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.
Options

Oldsmobile Aurora: Acceleration

1246

Comments

  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    True, he did not. However, the acceleration times "published" by some magazines for the new accord are similar (if I remember RJS correctly) to that of the C4 corvette. Let's see, two cars of similar weight (corvette a bit lighter actually), similar HP (although the accord has to climb much higher to get it) and the corvette has what... about +130 lb-ft of torque. But they get to 60 in the same amount of time. Yeah right.

    Sometimes the only thing worse than using a seat of the pants meter is to read what the magazines report.

    I still love that C&D issue where the new accord (separate article - same issue) outperformed the G35, CTS, 330i, W8.... Hilarious. And then they later cook up the "bad gas" excuse for the Infinity, Caddy, BMW, and VW and others.

    Oh, and the old accord V6 is supposedly just as fast as the new Aurora according (pun?) to C&D.

    With its mediocre 212 ft-lbs of torque at 5000 rpms or higher, I just don't see this car as being that tough.
  • ericmfericmf Member Posts: 39
    What is everyone else getting? I haven't had the chance to try a 0-60 but I don't get a ton off the line in mine. Its roughly comparable to a sizeable V6 by feel. Maybe its just the big car throwing off my perception. It seems to have a good amount of power when you kick it in from 3rd and it downshifts. It also has excellent passing power. The only thing that strikes me as weird is that it seems as if you mash the gas from a stop it holds in 1st? I never feel it shift for the extra power? Is it just the way the car is geared or is it mine?? Car seems to idle right..about 700RPM. Any tips appreciated.
  • kayaman420kayaman420 Member Posts: 207
    Northstar engines are not good off the line. They werent built to be and no modification will really help that. Plus the car weighs 4000lb. But as you noticed im sure, the top end torque and speed are great. And thats where most cars get killed by the Aurora.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Hey Eric,

    Yeah, the V8 doesn't have a boatload of low-rpm torque the way the 3800 does. However, if you think the Aurora feels a lot like a 3800 equipped car, that's pretty good. The Aurora only has .2L more displacement, and weighs a lot more than the 3800 cars (except maybe the Park Avenue). Plus, I'd bet the 3800 has a longer stroke (which helps torque). So if it feels comparable at low rpm's, that's really not too shabby, and actually pretty impressive.

    You should really feel the car come alive though as the revs climb.

    There is no extra power from shifting. Each subsequently higher gear will have worse acceleration. You are always better off in the lowest gear that will work at that speed (within some reasonable constraints). So if the car can continue in 1st, you will accelerate better than if it upshifted to 2nd instead.

    The car makes great high-rpm power and pulls hard right to the redline, so you definitely want it to stay in gear as long as possible. Plus, there's that sound... Oh man does that baby sound sweet as it climbs to 6 1/2 grand...
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    I have to comment, because I also have a 2001 Impala with the 3800. Off the line, my 98 Autobahn Aurora "feels" better. Not a whole lot, but definitely stronger - even when it was still stock. Once the rpms get up a little (not necessarily top end) it's no contest. Of course the Impala has the 3.11 - and that doesn't help it. If it had a 3.71, I think the Impala would be downright brutal off the line.

    Anyway, that's only my "seat of the pants" meter, but the difference seems pretty big. Also, it's my opinion that anything as comfy as an Aurora is going to insulate the driver from the experience of acceleration.

    Kayaman is basically right about helping low end acceleration. The air-box mod and K&N help out down low a little, but not much according to the dyno. I don't think the exhaust does anything down low either. However, the RSM TB added power all over the power curve according to my dyno tests. With the better box, a K&N, and the RSM TB, low end acceleration is helped a bit, but not nearly like the high end - especially with exhaust mods.

    I'm not sure about getting true 0 to 60 times on the car. The g-tech type stuff is the best bet, but I still have doubts about them. Then you can have some strong acceleration and a poor launch and still get slow times. I guess you could defer to the magazines - LOL.

    My opinion is that with the 3.71, and some basic intake and exhaust improvements, the car is low 7's to 60 - launched just right, new tires, good pavement, right atmospheric conditions...... The 3.48 - I guess mid 7's with the same mods. I don't think the 3.48 is much different than a 3.71 as they are really pretty close. Those numbers are pretty good even against a lot of the questionable "magazine numbers". Some of them just don't add up as described earlier. Real world it's a decent performer, but it wasn't intended to be a performance car anyway. It's one of the only cool looking luxury cars out there that also offers a world class engine.

    I have to second all the comments about passing power and such. From any kind of a roll, the car is really strong.
  • ericmfericmf Member Posts: 39
    appreciate all the info here as well. I never got much into understanding the way revs and transmissions make the power. just in the little DIYer stuff i've messed with. to me it was always how much unf i got off the line. I definately need to play wth my aurora a little more in the higher revs. Your right it is no comparison to the 3800 once it gets up there. I just mean off the line it feels like my old 3800. just not as much jerking to it. once it seems to get where it needs to be likes like a rocket and before i know it im at 90.
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    Another comment about that 3800. My bet is that the car really produces a bit more than the 200 HP and 225 torque it is rated for. Not much, but I bet around 3 more each. I just doubt that the different bodied Bonneville really makes a nice clean +5 HP and +5 torque over all the other 3800's. I understand the different chassis allow a little better "down pipe" from the exhaust, and even if this is true, I doubt it alone is good for +5 each. That just doesn't sound like a big difference. The rest of the exhaust and intake are the same I believe.

    So, just toss a K&N in the thing and you may be getting a little over 230 lb-ft of torque with lots of it down low. So yeah, at 3400 lbs or so, those things really jump off the line. I love that engine. It accelerates nicely because of all the torque and then gets incredible highway mileage with the tall 3.11 gearing. It's a simple but very effective formula. The only shortfall is that high end power. It does fade out on you.

    Sorry - I guess that's not much "Aurora" stuff there.
  • ericmfericmf Member Posts: 39
    It does fade. A very reliable motor too. Your right they crunch all the power to the bottom. I remember I once holding a 5.0 down across an intersection. Then he found 3rd gear and it was byebye. 3800 just couldn't hold it. With brand new tires that thing could smoke the fenders if you punched it. I had a K&N, Bosch +4's, borg warner wires, new O2's w. Royal Purple Synthetic oil and K&N oil filter. Before all the fuel delivery problems it was definately a sleeper. Nice car too it was all black w/ black vertical grill. Man I miss that car. I used to love waking up those GTP's they'd get me but I'd sure make them look back. Gotta make sure I go stare at my Aurora in a minute it seems to make the pain go away :pp

    PS. Dyno'd it free once before the K&N air. threw out 215/228. My manual told me 205. Intellichoice said 210. I always heard they read 200 for "insurance reasons".
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    How did you dyno it? Those look like numbers at the crank - not the wheels like a chassis dyno.
  • ericmfericmf Member Posts: 39
    The car actually dyno'd 169/173. The guy that I do the dynos with uses some sort of formula to get the crank. He said average GM FWD cars lose about 22%-24% to the transmission, torque converter and all the other moving parts.
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    last wed, that new Masteri conv. came flying by. He wasnt going terribly fast then me so I floor it and wanted to see what would happen. The Aurora did a great job. never really caught up. He had some else w/him and I had 2 friends. He turned before I could do anything lol

    Just surprised that I could keep up....
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    I have two good things to report. First, the guy in the 528i didnt know what he bit off, and by 120 (with him long in the mirror) I now know for sure my Aurora is an Autobahn. It makes sense, since my Aurora has every option except heated seats since its a South Fl car.
  • garnes1garnes1 Member Posts: 33
    I got a chance to race someone from the light - punk in a nice BMW 5 series. We both rolled from the light for just a second and then he went for it and got the jump. (You just know when these things are going to happen so you have it in "power" and in "2"). I hammered it and just ate him up. He never had a chance - even with the jump. I finally let off when it was clearly over. Then he comes rolling past me and I see that it was a 525. Well, I didn't expect to see 540 or 545 on the back, but it still felt good to beat a car like that even giving them the jump.
  • HenryHenry Member Posts: 1,106
    6 cant go into 8
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    the new E320 runs:
    0-60 mph in 7.1 seconds with
    221 hp @ 5,600 rpm
    232 lb-ft @ 3,000 - 4,800 rpm

    The curb weight is 3691 pounds. Maybe if we lifted 400 pounds out of an autobahn it would run 0-60 in 7.1 but no way standard Aurora would.

    Of course if the Aurora had a five speed as well it would run well into the sixes I believe
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    I dunno, I bet my car could run 7.1 or so... In some of my clips the car took about 7 seconds of video to go from 0 to 60, and that was without really launching hard. Those magazine numbers are not set in stone. Plus, you can easily lose about 100 lbs or so in fuel.
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    But could you image how fast it would be with a 5 or 6 speed?
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    but I would have rather them offered .6L more displacement instead. I can't help but think how much better a 4.6 Aurora would be than an STS or GXP. With the Aurora's ~200 lb lighter weight than an STS, it would be a monster with 300hp. And that would have cost hardly anything vs. a 5 or 6-speed automatic.
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    Whats the weight of an (new obviously) Aurora vs. a Eld. (the 300hp one obviously)?
  • blk97aurorablk97aurora Member Posts: 573
    Shawn,

    It's not clear to me that more gears necessarily lowers acceleration times. Shifts take time out of power to the wheels. So if a 4-speed shifts once before 60mph, and a 6-speed shifts twice, there may not be any gain 0-60. Of course, overall drivability is enhanced if the transmission is competent. The final drive ratio has to play a part in this, too.
  • stickking1stickking1 Member Posts: 247
    That settles it. I think I need to start up collection for the "Great 4.6L conversion" on my car. If it works on my 95, then when I get a new(er) Aurora, I can swap it into that. :-)
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    It seemed to help the SRX to a 0-60 of 6.4 in the new C&D mag comparo of performance utlities. (along with 20 extra hp).
  • blk97aurorablk97aurora Member Posts: 573
    Shawn,

    I haven't seen that article. What was the SRX's final drive ratio?

    Les
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    Les, sorry it was in M/T not C&D (I get too many mags lol, those, and A/W and my r/c mags as well). The final drive was 2.42:1 w/a axle of 3.23

    Shawn
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    woohoo! A 4.6! That'd be really sweet. Definitely keep us in the loop on how it goes. That engine would really transform the Aurora. It's the only thing at all that I like about the STS over the Aurora...

    Hey, have you been getting my mails? Just curious as I haven't seen a reply yet... :P
  • stickking1stickking1 Member Posts: 247
    Yeah...one of these days I might work up the nerve to takle that project.

    And you'll have to forgive my lack of E-mails. I just started a new job and it has me totally wiped out by the end of the day...I'm a little behind with my online activites.
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    You mean the old STS. Have you guys seen the 05 ones? I think they're awesome, esp. the rear shots. It kinda looks like the Inifinti M45 (which I like as well) but w/o the huge rear overhang with Cadillac's new edge styling. The bulging rear fenders are tight. Can't wait to check one out.
  • dred98dred98 Member Posts: 16
    I still don't really understand the difference the axle ratio makes to an Autobahn.
    I know from my early days with GTO's and Chevelle SS's that a higher axle ratio gives you more acceleration and quicker 0-60's but a lower top speed.
    So why should the higher ratio give you a higher top speed - isn't that the wrong way round? The autobahn must be at higher revs than a regular Aurora at 110mph - so why do they let it go faster and cut off the non-autobahn?

    dred98 - (98 Aurora with autobahn)
  • mrdubyamrdubya Member Posts: 200
    because not everyone wanted V rated tires, they suck in the snow. the people who didn't want V probably wanted better gas mileage, 3.48 gives them that over 3.71. those people who also care about plush rides and gas mileage also wont ever go faster than 100. but at the same time, if its to comptete with european cars, it has to do 140ish, so that has to be a option.

    besides, at speeds of like 130, 140, we run out of power, not gears. the higher the revs the more the power, so if both cars weren't limited, i think the autobahn would still top out a little higher.
  • dred98dred98 Member Posts: 16
    So you're saying that a higher axle ratio (lower gearing) gives better acceleration and a higher top speed?
    That doesn't make sense - I don't think you can have it both ways, surely the final drive ratio that manufacturers decide on is a trade off - acceleration or speed, trying to get one without hurting the other too much.
    I can see your point about the mileage though - that gets more important every day.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    It's the tires that give a higher top speed. The 3.48 Aurora might theoretically reach a higher top speed, but the tires were S-rated or something, so the car is limited to 108-112mph. The Autobahn had V-rated tires, so they could withstand higher speeds. So that car had a 139 mph limiter. It's all about how much speed the tires can take, not how much the drivetrain can reach. :)
  • dred98dred98 Member Posts: 16
    "The 3.48 Aurora might theoretically reach a higher top speed,"
    OK, if it's just because of the tires it makes more sense. It was not a technical or mechanical thing - which is the way I was thinking.
    thanks
    Howard
  • mrdubyamrdubya Member Posts: 200
    with unlimited HP, yes a 3.48 would have a higher topspeed. if both a 3.48 geared and 3.71 geared car were not limited, neither would have the power to hit 6,000rpm in 4th gear, that would be in the neighborhood of 165+ mph.

    the reason a 3.71 geared aurora would have a higher top speed is because at 140mph, it will be at a higher rpm than the 3.48 car (still plenty of rpm's to go before redline). the higher the rpm, the more the HP, especially in DOHC cars. the aurora makes its peak HP at 5600 rpms, since its at a higher rpm, the 3.71 will be putting more power to the ground at 140mph, so it will be able to climb a little higher before it just doesn't have the power to go any faster (probably around 145-150mph, which will still be at a lower rpm than 5600, which is its peak).
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Well, I'm missing owning a Corvette a fair bit lately. I'm beginning to form a plan to get one again within the next few years. Anyway, I was thinking about C4's a bit on the way home when I suddenly found myself at the front in the left lane at a red light. The car was plenty warmed up, so I tossed it in 2nd, turned TC off, and left-footed the brake waiting to gas it up to about 1200rpm right before the light changed.

    The car really launched well, and I was surprised by the amount of wheelspin. Torque management usually keeps it toned down to spare the tranny. My car really feels strong lately. Maybe it's because it's broken in now, or the Corsa or who knows, but it really feels like 0-60's are more like 7 seconds than 8 seconds. And after 60, it really keeps pulling. I was hitting 80 mph in no time and let off the gas.

    Interestingly, the tranny snaps off the 1-2 shift at almost 6500 rpm, but then snaps off the 2-3 shift at about 5800 rpm. I think if it ran up to 6400 again, it would probably help a lot in the 1/4 mile. 3rd gear puts it fairly out of the power band (I think in the 3000's), and the car is getting some serious drag as it's in the 80 mph's. Oh well...

    I have to say, I just love the sound this car makes. The Corsa is simply incredible. It sounds like a very clean, tuned musclecar. Not quite as deep as a smallblock, but that kind of makes it sound neat too. If only our cars could be had with a manual tranny! I know it would totally not fit with the nature of the car, but it would really let you hear the engine whenever you wanted.
  • aurora5000aurora5000 Member Posts: 168
    Sounds to me that a corvette is not in your future....

    1999 Shelby Series One....
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Heheh! The Shelby is quite an expensive car! They still run about $90k or so (or at least the asking prices are that high, not sure about actual transaction prices, but I wouldn't think they'd be 50% less or anything).

    I think it's really cool that Shelby used the Aurora for that car, but I honestly am not that enamored of the guy. He always struck me as a do-anything-for-a-buck kinda guy. I remember when he "found" a bunch of original Cobra chassis and was going to finish them and sell them as originals. Later it was found out that he'd faked the whole thing and they were new chassis, which he did end up producing and selling. Even with the Series 1, he took orders and payment for the car from numerous people before it was produced, then he tried to charge them an extra $40,000 or so over the price he'd negotiated with them when he actually started production. He just strikes me as a bit of a shill, just one with an entertaining past.

    The Corvette I'm really dreaming about is the Callaway Twin Turbo. They are quite reasonable with prices in the $30k's. And with ~400hp and ~575 lb-ft of torque, they would demolish a Series 1 (and look cooler while doing it).
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    No strip by you? My guess would be 14.9 elapsed time. An almost stock Mark VIII ran 14.5 with Cobra Rims.

    The local paper said the V-8 Aurora (01+) could reel off sub-8 0-60 times all day.

    This just funny how the Lincoln Navigator(with over 320hp) could run 0-60 in 7.8 but run an almost 16 sec 1/4 mile while our Aurora (250hp) would run 14/15 with a 4-speed vs. Navi's 5.

    Just goes to show you how much weight actually does matter.
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    I ran a pretty rough Impala SS (faded paint/so-so sounding exhaust) the other day with lets just say, a pretty impressive victory.
  • blk97aurorablk97aurora Member Posts: 573
    Not just weight. There's frontal area and aerodynamic drag coefficient.

    Les
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    But also the Mazda 6 runs almost the same time as the Nav. Another thing is the area in which the Aurora makes it power. The Aurora is always pulling itself to go faster as where the other drop off.

    Though if the 6 had the Aurora torque, it prob. would be the same.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Man I love this cool weather. The car really pulls hard! On my way in to work today, I was enjoying the extra pulling power when I came up to a red light next to a Boxster. I feathered into it when it changed, and the car was just chirp-chirp-chirping against the traction control. Once under traction I put it to the ground and it raced up to 6400 before snapping off the shift. That guy was a spec in my mirror at that point.

    Obviously the guy wasn't trying, but it's his own fault. I was staring right at him at the light, but he was too busy looking down his nose. He was clearly inspired by my run as he decided to do the uncle ben's fly-by afterwards. It sure was funny. I think I could give the base car a run for it's money, especially with Joe-yuppie doing the shifting. I think they run a mid 6's 0-60? I'm pretty sure my car can run a solid 7.
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    Wow!! My 95 must be down on power. The only way to chirp the tires is to hammer it from a stop (or punch it around any turn and the inside wheel will spin nicely). I have the worse tires ever too, the Goodyear Intergriy's. There's two models of these tires. The one the RX330's and Corolla's have, then the one for Aurora's and Seville's. My brick-hard Turzana's were better. They're Goodyear's base tire in our sizes so I guess I can't complain too much.

    Some good kills to report here at college town (UCF). A Sentra SE-R (supposedly) and an older 3 series, I think it was a 328i coupe too. Both never had a shot. Thought the SE-R would be tougher off the line but didn't happened.

    Also have a nasty killed by. A TL Type S was next to me at an intersection and the two lanes merge shorter later. I knew he was trying to get in front, so I cut a good light. I didn't get on it hard at all. I hear him get on it, so a punch it. I don't go full, my stupid mat was in the way and he comes flying around. I don't know if it was auto or stick but he did manage to chirp them at the shift. There's no way the old girl would chirp them at second, even in 1. I think he got me because he got on it first. Hopefully, we can cross paths again.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    I was at a stop next to a 5-series, the pre-Bangle kind. It was a 540i, which I imagine could beat me pretty consistently. Anyway, we were at a light on a 55mph road next to each other. No traffic in front, but I wasn't sure if he was gonna play. I rolled from the light kinda hard, and then he got on it a little hard. I rolled on it a little more, and then so did he. So I put it down and then he just blasted off. The car sounded blown, though, or with a really loud intake.

    BMW's tend to have really dominant intake sounds though and weak exhaust sounds, so it could have not been pressurized. But he took off like crazy and easily walked away from me. By the time I was at about 70-75, he must have been doing like 85 or more. He was starting to fly away from me. It wasn't even remotely close. I wouldn't have thought a 6-speed stock 540i would walk me that badly, but maybe... :(
  • 95mushroom95mushroom Member Posts: 230
    Yea, a 540I 6-speed (if it was) is a 5.3 or so to 60mph car. If I had a job here at college, I definetly would be considering a nice 02 or 03 540i 6-speed. Can't image what one with a nice Dinan exhaust sounds like.

    You might as well try hammen's goat lol.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    I didn't think they were all that quick. They are a lot lighter than our Aurora's, and the 6-speed helps a lot.

    I've never heard any bimmers with aftermarket exhausts that really sounded very good. Usually just buzzy or loud. Almost like japanese imports, but a little deeper and less buzzy than that. But nothing that ever made me go "wow, that's an engine sound". But it's mosly 3-series cars I see that are all "customized", not V8's, so maybe that's why.

    I'm still contemplating a purchase that'd move the Aurora over a spot in the garage. It'd make quick work of a bimmer. :)
  • hammen2hammen2 Member Posts: 1,284
    You thinking of a Vette or a new GTO? I've "heard" of folks getting the latter for $24-$25k, which is an awesome deal. I only paid around $27k, which ain't bad for a 350 hp LS1-powered car with as nice an interior as GM makes... a lot more practical/livable than a C5 or C6 'Vette IMHO.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    That same 1990 Callaway Corvette that I went to see about a month ago. I tossed a few prices around with the guy, and I just need to think about it. The car was in nice mechanical shape and pretty nice cosmetic shape, but it's not mint. I think I want a mint Callaway. So it becomes how much effort and cost to make it mint again. On the plus side, I'd eventually like to add the Callaway aerobody to it, and maybe go with a custom color like a pearl red. So having paint that is great from 10', but clearly scratched up close might be ok. We'll see.

    I do find the new goat appealing. I might have to swing by my local dealer due to them having a Pulse Red one in stock. But I feel like 10 years down the road, it'd just be another car, sort of like an early 1990's Camaro. Not a bad car, I still like the style of the 1992 Camaro3, and it's hardly terrible to drive one now. But 10 years from now, the Callaway would still be one of the only factory twin-turbo Corvettes ever made. Plus, there's something about making an underrated 575 lb-ft of torque that I find very appealing... :)

    Edit: am I the only one that thinks the 2004 GTO has a similar look to the 2001-2003 Aurora?
  • kayaman420kayaman420 Member Posts: 207
    I actually think the new GTO is similar to a late 90's Grand Am Coupe.

    I did get blown away by one the other day though. The GTO's fly and sound AWESOME.

    I bet I can get a great deal on a used one next year. Maybe. Its a lot of car for the money.
  • 2k1olds2k1olds Member Posts: 98
    Do you think the autobahn, because of the gearing, is a little slower than the non-autobahn from, say, 0 to 30 mph? Does the 3.71 final ratio equate more into top end power than low end power?

    Just a thought

    John
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    No. I think the 3.71 would have an advantage at any speed the Aurora can travel at, but most noticeably at low speeds. 0-30 is probably where it would have more advantage than at higher speeds.
This discussion has been closed.