Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Oldsmobile Aurora: Modifications
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Garnes, you said as long as there is repeatability then you can measure change, but there doesn't appear to be any repeatability here. I've heard that as a common critizism of dynos that they can be hard to get repeatable results. I think that this is sometimes exploited by aftermarket parts makers. I mean, what if between your second-best baseline and your best you had put some stupid magnet on the fuel line. Then you could claim it improved horsepower by 12.5 when it actually didn't do anything. I just think dyno's need to be taken with a grain of salt. I too would like to know if you made multiple runs with each mod. Was your best baseline the last one? Or the first? I'd be interested to see the order and results of each baseline run if you don't mind posting them or emailing me at aurora402002@yahoo.com.
That said, though, it sounds like the mods were worth it for you Taylor. Especially if you feel a difference. That's more important than if the dyno reports one.
Anyway, I just have to reiterate this - I've done a lot of runs on the dyno and all I can say is the results have been extremely consistent. I know that article on the "chips" (I think that was the one) made mention about dyno's being inconsistent, but I've seen and read quite a bit of testing on various cars that did not seem to have these problems, but more importantly my own experience is that they are very consistent. Runs on the same day were pretty much dead on every time. What can I say? I guess my results are just a fluke - each time I went too.
I don't know, but it drives me a little crazy to read that dyno's have to taken with a grain of salt because they are not consistent, and my experience is completely otherwise. I'm going with what I've actually seen and done over what some guy in a magazine said.
Come on RJS, if you are going to say "grain of salt" then you have to realize that you are saying that all the people that modify their cars or actually race on the weekends and go to the dyno to fine tune the A/F ratio's and such are wasting their time. Or worse, they are getting these inconsistent results but are too stupid to recognize what is happening or going wrong with the results.
800 - if there is some way you can summarize the results on all the runs that would be great. I understand that you probably did not print out all of them either. Any more info on the runs like how many were done with the mods and the results would be great.
Although I think RJS is a little to quick to dismiss dyno results, I have to admit that if if the other 8 runs were all over, then I'd be a little mad at the dyno place. It would be hard to tell what is going on, and it's my opinion that 12+ HP difference in baseline runs is out of the ballpark weird (and those were the closest two) Something is seriously wrong - and I don't think it's the car.
One last thought, when I went to the dyno (not the first time either) the guy had a hard time remembering how to set everything up on the computer regarding how to read the spark firing order (whatever he was doing). We would do some trial revs to make sure the rpm on the dyno computer and the car were the same. It seemed a little off and he knew it was screwed up and kept changing things. When he finally remembered, all was perfect. I also remember doing a run in drive - using overdrive and it seemed to goof up the torque readings. I got the impression that you could goof up things with the equipment if you were not careful and get bad results.
At first on the dyno I started with the gear shifter in 3rd like everbody said, PROBLEM, it would shift into overdrive spiking the reading. It took a 6 runs to figure out, start in second, start rolling wait till it shifted to 3rd, then GO. The first Time I got it two stay in 3rd to redline was my 7th, run. 190 hp-???ft-lbs tourque run, and about 40, minutes later, I wanted to get part-swaping. I saw the graph on the screen -peak Hp 190-, and didn't want another thinking of garnes 189Hp run. Don't remember the Torque #. Damn-it. Should of run-again, didn't know that the graph would crap-out on that one run.
So it took 7runs to figure out the shifting thing.
190.0 Hp & ???Torque -Baseline- Garnes Baseline 189HP & 204 Torque
Next two runs with RSM's Intake w/ K&N cone
198.3HP & 202.9 Torque
195.7HP & 199.0 Torque
Added RSM's bored 80mm Throttle Body
205.0HP & 214.3 Torque
206.7HP & 214.0 Torque
I Think this is a pretty accurate and repeatable. Maybe the torque #'s could be a little higher, but they're consistent. As far as the ??? torque numbers for my baseline, I haven't crunched a number that I like yet. I only said a loss before with the intake, because I used Garnes percentage Torque loss # of .7846 for all the estimated torque numbers at the crank. Maybe my car for some reason has just a little less torque than Garnes, or the dyno read low, or His dyno read high, the weather conditions, the gravitational pull of Mars was aligned with Uranius, I dunno, but the #'s are repeatble and can be compared to eachother. I probably gained some torque with the intake along with the +8.3HP I gained because my baseline tourque was less than his 204 torque baseline. If you compare his numbers to mine, Garnes 196.1 HP & 227.5 torque to my 195.7HP & 199.0 torque- +.4HP difference and +28.5 torque difference, hum, http://www.anglefire.com/stars/mycaddy/4airboxtest.htm
Anyways, I'm very happy with my 272HP Aurora gain of +21.9HP. It is definitly a noticeable gain. I can feel a little more in the low end, but the high end pulls MUCH HARDER!!! I would recomend RSMracings products, I've had good results with their intake and TB and with their Strut Tower Bar too. Caddyinfo's results of under hood cone's show a dynoed loss on one Caddy, seems like it works for us 4.0's if done/made right. I'm really impressed with how much power could be added by forcing/allowing more air into these Northstars, can't wait to find out how much more power can be un-leashed with a freeier flowing exhaust, a Corsa straigh-thru exhaust for me. Next-Do I get a Hi-Flow cat too? Hum, leaning towards no but I'm keeping my options open. Can't wait till the fall Corsa Install, I'm so there.
Garnes-Air box bottom will be gone shortly, that one srew sure looks like its through the bottom up. I'll take your word and MUSCLE it out. Now what about the collector with the 3 slots going in to the fender? Hollow out the 3slots-make one big slot? Then put a 4in hose around it going down, drill hole for hose to stick out right under/behind air dam? Hum, I'm thinking about it. I live in Elmhurst,IL.
Throttle body re-placement, I'd be glad to copy the service manual section on throttle body replacement for anybody and the list of tools needed, Mostly star keys T-20 ect. It's all step by step. Taking it out wasn't too bad, just took time and patience. Added difficulty when engine is HOT, not recomended if you can't take the pain.
So, Questions? Comments? Concerns?
Post'em or write me
taylorsturf@attbi.com
800wattAURORA
I don't think dynos are a waste of time. Once the engine is in the car I think it is the best tool you can use to measure the car's performance. However, I don't think that it is a perfect tool. Garnes, maybe the dyno you used was newer or more accurate or maybe it was better taken care of than most. Like any precision tool I'm sure they can lose precision with use, especially if they aren't maintained properly. I think they can give good trend indications, but I don't think they give perfect results. Taylor got readings on his cone filter that had a difference of 2.6hp. His biggest gain with it was 8hp. That 2.6hp difference is 30% of his gain. I would say that's a grain of salt...
Taylor, that 28.5lb-ft of torque difference figure you mentioned is the one Garnes said was wrong, isn't it? I couldn't get the page to come up, but I remember one of his printouts had the wrong torque max displayed.
800 - thanks for the additional info. It looks very good to me too. You indeed had some trouble getting started. I will e-mail you about that throttle body. I am interested. It's not a lot of money, it seems to work well, and if it's not too hard, I might give it a try. Thanks.
IGNORE the 227.5 max torque number printed on the top of my dyno graphs. You have to read the graph. The stupid thing was giving the max. torque as the spike at the shift point. I think that's what it did. I should have blacked that out when I scanned it.
RJS - I'm not sure what to make of that last post - funny or what. The intake showed +8.3 or +5.7 - you still got a decent idea of what is happening. Come on, just say +7 as the average. Now how far off is that from what's really happening? Probably within 1 HP or so. Let's not be selective and forget the TB results. Those were even tighter. If he had nailed the baseline without problems, more runs could have been made on the mods to sharpen the picture, but I think the two runs for each were decent enough to know what's happening.
I don't think it's helpful to look at (for illustration) a measured gain of say +2 one run and +4 on another and then conclude oh no, that's a difference of 2/4 = 50% or 2/2 = 100%. 50 and 100 sure sound big and bad but it doesn't mean you don't have a good idea probably within 1 HP of what's going on. More data would clear it up. More telling is that the 2 or 4 or whatever HP gain is part of a total 200+ at the wheels being measured.
In general, a statement like "can be" or "may be inaccurate" are reasonable but absolute statements indicting dyno results across the board are pretty tough. Absolute statements of any kind usually are.
3rd gear - I dunno, but that's indeed what everybody says. If it works, it works.
There are many things that could sligtly alter readings on a machine that supposed to measure accurately what another machine can do. Not to mention, it's reading a computer controlled combustable engine. There's tons of chance's for varaibles that could/do change things, between tthe readings of two high speed dyno runs in a building, that happened within minutes of eachother. Ex.The wind/building AC could of caused a draft for/against the intake area, changing computer readings, the power to the dyno/car could of diped/spiked slightly changing spark/fuel ratios. The computer for the ECU/PCM could of decided to change something for numerous reasons, like the engine temp started lower on the first run of each set, different IAT readings, Humidity/temp change, ect. There's a million variables to change "two identical readings".
I think of my numbers as just something to base off of and compare to. It's to see if there were gains or losses. Why were my torque #'s low? Why did Garnes' run have the wrong torque max displayed? How accurate/maintained was his Dyno? Why doesn't my Multi-Million dollar Press want to print right today? Why is it raining today? Some things just can't be perfect all the time, ya know?
800wattAurora
As for the 3rd gear thing, The 4T80E transmission makes it's peak power in third gear. I don't know why, but it does. RJS is right about how the engine should make the same amount of power in each gear, it does, but only at the CRANK, not after it goes through a transmission and is measured at the wheels.
I know my runs could of been more concrete in the numbers game. I could of done more runs @ $80 an hour, but I was on a budget/time window. I'm happy with the results I got. They showed Gains. Roughly a gain of +21Hp. So figure I got around +7HP with the intake and +14HP with the bored Throttle body.. I'm happy with the OVERALL results.
Both were gains. No complaints on that . My only concern with the intake kit is the lack of outside air flow. After Iget the bottom part of the air-box out, make a heat-shield, and get more outside air to the filter via, a home made "ram air". I'll just feel better knowing that I did All I could to improve air flow. Next will be Corsa Exhaust and one last Dyno for the Aurora, unless someone comes out with a port&polish or stroker kit or something.
My pervious tourque #'s estamate % loss was off your peak read out. Your calulation of +20 ft-lbs of tourque sounds right, so I figure I now drive a 270Hp and 280 ft-lbs of torque Aurora. Not to bad. Hopefully Corsa will add at least +10 to both of those making it a 280Hp and 290 ft-lbs of torque car. What would you figure my baseline Torque number should be? Any other questions on my runs? Did I leave anything out? If so Ask!
800wattAurora
I do have a question about your runs, though? How long did the vehicle sit before you started the dyno testing? And what were the pressures in the tires? If the tires were cool when the test started, they would begin to heat up from rolling on the dyno. As the pressure inside the tires increases, the tire itself would deform less as it rotates. This deformation creates rolling resistance, and as the deformation is lessened (by the greater pressure in the tire) there is less rolling resistance and thus less drivetrain loss of power. Did you check the tire pressure before the first run or at any time during the testing to see if it had changed?
On the road a higher pressure has trade-offs in tirewear and crappy handling so this isn't a way to get extra power out of your car, but on a dyno there aren't these tradeoffs and higher pressure reduces the driveline loss.
Also Taylor, I don't quite understand the problems with your previous baseline attempts. Did the car shift out of 3rd before the 5600 rpm power peak? I would think it would have shifted (providing the throttle was completely opened) at about 6000-6200 rpm. It is an electronic tranny and can give very accurate shifts. My car always shifts at either 5800 rpm or 6200 rpm at full-throttle (depending on factors I've yet to figure out), but it is always very precise at either of these two points. If it shifted above the 5600 rpm power peak, then it shouldn't have affected this part of the dyno reading. Did your car make it's peak power at a different rpm?
Did you get any graphs of the power curves or just peak numbers? I'd be curious how the non-peak part of the power curve was affected, especially in the 2000-3500 rpm range.
Garnes, I am not trying to dismiss dynos as a useful tool. In fact, I can't think of a better way to measure power gains on an assembled car. But you said "The intake showed +8.3 or +5.7 - you still got a decent idea of what is happening. Come on, just say +7 as the average. Now how far off is that from what's really happening? Probably within 1 HP or so. " Come on. That guess of 7 is within 1 horsepower of the real reading?? Hell, both his actual results are off by more than 1 horsepower from that guess. I just think the dyno results paint a picture of the actual gain. Anyway, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to.
I certainly agree that you did a great job Taylor. I think the dyno absolutely shows that the parts you bought were well worth the money. Especially if you haven't noticed any drivability issues. I didn't mean to belittle your experience in any way, and I'm sorry if you saw it that way. The fact that you notice the gains in everyday driving is really the most important thing since everyday driving is your most common experience with the car. In fact, that speaks to the gain being fairly sizeable because a gain of about 5-10 horsepower on a 250 horsepower car could easily go unnoticed to the driver.
Basically, what I think is PROBABLY happening with testing a mod that does the 5 to 10 HP gain is this: Say the dyno is accurate within 1 HP +/- (pretty darn good, 1/in 200+ would be very accurate). Anyway, say this mod adds +7. You can get results of between +8 or +6, or may get +7. That seems to approximate 800's experience (sorry I'm going to round things here, if you get mad about point this or that, well...). Now I think two runs like that gives a decent idea of what is going on. Yes, +/- 1 in a +7 mod can give results that are 33% or 25% more or less than each other, but you still know what is going on (most likely) within 1 HP or so. You also know what is happening in relation to the baseline (say 200 - it's measuring those HP's too). 6/200 = .03 8/200 = .04 (hey that's within 1% when looking at all the power :>). I just think that's the only way to see the forest and the trees together.
Tire pressure - I measured it to make sure it was even at the start. I never measured it after a run. However, My runs were a little closer than 800's closest runs. I tend to think it did not matter much. In addition, the run lasts how long? 20 or 30 seconds? Maybe less? It goes by quick. I'm not sure the tires heat up much in that little burst. Also, after a run, there is often some farting around changing something or looking at the results so things can cool back down. Also, Also I remember testing various things with my box mod - air from just the bottom or side, and removing the ribs from inside. This stuff seemed like it would make a difference but it did not or was barely noticeable.
I'd forget the high flow cat-converter. After actually looking at a regular one out of the box, it seems to me that in order to meet the government regs to lower pollution, you pretty much have to pass that exhaust through a certain amount of media. The media would all be the same I'd think. I never heard of and high flow media being advertised in one of these. Perhaps a little improvement can be made with a bigger inlet and outlet, but the exhaust would have to do it's thing with the crummy media inside the converter to meet emissions.
Corsa - Yeah, give them a call in a month. We can tag team the calls. I just might meet you there some day this fall. It's a very nice new facility.
Anyway, more thought on that stupid MAF - you know, on the classic, the TB is right after the MAF. I noticed the the TB is smaller than the MAF, and the two circular openings don't line up center to center either. I remember thinking, "what difference is a bigger MAF if I have this smaller orifice smack up against it". For MAF's near the air box, perhaps a little bigger diameter will help, but not so for the classic.
BTW, as for aftermarket places using bad dyno results to show gains - well, I think they just flat out make the crap up sometimes. Heck, if you are going to sell a lie, why bother getting screwy dyno results? Just make up the stuff. I really think the MAF is fabricated BS. They said a certain gain, but there was no testing to back it up. Looking back, I should have never bought it.
A good rule of thumb would be that it clearly allows more air into or out of the engine by simple straightforward means, it should help. By straightforward I mean bigger smoother openings, less restrictions (significant ones like exhaust baffling). There are not a lot of things that really fall into that. Perhaps a smoother larger intake that uses the K&N type filter media, a throttle body, and exhaust are about it without having to get into the engine. Ram air too I guess if you can figure something out.
Anybody know of anything else, let us know.
Keep the conversations ALIVE. Ask me anything, anytime, here or email:
taylorsturf@attbi.com
I'll try to answer/comment every ones comments. If I miss one or don't answer something, ask me again, harass me, I'll get to it eventually.
Dyno-All I can say is that this was my first time I've ever actually done it. It was a thrill. Next time I know that I need to keep a more "controlled" environment. Unfortunately I didn't keep the track of my tire pressure. I didn't think of it. HineSight is 20/20. I realize now that I could of prevented some of my time delays, and got more runs in. If my baseline only didn't get messed up. The good news is that I went to Dynojets website and discovered that you can get the graphing software fore FREE so you can anylize your data at home. So this week I'll go over to APG and copy my runs. I haven't tried to put any picts on the net before, but I'll email the runs to anybody who's interested. It was this kind of dyno http://www.dynojet.com/a248.shtml
Run conditions: Apg is 20min away on the highway. When I got there at 9am the engine temp was 200. They had to move/push a the cars out of the shop 1st thing to make room for the day. 15min later I was getting straped in and and rpm calibrated. It took some time for them to get the correct reading, spark plug wire readings fluxuated some. So after that was figured out, it took a couple of runs before I got my baseline of 190.0Hp. I should of run again. Engine temp didn't drop much under 200, just a hair under. The intake only took a couple of minutes to put on, I did a test fit the day before when I put in the new paper filter, so I new how it fit, saved some time. Ran twice with in 2-3 minutes of eachother, then started the Throttle body swap, I didn't know how long it would take me to do it, so I kind a rushed to get to it knowing that there was someone scheduled 1hr after my 2, it turned out to take 2hrs 40 min, then print out everything, almost 3hrs. After sweating my first TB swap for a more than hour @ $80 hr, I was more concerned that I didn't screw up anything on my baby, than comparing numbers and checking run consistentcy. Now that I've successful swaped out my TB, I feel very confident about working on cars. I don't want to be a mechanic though. Next time I'm on a Dyno, I'll feel more comfortable, and be able to keep varaibles to a minium.
800wattAurora
According to my tape measure, RSM's porting did measure 80mm and the stock measured out to 74mm. I was amazed at how dirty my stock TB was. It was filthy!!! Just like their picture, dirt only on the block side only , http://webhome.idirect.com/%7Ersm1/cadtb.jpg
The ride quality of my car hasn't changed for the worse in any way. The difference is how much harder it pulls in WOT now and passing gear on the highway. It just wants to fly in the high RPMs. VERY noticeable on the highway.
I'm very happy with how the install worked out. No problems with anything. But, on the intake kit, the metal intake tube had some rough edges, so I filed them nice and smooth, for a un-restictive air path. The TB gasket was the GM one, so it only had a 74mm opening, I was a little sceptic about the concept of 80mm of air has to enter a 74mm opening anyways, so where's the gain I thought? After the 80mm butterfly opening the TB angled in making the block side around 78mm or so I think, because the gasket over laped the port job just a little bit. So I very carefully sanded down the edge of the gasket to "angle in" instead of a square edge, that's restrictive. The next step in a true throttle body up-grade is to port out the plenum (the 74mm opening to the intake manifold after the TB) by doing this you can get optimum gains but I beleive the computer needs to be adjusted for plenum porting.
Anyways, the Ported TB works, and goes faster with no trade-offs that I know of, A success in my book. Actually i've never looked into the trade offs of a larger throttle body, going to have to do that. My GM mechanic did say that it is a good add-on. Getting more air is good.
More on install steps when I have more time. It's not that hard, It's a bolt on part.
Garnes, since you've taken off the MAF sensor, your right there, only a couple more bolts to go, I encourage anyone to try this bolt-on parts, as long as your comfortable turning a wrench in a tight area.
800wattAURORA
KarenS
Host
Owners Clubs
10' of 2" exhaust will flow less than 2' of 2" and 8' of 3" exhaust even though they both have a 2" part to them. I'm sure if the whole intake was bigger it would flow more, but the bigger TB should still have a positive effect (and your dyno test confirms that).
I hope you pulled the box bottom out along with the goofy horn thing and you have that big opening below feeding air to the cone. I suspect that maybe the caddy doesn't have this hole. I wonder.
Garnes-I got your mail, I'll respond and no I haven't ripped out the bottom of the box yet, probably Sat. morning when the engine is cool. I learned the hard way that the metal intake tube get's VERY HOT, caution.
rjs-I got your mail too. Looking at the graphs, peak power was made at 5600rpms in all the tests. The tranny thing is hard to explain, I would have to start rolling first and wait for the shift then GO, then the tech would start the readings, the starts are between 2650-2950rpms. The problem was that it would downshift or upshift after the tech pressed the go button after I was rolling. The readings came up, but it spikes the graph readings. So the correct info displayed but peak power was messed, basicly runing the run. It took 7 runs to get it right. I should of run again to confirm, HindSight 20/20. I don't know why this tranny thing was happening, didn't pay attention to the rpms at the wrong shift point either. Leaving the gear selector in 3rd DID NOT WORK. I used 2nd and started rolling untill shifted then GO. Tire pressure could of helped a little I believe, should of checked/adjusted them. Oh well, I know for next time.
Unfortunatly my Aurora is non-Autobahan, limited to around 113 mph. Yes, I did bring it up to ignition cut-out limiter a couple of times on the dyno before I figured out the gear thing, not my first time limiting this car. I remember reading about the 4t80e tranny and it made peak power around 78mph I believe. High end of 3rd gear for sure. Other trannys are different.
800wattAURORA
Click here to see it.
I'm sure there is plenty of fresh air behind the light though - just like the classic breathing from behind the fender - which is fed from the top of the light.
You gotta do something with those milk jugs.
I actually saw that on a hot rod once. I forget now what kind of car it was -- I want to say it was an old Pontiac GTO or Tempest, but I'm not sure. Anyway, they took out one of the headlights on each side (dual headlight system obviously) and ran some ducting to the "holes". They then rewired the remaining headlights to use single Hi/Lo beam lamps.
Was pretty cool -- and I'd imagine did bring in a decent amount of air.
Hey, how big is the filter on the classic? Mine is really small. It's like half the size of the one on my Corvette. It's about 9.5"x7" including the gasket. The Corvette was huge. It would flop in my hand while holding it. It had to be at least 15"x10". I wonder if a cone would help on my car. Only problem would be where to put the PCM. Actually, I wonder if a small cone would fit inside the airbox. Perhaps that would be pointless, though. It might have less surface area than the panel filter.
I did have one complaint about my intake kit. My metal tube isn't quite bent like the one in the picture, http://webhome.idirect.com/%7Ersm1/aurstb.jpg mine makes a 90 degree turn where the picture is more like 70 or so. The filter isn't right over the hole in the fender, where the stock box's baffler, sat. I wrote Zsolt over at RSM and told him about my one compliant and my dyno results. He wrote back saying I'll have a new one at my house in two weeks, no charge. What a bunch of GOOD GUYS over there at RSM in Canada. Great Service. Ever time I've talked to them, they've been nothing but helpful there.
Anyone looking to add some performance to their Northstar, check out www.rsmracing.
I've boughten the Front Strut Tower Bar, Intake Kit, and 80mm Throttle body from them. Every part fit great and did exactly what the performance/suspension parts are supposed to do. I DYNO tested the performance gains for +20hp & +20 torque. The install was ALL bolt-on. If any one has questions about the install of anything, email me anytime, I'll copy the "Trottle Body Replacement" section of the GM service manual for ANYONE INTERESTED. GO FOR IT! The stock air box is SO restrictive, take it all out and check for yourself. Once you look under the bottom of the air box, you will be amazed how little air can enter. Very bottled up to keep the luxury quite ride. I'll admit that my car is a little louder now but I don't have a problem hearing that 32valve V8 roar when I ask it to. At cruise the sound level is almost the same. No complaints here.
I love the added POWER and the firmed up ride with the Strut Bar and the KYB G2's struts. A must for those how want to increase handling.
Now, I'm driving a 270hp/280 torque Aurora thats faster and handles better than ever. It's like a new car.
THANK YOU RSM RACING!!!!
800wattAURORA
Anyway, go to http://www.thrashercharged.com
They once had a lot of interesting pictures of a 380 HP supercharged 3.8 V6 Monte Carlo they built. Included was an induction system. Unfortunately the pictures don't seem to be there now, but you can call them and find out more.
The induction had a large heat-shielded area that housed a cone filter. The hood insulator came down over the heat shield. If you could get a picture of it from them, maybe it would be of some help to you. Their induction ultimately was supplied with fresh air from behind the headlight too. Give them a call. Maybe they can help you out with some ideas. I believe they did sell the induction system separately for anybody with a 3.8 V6. Who knows, maybe it could be reworked a little to help your Aurora.
BTW, I believe 2/3 to 3/4 of the induction gains are due to the superior K&N filter media being used. Therefore, if you have the K&N panel filter, you have a large part of the potential intake gains that are possible. Yes, the aftermarket induction or modifying the air box adds more in the 4000's and starts to give a noticeable kick when used with a new K&N, but the filter upgrade is pretty darn good just by itself too.
THE TEST - Ok, drum roll please. The last 3100 miles or so have been with an AC Delco oil filter. I think I'll change oil today and grab a sample in the lab bottle and send it in. I did this with about 3000 miles on the oil using the Mobile 1 oil filter. It's not scientific, but I am interested to see if the amount of dirt in the oil is any different.
I found a loop-hole to get the tests done for free at the local dealer - so why not see if the M1 filter really makes a difference?
It would be cool to have to take it off myself in the yard to get the practice.
Well, a couple weeks and you call Corsa. Tell them it could be two cars. I'll call a little while later after that. I'll probably drive up there and may even meet you. With the exhaust, you will be way over the top.
I checked out thrasher once before when you mentioned it, but I couldn't find any Monte info. Maybe I will try calling them to see what tips they have. The K&N panel filter for my car is also cross-listed (through Summit Racing since K&N doesn't seem to have a cross-list feature) for the 1994-99 3.8L Monte Carlo as well as numerous other 3.1, 3.4, and 3.8L GM cars. It's a bit surprising that it would be enough filter for a 4.0L or 4.6L V8... My car already has a heat shield (the airbox) and an intake behind the headlight. I guess the main improvement to be made would be more filter surface area. Really, though, I'm pretty happy with the K&N. I don't know that it did much, but that and an exhaust is good enough. I'm not trying to squeeze every last hp out of the engine. If I wanted to do that I would have kept the Corvette.
That TB does sound intriguing, though. I'd prefer it be from a new TB rather than someone else's core, though. I hate that kind of stuff. I don't want a part from some other dude's car... It's like remanufactured parts. I hate those too...
Let us know about the oil test. I'm really curious. I am currently using the ACDelco Ultraguards but I do like the regular Duraguards too. That's what I will probably go to when the Ultraguards become unavailable (if they haven't already).
If you get the ramps, you have to put one of those rubber backed bathroom rugs under it. The plastic ramp just doesn't grip the concrete. My concrete garage floor is painted which really makes it slick. I had one shoot out like a bullet as I was slowly climbing up the ramp. It happened so fast I didn't even know what happened. After using the grippy area rug under the ramp, I've had no more problems.
As for the filter area, there is no calculation or figuring on GM's part. I'm sure of it. It's all about what air box will fit nicely under the hood - and be quiet. In addition, in many cases very little of the filter area is used because of the flow patterns in the box. That's probably another reason K&N helps as much as it does - the restrictive paper filter probably becomes exponentially restrictive when all the air is trying to come through that small area that's actually used. The K&N probably doesn't start limiting out on available flow nearly as quickly as paper.
The Impala 3.8 literally only uses a small part of the filter equivalent to the filter being an in-line type filter. The dirt is only on a circle about 4 inches in diameter. It's really sad. But this design probably helps keep resonations and intake sound to a minimum - especially because the 3.8's air box doesn't have the insulation and double wall stuff the classic has.
Anyway, I'm sure your 4.0 benefits from the K&N as much as the classic. The classic stock air box has that horn in the bottom that brings the vast majority of air to a small spot on the filter. The clean side is pretty restricted to that same area as well. I doubt the new 4.0 is any worse, so the results should be the same. Most of the K&N gains are upper 4000's and above, so I never really seemed to feel much of a difference either until I opened up the box.
Just changed oil on the beast. I grabbed it just as the last - very hot and mid way through the drain period. I think that's what they instructed. The last one had 2,950 miles, this one has 3,115. Close enough. I guess the driving on each averaged out to the same type of driving. The biggest difference is that the Delco filter had a somewhat dirtier K&N which should be a bit more efficient to trap dirt. The last test showed only 4 ppm dirt. That is supposedly very very low according to the lab. So if the Delco is anywhere close to that, it will make it hard to justify the M1 oil filter. I am sold on the M1 oil however.
Taylor got me going again and this sounds pretty cool. I would not be surprised if RSM could do the same to the new 4.0 TB if one was sent to them. I don't see why not.
BTW, those new Aurora 17's are great for greasing the two fittings on the rear of the classic. I just reach through the wheel and clean the fitting and then hit it with the grease. Very nice. I can clean the inside of the barrel pretty easy too with the extra clearance around the rotor.
TPS enhancer- Anybody know more about this?
800wattAURORA
I would like to dyno it too. I'll have to talk to the dyno garage and set up an agreement/understanding that I run a baseline or two and then need some time to work before other runs. If I do this during regular hours when he can attend to business in between, I hope the cost should not get out of hand. I would like to change it out there for a same day comparison. I've had differences of at least 3 HP from different days. We'll see. One step at a time. Goofing with this will keep me occupied while waiting for fall/Corsa.
I think RJS is getting a bad bug for power. He won't admit it, but he too can't stop thinking of ways to make that 4.0 rip even more. It's your fault and perhaps mine too.
Ok, I admit it... The bug has bitten me. There were a ton of things I wanted to do to the Corvette but never did. Now I want to do them to the Aurora. I think a port/polish job would do wonders to wake up the engine without any bad side-effects. That usually doesn't hurt the low-end torque or the smoothness of the motor. It's more like a K&N in that it just helps everything. Fortunately a lot of my bug is kept in check by the fact that the Aurora is the only new car I've ever owned, plus the fact that I'm still making payments on it. However, I am interested in smooth power. I keep thinking about HID lamps and cross-drilled rotors too. I don't think I'd want to firm up the suspension, though, as I like the current ride quality. The TB does sound interesting. I know it's a good add-on for most muscle cars. (By the way, I didn't mean anyone should be wary because they are used. I was just revealing that I'm a weirdo...)
I've been looking around for a 1/4 mile track to hit. I think that would be pretty fun to do and to see. Plus, I'd like to do better than the magazine times for my car.
P.S. I don't like ramps. I'd rather jack the car. But really, I love being able to change oil without doing anything to the car. If only that drain pan were lower... I'll find one that's as high as my 8 quart pan but wider around so I can do that again. I hate jacking the car too. I don't like the jackhead pushing on the frame. I've been keeping my eye out for a rubber jackhead I can use instead... Like I said, I'm a weirdo...
(sitting in an AA meeting)
"Hello everbody. My name is Taylor, and I'm addicted to my car."
Yes, I Am!
800wattAURORA
RJS - call RSM and find out what they say about doing a TB for you. I'm interested to find out what you find out including any induction improvements.
Yes, I did not like pulling yp the ramp at first either (weird feeling) but have gotten used to it. It's really easy. Just remember those rubber backed rugs under the ramp.
As for the stop light Olympics, I would like very much to participate and afterwards have my car tested for steroids. However there will be nothing to see except for the better exhaust. Airbox (looks stock - heh heh) Throttle body (looks stock - heh heh). Pretty cool.
RJS-Considering a bored-out TB swap for you. I bet RSM would make you one. Don't think it would be a problem.
800wattAURORA
It seems there are very few Auroras in the bone yard. NOBODY had one. The one place had to get it from somewhere else. Those duffers don't wrap them around telephone poles much.
I'll call Corsa in August to get them thinking about it. If anybody else is interested in a performance exhaust for the classic, let it be known. Perhaps other systems can be made and shipped when we visit.
I'm in the progress of making a site for my 800 watt Aurora on www.cardomain.com I'm the 11th Aurora on there. Check it out, I'll keep up dating it. Hopefull I'll finally get my pics up in 2-3weeks. Mean time, I'm typing in all the info. Make one yourself, it's EASY and free.
Question- What's the Classic's curb weight? 3909lb? I should probably add the weight of my stereo system too, huh? Speaker boxes, nice subs with heavy magnets, and my false wall made out of heavy wood probably weighs 15-25lbs.
800wattAurora
I'd save the original exhaust in case the car was wrecked. If you could get the exhaust off, I'd imagine it would be worth a nice price to somebody. I just could not see junking it with the Corsa on it. Also, if you sell it and ever buy one of those boring lexus cars (heh heh) somebody may have an issue with the exhaust - you never know. The TB - who's going to know? It's probably not very important. With the pass through to the trunk, the exhaust probably would not need to be cut up much.
Classic aurora weight is listed as 3967 everywhere I've seen including the brochure. It's a tank. 25 lbs isn't going to matter.
The old brochures for the classic are very nice and include a lot of info. If you want one for your 96, let me know. I know a place that you can get them from.
Sometimes magazines will weight the car themselves or will try to add the weight of the driver or something. I think that's why sometimes some magazines have numbers that don't seem to jive.
I leave tomorrow to do the 1/4mile runs with the airbox mods and K&N. The car show with drag racing by the particpants is on Saturday. I'll report back on July 30. Hopefully my reaction times won't screw things up too bad. I'm planning on taking out the sparetire and jack and having less than a quarter of a tank of gas in the car. I'll also forgo donuts for breakfast that morning.
Also, I hope those tires are in very good shape. My old MXV4's still had some life left but really spun compared to the new MXV4's. Big difference.