Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Oldsmobile Aurora

13536384041112

Comments

  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    Could be O2 sensor, the computer should say. Also could be a bad converter.

    rjs: Since I don't follow racing, the 49of51 didn't mean much to me. But I did sort of figure out the it must mean 49 out of 51.
  • blk97aurorablk97aurora Member Posts: 573
    When my 6-year-old battery died earlier this month, I had the impetus to find a source for ACDelco parts at prices lower than GM dealers charge. I found one not too far from where I live and work (central NJ). It's Neptune Auto Supply in Neptune City, NJ. They carry GM, ACDelco, Delco Electronics, plus much more. Their discount ranges from 10% to 40% depending on the product. The web site is www.neptuneauto.com. They ship anywhere. No sales tax charged outside of NJ.

    I have no financial interest in this supplier. They saved me $$$ on my battery purchase plus hardware to install my newly acquired cd changer. Pat cleared my posting this information. I cannot give the phone number, but going through the web site is probably better anyway.
  • HenryHenry Member Posts: 1,106
    RJ, IMHO your posting makes the You Know you Are obsessed with your Car List:

    -- You know you are obsessed with your car when you color coordinate your license plate with your car and put a subliminal message about the car in the license plate itself.

    Personally RJ, I am PROUD of you.
  • HenryHenry Member Posts: 1,106
    I spoke with my mechanic today about your Corsa modification. I asked him if it were possible for me to order an exhaust system for my 95 based on the custom work they were going to do on your car. He informed me that it would not be possible for me to order an exhaust system for my car based on modifications done on your car if your car is not a 1995.

    1995 was the last year before GM went to OBD2 with increased oxygen senors and someother modifications. While it is possible that the connection to the mufflers would be the same, the connection to the CAT would not be the same for all years. I believe you said your car was a 1998. Therefore, only other folks with a 1998 could order a system from Corsa based on the work done on your car.

    This is also the reason why you said that I could get a Cat from Flowmaster for the 1995 that is not available for other years.

    Henri

    P.S. I dropped off my car at the shop today for
    repairs to the alternator and the power steering unit and whatever is causing the tranny problem that triggers the "Check engine light".

    Jerry did tell me that certain transmission error codes will turn off the traction control system on the car.

    There was a question a few postings back about the suspension. I believe tht 1997 has its own unique suspension for somethings. 1995 and 1996 are the same, as are 1998 and 1999. I hope this helps.
  • matrixfrogmatrixfrog Member Posts: 180
    I was looking at erebuni website today and I noticed the aurora w/ ground effects looks different. http://www.spoilers.com/images/autos1/Aurora321f.jpg It could just be me but did they change it? I didnt like they way they looked but for some reason now I do. Anyways, how much do you think it would cost to get these painted and installed? A rough estimate will do.
  • matrixfrogmatrixfrog Member Posts: 180
    I should of posted this in the club forum but I didnt find a spot that it fitted in and I think more people read this board.

    Erebuni offers a club discount of 20%. If you were to buy the ground effects that would knock $157 off the total price of $786. (Assuming I did my math right and also assuming that the webprice they advertise now will not be discounted(they offer discounts off of web prices on certain items))

    Now in order to recieve these discounts a letter from the club president with the club letterhead must be sent to Erebuni slong with a list of all the members of the club and their info along with some info about the car club.

    Now my question is, does the Oldsmobile Aurora Owners Club here at edmunds classify as a club? If so who would be the one to send this letter? $629 isn't bad for a whole ground effect kit. What do you guys think?
  • cwiley1cwiley1 Member Posts: 82
    Henry--My '95 had the check engine light come on and the code was the input speed control in the tranny!!!!!! They had to go into the tranny to replace it. It cost $1186.30 to fix it. Lucky I had the extended warranty. The part cost $26.61. It took them about 12 hours worth of labor to pull the trans. and replace the part. I can't see any difference on how it runs, but the check engine light doesn't come on. Hope this info. does some good. The mechanical work was done at the Olds dealer. I asked the mechanic that worked on it what it would cost to go ahead and overhaul the trans. He said approx. another $3000. Has anyone tried putting a "shift kit" in their trans.? I guess that is what they still call the kit when they take out the sliding easy shift these trans. have. I know the trans. will last longer when it shifts direct and fast. Any suggestions?
  • matrixfrogmatrixfrog Member Posts: 180
    Do I really smell that bad?

    Might be taking my Aurora down to Carlisle Compact Power Jam w/ the A.S.O.G. club. Looks like a helluva car show and lots of stuff going on. It's is May 3rd-5th. Anyone else going? I ASOG member is going to unviel his 400+hp Avenger. Can't wait. This will be the first trip longer than 4 hours I've ever put on my car. Any words of wisdom for the long haul?
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    I know that the Aurora 4.0 engine was significantly changed from the 99 to 2001 model year. At the same time the Northstar was significantly changed too. The Northstar retains the same power ratings as before (as does the Aurora), but now can run on regular gas.

    My question: Was this changed on the 4.0 also? My owners manual states that the use of regular fuel is fine. Was this the case on the first (95-99) Aurora V8?

    Matrixfrog: At the minimal, make sure the fluids are all topped off, that the oil won't need to be changed before the end of the trip, and that the tires have the appropriate amount of air in them (and are in decent shape.) What is ASOG?
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    The first generation Aurora recommends premium gas. The torque and horsepower numbers are the same but there are differences. On the premium fuel engine, the torque is 90% or more over the RPM range 1700 - 5600. On the reengineered aurora the range is 2300 - 5600. Below 2300 you have less than 90% of the peak torque. Car & Driver made this known or perhaps Motor Trend.
  • ottoracefanottoracefan Member Posts: 13
    I recently drove my '95 Aurora 1460 miles in 21.5 hours. Only got out three times to get gas. Only one piece of advice for long drives in these cruisers - - burn/buy some great road music CD's and enjoy the ride!
  • aurorabillaurorabill Member Posts: 22
    MatrixFrog: You said: "This will be the first trip longer than 4 hours I've ever put on my car. Any words of wisdom for the long haul? "

    I wish I knew what I am going to tell you when I went on a 5 hour drive to my 31st High School reunion.

    If you are going 55-70 and wish to pass someone, you won't find a very aggressive acceleration, unless you put the "pedal-to-the-medal" as they say. The loud and straining RPM bothers me.

    What I learned from people on the list - and some experimentation, is to depress the button on the side of the shift level a few moments before shifting. Then a normal tap of the accelerator will downshift it to amount 3,000-4,000 RPM where the torque is. The example I gave at the end of the previous paragraph is also a downshift, but a 5,000 rpm variety.

    Once you have passed your car, press the button to allow it to return to its out position for better mileage, by presumably keeping you from downshifting in average passing situations, not requiring downshifts.

    Aurorabill
  • hardestyhardesty Member Posts: 166
    I ran across a GM bulletin that calls for changing the camshafts on early 2001 Aurora V8 and 2000 & 2001 Cadillac Northstar motors to correct a rough idle problem. It says that the 4.0 and the LD8 Northstar (high torque, 275hp) motors use the same camshafts. So, the Aurora 4.0 is a small bore high-torque motor mated to the same transaxle used with the L37 (300hp) motor in the Cadillacs. The 2002 Aurora owner's manual recommends regular (87) fuel, but says that for "best performance" or trailer towing (NOT) to use middle or premium grade gas.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    I added an 8th quart of oil to my Aurora, and sure enough it was much more readable and right on the "full" line. How annoying that the manual was wrong.

    blk97aurora: Thanks for the offer on the filters. I will let you know if I can't find them anywhere. I will try some other Pep Boys (the one near me doesn't carry them) and I will also try some Olds dealers. I have some time before I need them, though, so I'm not too rushed.

    As far as my license plate goes, I didn't get a custom one. For one thing, VA charges you a fee every year to keep a personalized plate (which is absurd) instead of a one-time fee for the trouble of making it. Plus, I'm not sure anyone would have known what it meant. Lastly, I was told I would have to get a regular plate first and then order a personalized one, which was pretty ridiculous (although the lady at the DMV could have been wrong.) I did, however, get the heritage plate (non-personalized, one-time fee). It's colors really go well with the Aurora.

    That's interesting that the Aurora uses the same cam as the base Northstar. I wonder how it would run with the cams from the 300hp Northstar. I think it would be nice to get more juice from my car, but I'm not sure I would (have someone) mess with the internals. Maybe if it was done with assistance from GM or a large aftermarket tuner. I wouldn't want to transform the car into some rough-idling, hard-starting beast just to get some extra power. It was different when I had the Corvette because the engine was simpler, and it was rough-riding and harsh from the factory. Plus the car was old and had some miles and no warranty on it so I wasn't all that concerned with voiding anything or reducing the resale. If anyone does any real radical performance mods to their Aurora, I'd love to hear all about it, though!
  • campo57campo57 Member Posts: 94
    HI all,

    Well, I've gone and done it. I found an '01 Aurora 4.0L in Chestnut with every option (except the White Diamond paint and block heater) with only 5100 miles on it so I bought it.

    I do have one quick question. When I first start it, it idles around 1100 rpms or so and after what seems like an hour (maybe 30-45 seconds) it finally drops down to around 800-900 rpms. Does everyone else's 4.0L do that? It just seems like it takes a lot longer to drop the idle than any other car/truck I've owned.

    Thanks,

    Campo57
  • hardestyhardesty Member Posts: 166
    First, welcome to Aurora ownership. The last of the "Rocket V8s" is a fine rendition. Is your 2001 equipped with OnStar? What is the build date?

    Yes, most modern engines do a short fast idle before dropping to normal speed. This is part of emmissions requirements. The fast idle helps warm the catalytic converter, and even though more gas is used for a short time, overall undesireable emmissions are reduced. On our 2002 Silhouette it is even more pronounced than on the Aurora. My 2002 4.0 drops to what the tach says is 650-750 RPM at warm idle.

    A sideline: The 2002 Silhouette is a ULEV truck in CA, and the 2002 Aurora is an LEV car. The "smog index" quoted on the window sticker lists the average new vehicle smog index as 0.52, the Aurora as 0.48, and the Silhouette as 0.72. So, a ULEV truck can have a smog index at least 50% higher than an LEV car.
  • matrixfrogmatrixfrog Member Posts: 180
    ASOG the the Avenenger/Sebrings Owners Group. I used to own a venge. Go to www.asog.net/bbs2 for their message board. I like the setup and their are a lot of users who post regularly.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    My 98 idles at about 1100 when cold. I just shift into reverse after letting it run a few seconds (10-15) and back out of the garage and then drive away. After a mile or so the idle (in gear) is down to 600-700. The transmission does not seem to mind a 1000 RPM shift.
  • campo57campo57 Member Posts: 94
    Yeah, it has on star and the build date is 02/01. The car was a GM Executive car...only 5100 miles on it when I bought it (27 Nov) and it was put in service on 6/4/01.

    I've got an '01 Yukon XL and it doesn't high idle nearly as long as the Aurora. It's got to be around 30-45 seconds (I'll time it next time I get a chance) at around 1100-1200 rpms then it drops to around 850-950 rpms.

    Oh well, other than that....I love it.

    Campo57
  • kosterr6160kosterr6160 Member Posts: 2
    Campo,

    If you are looking for more reinforcement, my 2001 4.0 does the exact behavior you described at startup. So now you should love everything about your Aurora... enjoy!!
  • HenryHenry Member Posts: 1,106
    Was the new Corsa exhaust ever put into the car?

    Was there any increase in hp?

    Is the car too loud now????

    We Need Information.

    By the way, I just picked up some shop manuals for my 1995 Classic.

    ZINC1 - Did I read corectly that you are thinking of selling your Aurora???
  • shucknetshucknet Member Posts: 98
    Did the guy who was going to get those 2001 chrome 17" wheels ever do that? Any pictures?
  • campo57campo57 Member Posts: 94
    Hi all,

    Still getting used to my '01 Aurora 4.0L. Could someone let me know what they are getting for an oil pressure for the following conditions:

    Engine warmed up and running around 60-70 mph
    Engine warm and in drive at idle
    Engine warm and in park

    I'm sure there's nothing wrong with mine but I'm a little surprised at the readings I'm getting.

    Also, if you are, say, pulling into a parking spot and put it in neutral before you come to a stop, does the trans kind of thump (almost like a backlash) when you come to a stop?

    Thanks for all the answers.

    Campo57
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    Cold: over 70 and if engine gets up to 3000, over 80.
    Warmed up (195 deg):cruising @60-70: 63
    idle under 20 (I think).
    If you watch the oil pressure it gradually drops at idle as the engine warms up. This takes longer when its below zero (F) out.
  • gisomgisom Member Posts: 144
    Anyone tried to put an O2 sensor in yet? Do you get at it from the top or do you jack it up and get to the exhaust pipe from the bottom?

    Greg
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    Henry and shucknet

    Well, after making a lot of noise about doing the exhaust system, I decided to hold off on this at the last second. Go ahead and blast me. I believe Corsa is going to offer or is already offering exhaust systems for the 2001's and newer. They are apparently almost the same as the Seville. The classic differs more I guess. I'm still kicking this around though. If anybody wants to go in with me on this in the future, or wants to discuss it more, just e-mail me through the link on the caddyinfo.com site where I document the airbox and K&N filter results. It's under "cadillac performance....modifications"

    The chrome 17" wheels: I got them, but still have life in the existing 16 inch tires. I'll probably put them on in the summer. Here is the "deal" - I bought them from coast 2 coast wheels. I got them for $740. Here is the rest of the story - to make a long story short (sort of), what you will get are genuine GM Aurora 17" wheels (GM stamp under the center cap) that were originally NOT the upgraded chrome finish. This company manufactures lots of wheels, so what they do is strip the silver finish and refinish it with the copper and nickel and finally chrome (or whatever the process is). The wheels look really nice and have to be plated to the same standards anybody else does I believe. One down side - the center caps are hoaky and NOT GM. They don't have the "Olds" symbol in the middle. I'll have to get a set from the dealer at $37/each. I was pretty ticked off about it at first and they offered to give me all my money back, but they really look nice and it's still a great deal even if I have to buy the true center caps, so I kept them. They're waiting till summer in the basement for now. From the dealer, it would be $2,000. Oh yeah, I think the ones from the dealer may have more of a mirror finish on the inside of the barrel - but these are very very nice just the same. The outer face is of the highest quality and really a lot better than factory original stuff I've seen on a Caddy. But these do look really great and were less than 1/2 the money. I'm still glad I got them.

    I put in the Granatelli mass air flow meter. It really was not that tough to do. You need a 7mm socket and the typical extender. The 3 screws are long, so even when feeling for the bottom one, there is a lot to hold on to and it won't just pop out and fall through on you. I did buy 3 extra screws from the dealer just in case. The performance seems a little better. Go to www.caddyinfo.com and there is documentation of the results of just removing the screen from the mass air flow sensor. They got as much as 5 more HP at the wheels from it. The granatelli removes the screen (as well as a few other mods) and then recalibrates the unit for its new flow characteristics so that it communicates with the computer more accurately. Granatelli said it would add 8 to 12 HP at the wheels. Even if it did only 5, then I'm up to a 265 HP Aurora with my modified air box and K&N. If it does 8 to 9, then I'm at 270. Not bad. I may dyno this in the future too.

    I talked to Bob at x-m-s.com (I think that is it) They are going to develop a cold air induction for the Caddy. He agreed that it may be applicable for the classic Aurora because the air box set-up is so similar. It would of course eliminate the sharp 90 exiting the box and would not pull in hot air like the RSM racing system does. I will probably give it a try if/when it is available (hopefully next spring). I would hope such a system will add at least 10 HP at the wheels. I'll keep you posted.

    Just to fuel some controversy - I looked at the HP and torque curves from the brochure of a 2001 and a classic after reading the comments about the difference in power. There seems to be a large difference in low end torque between the two indeed. The new ones produce (what looks like about 235 lb-ft of torque from 2000 rpm to 3500 rpm and then the torque rapidly increases to 260. The classic seems to produce 240 @ 2000 and increases to 255 @ 3500. Even at 4000, the new 4.0 appears to be at 245 or 250 while the classic is nearly at 260. Hence the 3.71 transaxle in all the new 4.0's. The graph of the new brochure is tough to read but within 5 or so.

    Gisome - try talking to Bob at x-m-s.com. He mentioned that if you have a 96 or newer car with the OBD II computer, it may be worth looking into a "better" O2 sensor that supposedly gives faster real-time readings to the computer which can make better use of the better data for optimal performance. Maybe it would help a 95 too. I have no idea about where to get these or anything else - he just mentioned it. If you did upgrade, remember to disconnect the battery for at least 30 minutes to reset the computer.
  • jimr97jimr97 Member Posts: 13
    Here's a GM site with some possibly useful information:


    http://service.gm.com/index_en-US.html


    It includes this information about rough idle on 2001 Auroras:


    http://service.gm.com/gmtechlink/July2001/articles/tactips.htm

  • aurora50aurora50 Member Posts: 8
    After seeing the post on the caddyinfo.com for AURORA AIR MODIFICATION and HP gain, I looked at mine and came up with the same end result but did it differently.

    I did not use the Dremmel tool because I did not want to disturb the factory set up. What I did was to remove on the top of air filter, front and back part, then on the front air intake, the plastic round piece that sticks out thru the front part of the fender where air enters the Air Intake system is removed.
    Then inside the air chamber,I set off to the side the Siemens aluminum box, it just slips out and over, then I remove to the side the plastic flexible tubing that houses the wires to the Siemens unit.

    Then I removed the round plastic horn looking thing that looks like a trumpet horn except it is that way on both ends. It is the path where the air goes in on the bottom side of air filter. Removing that, it clears the path.

    The hole at the front of the car is 3 1/2 inches round I believe where the air enters the air filter chamber. The slot at the back of the air chamber is square in shape. I needed something that would be flexible to accomodate both shapes and handle the air flow and heat of the engine.

    I decided to use(try) as an experiment- a flexible 4 inch piece of a Dryer exhaust heat hose. It is very flexible, has metal support rings that flex, it easy to manipulate and is cheap to purchase and handles heat well. I used a new piece from a 50 foot roll I used leftover from the laundry room. I had nothing to lose.

    It seems to work well. At the square end of the air chamber(back) with the tube will require a little shaping with your hands, the front end you have to do a little pulling thru the front fender hole but it can be done with folding the first 5 or 6 metal winds together longways and pulling it thru the front. It did take me 3 tries at it before I got it done as the plastic hose is durable but not indestructible. It may work better with a 3 1/2 inch hose for shaping.

    After I got it all in, I used Black Duct tape and wrapped all areas of the 4" dryer hose from the top as it is installed and used duct tape to seal the front and back of the supply tube and all edges for supports from all sides. Since the duct tape will not be exposed to the elements, I do not anticipate any major rot of the duct tape but will get a monthly inspection.

    Then re-install the Siemens unit and plastic flex hose back. The "weep" holes in the air chamber still exist for any moisture to escape.

    I know it sounds like a "rig deal" but seems to work well and it is cheap and easy to do WITHOUT DESTROYING the factory air filter chamber.
    FYI, I also installed the K&N Filter in it at a cost of $40 and change.

    Good Luck, good hunting and good fishing...
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    Aurora50 - your air box sounds different than the classic, but I'm not sure. Pictures are really needed. I will try to get some pictures of what I did to add to the caddyinfo site. I understand how difficult this can be to describe in words.

    Destroying the air box? Heck yeah - cut it up. I just bought a second one for $140. It all relative and personal, but for the classic at least, you need to expose the large hole in the bottom of the metal for maximum air flow. You can only do this by cutting the plastic. Spending an extra 140 to be able to go back to stock is a small price for an improvement that really adds more power than the K&N filter does below 5,200 rpm.

    Great to hear from someone else pumping some more life into the Aurora. Let us know if you do anything else or plan to.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Garnes:

    Your fuel worked! You mention the torque curve is lowered. The STS/DTS version of the Northstar has less low-end torque than the "base" Northstar, but it is a more powerful engine. I realize the new Aurora doesn't make more power for it's lower curve, but it does run on regular fuel. Also, I believe the power curve shown is with regular fuel, and the 4.0 is designed to take advantage of higher grade fuel (instead of just wasting it as most regular-requiring engines do). Plus the new 4.0 drops from an 8.0 sec 0-60 time down to a 7.5 sec 0-60 time. This is no small achievement (I realize the new Aurora is lighter). However, I do find myself wishing it didn't have to spin so much to get the power going. I'm used to driving a 'vette that made 280 lb-ft at a mere 1600 rpms (the L98 only made 240hp, but it was a torque monster). You could power away in top gear at about 1200 rpms (40mph or so) with no sweat.

    Also, the airbox on the 2001-02 4.0 is different. I noticed that when reading about the suggested mods to the classic's box. I noticed that it didn't make sense because it didn't apply to my '02 car.

    Aurora50:

    What sort of sound change did the airbox mod make to your car? I am interested in the extra power, but not at the expense of the Aurora's luxury demeanor. I never really thought a sucking intake sounded cool (although a burbling exhaust sure can) anyway. It sounds like the car is asthmatic or something. Did the intake get noticeably louder? Also, what is an Aurora 5.0? Are you gonna make a StrokedStar?

    Gisom:

    When you replace your O2 sensor, make sure you have some high-temp anti-seize on the threads. It is real easy for the sensor to bind to the pipe, and the next time you try to remove it you may ruin the fitting or the pipe. Make sure you don't over-torque it. O2 sensors are usually either a breeze or a huge pain...

    Speaking of huge pains, did anyone else notice that the oil filter from the factory had gasket sealer on it? That really pissed me off because it is unnecessary and made removing it a huge pain. Neither a strap wrench nor a filter socket worked. Both just mangled the filter. I had to buy one of those heavy-duty vice things that tighten up as you turn it. It was awesome and must be about 5 lbs. of solid iron. I also hate when mechanics tighten your wheel lugs to about 350 lb-ft and you can barely get them off with a breaker bar. I always wonder what would happen if I got a flat tire after visiting a shop that did that. There is no way the puny tire iron in the trunk would bust those things loose after being tightened full-bore with an air-wrench.

    Every time I drive my Olds I am impressed with it! It is so luxurious yet simple, and the drivetrain is great. I think it handles great too without being rough. I really love the interior layout. It is so nice looking without being impractical. Everything falls right to hand, and the wood is beautiful without being overdone. The engine sounds wonderful, has enough power (although it certainly isn't overpowered), and is so smooth. It has a sound that reminds me of the ZR-1 with it's high-tech big engine burble (except more muted and less intimidating). It's just so great!!
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    rjs200240 - lots of good points. I wondered that too about the new 4.0, and how it will respond to 93 gas. I suspect it would change things somewhat, but perhaps not perform up to the old 4.0. Anybody else that knows more please add something. That computer can do a lot. Maybe it will advance the timing a bunch or something.

    Also, those 0 to 60 comparisons you site are basically a new 4.0 with the 3.71 transaxle (all new ones have the 3.71) vs the older slightly heavier 4.0 which were typically equipped with a 3.48 transaxle. The older Aurora had a 3.71 if it was ordered with the "autobahn" package. That transaxle ratio makes a big difference. Correct me if I'm figuring this wrong, but the 3.71 is about 6.6% "quicker" and perhaps that alone could account for about .50 seconds.

    More controversy fuel (this board needs more spark) - After looking at the power curves, I'd bet the older Aurora 4.0 with the 3.71 "autobahn" is at the very least as quick as the new 4.0 and perhaps quicker. It's only about 160 lbs. more.

    I agree with the assessment of the interior. It is the best looking ride you'll find as well as functional - everything is right there. If an import had that layout, it would still be raved about after 7 years. If the older Aurora had the extra wood of the newer ones, and had leather on the upper door panels instead of vinyl, it would be flawless. Does the new Aurora have leather on the door now? If so, it is indeed flawless.

    My airbox mods add no noise for city driving and highway cruise. I mean 0 - nothing. The box resonates when you really hammer it because I removed the inner liner from the top. When I first opened up the bottom for more fresh air flow, I got a little more resonation too. It really sounds great IMO. If the mods described for the new 4.0 sound the same, I'd do it.

    Changing the mass air flow sensor adds no additional noise either.

    Oh yeah you are very right about that O2 sensor.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    If I recall right, the car magazines got something like 8 seconds on 0-60 with the autobahn package. Never saw numbers for the standard axle ratio. The quarter mile was about 16 seconds and 90 MPH. The 95 Riviera was about the same (slightly faster).
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    A 3.48 to a 3.71 isn't an overly large change, especially to shave a 1/2 second off the 0-60 time. I've seen 3.07 (or so) rears changed to 3.73 (or so) rears on Impala SS's with less than .5 second improvements in 1/4 mile time (most people don't have a way of measuring their own 0-60 times). The axle and the weight would certainly help. However (as fjk said), I thought the 8.0 sec time was for an autobahn package (car mags tend to test the ballsiest of the cars since that is the one the manufacturer would want to submit.)

    Actually, I wonder if there is more to the engine redo than just allowing the use of regular gas. It seems unlikely that an engine could be totally changed (almost no parts are shared with the old one) and have exactly the same peak hp/torque ratings at the exact same rpms. I wonder if it pumps out a little more on the upper end, and they just thought it would be easier to stick with the old rating (especially if you just shelled out $50K for your STS only to see a power bump for the next year.)

    I'm surprised the Riviera was quicker than the Aurora. It had the 3800 S/C (which in 95 was less powerful than now. I believe 96 was when it bumped up to 240hp.) I looked at the '02 Bonneville SSEi before buying the Aurora (just to see) and it is lighter (by about 100 lbs) and torquier than the 4.0, yet it is slower in the 1/4 mile than the Aurora (according to Motor Trend, but only by a smidge.) It is quicker to 50, even at 60, and slower to 70. After that the Aurora takes over. The margin would be more in the 1/4 except that the Bonneville jumps out ahead at first. I was surprised by this because the 3.8 S/C is pretty ballsy, it's lighter, and the hp difference is only 10. Although perhaps it is more than 10 if the 4.0 is underrated. So if the '95 Riviera was rated at 205-210hp (the older 3.8 S/C) then it is odd that it would be quicker.

    As far as I know, the trim on the door is real leather. It looks like it. Actually, I need to find out before I clean it. I wouldn't want to use vinyl cleaner on leather, nor leather cleaner on vinyl...

    The mass airflow sensor seems pricy considering the current one still works. I'll consider the airbox mods. Maybe when it's a little older. It seems a shame to take it apart when it was just put together 2 months ago.

    Good job on goosing the board and getting a discussion going.
  • HenryHenry Member Posts: 1,106
    Okay gang, the tables are now open to place your bets.

    MY Classic is in the shop again (it has its own parking space). The mechanic at the dealership has the #2 set memory setting.

    The car went into the shop last week so as of Tuesday, I am on week number two. My prior record of 9 1/2 weeks is on the line.

    Place your bets!

    Will I beat it? Come Close? Exact tie?

    Just so you know the story, the check engine like keeps coming on and it has something to do with the transmission. Whatever the problem is, the car had to come from the factory with the problem since I have had the check engine light issue for the entire time I have owned the car. At my last conversation with the dealership, my transmission was is varying stages of being "decompiled".

    SO How Many Weeks GUY????

    If you missed the last pool, don't miss out this time.

    Oh yes the Prize for the Winner?????

    Pat has generously offered to grant you a date. However, she chooses the restaurant and the winner pays. After all, she is still a Lady.

    Henri
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    The 95 riv had 5 ft-lbs less torque(275). Also had 2.93:1 axle, so was in first longer and second nearly through the quarter mile. The aurora was into third by 80 or so.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    dug up the old Motor Trends in the library.
    95 Riv 0-60 7.8 sec quarter 15.9 sec 88 MPH
    95 Aurora 0-60 8.2 sec quarter 16.2 sec 87 MPH

    The Aurora had the autobahn.
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    All right, this board is moving a bit more. I've stirred it up, and you guys all have more to add to the mix.

    According to a post by BLK97aurora back on Sept 1, these were printed for the 3.71 autobahn back in 1994:

    Motor Trend 0 to 60 - 8.2 1/4 mile in 16.3 (what fjk posted)
    Car and Driver 0 to 60 - 7.4 1/4 mile in 15.7
    Road & Track 0 to 60 - 8.6 1/4 mile in 16.5
    (maybe road and track had a 375 lb test driver, and car and driver's weighs only 100 - ha)

    Blk97 also did a bunch of his own 0 to 60 runs using a g-tech pro I think. I believe he has the 3.48 and he consistantly pulled mid to upper 7's at least.

    Anyway, I think the whole 0 to 60 game is rather suspect really. I've seen our Impala LS listed at 7.7 in one magazine. I love the car, but there is no way it is even close to that. I can list other discrepancies from one magazine to another.

    I still gotta believe that the classic which appears to have from 5 to 20 lb-ft more torque between 2000 and 4000 rpm would more than make up for the extra 164 lbs. If both cars have the 3.71, I'm not aware of anything special about the new 4.0 that would make it quicker. I think with cars that have so much in common (Caddy too) you can look at the raw power numbers (the whole power curve) and gearing and weight, and use some common sense as to what will happen. One thing I've learned is all the hype about peak power is just that - hype. It really is the area under the power curve that counts.

    Transaxle - someone please correct or add something if needed, but assuming the rest of the gearing is the same, then a 3.71 is about a 6.6% quicker gear than a 3.48. Back some time ago we compared speed at 2000 rpms. 66 for the 3.48 and 62 for the 3.71 - about 6+% different. Would not the acceleration be affected linearly too?

    Henry - I feel bad about the whole thing. I don't know how you stay so up-beat. But in your spirit of the whole thing, I'll bet 7 working days (not weekends). I do hope it's 7 working hours though.

    RJS - I know what you mean about such a new car. You would hate to mess with anything. I'd be that way too for awhile I guess. But the mass air flow is easy to switch back. If I have to go back for warranty work, I'll be switching everything back. I think it is $350 special from granatelli motor sports. I'd call them. I'll probably get the itch to dyno this thing and then let you know if it really works, but the car does seem a bit stronger (could be in my head though).
  • autobahn95autobahn95 Member Posts: 62
    Henri-
    I hope you get your classic back before Christmas, as no one should be away from their loved ones for the Holidays.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    0-60 times will vary with altitude and air temperature. So the car tests should vary somewhat, depending on climate variables.

    The 3.71 axle should boost acceleration, but it also means that you reach redline at a lower speed. There is an optimum axle ratio that will make performance best over some range. I think that the northstar engines would really work better with a 5 speed automatic.
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    fjk - that is a great point. I'm not sure conditions are standardized on these tests and I don't remember ever reading about it much. Temp alone makes a huge difference - you are right. Altitude is huge too. I still like my portly test driver theory though as an added factor - you never know! It's funny.

    I still say you have to take those reports and especially mfg. claims with a grain of salt.

    One thing for sure for me anyway - the new Aurora has the interior to total perfection now. I don't see how a ride from behind the wheel could look any more inviting.

    Does anybody have an idea what will become of the 4.0 V8 after Olds is gone? Will a derivitive of it be used somewhere else?
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    GM powertrain is busy getting a new generation northstar (with is the base for the aurora 4.0) ready for the next generation STS. This will be a 4.2 liter engine with variable valve timing, and should generate 300 hp. With variable valve timing the need for two versions should go away. But a variable intake manifold length could be added for a high performance version. A supercharged version is expected too.

    So the aurora engine will go away with then end of the 4.6 northstar. Since the shortstar was based on this engine too, I think that is why it's being phased out. Powertrain has some new high feature V6 in developement to replace the shortstar and Opel V6 and a new pushrod V6 to replace the rest of the V6 line(s).

    Buick will probably get a sigma chassis car, perhaps with the new V8 as well as the V6 which might be affordable. The CTS is the first sigma body and is expected soon, but will have the Opel engine to start with (yuck).
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Actually, upper-end power can make a big difference. The STS has less of a torque curve than the SLS, yet it is quite a bit faster. Also, look at a Porsche 911 or BMW M3 or an NSX that have pretty puny torque curves but high-end power, and compare them to a Corvette LS-1 (or LT-1 which was even more skewed towards torque) with it's fat curve and a power peak that is lower in the band. They all have similar acceleration times (to a point).

    Gearing is not quite so cut-and-dry as that either. For one thing, a lower axle means more shifting, and also can mean more wheelspin. If you took a Viper that runs 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, and put in a rear-axle with a 20% higher(numbered, as in going from 4.0:1 to 4.8:1) ratio, you probably would have the same to worse acceleration time because of the difficulty in avoiding crazy wheelspin. It certainly wouldn't be 20% quicker. When you talk about cruising speed, then it is cut-and-dry as long as the torque converter is locked up, or it is a manual tranny with no clutch slippage. Then it is mathematical. Keep in mind that the height of the tire counts in this calculation too (Classics and new have differrent tire sizes) just as transmission and axle gearing do.

    Now I realize the Aurora is no Viper, and that wheel slippage is pretty minimal. However, it still isn't as straightforward as comparing the torque curve and the gearing.

    As far as comparing numbers from different magazines, different mags have different test procedures (do you just punch it, do you torque up the tranny with the brake on, do you rev it up in neutral and then bomb it into gear) so it is more useful to compare times from the same magazine. Also, some magazines use a correction factor for things such as temp, barometric pressure, and humidity. While those attempt to level the field more, it is obviously not perfect. If a correction factor is not used, then the acceleration can vary drastically just based on a different atmosphere. Check the "Right of Way" in October 2001's Motor Trend for an interesting explanation of testing.

    FJK: I know the torque number wasn't much different on the '95 Riv, but the HP was 15 less (at 225) than the current S/C. In '96, the 3800 S/C really got more powerful. The Riviera was certainly lighter than the Aurora in '95, though. Still, I'm surprised it was quicker.

    Henry: I hope you get your car back today with everything fixed perfectly.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    The 95 3800 supercharged engine had its peak horsepower at 5000 RPM's, while the series II supercharged engine was at 5200 RPMs. The series II had intake and exhaust tuning so that even thought the peak torque increase was only 5, it held up better at higher RPMs, thus more horsepower. The differences between the Aurora and Riviera performance is due to the Riv getting off the line quicker because of the lowend supercharged torque. (I think). I know that the Riv always activated the traction control on slippery (ice) roads on start up. The Aurora doesn't. Even on dry pavement I would sometime nudge the gas enough to burn rubber without trying in the Riviera. To do that with the Aurora, you really have to stand on it.
  • aurora50aurora50 Member Posts: 8
    Here is a great website about gasoline and all that is involved..


    PS, it took me a week to read and a month to understand....

    Good luck, good hunting and good fishing....


    cut and paste....


    http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/autos/gasoline-faq/part1.html

  • aurora50aurora50 Member Posts: 8
    RJS 2002

    My first suggestion is to buy the K&N Air filter and try that..$40. This is where you will get your documented increased power and performance. Out with current air filter...add K&N..it is that simple..As far as noise, there is a slight increase but I like it since it is not loud, it is subtle.

    No, my car will remain stock for the most part with 4.0 engine. I change oil and filter every 2500 miles and use 1 quart of Rislone each change with occasionally alternating with a quart of marvel mystery oil. I change trany/transaxle fluid every 10,000 miles. I look at all of this as CHEAP INSURANCE.

    The 50 is my liscense plate number on the number part. The other half are letters.
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    fjk, I wonder why they are going down to 4.2 L. I don't understand why they do what they do sometimes. I also understand that the new STS may look different. I hope so. The current car is not bad, but I hope it will have it's own look - perhaps sleeker. Right now, everything looks related to the DeVille to some degree. They are all a bit square. I say keep the DeVille the way it is for grandpa and please be sporty and sleek with the new STS if there is going to be one. I need something to look forward to buying slightly used some years from now. Anybody know more?

    rjs - The STS has a 3.71. The SLS has a much different transaxle 3.11 or something like that maybe??? It is my belief that if a 3.71 was mated with the SLS engine, it may be quicker to 60 than the STS. I was talking to Bob at extreme motor sports x-m-s.com (they offer a lot of high performance caddy stuff) and he agreed that an SLS would beat an STS to 60 if it had a 3.71. I don't think the 275 HP would be nearly as marketable in an STS and I really think cars are packaged for exactly these reasons - gotta be able to say 300 HP.

    If you look at the power curves for the SLS and STS, the SLS has considerably more HP and torque all the way to 5000. It's not until you are well past 5000 that the extra HP kicks in (and the torque is still less).

    I still say that the area under the curve is what counts - not really peak numbers. Big fat HP and flat torque curves mean power is there throughout the entire acceleration. Everything I've heard or read from racing confirms this.

    My air box mod added virtually 0 peak HP, but added a lot of HP to other parts of the curve. I swear I can feel the difference too.
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    The new sts will be rear wheel drive (optional all wheel drive). There may be a supercharged 400 hp 4.2 optional (or a 6 liter V12). The looks will be a bigger CTS style (or evoq/cien). MT had an artists conception recently. Cadillac seems to think that 300 horsepower is enough for the base car at least. I don't disagree.
  • garnesgarnes Member Posts: 950
    fjk - thanks. I don't know what to think of the new Caddy CTS style. However, I lean toward the smooth curvey looks of an Aurora. I've always thought Jaguars looked good for the same reason. I sure hope I like the looks. I'm spoiled by the good looks of the old Aurora, and the new one is not bad either.

    Is this coming for the 2003 model year?
  • fjk57702fjk57702 Member Posts: 539
    garnes: Its due in 2004 model year. If MT has it right, it will look more cien like than the CTS does. You might like the buicks that they put on the sigma chassis, as they will be smooth curvey like their recent show cars (I guess). I liked my 95 Riviera for looks better than the Aurora, but I like the V8 better than the supercharger. Also like the trip computer.

    I don't know how much longer I want to keep the Aurora as the warrenty has expired. I have had almost no trouble except an oil leak in the valve cover seal, which they fixed under warrenty ($1200 they said). Now I don't use any oil, so the car should be good for 3 or so years will little problems. Anyway I have the $1500 that 2 additional year of GM warrenty would have cost. I will have the transmission serviced at 50000 miles.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Member Posts: 1,277
    Garnes: When you say "Big fat HP and flat torque curves mean power is there throughout the entire acceleration", I assume you mean a flat curve of some decent amount. You could have a flat curve of 100 lb-ft from idle up to 10,000 rpms, have big, fat horsepower (at 10,000 rpms), and when you bury the throttle at 1500 rpms at 50 mph, you would not be impressed with the acceleration (unless you had an automatic that downshifted to put the engine in the 8-10,000 range.)

    Also, when you say "area under the curve" do you mean the hp curve or the torque curve? I would bet the STS has more area under it's hp curve than the SLS, just not its torque curve.

    It's interesting that you cite racing as justifying your view. If anything, racing justifies mine. Look at F1 or CART or even IRL, and you will find engines that crank out puny amounts of torque, but make huge hp numbers because of their incredibly high rpms (Horsepower is a product of torque and rpm. Torque is really what an engine makes, horsepower is a derived number based on the torque and rpm.) Making 200 lb-ft of torque at 4000 rpm doesn't yield that much horsepower. Makind 200 lb-ft at 10,000 rpms yields a crapload of horsepower (at 10,000 rpms.)

    While low-end torque makes a difference in how a car feels when you first tip the throttle, and makes more of a difference in shorter sprints (like to 50 or 60) high-end horsepower is really what gets it done in the long run. I recognize that torque is a good thing, because it is torque that makes hp, but torque on the upper end makes more horsepower than torque on the lower end.

    As a side note, I really like a low-end torquer more than the high-revving screamer because I like that strong surge when you tip the throttle. I also recognize that freaky cars like the S2000 (with less torque than me on a bicycle) can really zoom because of their high-end horsepower. I really like the Aurora because it is a nice compromise between low-end torque and decent hp.

    Also, I never meant to say or imply that the new Aurora was better or anything, so I hope no one is grumbling and taking offense. The Classic certainly seems to make more torque down low, but obviously the current one must make up for it, as they have similar acceleration times (the Autobahn times you cite are either slower or as fast as the current 4.0) Perhaps the current one makes it up on the upper end (although the HP rating would suggest otherwise).

    Good conversation!

    Hey, anyone think that Olds will do a high-perf model for the Aurora's last year in 2003 (for the 4.0. The 3.5 is ending with the 2002 model year.)? They didn't for the Intrigue (who's last year is this year with the 2002 model). It would be neat, but then I'd be pissed I didn't wait a year to buy one... :)
Sign In or Register to comment.