perfectly snug then the mufflers would droop.
Maybe I should put a dual exhaust on the 200SX.
its not just a old pushrod in there, just because it isn't dohc doesn't mean its not world class. its a very complicated engine thats very smooth, reliable, economical and extremely powerful. the cts is a world-class car, it was designed to take the would be european car buyers away! you may not like the styling, but that doesn't mean its not a worlds class car, i think the lexus sc430 is one of the if not the ugliest cars ever made, doesn't mean someone doesn't love it.
The 2002 Olds Aurora 4.0 in 48-state trim has exactly the same emissions impact rating as a 2002 1.0L I-3 Honda Insight in 48-state trim. They both are rated at 12.3-12.8 pounds of smog-forming pollutants per 15,000 miles. This rating scale is something the EPA came up with to compare any vehicle of any size/class and from any year. So this is a directly comparable number.
I think I'll start wearing sandals to work...
D'OH!
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
This surprised me last time I made a long trip across the country. My brother and I were driving to Houston from Lansing and I counted 4 Auroras on the entire trip down and 2 while in Houston. It struck me as funny because I can see that many here in town in a few hours.
I actually saw a Collector's Edition on the road the other day. I had previously seen one on the dealer's lot here, but this was the first I had seen driving around town...it didn't hit me until I saw the wheels (first thing I always look for). Cool stuff.
-Brian
Now my question: I saw a 98 in a Ford dealer's lot. The funny thing was that the trunk was wet at the bottom where the donut is located. Second thing was that the trunk piece that covers the spare did not lock down on the spare like in my 95.
Question to you 98 guys out there: Does you spare tire cover attach to the trunk with a plastic handle, or does it just lay there? I suspect the car was hit in the trunk and the original OEM piece was damaged and replaced. This theory would explain the wet trunk and the lid not fastening to the floor of the trunk at the spindle on the donut.
thanks
Around here, though, people would rather pay $40,000 for a 323 (the BMW, not the Mazda) or 325 with as much interior space (and style) as a Civic, than to buy something so unstatusy as an Oldsmobile. It's sort of amusing too that they tend to be guys and gals that are too busy with other important tasks (they are important people, afterall) like talking on the cell phone or doing makeup or reading the finacial pages or whatever to drive properly. A far cry from the ultimate driving machine, around here they are far more often the ultimate road block.
It's not really loose though, it fits good and doesn't move around any.
dred98
Then, no more Oldsmobile...
By the way....that's my hometown paper! Go State Journal!!
-Brian
Javs