We are aware of the login problems affecting the forums, and appreciate your patience as we work on a fix.
Did you recently purchase a new Tesla, Rivian or Lucid vehicle directly from the manufacturer and willing to share how your experience compared to previous vehicle purchases made through a traditional dealer? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 2/19 for details.
Oldsmobile Aurora: Acceleration
aurora5000
Member Posts: 168
It seems under half-throttle the car takes off in the 3500-4000 range and really pulls hard.
Anybody else notice this? Kinda like the back 2 barrels of a 4bbl. carb. system.
Anybody else notice this? Kinda like the back 2 barrels of a 4bbl. carb. system.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Then, on the way home from Target I was stopped at a longer red. A youngish (30's) chick in a Boxster convertible with the top down pulled up on the left. I looked over as I was shifting into 2nd to see if she was gonna go. She had a rather arrogant look like she thought I was checking out her cool machine (I hate Boxsters... what a ween car. If you want a Porsche, buy a 911.) Anyway, being as it was a chick, I didn't want her to feel intimidated or anything so I didn't look at her too long and I didn't say anything. I did however left-foot brake and gas it up to about 1500 rpm. She kept rolling up a little as she watched the light. Once it changed I dropped the hammer and peeled out ahead of her. She had this astonished look on her face like her world just collapsed as this big Olds barrelled past her and her upper-class sports car. The IS300's guy's look was great, but this chick's look was classic. Anyway, it seemed like she had gotten on it pretty briskly but as I rolled past her she backed off. It made me think of Jerry Seinfeld saying "I refuse to race", as if she wouldn't be able to handle it if she did get on it and couldn't catch up. I got hung up at the next light and she eventually caught up and was making a left turn. She had the left-turn arrow before she got there, so she punched it a bit as she passed me to give me a little Boxster growl.
I swear I love my Aurora. It is like a stealth bomber. No one even sees it until the tires are barking and the exhaust is snapping a stern lecture at them as it passes. I can't wait to get the Corsa's... I actually haven't had anyone car try their hardest to race me yet (the Sunfire was planning to punch it anyway). I usually look over at people when I want to try it. That's all it ever took with the Corvette. People were always looking back. I'd just flash a little smile and look back at the light and it was on. With the Aurora, people don't even look over, and when they do it seems to be because they are wondering why I'm looking. I guess I'll need to start rolling the window down and saying "Hey, let's race". I really have no desire to start doing that, though. I guess they just don't think that big Olds next to them is going to try anything. Even people in comparable cars who obviously spent extra money because of the "performance" cachet that comes with their car. People in Bimmers, Audi's, Mercs, and even LS's. They just don't pay attention until I light them up or they catch the growl of the race-bred V8. If we happen to catch the next light together, they act spooked. They don't look over and pretend like they aren't paying attention. I guess by then I've shown my hand and they don't want their pricey car getting spanked.
As far as the Aurora being slow in the lower speeds, I really don't think it is. Obviously it would be quicker if it were lighter, but it does pretty well I think. About two weeks ago my wife and I were driving back from a trip to Monticello (Jefferson's home, pictured on the nickel). We had just stopped to fill up with as much gas as we could squeeze in the tank ($1.33 a gallon for premium!) and had started back on our way home. A young (late teens early 20's) kid in a new Sunfire GT was working through traffic and was working his way up on us. I was in the middle lane when the light turned red and he got over into the left lane, which was going to end shortly after the light. This guy was definitely trying to take us before his lane ended. I nodded to my wife and switched off the traction control. The road was at an upward slant for the intersection, thus giving an advantage to the lighter car. Anyway, the light changed and I feathered the throttle a little to keep the wheels from spinning and the Sunfire stomped it. He didn't stand a chance, though. He slowly started to fade back to the rear doors as we worked up to about 40-45mph. The Aurora was belting out a beautiful tune, really sounding smooth and muscular compared to the Dremel sound coming out of the Sunfire. By 40-45 mph, he had to get on the brakes and fall in behind the Aurora. Even to 40 mph with a really full tank and two occupants the Aurora managed to hold it's own against a substantially lighter car. I was proud of the car. I probably could have really disgraced the guy if I'd left-footed the brake and didn't feather the gas. He probably wouldn't have even needed to brake to get in behind me.
I push in the "power" button (my wife knows that's the cue), take off the traction control, and left-foot brake. When the light changes, I push down on the pedal, but don't mash it, and watch the shocked look on the other driver's face in my rear-view mirror as I pull away :-).
In Milwaukee there's Highway 100 in Greenfield/West Allis, which is the local cruising strip. I don't make it a point to go there on Friday/Saturday nights, but, if my wife and I are out, I certainly don't hold back (and haven't lost yet :-). As an aside, my wife is a former Detroit street racer (she drove 'cudas and Camaros up and down Woodward), and she now drives a white Grand Prix GTP sedan (the special edition one with the hood vents, the black roof fencing, and the special spoiler and wheels). I guess we were made for each other :-)
--Robert
P.S. She and I are both dying to take one of the new CTSes out for a spin (but I'm trying to hold off until the new 3.6L V6 comes out, or the CTSi, or the new Monaro GTO)
RJS - yeah, the 4.0's launch pretty decent, but they really shine for the passing power. These 4-something transaxle cars jump off the line and get to 30 in a hurry, but I think some fade a bit from there. You are so right about how hard it is to pass or be passes once you have the momentum and are already past somebody. Even a much faster car has to work hard just to make up the lost ground. If you get the jump off the line or while passing, it can be pretty demoralizing for the other guy unless he's in something really fast.
The Corsa with the K&N filter will certainly go a long way at the Olympics.
My '97 gets the same lack of respect that you have observed. My most satisfying encounter to date was with a BMW 528. I saw it coming up behind me, weaving in and out of traffic, then we were both stopped by a traffic light; I was in the right lane, the 528 in the left. This set-up is virtually the same as rjs's IS300 story. I knew from the way he was driving that he would punch it as the light turned green, so I was ready. We launched and I was 1/2 to 3/4 car length ahead and held it up to about 60 mph when I had to back off to make my planned right turn (much too fast for conditions, anyway). He backed off too, then floored it again as he passed me. There was no point to that, except to show his frustration.
Okay, here we go right from the slip: 15.837 @ 87.99mph. Reaction time was a good .523. If the humidity had been higher and the weather cooler and my tires had a bit more rubber (old tires which were replaced two days after the run), I think a 15.3 may be possible. The other two runs I did in higher heat with slightly slower reaction times were: 16.043@87.29mph and 16.089 @ 89.19mph. Really the tires didn't spin too much but every little bit helps.
Was it you that posted earlier the 7.3 second 0-60 from the G-Tech? If so, this might be a sign that those accelerometers can be shaky. It isn't that they aren't good, but more that it's very difficult to find a completely level piece of ground anywhere. That's probably why they match times on the track, but can be a bit optimistic off the track. Anyway, thanks for posting your run! You might send it over to Bruce at caddyinfo.com so he can put it up. There aren't any Aurora times up there yet, but he welcomes them. Hopefully I can join you with some times. I'd like to hit the track this Friday. We'll see, though.
I think those times are great considering the tires. My personal experience on the tires is this: I had the original 235/60/16 MXV4's with about 6/32 (maybe 5/32)tread left on the fronts. New is 10/32 legally worn out is 2/32. So, my fronts were half gone/half alive. Since I put the new aurora 17's on, my new tires are 235/55/17 MXV4's. The difference is HUGE. They really grab. The old ones spun and jumped around when I nailed it. Some of the difference is the slightly wider tire and .5 inch wider rim too I guess. I have no idea of how much of a difference they would make, but it could be a lot. I say that only because the old tires would be slipping and you really noticed the pause before things started to grab and move. I can't say enough about what a difference the new tires have made.
From what I've read, it sounds like getting the perfect launch is an art form, and judging by the wide variety of acceleration times for any car from different magazines, I'd say that's a big factor in addition to atmospheric conditions.
Also - any comments please - would a new tire be softer than one that say 3 or 4 years old? I've wondered if older tires harden a bit and have less traction.
Again - very cool and thanks for sharing. And BTW, is yours a 3.71 autobahn?
Different car. I think he had the K&N and maybe had opened up the box a little.
Exhaust - you should consider the Corsa system. It's all straight through - no baffling. I don't know how you can get less restrictive than that. It's wide open all the way all the time. We will be visiting and maybe additional systems can be made. Supposedly, opening up the exhaust is the biggest (simple)performance improvement you can make - especially on something bottled up like an Aurora.
800 - I have written in my notes from talking to RSM some time back that the TB is 82mm. Hey, the TB I got came with a tag that even includes the VIN number from the donor car. It was a 97. Pretty cool. There is a note on it saying it was still attached to the intake manifold too.
The TB with the VIN is the one from RSM or the one from the junkyard?
As far as dynoing, have you thougth about just hitting the track? It's probably more fun and it's about 1/5 or less of the price. I guess it depends on whether you want to say "It added 20 horsepower" or if you want to say "It shaved half a second". Both are pretty impressive.
Mine is an autobahn with 79,000miles on it. The tires were terrible and the new ones I've put on since the run make a huge difference in ride and traction. I got Toyo tires which are just H rated, (130mph) and had the forced road balance. All the vibration and steering wheel shudder is gone. I can't believe how sensitive this car is to tire balance.
I was only guessing on the 1/2second improvement, I really have no idea, but I understand that humidity does play a big factor. As for the runs I had traction off, the shift selector in 3rd, and the AC off. I left foot braked and took her to 1500rpms before dropping the hammer. The stall converter seems to be at 1700rpms. I wish I had the new tires on and left the shift selector in 2nd, though it did seem to shift at redline each time (not that I was paying much attention to the tach). I've got the old Car and Driver article which has the Classic's best run and I'll check and see what it was. I'm convinced the new Aurora's would post faster times as the car is lighter being built on the Bonneville and LeSabre platform.
It's a good run Musclecar. You can try 2nd gear and some new tires, and possibly some bolt-ons if you're interested. So don't worry. You can also try having the oil on the low end of the dipstick (but not to "low"). I don't think I'd drain any oil, but I might keep a track date in the back of my mind each time I check/fill it.
I second what Mike98 said. When I bought my Corvette it had tires from 89 on it. I bought it in 97! Anyway, they had less than 10,000 miles on them, and plenty of tread depth. They were squirrely as heck. They were a death sentence in rain. I'm a cheap dope and didn't change them until 2001. The tires were Goodyear VRs (gatorbacks) which have a notoriously short life. I put about 40,000 miles on them for a total of almost 50,000 miles on the tires. I swear, they had as much tread depth when I replaced them as they did when I bought the car. I think those tires would have lasted for eternity provided you could avoid wrecking the car in a turn.
In a fairly common move, I replaced the tires, got cross-drilled rotors, stainless steel brake lines, and replaced all the weatherstripping only to sell it about 5 months later... I didn't know I'd sell it when I did all that, though. Needless to say, all that work and expense added nothing to the value of the car... ugh...
P.S. Your "hot pre-production model" comment is going to land you in hot water!
P.P.S. Really, email your times to the guy at Caddyinfo.com. I want to see some Aurora times showing up there!
Musclecar97 - The way I see it, you almost matched the magazine time with crummy tires. Pretty cool. I don't know how much weight you dropped from the car, and if that was a big factor. Try again with that new rubber. It's amazing too how much affect the later warmer temps had. There are so many variables.
Humidity - I have also heard that humid air as opposed to dry air was better for performance. Don't know the science of it. But I've heard that too.
Garnes - Thanks for your supportful comments. Unfortunatly the track is 400 miles away and I won't be running again for a year. I was just really curious as to how the car would perform.
Bonnevile/LaSabre comments- I wasn't bad mouthing the new Aurora, just commenting on its reduced weight. I'm convinced its faster than the classic. As far as looks go, I prefer the new model's nose and gauges over the classic, but those hips and shoulders on the classic made it THE CAR.
I want it NOW!!! Did that sound like "I want an Oompa loompa now!!!
Yeah, I'll have to check it out at GM Forums.
Musclecar97 - you really are trying to light it up again with the new aurora vs. old aurora thing. Anyway, RJS was pretty diligent and got some decent curves on the new aurora from GM. Comparing them to the nice graphs provided in the classic brochure shows that the classic has a lot more torque almost throughout, and more HP too except the new 4.0 has some more HP at the top end of the curve before leveling at 250. However, the classic is 160+ pounds heavier. So, I think they are essentially the same.
Hey you could look at your track results this way: With bad tires, +9 HP, and a little less weight, you crushed the times reported by some other magazines. 16.3 Motor Trend. 16.5 Road and Track.
Now for the disclaimers. My wife and I went last night on a sort of spur-of-the-moment thing. It was lots of fun. However, I had just filled the gas tank the day before. By the end of the night, the DIC was showing only 7.0 gallons used (of 17.5). Also, when we showed up at about 5:15 pm, the temp outside was 102 degrees. 3 hours later and it had only dropped to about 95. I was given a confidence boost by talking to some other guys there. A guy with an Integra Type-R said he usually got into the 14's but tonight his best was 15.83 (He couldn't believe I'd pulled a 16.05. He was like "What is this thing?"). Some Camaro SS's and Firehawks with the usual bolt-ons were running 13.7-13.9s. Clearly the heat was affecting the runs.
My very first run, I didn't even really know what I was doing. I had to ask the guy where exactly the staging lights were. Once we were both staged I sort of expected the christmas tree to start, but it didn't for a while. So I was looking around to see what was going on. Next thing I knew it had started and my RT was 1.289 seconds. The timing lights at the end were screwed up so I didn't get a time for the 1/4. I pulled back into the lanes two more times before I figured I'd take a break (I probably could have made 5 or more runs if I kept staging and we stayed all night). Early in the evening it wasn't very crowded and I got in three runs in about an hour. By the second run, my RT got consistent at around .74. I went on the last yellow. I think it was a pro tree (pro tree is .4 sec between lights, regular is .5) because the only redlights were for RTs under .4. I saw some guys in the .4s that didn't redlight. So maybe for a pro tree I should have left on the second yellow, although maybe that would have put me at .34. After those three runs (one of which got no time) I parked the car and we watched some of the action (only the street cars really interest me). Well, when we decided to leave, I found that the staging lane had me blocked in. It went way back too (the parking lot there is a zoo) so the only way out was to get in the back of the line as it went by and make a run down the track! By then I'd put the car back to streetable condition (pressures fixed, spare back in, and the cooler and my wife's purse were in the car), so that run was the worst.
Here's what I did, before the first run, I lowered the front tires to 31 psi (hot) and the backs I raised to 40 psi (hot). I removed the spare tire and jack. While waiting to run, with my hood up, I was amazed by how hot everything was. The plastic airbox was incredibly hot. I think a cone would help even if it took in hot air too, because the airbox had to be heating up the air. Before my best run, I removed the driver's side headlight to get cooler air into the airbox. The headlight screws were so hot I couldn't hold onto them! This gave me my best run, but not by much. This run was the closest too (I lost them all...). It was a late 90's Volvo wagon with a turbo engine. They guy had some work done, but I'm not sure what. I beat him off the line, and I was ahead most of the way. In 1st and 2nd gear I was holding him at bay. Then, as happened all night, the shift to 3rd is what screwed me. It just didn't pull hard enough in 3rd. 1st and 2nd both pulled real hard, but 3rd just didn't feel the same. I guess it's too much gear for the car. Not much I can do about that, except maybe run on 14" wheels...
Anyway, here's the stats:
Run 1 5:37pm
RT: 1.2893
60': 2.5108
1/8: 10.5332
1/4: ?? @ ??
Run 2 5:54pm
RT: .7553
60': 2.4244
1/8: 10.4453
1/4: 16.0983 @ 85.7259 mph
Run 3 6:28pm (I'm posting the Volvo too, cause it was close, and keep in mind the ETs don't count his reaction time. The Aurora was quicker to the 1/8th)
RT: .7412 Volvo .7980
60': 2.4216 2.6406
1/8: 10.4024 10.4517
1/4: 16.0559 @ 85.7711 mph 15.9659 @ 89.8738 mph
Run 4 8:14pm (trying to leave)
RT: .7410
60': 2.4475
1/8: 10.5080
1/4: 16.1916 @ 85.6630
Oh, I kept the car in 2nd, traction off, and I left-footed the brake and gave it about 1500 rpm. I was hesitant to go more rpm because sometime the lights didn't start for a bit and I didn't like having the car sit like that.
I want to go back sometime in September when the temps are at least 30 degrees cooler (and I have less gas in the car). If it gets too cold, though, then traction can get harder. There was no traction problem last night! They sell 100 octane at the track. Maybe I'll try that (although last night I'd have had to fill up, and it would only raise my octane to about 96 or so...)
I was really surprised by how incredibly hot the airbox was. Even before the first run, it was so hot from the drive up there that you couldn't comfortably rest your hand on it. It was really really hot!
I took the engine cover off before I went because I thought it might let a little more heat escape from the intake. It made a noticeable difference in the sound. It sounded much more aggressive. I wouldn't leave it off all the time, but if you like the intake sound, try it.
What was the altitude for the track? That can make a difference too. You said you left it in second gear but that the Volvo got you in third, did you manually shift to third? I can't remember if the automatic ever shifted to third on my runs, but I imagine it did just before the finish ( I'll have to go out for a test drive and see what speed it shifts to third at WOT.
Again I think that was a great run given the conditions and thanks for making it and posting about it. I'd encourage you to go again. Okay who's next? We are in the right thread aren't we since we are "testing" our modifications?
The altitude of the track is 500'. I also found out it's a .5 second tree for me, but it was .4 for the Outlaw guys that were running. If you had bad RT's don't let it bother you. In the end it's really your ET that matters, and that isn't really affected by your RT. However, if you want better RT's next time focus on your staging. I believe you can pull up until the Pre-Stage light goes out (deep staging). This way your car has to travel less distance to clear the Staged light (which stops the RT clock and starts the ET clock) so you'll have quicker RTs. You'll also be closer to the end of the track, so you'll have a tiny advantage over the guy next to you. It usually means slightly higher ET's than if you stage shallow, though, because if you're shallow, then by the time you pass the Staged light you already have some speed built up.
I agree that the first time there is a lot to take in. It was a lot of fun, though. Now that I got pretty consistent RTs I will mess around with launch rpms, staging, and maybe try one just punching the gas. I wouldn't be nearly as nervous as the last time. One thing I could never figure out, though, is where the 1/4 mile trap was. After the trap, the track slants up at about 25-30 degrees to help you slow down. I was usually flooring it until I got up on that. I'd sail by the other guy and turn off at the second or third exit. There is like a light post at the 1/4 mile trap that lights up on the side of the winner, but I could never see it when I was driving.
I think this forum is better than the sedans board because it will be easier to go back and find it again. However, it would be great if we could have a new forum made in the Owner's Club for Acceleration Stats or something. Then it would be easy to go back and see what other people did. Maybe one of our hosts will do that and move our 1/4 mile posts there...
An open cone just sitting there will get hot too. What I like about the good ol' box or a heat shield is that you know you are pulling air from somewhere other than the engine compartment.
One thing that I'm not sure about is if any of the STS's have that big hole under the air box. With that big hole, a cone without a heat shield may be OK, but I'd still add the shield.
Maybe I should take him to a track. He might have a blast too. Then again, he's actually been stuck back in his seat experiencing stuff that not to many people have, so maybe he would just laugh at the idea of floating down the track in an aurora.
It all sounds like a lot of fun.
rjs200240:
Sorry to take so long to respond. Good memory -- I posted my G-Tech Pro 0-60 times last year. Ten runs ranged between 7.33 to 7.99 seconds. My '97 is a non-Autobahn 3.48 with K&N filter and restrictions removed from the airbox. No other performance enhancements to-date, except possibly Mobil 1. I never considered M1 for enhancing performance, but I have seen some claims that it does due to reduced friction.
I was pleasantly surprised by the results. I am a bit suspicious of the G-Tech, although the manufacurer claims it to be quite accurate. As far as picking level surfaces for my 1/4-mile runs, I was very conscious of that and would trust my eyeballs more than I'd trust G-Tech. Still, I want to take it to a legitimate track and compare track timing with my G-Tech Pro.
I think I posted before that none of my runs felt strong coming off the line. I staged at 1500 rpm with brakes on, then launched. I tried both traction control on and off. Off got better results. Either way the motor bogged down. Higher rpm is probably the answer, but I can't afford to replace the transaxle, so I stayed conservative.
On a different but related topic: high temperatures in the air box. Garnes, you'll remember that this has been an interest of mine for some time. I can support your claim that temperature of air in the airbox is not a concern because it moves through fairly quickly. My measurements with an inexpensive remote-sensor thermometer show the in-box air temp to be a VERY consistent 2 to 3 degrees F higher than the reading shown on the dashboard outside temp indicator. This is when the car is moving at 30+ mph.
HOWEVER, on a 90+ F degree day in stop-and-go traffic, I have seen the air-box thermometer max out at 158 degrees F. Given the rule of thumb that power decreases 1% for every 10 degree F increase in temperature, our cars are down over 15 hp in that situation. That's why I'm still looking for an outside-air induction solution.
BTW, for anyone who has lost (due to curbs, parking lot bumpers, etc.) and not replaced their front air dam (baffle), my thermometer consistently showed 14 to 16 degrees F higher than the reading shown on the dashboard outside temp indicator after I removed mine. I believe the same temp increase is experienced in the cooling system.
As a matter of fact, I was running the other day just to check out how she was performing, and from a dead stop I couldn't get any tire spin at all, but as I passed through 20mph, the tires actually started to spin and I had to let up on the throttle a little to get them back to 100% traction.
My car is a 98 autobahn with K&N and "garnes" airbox modification.
I am having problems with my factory MXV4's.
My complaints on the tires are:
1) noisy on concrete. silent on asphalt.
2) noticed a 2-3mpg drop in economy when I put them on
3) could handle better, laterally
But overall - a great tire. Not a cheap tire, but a good tire. It cost me over $900 to get 4 of them mounted and balanced. And that was after I got sears to give me the tire rack price.
Thanks,
Steve
I tried their tire selector, and the Energy MXV4 Pluses came up if I desired "Balanced handling and comfort for popular Luxury Touring Sedans" and the Pilot MXM4's came up if I chose "Exceptional handling for world-class import coupes,sedans and Roadsters". There doesn't seem to be any choice that yields the Pilot MXM's.
Hey, what does this have to do with Acceleration? At least say "Which tire can you do more burn-outs with?" or something...
What do you guys think?
I finished a roll of film this week, finally will have some pics up by the end of the week. The heat-shield and fender scoop will be on the next roll. Along with some pics of me at my first stereo competiton on Aug. 25. Can't wait to see how my JL Audio amps and subs will score me. I just want to know, I don't plan on competing, just checking out my systems stats in SQ and dB's.
800wattAURORA
Never guess what happened Tuesday, We went to the strip.
In planing for the trip to Joliet, I realize that I just filled up the tank on Sunday, (Only use 93 from Amoco/BP). Full tank of gas, that's gonna slow her down, I'm going anyways. Spur of the moment thing and my Dad was on vacation, so I had some company. Trying to waste gas from Monday night to Tuesday after work isn't easy when my commute is only 15min. By the time I got to the track, 55mile away, the gauge just cracked the full line. Next time I'll plan ahead, 1/4 tank or less, maybe get some 100 octane. There's a pump by my house that has it or it's $4 bucks a gallon at the track.
The track was packed by the time I got there, Must of been 200-300 cars. I only ended up getting 2 runs in. If I would of gotten there 1 hour earlier, could of gotten 3-4 runs in just in that 1 hour. Next time I know get there at 4PM, for more runs. There were many Pro cars there, they got to make two runs everytime the street cars got to take one run. I guy in fornt of me in a 93 Eclipse GSX-T got 3 runs in before I got my first run in. Get here early if you've got a street car. he was running 13 flat, in that damn eclipse, turbo at 21 lbs of boost on upgraded turbos
Ok, I'll just pull off the band-aid here (quote RJS)
first run
R/T------1.698
60--------2.379
330------6.767
1/8------10.325
--mph---69.92
1000----13.334
1/4------15.911
--mph---86.92
2nd run
R/T------1.321
60--------2.405
330------6.765
1/8------10.295
--mph---70.41
1000----13.289
1/4------15.858
--mph---87.20
This was my first time, there was definatly some inexperience with these runs, R/T times of 1.698 & 1.321 are terible. I guess I waited to see the green light, not going on the last yellow. The tree was a .5 for the street cars. I left the gear shifter in 2nd and just punched it both times. After the first pass, waiting in line for the 2nd run, I lowered the front tires to 28psi, this helped some. I realize now after I was done for the night that I forgot to Bring up the RPM's at the launch. So I had no launch RPM's. Duh. No wheel spin either. I did light them up in the pre-stage area in overdrive when I brake torqued it. The runs were all in 2nd, those new Dunlops just gripped. Temp was around 85 and the air was dry. I guess everything was running slow I heard (except for the jet-dragster runnnig 6's at 330mph.) My first run was against a newer Firebird V8 that only got a 14.614@95.50. Second was against a newer Mustang GT that beat me off the line but must off let off in the middle cause I passed him up, his time 17.485@81.27. I wouldn't be hard for anyone to beat me off the line either with the reaction times that I got. Next time I will be much less nervious, there's alot to take in the first time. I'll remember to brake torque too, launching RPMS gotta help shave a tenth or two.
When I was making my cardboard heat-shield yesterday, I realize that I installed the new pipe pretty low. The bottom of the K&N cone was resting on the bottom, next to the hole in fender. I think that it was probably not in it's optium placement, there was probably some restriction there at the track. With lifting the filter higher, launching with some starting RPMS around 1500rpms, 1/4 tank of gas, maybe 100octane, and my future heatshield and fender scoop, gotta be good for 3-5 tenths. Can't forgot the Corsa Exhaust either. And then there's those port & Polished heads and intake manifold maybe in my future, maybe a casper TPS enhancer too. I figure I'm probably going to hit low 15's now, maybe break into the 14's if I Get the ported heads and TPS.
I guess I really can't complain with my 15.858 @87.20 for my first time down the strip, with no launching RPMS and a full tank of gas, and high engine temps. Next Time down the track I will do better, I don't want to promote my time at caddyinfo yet because I don't feel the the runs where under optium conditions. Next trip down the strip it will be with Corsa Exhaust, I hope. Hopefully track season won't be over when I finally get the exhaust put on.
A company www.philsinc.com is sponsering the track, they had reps walking around in the staging lanes promoting. One of them was talking to me, when I realized that Phils inc is where I ordered my KYB struts from, there in Evanston. They had cheeper prices than tirerack. I told the rep this and he came back a couple of minutes later and gave me a free run pass at the track. So I get to race for free one night by the end of the season. Hope that Corsa's on by then, I'll have the heatshield and fender scoop by then too. So when I go, that will be my offical time, this time was a learning experience. Next time I'll be prepared!!!!
800wattAURORA
Don't sweat the RT's. It isn't a big deal. Just focus on that last yellow next time. The launch RPM's should help a little too. I don't know how much difference 2nd makes, but it can't hurt (I do it too, and the car shifts at 6200 rpm whereas often on the street if in OD, it shifts at 5800. Don't know if it's because of being in 2 vs. OD or what). It would be interesting to see how 100 octane helps. That's nice you can buy it locally. That would allow you to get the tank flushed with it so it's all 100 octane, and still keep it low. I'm not sure how I can fill up at the track without having more fuel than I want (except trying to coast into the dragstrip on fumes, which I'd rather not do).
My experience was exactly the same. I made three runs in the first hour. Then a fourth over an hour later. It really fills up as the night goes on. However, that gives you some time between runs to let the car cool down and to do any tinkering. My first runs, I could hardly even walk away from the car because they were shuttling us onto the track so quickly. That's funny that you burned out in the pre-stage area. I just avoided the water. Treaded tires can hold the water and get it on the track. They don't like that. Plus, I've never really had a traction problem with my car. It peels a little and takes set. I dropped my front tires about 3psi (they were hot, so it was hard to tell what the cold psi would be) and I put about 4psi into the rears. That way the rears have less rolling resistance. It can't hurt.
Hey, what was your impression of the car as it made the pass? How was the power curve and all? My car felt really strong through the first two gears, but it really fell off in third. I don't know if it was the heat or what, but it would shift at about 80mph into third and then it seemed like it took about another 4-5 seconds to get to the end of the 1/4 at which point I was only going about 85mph. My run against that Volvo (I know, I know, you're getting tired of hearing it) really illustrated it to me. I was gradually pulling away more from him right until I hit 3rd gear. Then it was like I stopped accelerating as he moved up. Did you notice anything like this in your runs? Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm glad that people are taking the Aurora to the track now! It's exciting to hear what these babies can do!
Those times sound really good to me (car's times not 800's :> Just a thought, sure hope I don't spark a goofy theory debate here - C&D posts something like a "rolling" start from 5 mph. The times listed are WAY slower than the "0 to ..." times for any car.
So, if those tests are what the car can do when punched "flat footed" with no additional rpms (you're already rolling at idle) then that might give some idea of the difference from a true "launch" and a flat footed start from idle. I'm just guessing at what that time has meant. Seems logical though.
Just a thought.
Scoop - 800, when I would check my air box mod after driving in the rain, there would be water up on the inside of the fender. That air does seem to move right along the side of the fender - right above the seam between the upper and lower body panel (when I did the leaf blower thing too). Give it a try and check for water intrusion on a rainy day. Some is normal. Even the stock air box pulled water in and got the paper filter a little damp.
Anyways, it was hot and dry out side that night, around 90 when I got there and 85 after my 2nd run. The Firebird I was against on the first run, only ran a 14.614@95.5, It was a newer one with the 350 V8, those cars are much faster than that. Anybody now the stock time of a 97Firebird? Gotta be 13 something right? He said it was slow for him, he usally runs in the 13's, he had a helmet for that reason. So I guess the the temp/humid played into effect that night. Makes he think hopefull thoughts of breaking 15 next time, if he ran at least .614 slower to (just making helmet law at under 14.) that should bring my time down too. Maybe a Hopefully 15.2-3? I'd be happy with that. Next time NO DONUTS!
800wattAURORA
RSM is working on the throttle body. I should have it in a couple weeks. They said they bore it out as big as they can without breaking it. Maybe that answers any questions as to why the stock unit is not bigger. I guess it's sized adequately for reliable mass production. The more I think about it, the TB port is pretty small for all that air.
Check this out: At 350 cfm, the velocity through the stock TB (75mm right?) is 83.6 mph. At 80 mm, it's 73.5. The stock TB has a velocity through it that's 13% faster. Interesting. Now, I don't know about air, but with water, pressure losses are a function of the velocity squared. I'll bet a similar relationship exists for air. Just for fun, square 73.5 = 5402, square 83.6 = 6989 which is 29% more than the larger TB! Hmmm. I can see why boring the TB out a bit can help so much. Same for polishing the heads.
Anyway, look into that "rolling" start thing listed for any car in C&D. It's from 5 mph with no "launch" I think and is much slower than the launch from 0. Perhaps that may give you an idea of what you missed out on. Your times seem really impressive for the conditions and how you took off. 85 or 90 is certainly a lot less than ideal conditions as well. Too bad there are so many variables and things to learn. I have to try this some time.
The one tested in 94 had to be "special". Probably like the somewhat recent Ford Mustang HPclaims. It turns out that the demo was a hand-built model that got the intake and heads polished when assembled. The manufactures cast's weren't glass smooth, little bit rough. That 94 time was before the car was offered to the public. My opinion. Ok I said it, let me have it.
Allt times after the 94 that ran 15.7@89mph that I could find where low 16's. I found a track that had a data-base on some cars that have ran there, a 95 Aurora ran a 16.3. Motortrend claims 16.2. I'm sure theres more than that, I rember Garnes posting 16.5 from somewhere. I really don't care all that much though, I like how my Aurora drives and Acclerates, it's faster than most cars on the road. If I can get a little more out of it, great. I'll be happy with a time when I go on different nights and get repeatable times. 2 runs on my first time isn't sufficent for me. Gotta beat musclecar, I can't be second.
http://www.tweak3d.net/videos/perf.shtml#Oldsmobile
I'm thinking about that 100 Octane, Don't know how much at the Road Pilot, 5-10 minutes away. I put it in my previous 86 442 a couple of times. I could notice the difference from 93. Tells me it's doing something. It only cost aroun $2.60 gallon 2years ago, now 4bucks? Last time I was at that gas station (spring) it was $3.75 and they didn't have any. The only have it on 2 pumps with it, they probably only stock it during the summer. I'll have to check it out.
Take a vote-Should I go for the 100 octane next time?
Hum, what else? I dropped off the film today, pick-up my photo CD on wensday, try to Finally get some pics up that night, got a couple of me at the track. The heat-shield should be made be next week, gonna check out that fender scoop. Lets move the heatshield/fender scoop discussion to the modification section.
800wattAURORA
It goes without saying that the Aurora kills it in every other area though...I do say I wish there were some bigger power mods for the aurora. Hell, I added 15% more power to the talon with a $3 fish tank valve from the local pet store. Don't laugh, but has anyone looked into that ERam electric supercharger?
sbeaupre - I just thought 21 lbs of boost was a lot for a street car. From what you are posting, it seems to be a lot.