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
Oldsmobile Aurora: Modifications
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Caddy guy who's a happy Corsa customerll!!!
http://caddyinfo.netgetgoing.com/cars/markb.htm http://www.caplugs.com
seth, yes the extra box is a resonator to keep the sound down, you could take it off and cap it up. While your at it, take out the horn that's in the bottom of the air box. This will open up another hole for the box to breath from.
Or, Rip the whole box out and put in RSM's Intake kit with a K&N cone on LIKE ME!!!
http://www.cardomain.com/id/800wattaurora
Taylor
RJS-Good luck with your TB. Things look much different than my 96. Good luck, I'm sure something can be done to improve air flow in one way or another. Thanks for the new Northstar info, very interesting stuff. Someday, I'll buy a used AWD Northstar Caddy down the road.
Dyno graphs, the 2 that I have that are usefull will be scanned in tommarrow, I'll be getting the rest of the dyno info later in the week, see if I can dig up that dang baseline. My heat-shield pics will be up by the end of the week too.
On my little site http://www.cardomain.com/id/800wattaurora I watch my vister counter, just broke 2,000 yesterday, today 4,670!!! Can't believe it doubled in 1 day, it took 2 months just to get to 2,000. I better finish it up pretty soon, I'm slacking with my pics.
Happy Aurora'ing everbody!!!
Taylor
JAVIDOGG
http://www.cardomain.com/id/javidogg
Before you do anything, I'd sure try to get Zsolt to take a good look at everything. If they can all be reworked and the job is not too difficult, then I'd do it. You don't have to visit a dyno. Basically just expect gains probably between Taylor and me. I'd still get the junk parts since they are going to be bored anyway. You should be able to save some there.
Taylor - good luck with the plate. It should really make the whole thing work together. RSM said it will be done at the end of the week, so the weekend after next I'll do it at home. I'll also spray down the intake manifold again while it's all opened up. I might try to take pictures of the job and I am very interested in the difference of how the pieces match up (before and after). With the junk mounting plate and my stock TB, I lined everything up and found a rather uneven fit between the two (like RJS was mentioning).
I've had some fun with the new TB. The car is just more responsive and pulls better. Those big gains in the low 4000's can be felt. I was looking at my old dyno graphs and the K&N really only added significantly to the top end. The box mod helped a lot more with the 4000's and probably lower, but the TB added WAY more power than the air box and filter stuff down low. The graphs show more power from the TB from the beginning of the ink - way down at 20 mph (don't know the rpms there at WOT)
Anyway here goes. I hope this doesn't start any bad controversy. I was traveling (boring airports) this weekend so I grabbed the October C&D. This may be the last C&D I ever purchase. Here's why:
There is one of their infamous "comparison tests". Acura 3.2 TL Type-S, Audi A4 3.0 CVT, BMW 330i, G35, MB C320, VW W-8. The acceleration of these cars was NOWHERE close (not even on the highway to the "ballpark") to the earlier test as those posted in the "Road Test Digest". Example? - G35 - 0 to 60 in 7.1 vs 6.2 and 1/4 15.6 vs 14.9. Yes both are automatic (I think they all are for now). The W8 - 7.7 vs 6.9, and 15.9 vs 15.4. Yep same driveline there too. The Acura was 7.6 and 16.0. The best 60 was the 7.1 and the best 1/4 was 15.6.
What is going on???!!! I strongly suspect that the crap that RJS was talking about (old Aurora vs New) is the only explanation. RJS, you are right - this stuff happens. I think some serious BSing is going on with the public from the MFG's through a complicit car media.
It get's better.
In this same issue, there is a letter to the editor questioning this very fact with about the BMW 330Ci. 6.4 vs 5.8. He joked about the driver going on a diet too. No donuts. C&D's response - "at 2700 miles, the car had 800 more miles to loosen up, but neither that nor driver weight gain explain the large differences we sometimes see from car to car" Is that LAME or what? Yeah C&D, you are right, that DOESN'T explain it. Why don't you look into it because your test results are a joke on the readers until you do. What a lame-o magazine.
But wait, there's more.
They tested the new 240 HP V6 Accord - with still only 212 ft-lbs or torque (at 5000 rpm). It BEAT ALL the cars listed above. 60 in 7.0! and the 1/4 in 15.5! BTW - the car is heavier than ever too at 3439 lbs - almost as much as the cars in the comparison above. I swear the previous publication talked about the upcoming car and "estimated" that 60 would come in 7.5. They must be bad estimators. Anybody want to bet a later Accord used in a "comparison test" doesn't make it to the ballpark? Hmmm.
Now, RJS before you "I told you so" anything, it is still my observation that at C&D, both Aurora's (similar weight to power - same drivetrain) performed essentially the same. There really doesn't seem to be an issue there. But man. There is something really weird going on. I think some of these cars are "juiced". The focus on performance is getting higher and higher these days.
Even more:
The long term Subaru WRX. 60 in 5.9 vs 5.4 and 14.6 vs 14.1. They briefly mentioned the disparity but basically blew it off. Hmmmmm. BTW - that 5.9 turns into, INCEDIBLY, 7.4 seconds with the 5 to 60 street start! So what does that really say about the car's overall performance in other road situations? Real muscle? No. Neat trick if you know how to spring the car from a dead stop? Yes. Of course they never discuss the big picture.
It kind of reminds my of how some guys at the gym like to say "I benched 250 or 300". And your thinking "yeah but you bounced it off your chest and your butt was a foot off the bench - what can you really bench?".
They really should chassis dyno these cars as part of the test. It might tell something if atmospheric conditions can be accurately accounted for. It could be like making the car "pee in the cup".
I saw another magazine that did dyno the new 350Z. It's rated at 287 HP. They got 244 HP at the wheels on only 91 gas. 85% of the power to the wheels??? Maybe, but that sure seems high to me. Maybe I'm not aware of some new technology. 75 to 80% was more what I thought. I've seen the vette come out at 75%. I do not know what standard they were using, but at 85%..... I just wonder.
I welcome some comentary. For now, I'm not wasting $5 ever again.
Those prototypes are hand-built since they are prototypes not production cars (which is why they are usually crushed after being loaned to the press). So there is always the possibility of them being breathed on. But I don't think every prototype is. As you pointed out with your TB, if they were meticulous about matching the production dimensions, then their hand-built car would have a smaller intake than your producion-built car that was on the wide end of the tolerance. So it doesn't mean that Aurora necessarily made more power than it did off the production line. If your all's classics can pull 15's, then that's really the important thing.
I hear you, though. C&D makes these token gestures to point out that they are prototypes, and if a reader actually asks, they'll point out that they tend to make more power than a production car (there was a commentary about it in the last year or so in C&D, but I couldn't find it again). But really, they still publish the results and discuss them as if they are real. If they know that they aren't, or that they might not be accurate numbers, then they should wait until the car is produced, grab a model off the assembly line, and test that. They say they point out in the article it's a prototype, so I guess you have to search for that little nugget as the disclaimer.
The magazines try to "scoop" each other (which I always thought was stupid. Who cares who reviewed the car first?) so they rush to test these prototypes and publish as much info as they can. Plus, they are usually "blown away" at the performance so they really point it out. Then, once the car is actually being produced, they don't care about it. They are busy trying to "scoop" the competition about some other wringer car.
As far as the auto industry being honest, I think as one or two makers do it, there is pressure for other makers to make crazy initial impressions with their cars as well just to compete. I think the fury over the Altima is a great example of this. It isn't attractive, the interior is cheap, and the ride of the SE is constantly critizised as being harsh. Not to mention that the SE can cost over $30,000! But since the tested car (a prototype) hit 60 in the 6's, that is all they talk about. That makes it an incredible car. Nevermind that it has the same EPA rating as our Aurora's despite weighing almost 1000 lbs less. So it's a family car that only does one thing well (and in production form with an automatic it probably doesn't even do that well) but it's become some car that the magazines point to as if that's how you make a family car... If Nissan didn't amaze the magazines with the 0-60 time, there is no way the Altima would have been the success it is. The car doesn't have any real family-car qualities. And now that it worked, they will do it with the G35 and the Z. Heck, they almost have to. If the Z debuted (with producion-resembling power) and had similar or worse times than the (wringer) Altima, that would be pretty embarassing. And the magazines would lambast them for it rather than pointing out that it's just because the Altima times they've published are a joke.
Greg, I totally agree with you. Many many times the car magazines anger me with their ridiculous reporting (it's like reading the New York Times or the Washington Post). However, I'm pretty addicted. I love the news and photos they have. And I find the non-performance info about the cars to be pretty interesting. I wish they pointed out more of the options and features that cars came with, though. They never point out the smaller touches (even in comparos) that GM cars have like the theater dimming or the steering wheel controls or electrochromic mirrors. So I always wonder if other cars have similar things. All they ever point out is how the memory/personalization thing annoys them when 10 drivers cycle through the car every 20 minutes, as if that were remotely close to a normal situation. And of course they don't bother to read how to turn it off (but BMW's iDrive, you'd get used to that, so it's ok). I'll have to start paying more attention to the 5-60 times and the passing times. They do say more about how the car would be in normal driving. Although it's still a wringer that's posting that time.
Maybe it all works in our favor, though. The next time some dope in an Altima or Accord pulls up next to you and thinks he can dust you because C&D said so, you can illustrate to him the difference between a magazine-tested prototype and his car by making him fade in your rearview...
P.S. I still chuckle sometimes about that post you made about the Mark Levinson quality turn signal click...
RJS - Yep, Yep, Yep. I hope I didn't make it sound like I thought all results were non representative. Some certainly seem to be repeatable. But I think some are really using the automotive press to basically fake the public. Even if a car did benefit .1 or .2 from some other production car (and certainly some are better out of the box than others) from some extra care given to detail - big deal. But these differences are huge.
And yeah, the auto mags sell better if there is some "sizzle" to report about. They both benefit, so nothing is going to change. Imagine how much advertising $$ they would get if they started questioning these cars as they relate to what the consumer actually gets.
"But really, they still publish the results and discuss them as if they are real. If they know that they aren't, or that they might not be accurate numbers, then they should wait until the car is produced, grab a model off the assembly line, and test that." - I couldn't agree more. That's what's most offensive.
I forgot to mention - another guy commented about the Marauder performance and calculated that perhaps the real output was only 270+ HP, and also cited past problems with Cobra Mustang HP claims. Here you have the fudging going in the other direction I guess since this car did not live up to the claims.
As for the Mark Levinson turn signal - well, this IS how the articles in the mags read. It really is not much of a stretch.
Now, to keep this somewhat topic legal, it would be interesting to know what "mods" could be made for the prototype car that would account for 7.1 to be reduced to 6.2.
I do scroll pass the opus postings but I think I miss something by doing that. I, like Seth, am asking that maybe LESS is MORE.
Henri
Francois
>what "mods" could be made for the prototype
>car that would account for 7.1 to be reduced to 6.2.
Temperature can play a part in this, but mostly I think that parts are hand picked (conrod assemblies w/pistons are matched for example), surfaces in the intake path are matched. More than likely more aggresive software. The cylinders are probably honed to simulate breakin. Overall this can make a difference of well over 20hp. Also, some parts might be "missing", so the car weighs a bit less than the production version. Tires can be treated to get more traction, who cares if they wont last, these wont be sold.
Manufacturers set their engines to be on the safe side. Particularly when it comes to the software.
Francois
Did you keep the MAF on your car for a while and compared again? I'm wondering... If the calibration is not 100% dead on, it will take a little while for the ECU to reset it's variables, so if you dyno, then turn engine off, then switch MAF, then turn engine on and dyno right away, I'd think you might or not see any change, depending on how close the calibration is. To test this hypothesis, you'd have to drive with the granatelli for a while, then dyno then switch back to original MAF and dyno again, I suspect you'd have a performance drop also.
I know on Bosch LH-Jetronic, you had to reset the memory after a MAF change as a used one had a bit different calibration than the new one. After driving a few miles the ECU would set it's variables properly based on MAF, O2 sensor etc.
Francois
The second time I tested it, I had it on the car for 2,000 miles or so. So the granatelli MAF was the baseline. I did the same as mentioned above, but finished with the stock MAF of course. This showed a large power drop from the granatelli MAF. Also the A/F with the granatelli was leaner. The stock MAF produced the same A/F's as other runs on different days with the stock MAF.
In my conversations/e-mails with "JR" Granatelli himself, he always seemed evasive and originally said it just lets more air flow and is calibrated for the higher air flow. After my dismal results, he said "well the northstar is supposed to run better leaner". Right. That's not what he explained the first time. What evidence is there for this?? I don't think they have any.
I also have an older article that tested the granatelli MAF on two camaro cars. One with cold air intake and cat-back, the other was heavily modified. The more stock vehicle gained essentially nothing and the heavily modified car did get some nice gains. In the article, granatelli noted that they were "making changes" to produce more gains on stock vehicles. Yeah right.
I hope this clears it up. I have since sent it back to have the A/F set back to stock. Maybe I'll test it again someday. I don't feel the urge though really. It's in the box for now. Nice (expensive)paper weight.
I obviously would never recommend this modification. I think it is a scam. Right up there with "The Tornado".
As for "break in" I've seen the long term tests on some of their cars and after 40,000 miles, they sometimes pick up a tenth or two at most. Sometimes almost nothing.
I think there must be a lot of special attention to some of the "test" cars, and perhaps a trick or two on top of that. I just think the differences are huge with some of the cars.
Temperature - I wondered about that too. It sure makes a large difference from my experience at the dyno. If the comparison test did not correct for this (as I think they do on individual tests of something new) then that could explain away some. Perhaps a lot of these factors all add up to one very large difference.
I think RJS kind of mentioned this before, but for any "corrected" numbers they publish, they really should list the actual numbers as well. I would give so much more of a good picture.
I really think Garnes is right. I think there is some deliberate rigging going on with some of these cars. It seems to be a more recent thing, though. I mean, some of these cars they test have times that are just absurd. I mean, you look at the power rating, the weight, cylinder count, whatever, then you look at the times it ran and it just doesn't add up.
Fdion, I had a question when you said they might pick-n-choose to match the parts. Wouldn't they just match up most of the pieces by hand (ie, correct anything that didn't match)? In my mind I didn't really picture them having a bunch of the same parts laying around since the car isn't even being produced yet. I guess I just pictured a lot of hand-work to match everything perfectly (and maybe to make intakes and exhaust ports larger than a production model, essentially like giving the car a port/polish job) when they put parts together. But this is just how I see it in my mind. I've no idea what actually goes on when they put together a working prototype to lend to the press. Interesting about the weight, though. That wouldn't surprise me either.
Garnes, I've never noticed big differences on the long-termers either. Usually if there is a big difference it will be skidpad or braking stuff that reflects the "shaved" nature of the tires after 10-20,000 miles. The acceleration differeces are usually nothing or like a tenth.
Hey, what's with the length complaints? Tired of having to read so much about cars?? Weirdos...
Even tough parts are cast or forged in batches, they are individually weighted. I'd match conrod/piston assemblies as close as possible to have 8 of the same, add the bearing shells and circlips, then adjust on the last milligrams only. On a car with aluminium heads and intake manifolds (not the aurora as it has a thermoplastic intake manifold), I'd extrude/hone the assembly. No need for hand sanding and the like!
Francois
I thought it was high. That's where I got the idea that the "test cars" should always go to the dyno at magazine tests. You could even build a facility for that and control the temperature and humidity - not a big deal for a big deal publication. The only wild card would be atmospheric pressure. That could probably be controlled too if you really wanted. I still think the cars should "pee in the cup" after the "event" - just like the Olympics.
The garage owner said that his dyno was $40k. That should not be much for C&D type publications. This guy is heavily into truck competitions and simply wanted one for his own with the hopes of goofs like me paying it off for him. So far I think he is doing OK.
I don't think there are any header available for the Aurora. Heck, there isn't even a cat-back system specially for it.
I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that headers are actually a pretty complicated science where exhaust pulse waves are considered if you want it to work right.
If you are really serious about it though, call Cadillac Hotrod Fabricators. They are on the web too. They may have an idea.
Just MHO - if you open up the intake, put on a bigger throttle body assembly, and get a Corsa STS exhaust custom fitted for the Aurora, the car is really going to haul. And this stuff is not complicated. Headers - you are probably talking some work there.
If they'd just test production cars then I think that would fix it too. No matter what the rating, you'd be able to see how quickly a production model should be able to accelerate. Maybe they should follow up on each prototype they test instead of just doing that with the occasional few. Or maybe they should start dropping the dime on some of these companies that are giving them wringers. Give 'em some bad press. That might be a strong deterrant since the only reason they do it in the first place is to get good press.
But I doubt any of it will happen. The mags don't seem to care if they report accurate info. They just care if they report the inaccurate info first.
Maybe we should start a new thread "Aurora Owners: Why do you hate car mags?" or move this to the main board.
Then you need more topic police (in addition to the word count police). Where will it end??? Lions and tigers and bears - Oh my, where will it end.
Sorry.
RJS - that is a really good point about how some cars can actually be under rated just to give a more expensive model some breathing room. I think GM is goofy about doing this. It's the bean counters. Then of course if there is no problem with putting pressure on sales of one of your other models, why no fudge the numbers upward? It sounds like that Marauder really might not be putting out the power they say either.
I don't see the 350Z power rating being "down rated" though. Can't see the reason there - PLUS we are talking Nissan. Come on, I think those guys would fall on a sword before doing that. They are a bit infamous for having to revise HP claims downward. But GM, with their vast array of vehicles that sometimes overlap too much - I can definitely see them doing this stuff. That's really sad when you get too fuzzy about what you offer the public and you have to worry about competing against yourself. The competition has to love that.
You know Nissan doesn't seem too worried about putting very strong versions of their 3.5 in all sorts of cars across a lot of different price points. I know the Aurora 4.0 V8 is wonderful, but just putting the 4.6 in the Aurora - would that have really hurt Cadillac? I really wonder.
Removing that goofy side tank on the intake won't help air flow, but will clean things up a bit. I'm not sure it even helps much after the other sound canceling stuff has been removed.
That's an interesting point about Nissan's engine offerings. I wonder if the Altima has affected the Maxima's sales much? The Maxima is actually a bit smaller than the Alt too. I also wonder what GM saves by putting the 4.0 in the Aurora. I doubt it costs any less to make than the 4.6. Looking at the EPA ratings, it doesn't net the Aurora any gain there, either (although those don't always reflect real-world). Actually, Infiniti is doing something very comparable. That new M45 will have the Q's engine but in a less luxurious/costly car. I doubt it will hurt Q sales, but will increase Infiniti sales. Sometimes I really wonder what GM is thinking (like killing Olds while giving Saturn an SUV and mid-size car).
Hurt Q sales - I understand they are not too strong to begin with. The car sure sounds nice (from what I've heard on performance, which is still good really, it's a little hard to believe it produces the power they say) but it is totally boring to look at. But that doesn't hurt Lexus or MB, so I really don't understand why something catches and something does not. Can't rule out effective advertisement either. GM sure did not do Olds any favors in that department.
As for cheating, yep - you can mod a car, give it to a magazine, they run with the B.S. because it help sell the magazine, and the MFG really is not directly fibbing to the public. The car mags will never address this because to do so will lose them advertising money from the same MFG's. There really isn't anything independent about the whole process but sure is played off as if it is.
Dyno in a controlled environment. That shouldn't be too hard. I think most readers would be interested, but they aren't going there. I can see it now, the 240 HP Accord will produce 212 Hp at the wheels. Red face test? Fail. Wait a minute - I don't think anybody would even be red-faced at C&D.
You are absolutely right -- it would be less expensive for GM to produce only one version of the Northstar. But that is not what the bean counters are thinking. The 300hp 4.6 in the Cadillac STS sells at a considerable premium over the 275hp version in the SLS. And of course both Cadillac 4.6s are priced higher than our 250hp 4.0 Auroras. They are looking to maintain price points based on engine performance to generate additional revenue. It probably works. But it sure infuriates those of us who don't want the "aura" and price of a Cadillac, yet want better performance from our Auroras.
OR
The Y2K kids?
BTW - I really think the STS with the 3.71 mated to the 275 HP motor would be quicker to 60 and maybe do as well in the 1/4. Way more torque almost everywhere (don't let that 5 ft-lbs peak fool you - look at the curves) and a lot more HP too up to 5000 rpm. I swear the 300 HP version is more about "300 HP" than actual performance. Too bad GM didn't incorporate VVT earlier and they could have both motors in one. I suspect the power curves for the new Northstar will be even better than the best of the two current versions due to other improvements like the intake.
Henry - you are absolutely right too, no matter what, that Aurora is just to coolest ride. No offence to Caddy, but the current STS is way to stodgy for me. With the mods, I've made so far I'm really not starved for more performance. The car hauls pretty nice - and yes it looks better than anything. The Caddy (or a Lexus, MB, Q45...) is stuck with that sheet metal. Can't help them there.
RSM finally got back to me about the heads,
"The price of the ported heads are $1599.99(US) pair, plus $500.00(US) core charge.
Shipping the heads would be $39.00(US) If you have any questions let us know. Thanks
Nelson
RSM Racing"
I don't know about that, little bit pricey for me, and no HP claims. I finnally painted my heatshield yesterday, Today, I'll be putting it together for the last time. Took plenty of pictures, will drop off the roll of film tomarrow, sorry for the delay.
Taylor
http://www.cardomain.com/id/800wattaurora
No heads for me. Too much. Besides, with the last piece on the TB setup coming next week, and hopefully an exhaust system, the car will really rip. I'll be happy. With the intake and TB, it's already pretty cool.
I'm interested in the pictures.
I didn't recall this info being posted yet, or if any other model year had the same set-up, but if it has, I'm sorry for double-posting. By the way, my '95 has 133,000 on it, can anyone beat that? She still runs great!
Taylor
http://www.cardomain.com/id/800wattaurora
Well, I'm calling you about this. I'm interested.
You should really send this to RSM. I still think this is something they should do. They have a guy that hand makes their mufflers and even converters. Perhaps they could offer it in their line-up and have you make them. Just a thought.
I got a lot of interesting photos of the new plate and how it matches up with the larger TB and the intake manifold. It all fit up pretty tight. It's about 80 mm all the way through to the manifold now. I also got a picture (with all the parts off the car of course) of the 80 mm TB bolted to the original mounting plate (the way I've had it the last month). You can clearly see the "lip" or bump created by the stock mounting plate. Removing this should definitely help more.
I also had a great opportunity to clean out the intake manifold. I actually think it's pretty clean now, but it's black to start with. I even got a cool picture looking into the manifold.
RJS - I'll send you the photos if you are interested in including them with your Aurora stuff. I sent them to Taylor as well. I'm not much of a web site guy really.
The plug I have now sure doesn't have the magnet and I don't think it is as large. The reason I'm posting this, is that I've heard that if you use a different plug that is too long, it may interfere with the possible tight clearance with something in there. Maybe this is a bunch of crap - but I don't know.
Does this plug sound right? Any reason for concern?
Oil drain plug, I don't think it should be bigger, definitly not wider, slighlty longer might be ok. I'm not sure if mines got that rubber gasket, I don't change my own oil. I did notice that I had some drips on the pan a while back, next dealer visit said that the plug was cross-threaded! So they got me a new plug. Wonder if this was has a magnet in it? I hope so.
Next dealer visit, Yesterday I did get my check form the aftermarket warrenty company. happy about that one. Now I need to go back, 4k left under warr. The rear pass. window stoped working the other day. My recent visit included the rear drivers window motor. Can't believe both rear window motors went out the same week. Thats like $250. Another claim on the Aurora. Also I notice than when my car Idles in park, I hear I pump some times, with that noise the TRACTION ACTIVE light lights up. Hum, traction controll problem now? And I'll be driving and TRACTION OFF and ABS light comes on and stays on untill I re-start it. hum? I love my car.
Road Force Balance. To add to the list, I went in for this cause I couldn't take the vibration on the highway any more with the new dulops sport A2's and the New AAA replated crome rims. I figured it the vibration was from having the weights on the inside of the rim, not a true harmanonic balance. Went to discount tires and ask for the road force. Only charged my $10/tire. What A deal. Bad news starts when the adk for me to watch the balance machine read my tires. TIRES NOT UP TO ROAD FORCE SPECS recommend NEW TIRES IMEIDITLY. Hum, need like 26-38 lbs weight. Rims passed laterial runout test. That's good at least. I ask the bad new in writing. Now need to go to Just Tires and try to get A new set of tires. That will be fun. I've heard of other people having problems with the Dunlop Sport A2's. Guess I'll Go with the Michilen +'s for a little out of pocket cash. Might as well get the V-rated in case I get the speed limiter removed with one of RSM's new projects, re-programmed PCM.
Again, Iove my car.
My good news of the week is that I got promoted at work.
Later fellow car lovers,
Taylor
http://www.cardomain.com/id/800wattaurora
Sorry to hear about the tires. They do check them to see if they are flawed from the start and it sounds like you got a bad set. That really stinks. In the future, maybe it's a good idea to get tires from a place with the force balance equipment - just in case. That way you are only dealing with one place.
Taylor, let me know what they say (I'm going to try to get a replacement set of Dunlops, rather than something else - wife's off work for medical reasons, and her employer is closing up, so cash is tight :-(
http://www.cardomain.com/id/javidogg
I called the actual Olds dealer to confirm that the longer plug with the magnet was right. It is. They said they did not come from the factory this way, but if you order a replacement, it comes with the built-in magnet. It's a nice little improvement for $2.80 total. The part number is 88891787.
This should help a little for longevity of the engine and peak performance over the long haul.
I'd just open the airbox like I did and use a K&N or go with Taylor's RSM set up and get a heat shield from him or make one like the pictures he has shared.
Another thing to consider on "ram air" - If you did successfully catch the air from the front and bring it to the box, you want that to be the only opening to the box. If you have any other openings or a significant seam somewhere, any pressure gained from the incoming velocity may relieve itself through some other opening in the box and really not add any air intake pressure. It's hard to say for sure because the engine will be creating a "vacuum" or lower pressure on the intake, so maybe any added airflow will be utilized regardless of additional openings.
I'm going to try calling RSM this week and set something up to send in some parts. Maybe I can just buy the water crossover and send that, and if they can bore it then I'll get the TB and the little plenum duct. I just hope it has similar effect on the new car as it does on the Classic.
http://www.cardomain.com/id/javidogg
Taylor
http://www.cardomain.com/id/800wattaurora