I went to Autozone too see if they had any ventshades for my car(the plastic things that go above the window). They said no one probably makes them because they had 3 companies that supply Autozone with them and none of them had any. I started to think maybe another car's would fit but then I started to visualize ventshades on my car and realized they could never work on a aurora. They cant go on the top of the windows because their is no frame for the window. which means that when you open the door they would stay on the car, which means when you opened the door with the window rolled up it wouldn't open cause it would catch. how disapointing...
The ground cable you have to replace with the shorter battery is about 10 inches longer or so. The Interstate dry-cell I used in both my Aurora's is like the Optima. I have had good luck with them. You don't have to worry about venting them or spilling battery water on your floor board. I have had the dry-cell battery in my '95 for 2 and one-half years, and it has been a good battery.
800wattAurora - hang in there. The car will be ready when you are. I know how you feel. Hey, thanks for the partial exhaust idea. I think I might just get the Corsa mufflers and have them installed. The mufflers should be good for at least 1/2 of the total system gain too. If I really like the system, I'll make the road trip again and have Corsa custom finish the job. I think they will still do it. I'll let you know what I find out.
The Corsa system really was not loud at cruise. I think anything under 65 is pretty much silent. 70 to 75 had just a slight note in the car. It sounded great when you hammered it. It was the lack of a totally silent highway cruise at 75 that got me wondering, so I passed at the last minute. I wasn't loud at all, but I just didn't know what to think.
Funny thing - I remember putting baseball cards in the bike spokes with a clothes-pin for that "cool" exhaust sound. Some things never change!!!
800 - I totally agree with your car care. My goal is not only to maintain good service for 100k to 200k, but to maintain as much as the factory spec performance throughout that range. Doing what you did will help achieve that. I strongly believe that regular oil changes with Mobile 1 will clinch it. Go 5000 miles on it if you want as well. I know a guy with a Probe with way over 100k and the compression test showed it to be still pretty close to spec. Engines are built so much better and the oil and filters are so much better than 20+ years ago.
800wattAurora - perhaps fabricating the shield so that it wraps around the intake tube will give it some support - or attach it to the RSM intake tube somehow.
Also - maybe you could bend the sheet metal at a right angle and screw the angled end to the metal that's under the air box. You would only have to drill a small pilot hole and perhaps use a self tapping screw. The hole would be just a small screw hole and could be filled with any kind of metal/body filler if you wanted.
Again - I would fabricate it so that there is evidence of it pushing up into the hood insulator a little to make sure it seals at the top.
If I do get a total Corsa system, I may go back to the dyno one more time just for the fun of it. While I'm there, I may just test the "redone" MAF. I agree - it's bottom on the priority list and may just stay in the box. It will be set back to factory A/F ratios and will have a possible advantage of just having the screen removed. Assuming the A/F is correct, it might add a little power. I'm not expecting much at all though, and it still could reduce power too.
I notice that the Edmunds G35 review states 0 to 60 in 6.1. Wow. That's about 1.3 to 1.5 seconds faster than a 4.0 Aurora with a 3.71 transaxle (from what's been listed in C&D). The 1/4 mile was 14.7 I think. That's about 1.0 or 1.1 faster than than the same Aurora.
Question - since the Aurora gains back a sizable chunk of this time difference between the 0 to 60 run and the 1/4 mile, then does this mean the Aurora is quicker from a speed of perhaps 40, 50, or 60 mph?? Would the Aurora have more passing power and merging power?? I think these numbers suggest that it would. The G35 seems to stop pulling as hard after it's initial blast to 60.
I think all the acceleration is in the initial burst - 0 to 50 or 60 for the G35. Perhaps it's another case of all gear and no guts. The laughable mileage on the relatively light G35 would suggest this is true as well.
But hey - all the car mags are impressed. Never mind the passing power or reasonable economy from a mid-size car.
I wish listed performance of cars would regularly include the 30 to 50 and 60 to 80 or whatever data that is only sometimes documented. It would give the true overall performance picture other than just 0 to X - as if all driving situations begin from a dead stop.
-Hard to start sometimes. Rolls over fine but just doesnt start up right away. Somestimes smells like gas."
Those are the exact symptoms of my former (as of this morning) Aurora. The FPR was leaking gas into the intake manifold via the vacuum hose, so it took a long time to start, created a lot of black smoke and smelled like gas after a hot start. It started better after an overnight becuase the gas that leaked evaporated. I didn't have the other driveability problems you mentioned.
To check to see if yours failed like mine did, take the plastic cover off the top of the motor, pull the vacuum hose off the FPR after the car has recently run, and see if there is gas in it. If there is, the FPR is bad.
"I notice that the Edmunds G35 review states 0 to 60 in 6.1. Wow. That's about 1.3 to 1.5 seconds faster than a 4.0 Aurora with a 3.71 transaxle (from what's been listed in C&D). The 1/4 mile was 14.7 I think. That's about 1.0 or 1.1 faster than than the same Aurora.
Question - since the Aurora gains back a sizable chunk of this time difference between the 0 to 60 run and the 1/4 mile, then does this mean the Aurora is quicker from a speed of perhaps 40, 50, or 60 mph?? Would the Aurora have more passing power and merging power?? I think these numbers suggest that it would. The G35 seems to stop pulling as hard after it's initial blast to 60. "
Keep in mind that a 0-60 run is a measurement to a certain speed, and the quarter mile is a measurement to a distance, so you're comparing apples and oranges when you compare the gap in times between the two cars. They don't necessarily take the same distance to get to 60. The G35 probably gets to 60 in less distance, therefore the gap is bigger. I've driven a G35, and it's considerably faster than an Aurora at any speed. Look at the quarter mile MPH. The G35 is ~8 mph faster, which is a big difference. It's a VERY impressive car for the money. Very nice chassis and motor. Nissan obviously saved some money on some of the interior pieces, but I'd rather see the cost savings there than in performance. Infiniti has a real winner on their hands, which has to be a relief given that the new Q45 isn't selling well.
Ewt - good point. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but I did not think the difference was 8 mph and the final mph was similar at the end of the 1/4 mile for the numbers I was looking at from C&D. Hence my idea that it was apples to apples. I should have included that in my original posting. I'll go back and check. Sorry I did not state all the "given" information I was figuring on. If the final speeds are in fact similar, I stand by my assertion because you would literally have the times from 60 to X.
I understand that you can get widely different numbers from different sources, but C&D is the only source I'm aware of that states that they make adjustments to the results based on atmospheric conditions. It makes a difference. Perhaps the data you can find varies so much from source to source that such discussions are difficult at best.
Still, you can sometimes tell a lot even if two cars have different final speeds or times in the 1/4 mile. For example, if the 1/4 times were similar but one had a significantly quicker run to 60, you know that one car is stronger in the beginning and the other at the end. There is of course an infinite number acceleration scenarios depending on the gearing and the power characteristics of the engine.
I still have my doubts as to the G35 being much quicker if at all in the passing department. It's mileage is so bad for a car that light that I strongly suspect that it is geared for the 0 to X competition and higher end acceleration would suffer a bit.
I hear what you are saying. The times of the G35 and the Altima seem a bit too quick for their horsepower. I suspect they are geared pretty low. The Altima 3.5 has pretty crummy EPA mileage ratings as well. However, lower gearing probably wouldn't cause worse passing power. The extra gearing would mean the engine would be turning a lot faster while cruising at 60 mph or so, and would therefore be closer to it's powerband. With both cars at the same speed in any given gear, the G35 would be turning at a higher rpm, and would therefore be in more of its powerband.
I had a friend with a 1987 Monte Carlo SS that had the TH200R-4 replaced with a TH350 that had much lower 2nd and 3rd gears (and no 4th). When cruising at about 60mph, the engine was at about 4000 rpms (and the speedo displayed about 95mph). The car had awesome throttle response on the highway, and it pulled away quickly when pushing the throttle. This was because the car was revving so high already. However, it was quite annoying to listen to, and it got absolutely atrocious mileage.
The acceleration numbers of the G35 suggest to me too gearing that was compromised much closer to the acceleration end of the spectrum than the economy end.
800watt - I am still toying with the idea of the Razzi GFX. I emailed razzi and they put me on to a reseller in my area. Went there and got a quote to install and paint the entire kit (w/o rear spoiler - forgot to specify it) for $ 1400 - which I thought wasn't too bad. I've got some other paint work that needs to be done -and I don't think this place is very good at body work - so I'm still asking around. BTW, I asked Razzi about their Aurora they use as a model. It was a one-off project car by Oldsmobile Special Vehicle Divison. They were never able to get an answer from olds as to where the wheels came from - so I have no idea. Also, Oldsmobile had modified the suspension - lowering it about 3/4", so the visual effect isn't entirely from the razzi package.
Corsa - Garnes, you and I are thinking along the same lines. I am seriously considering the Corsa exhaust, but I'm not sure I want to invest in a complete custom install, especially since I'm in Florida would have to get someone other than Corsa to do it. If I get just the mufflers, can anyone install them? Would think so, but I guess that's a question for Corsa.
Garnes and ewt- As a former Infiniti Q owner, I know where ewt's coming from. I've always said my '92 Q was the finest driving car I've ever owned. The Aurora's nice, too, but nowhere near road manners and drivability of the Q. I am glad to see Infiniti comming out with such great cars and I've heard a lot of great things about that new Nissan 3.5L. BUT, I don't understand the comparison between the G35 and the Aurora. Apples and Oranges. As ewt pointed out, the G35 is lacking in interior appointments, but not in power. The Aurora is a balanced mix between the two and I don't believe was ever intended just to be the quickest off the line - or on the track. As for highway passing, I'm sure both cars are more than adequate. Believe me, I've NEVER had any trouble passing anyone in the classic. I'm sure the G35 is much smaller/lighter and more nimble; and, I'm pretty sure most Aurora owners are not going to be slinging their cars around the twisties and racing them at the track down the quarter mile. Anyone wanting to do that would probably own a different car. Just my 2cents.
ewt - I think a really low gear would hurt you at the higher end accelerations at some point. I kind of think the regular Aurora classic with the 3.48 would be stronger when punching it on the highway. But your power band point is interesting.
larryfl- I would consider buying 2 Dynomax mufflers instead of the corsa mufflers. Corsa's mufflers are quite a bit more expensive and Im willing to bet both produce the same hp. If your thinking about getting a complete system then go with corsa but I wouldnt for just the mufflers. Many of the caddy guys are pleased with thiers. www.caddyinfo.com
800watt - I am still toying with the idea of the Razzi GFX. I emailed razzi and they put me on to a reseller in my area. Went there and got a quote to install and paint the entire kit (w/o rear spoiler - forgot to specify it) for $ 1400 - which I thought wasn't too bad. I've got some other paint work that needs to be done -and I don't think this place is very good at body work - so I'm still asking around. BTW, I asked Razzi about their Aurora they use as a model. It was a one-off project car by Oldsmobile Special Vehicle Divison. They were never able to get an answer from olds as to where the wheels came from - so I have no idea. Also, Oldsmobile had modified the suspension - lowering it about 3/4", so the visual effect isn't entirely from the razzi package.
Corsa - Garnes, you and I are thinking along the same lines. I am seriously considering the Corsa exhaust, but I'm not sure I want to invest in a complete custom install, especially since I'm in Florida would have to get someone other than Corsa to do it. If I get just the mufflers, can anyone install them? Would think so, but I guess that's a question for Corsa.
Garnes and ewt- As a former Infiniti Q owner, I know where ewt's coming from. I've always said my '92 Q was the finest driving car I've ever owned. The Aurora's nice, too, but nowhere near road manners and drivability of the Q. I am glad to see Infiniti comming out with such great cars and I've heard a lot of great things about that new Nissan 3.5L. BUT, I don't understand the comparison between the G35 and the Aurora. Apples and Oranges. As ewt pointed out, the G35 is lacking in interior appointments, but not in power. The Aurora is a balanced mix between the two and I don't believe was ever intended just to be the quickest off the line - or on the track. As for highway passing, I'm sure both cars are more than adequate. Believe me, I've NEVER had any trouble passing anyone in the classic. I'm sure the G35 is much smaller/lighter and more nimble; and, I'm pretty sure most Aurora owners are not going to be slinging their cars around the twisties and racing them at the track down the quarter mile. Anyone wanting to do that would probably own a different car. Just my 2cents.
matrixfrog - good point. Actually, I'm not as concerned about the hp as the sound (is that sacreligous?). Being an old f_rt and often taking customers out for the obligatory lunch and/or drinks - I want it to sound good, but not like the old glasspacks we used in the 60's / 70's.
I appreciate the tip. I will check out the Dynomax... I just don't know anything about them.
BTW, why does this thing sometimes post twice?? Pat??
Had the dealer change my plugs and wires when I first got the car when we were trying to find the surge. I noticed that they are 7mm like my old Oldses. I thought all the new cars since HEI came out were 8mm or +? Are these the right size wires I have on there?
pizza442- You go me wondering too so I checked what size plug wires I ordered. I got on Autozone.com to check it out and noticed that there is also a set of AC Delco plug wires along with the Bosch that I purchased. I noticed the AC Delco have a 1 year warrenty where the Bosch have a lifetime warrenty. For some reason though the AC Delco set is $96 and the Bosch set is $69 Why does the AC Delco set cost more? I would think even with the warrenties aside the Bosch would be better in quality but maybe Im wrong? I also noticed the AC Delco plugs weigh more. It did not say what the thickness was though /
>>Garnes and ewt- As a former Infiniti Q owner, I know where ewt's coming from. I've always said my '92 Q was the finest driving car I've ever owned. The Aurora's nice, too, but nowhere near road manners and drivability of the Q. <<
That's why I sold my Aurora. I had a 93 Q45 that was totalled in an accident before buying the Aurora, and I decided to get another Q45 a few months ago. After a lot of looking, I found a nice 95 at a good price, so the Aurora is now gone. I liked the 93 better overall, but the 95 has less "issues."
One thing I do miss from the Aurora is the amount of low end grunt it has. Even though it has .5 liters less displacement, it has a lot more power below about 3,000 rpms. It does run out of breath a lot earlier though.
>>Ewt - good point. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but I did not think the difference was 8 mph and the final mph was similar at the end of the 1/4 mile for the numbers I was looking at from C&D. Hence my idea that it was apples to apples. I should have included that in my original posting. I'll go back and check. Sorry I did not state all the "given" information I was figuring on. If the final speeds are in fact similar, I stand by my assertion because you would literally have the times from 60 to X. <<
The quarter mile mph I have for the Classic (Car and Driver April, 1994) the new Aurora (C & D March, 2000) are 88 in both cases. The G35 is 96 (C & D May 2002), so the difference in trap speeds is 8 mph. The Aurora does well in the 30-50 and 50-70 passing tests though. The Classic is a little faster than the G35, and the second generation car is a little slower.
With respect to the gearing issue, the G35 is geared somewhat lower, but faster to any speed C & D tests to. By 120, it's about 7 seconds faster than the Classic, and 10 seconds faster than the second generation car. In anything but passing tests over a short range of speed it seems to be faster, which is consistent with my impressions after driving one. It felt quite a bit quicker than my 96.
I've talked to Jim Browning Jr. over at Corsa several times regarding their system/mufflers on the Classic's. It can be done anywhere, by any professional custom exhaust shop. There's 2 options for install on the Classic's.
1. Buy their kit for the caddy $999 (which is cat-back) and have it modified to fit. If you go to Corsa (outside of Cleveland) for the fitting, they said $200 for customizing fit. Or buy the kit and have somebody else make it fit. Jim said that he has done this for his neigbor's Classic with no problems. He told me that the difference in fit is: the long straight pipe needs to be shortened and the rest is just angling the mufflers and tips differently/correctly.
2. Buy their 3 muffler set for $450 or mufflers and tips for $600. The tips are attached to the Y-pipe that connects to the mufflers. Jim said that the Angle is somewhat adjustable. Then take your mufflers to your local HotRod shop and have them bend you the rest. I was qouted around $300 for a custom bent exhaust, cat-back with my supplied Corsa 3-piece mufflers and tips.
The Corsa mufflers are 2 1/2 in/out. I believe stock is 2 1/8 on Classic's. I don't know much on how you can convert a 2 1/8 pipe to take a 2 1/2 muffler. I beleive that If you want to use Corsa mufflers, you need to up-grade pipe diameter too.
So wheither it's Corsa's mandrell bent 2 1/2 pipe or your local exhaust experts mandrell bent 2 1/2 pipe, the finished exhaust system in basicly the same. So the gains in performance should be the same.
Personally, I'm planning on getting Corsa's mufflers and tips, and having someone locally make the rest. I haven't decided who will do it yet, I'm still in the interviewing process. Probably go with E&R Racing in Lombard, IL. They are a full service HotRod shop, you dream it, they build it. Find a shop that has a good reputation for quality, and works with American V8's new/old. Don't take it to an import tuner shop that usally only bends one pipe down the middle all day.
Still second thoughts about loudness though, BUT there's only one way to find out. I think I can stand a slight note at crusing speeds above 70mph, even though my daily comute is usally above 70. I relize that I won't hear it anyway. I won't have to turn up the stereo one notch either to compensate because I'm usally ROCKING OUT anyway. But, what will the cops think? What will they hear first, my 800watt system or my exhaust? The Corsa is quite at cruise, but with my lead foot, it will be loud all the time.
Dynomax-I thought of using their mufflers and up-grade piping from Y-back, like others from caddyinfo. But no one has any sound clips. I imagine the Dynomax sound being the same tone, just getting louder as RPM's increase. I like the fact they Corsa advertises their RSC mufflers with NO interior noise at cruising speeds, loud when you want it to be. Also the Corsa mufflers are all straight thru design, you can see right throught the mufflers. The Dynomax Turbo flow's are a chamber muffler, meaning not staight thru and more restrictive. Corsa's third muffler is a extra resonator, to make their tuned sound and muffle the sound more since there's less restriction and muffling action w/straight thru designs. Dynomax is a division of Walker. Walker makes most stock GM exhaust systems and owns 3 other companies that sell non-oem replacement bolt-on exhaust. Basicly same design on all, different logo on it. Corsa's Caddy set-up is specifically designed for Northstars. It creates enough amount of back-pressure for a rasp-free down shift. I don't think Corsa Performance would sel'sl bad products. They are expensive and mostly deal with higher line cars. They also put their exhaust systems on many PaceCars over the last couple of years, including the Caddy STS Pace cars.
I think the Razzi ground effects look really nice on Auroras. I saw one the other day with half the kit on. It was a baige colored classic, like the first three pics on razzi's site. But this Aurora only had the two side rocker panels on. At first I thought what? Only 1/2 the kit, but 1 second later I thought it looked pretty freecking, even with only the sides on. Makes me think about getting everything but the front piece. I like the 2-tone look on my White 96. The Picts of white Aurora's with matching air dam look funny to me. Note the dark line where the kit meets the body, only on front and back.
(take out the spacing in zinc ster, cant post characters 115 units long)
I think that line is part shadow and the tape showing from the GFX piece meeting the body. Looking for this line on Razzi's pictures and it's not there.(Better paint job) But I did notice that they added a piece of body/side molding on the crack, where the two pieces meet. The molding is only on the silver Aurora on picts 4&5, not on baige Aurora 1,2,3. Compare picts 3&5 for it.
(take out the spacing in olds mobile, cant post characters 115 units long)
Kinda of interesting. I usally don't like how GFX look where they meet the body, hard body line. Don't get me wrong, I like how some Groundeffects look, just not where they meet the body. I thought about adding a piece of molding to the crack before, to fix this problem.
Looking Hard at the Silver Aurora, looks good with the molding. Opens up possablities to mine.
Emailed Razzi, and they faxed me the instructions for thier kit, and sent me two high res. picts of a Dark blue Aurora with a taller spoiler. Haven't seen these picts before, Anybody want them, ask.
LarryFL- Good info from Razzi, "BTW, I asked Razzi about their Aurora they use as a model. It was a one-off project car by Oldsmobile Special Vehicle Divison. They were never able to get an answer from olds as to where the wheels came from - so I have no idea. Also, Oldsmobile had modified the suspension - lowering it about 3/4", so the visual effect isn't entirely from the razzi package." Interesting, didn't know that one. I'm also toying with wiether to get the Razzi kit. Go with your instincts about picking a body shop, try to find one that guarenties their work. Ask them what happens if you think the paint dosen't match exactlly? Re-Paint for free? How many Coats of paint/clear do they put on?
Everything should be perfect looking on this luxury-sport sedan IMO.
What Spoiler do you like?
It looks like the Spoiler on the silver, pict5 looks sligtly taller than pict3, looks little better, but I still don't care for it. The spoiler on the high res. picts is same style, even taller.
Personally, I like and want the kit, but I don't know if around $$2-GRAND$$ is worth it. I can justify two grand on performance mods, but for looks only? Hum. But, than again my stereo system cost almost double that. I justfy that purchase to myself by, that investment plays very loud high quality music, not looks really cool. Also my system can and will go into my next car.
Ewt - thanks for the great info! I checked and you are right about the final speed of the Aurora classic at the 1/4 - Blk97 posted that C&D had it listed at 89 for the 3.71 autobahn. 88/89 whatever. Not sure why I thought it was in the 90's. However, if the classic autobahn has the edge in 30 to 50, and 50 to 70 as you say, then it has to have the edge from 30 to 70 - right?? 80+ might not be a bad showing either. Am I missing something?? 30 to 70 is a HUGE range of the any driving experience, and you really can't say the G35 is faster than an autobahn classic from any speed. Sounds like it would leave the Aurora in the dust off the line and in an insane high speed chase. By the way, what are the total times to 120?? For differences of 7 or 10 seconds, that must take awhile. I don't know, past 100 really doesn't do anything for me. I'm not going to be tearing up to 120. Just don't.
From what you are saying, you could just as easily make a case that the Aurora performance excels for many driving situations. I usually hammer my 98 autobahn for a grin from a roll of 30 to 50 mph. However 0 to X is the most common measure of performance. That G35 is so darn fast out of the hole that it's going to be quicker to any speed I guess. But from a roll - it gets interesting as the G35's initial cannon shot is not there.
I have to admit that G35 is good looking and a great performer for the $$. If it has a nice luxury touch, it's one of the best buys for the money. Imagine if Toyota/Lexus designed something other than a slab sided yawn on four wheels and got edgy like Nissan/Infinity....
800WattAurora - Thank you big time for the Corsa update!!! It sounds like you can basically order the Caddy system and not make the trip.
I remember talking to Jim and he said he needed to get his neighbor's Aurora in the shop to measure it up. Sounds like he ended up putting a system on it and found out a bit more on how it fits. I am really warmed up to the idea of doing this again and it's all you fault 800.
By the way - the stock Aurora exhaust has a resonator in the middle too.
Larryfl & 800 - I know I've mentioned it a lot, but I rode in that white STS on Corsa's site when I visited. It was not loud at 70 or 75. Just a little note. You could easily carry a normal conversation and it was not bad. It sounded good really. Cruising around town was pretty much quiet once up to speed and regular accelerations were not obnoxious or anything.
The only reason I backed out was that it was not vault quiet at 70 to 75. That's an unrealistic expectation - stupid really. It may be very close though in the 60's.
with the modified induction, a K&N, and the exhaust, you should be over 270 HP and perhaps 280 torque - and maybe even flatter curves.
Garnes-You and me seem to be, "eye-to-eye" or "on the same wave-length" on many things regarding cars, maintence, and performance. Since it seems like your the only one with any Dyno experience, can you answer my second response to dyno'ing with the hood open, it's message #2840.
Heatshield idea's are growing. I like the hood liner indentation marks, that i'll definatly shoot for. Fitting something around the actual induction pipe is going to be difficult though, I think. I Probally won't get to Dyno with this shield in place. I won't have it made before hand. I don't want to put the RSM kit on just to make this shield, than put stock back to test against, than put the RSM back on. I won't have a good way to supply the engine with ouside air, since I won't have my "ram-air" and heatshield in place. Not that they will help much since the car is sitting still on a Dyno anyways. These just makes me want to Dyno with the hood open even more, just to show what happens with max. air flow available to both while sitting still.
Back to construction of this shield, It Has two be at least two pieces, to fit around the round pipe, the bigger main bottom piece with a cut-out for the bottom of induction tube, second piece to fit over top of induction tube. Going to be tough to cut 2 perfect half circles in sheetmetal though. How to make them attach non-permently too? Probably won't seal either, just sit close. Slice some rubber tubing to slide over all the cut edges of the sheetmetal, recomeded by Jadcock on his Caddy mod Site http://jadcock.oldsgmail.com/cadsls/filter.html. Jadcocks shield has a cut-out around the induction that sits pretty close to the induct tube, even with square cuts. Not bad on the cut-out around the intake, just that the left side sits too close to the filter,UNLESS. Thinking about runnig the "ram-air" hosing into that part of the left side of the shield, this on Jadcocks could be very benifical, breathing in ouside air through an opening for the hose, right were the shield looks too close to the filter, http://jadcock.oldsgmail.com/cadsls/images/intake3.jpg If I seal the "ram-air" hose to the heatshield wall, it still shouldn't suck any water right? Since this isn't really "ram-air", there's no vacum, it's just allowing outside air to draft into the filter area. With the hose staring low, by the air dam, running up-word should make any water drain down&out,right?
Some of us car geeks love the Aurora. The body is to die for and now we just want the handling and acceleration that the body screams it has. This summer I'll be running mine in a 1/4 mile bracketed track runs to see how she does. I'll keep you all posted on the numbers.
frog- sorry but I have yet to come up with a web site for Schucks autosupply on the pressure regulator.
I just got back from a long trip (2100 miles there and back). I did not reset the average MPG before leaving and it was an average over 270 gallons. On departure the MPG was around 20.5. Had a strong tailwind (dirt blowing in Minnesota), so average MPG was well over 30 (like 32-34). Anyway the average on the trip computer seemed to increase about 0.5 MPG per gallon of fuel used (fuel used computer). This continued until the average was around 27-28 and then seemed to slow a bit. By the time I got where I was going the average was 29.5 and I had used about 30 gallons. Then I was doing local type driving and MPG dropped a bit - below 29 by the time I left to come home. On trip home the wind was more or less calm or light. When I got home the average had dropped to 27.7 but the fuel used indicates that MPG was just over 27.
So what does this mean? I think that the effective average is on about 30 gallons of gas, but I also think that there is some weighting of newest gallons vs oldest gallons. Probably the oldest gallons are weighted less and there are more of them - so actual average may be a weighted average over 50 gallons. The last 25 gallons count less then the first 25.
The average does seem to get close after a couple of tanks of gas (25 or so gallons). But to get a good trip average one needs to reset the average just as you start out.
>>Ewt - thanks for the great info! I checked and you are right about the final speed of the Aurora classic at the 1/4 - Blk97 posted that C&D had it listed at 89 for the 3.71 autobahn. 88/89 whatever. Not sure why I thought it was in the 90's. However, if the classic autobahn has the edge in 30 to 50, and 50 to 70 as you say, then it has to have the edge from 30 to 70 - right?? 80+ might not be a bad showing either. Am I missing something?? 30 to 70 is a HUGE range of the any driving experience, and you really can't say the G35 is faster than an autobahn classic from any speed. Sounds like it would leave the Aurora in the dust off the line and in an insane high speed chase.<<
I think the reason the Aurora is so quick on the 20 mph passing tests is that the transmission downshifts aggressively (very quickly and into a lower gear even at high rpms), and it drops you right into the meaty part of the torque curve. However, in in looking at the times, I'm actually very suspicious that the 50-70 time of 3.2 is a typo because it's faster than the difference between the 0-70 time of 9.4 less the 0-50 time of 5.5. I don't think that is possible since there is lag from the time to punch it at 50, and lag while the transmission downshifts before you start accelerating, so that time can't be faster than continuous acceleration over the same range of speeds. The G35 has a 50-70 time of 4.2 and a difference between the 0-70 and 0-50 times of (8.1-4.7) = 3.4 seconds. Therefore, I'd guess the real 50-70 time for the Classic is quite a bit slower than 3.2 seconds.
>> By the way, what are the total times to 120?? For differences of 7 or 10 seconds, that must take awhile. I don't know, past 100 really doesn't do anything for me. I'm not going to be tearing up to 120. Just don't.<<
G35: 25.3 Aurora Classic: 32.8 New Aurora: 35.8
I don't spend a lot of time at 120 either outside of the racetrack, but I just included it to show that the G35 isn't gearing limited in acceleration at higher speeds like some other people suggested.
Ever wonder how the classic compares in handling with a Ferrari? I mean, the Aurora most definitely has it hands down in the comfort, family hauling category. But I think the F50 might have an edge in acceleration.
I would be willing to do real world test if anyone would care to lend me their Ferrari. I would even pay the track time.
When was that test of the classic Aurora? I'm a little bit surprised that the new Aurora isn't faster. Olds expected the new Aurora to be about .5 seconds faster in the 1/4 (and I'm sure they did some comparisons). However, according to C&D's tests it wasn't. I wonder if the classic C&D tested was a prototype rather than a production model. Most other car magazines had the classic doing the 0-60 in about 8 seconds, not the 7.6 that C&D claimed. I wonder if C&D got a prototype that had a little extra juice.
Garnes, I know you think the classic has more power, but I do wonder. The new one only dropped .3 points of compression which isn't inconsequential, but also isn't huge. In exchange it got bigger intake valves and a better intake tract. Also, the addition of roller followers, which do make a difference (on small-block Chevy's, a roller cam and roller rockers can free up about 10 hp), and coil-on-plug ignition which can deliver about 30% more voltage. Plus, the car is about 160 lbs lighter (which isn't huge but also isn't inconsequential).
I just wonder if C&D's numbers in this case are the best comparison. Unfortunately nobody seems to care about the Aurora anymore and there aren't too many other magazines that tested it, or at least that tested it extensively.
I think I have decided against buying a GTech like product. It seems like a lot ov money for something that doesn't actually do anything. I mean, the car won't be any faster... I'll just know how fast it is. Some day I'll get the Corsa system... I did get a K&N and put it in. Not really sure if it made a difference, but I'm sure it didn't hurt. Actually, I drive my car pretty gently most of the time. I'm mainly interested in the Corsa because of it's nice sound rather than the performance gains (although that would be nice).
800Watt, I see what you mean about that seam on the white Razzi car. It does look a bit weird. I too like the grey peices on the front and back of the classic Aurora. It works in harmony with the shape. It looks a little weird without it. Actually, I'm not usually a big fan of ground effects kits. I wonder how much of an "improved" look you could achieve by just getting 17-18" wheels and a subtle spoiler... I'm also not usually a fan of spoilers. To me they usually indicate that the designers couldn't get the rear to look right so they covered it up with a spoiler. The classic has a nice rear and I don't really think the spoilers help it. I always though Corvettes with spoilers had been ruined. The Aurora isn't quite as anti-spoiler, but I don't think it needs one to finish the rear.
Just my thoughts and opinions...
Oh, I took a trip to Chicago and got about 24.5 mpg up there and about 24 back. I drove a bit faster back, and there was a lot of winds. Rained both ways... I didn't stop in Berea (to Corsa) as I didn't have time. I did swing by Cleveland for lunch with family, though. It's a nice place as far as big cities go. I wouldn't mind living in the midwest.
Anyone ever read the monthly tech articles on service.gm.com ? I found a piece about the new 2001 Aurora in the May 2000 issue. It's somewhat interesting. More interesting is how the advise that the front license plate cover can be discarded in states that require front plates. Does it occur to people that the owner might appreciate holding on to that? I wonder how deep that type of thinking runs in the auto business... The fact that it was in a service bulletin is a bit disturbing.
I also didn't know the trunk was different on 4.0 and 3.5 models. I'll have to watch for that (if I ever happen to see another 2001+ Aurora... )
As I understand it, the first generation engine had 90% of peak torque from 1700 RPM's to 5600, while the second generation is 90% from 2300 to 5600. This was in one of the car magazines (perhaps Car&Driver).
Garnes and 800watt: Thanks for your input. I confess, I'm leaning towards the dynomax now due to $$ (a large $1.5M sale might not happen like I'd hoped :-/ ).
Also rethinking the Ground effects. rjs200240 makes a good point. If I'm going to spend something north of $1400, why not wheels/tires. At least I can move them to my next classic!!
Also considering replacing the new Monroe Sensa-Tracs w/ KYBs in the front. The Monroe's still aren't stiff enough.
Funny how a kid starting college next fall (the only one he wants to attend is private, out-of-state)and the potential loss of "the big sale" can re-prioritize your thinking on $$s spent on mods...
ewt - Hmmmm - a typo huh. Actually I understand what you are saying. Perhaps. But wait. You said that the data on the new Aurora was a LITTLE slower for 50 to 70 - was that a typo too?? Shouldn't it be a lot slower 50 to 70 than the G35 as it's acceleration is very similar to the Classic Autobahn?? Maybe it's a typo, but a lot closer than you think. Give us the new Aurora numbers too.
rjs - I know we've exchanged different ideas on this before, but C&D supposedly measured the classic autobahn at 7.4 to 60 and the new Aurora at 7.6. I don't have that old C&D, but that's what has been related here before. I kind of like the C&D numbers only because they are the only ones that seem to address a standard atmospheric condition for the tests.
In addition, as fjk points out, the torque curves are significantly different. I've got the new Aurora brochure with (an admittedly crummy)little HP and torque curve. The Classic brochure has large easy to read curves. But the differences are large and easy to see with just a quick comparison between the curves. I believe there are differences of over 15 lb-ft of torque over a lot of the curves. The new Aurora's torque curve is basically flat from 2000 to over 3500 if I remember right, while the classic is practically near peak torque at 3500 - and climbs nicely from 2000 to 3500. There is still a good difference at 4000 rpm. I really think that makes a difference. There is a similar disparity with the HP curves, but it's not that big.
Maybe I'll just blow the small curve up and plot both against each other.
Peak numbers are 1/2 the story. But everybody seems to care only about peak numbers. How much power is available throughout the power band is the other - for acceleration at least.
Don't forget some of those acceleration numbers you cite for the classic might be for the 3.48 standard classic Aurora. The Autobahn 3.71 was only an option and I'd guess is on a small minority of the cars. I'd expect a 3.48 to get to 60 in 7.7 to 8.0. Just a guess.
I've heard on the gear head TV stuff that 100 lbs is worth about .1 seconds in the 1/4. Just a rough rule of thumb. It's probably less than that when discussing weight loss on a 2 ton car. So, I wouldn't expect the 160 lbs to make that much difference to only 60 mph and I would not expect it to offset the large torque difference.
rjs - I really did not notice anything from the filter by itself either. It mostly helps a lot over 5000 rpm. But with the air box opened up and the filter added, I can definitely tell the difference. I've switched back to all stock with paper a couple of times and can really tell. It's most noticeable when punching it on a roll. The dyno basically shows that the opened up box doubles the benefit of the K&N in the 4000's and adds tons of power from 4650 to 4800 or 4900 (something like that if I remember right).
Hey, maybe with my intake mods, I can keep up with that G35 from that dang blasted 50 to 70 - typo or not! :-> There sure does seem to be a little more passing power. More response.
For those who asked: She's gone as a trade-in. My '02 Sonata GLS V6 is a very nice car for the money. The 100k bumper-to-bumper warranty can't be beat either. The technician at the dealer said the day after the deal that I really took them for the $6500 trade-in on the Aurora with all the problems they found (still, if she were only a good girl...)
Wish me luck in my little piece of Korean Heaven. Take care, guys.
I've been reading the back-posts in this forum for a couple weeks now. Only up to about 500 though! I admit..I cheated a little and skipped ahead. There's a lot of great info here, and I'd like to add something that might help a couple of users. When I picked up my 1998 last sept., the dealer had detailed the car, including armorall'ing the top of the dash. Bought the car in Connecticut and I live in NY, so I was travelling west in the afternoon. I could barely make out the road because of the shiny dash reflection in the glass. Reading the manual later, I noticed Oldsmobile recommends you DO NOT use anything like Armorall on the top of the dash. BTW, you can remove Armorall with a strong solution of ammonia and water. Armorall is mostly silicon and it's not good for plastic over time. I think soap and water on a soft cloth is all you really need. My 2cents.
>>ewt - Hmmmm - a typo huh. Actually I understand what you are saying. Perhaps. But wait. You said that the data on the new Aurora was a LITTLE slower for 50 to 70 - was that a typo too?? Shouldn't it be a lot slower 50 to 70 than the G35 as it's acceleration is very similar to the Classic Autobahn?? Maybe it's a typo, but a lot closer than you think. Give us the new Aurora numbers too.<<
Everybody but us is probably tired of seeing this beat into the ground,:) but what I'm saying is that the time for the 50-70 passing test (3.2) is less than the amount of time the car took to go from 50-70 (3.9) in continuous acceleration (as measured between the difference between the 0-50 time of 5.5 and the 0-70 time of 9.4). That doesn't make sense since the 50-70 passing test requires pushing the accelerator and a downshift before acceleration starts, where the continuous acceleration test consists of a run from 0-130, with intermediate times (like 50 mph and 70 mph) recorded along the way by the timing equipment. Since the car is accelerating constantly, there is no lag for downshifts etc. between 50 and 70. I don't think it's possible for the 50-70 passing time to be quicker.
The 50-70 passing time on the new Aurora seems plausible. It is 4.5 compared to a time of 3.9 on the 0-70 (9.6) less 0-50 (5.7) times. Based on the difference between the new Aurora's 0-70 and 0-50 times, I'd guess the actual 50-70 passing time for a Classic is also about 4.5. The C & D test of the Classic I'm using is in the April 94 issue, and it is an autobahn based on the 3.71:1 final ratio. The G35 has a passing time of 4.2 and a difference of 3.4 (8.1 - 4.7). I meant to take my non-autobahn Classic to the drag strip to see how it actually did, but I never made it.
>>C&D supposedly measured the classic autobahn at 7.4 to 60 and the new Aurora at 7.6.<<
Those are the correct numbers. The new Aurora test is in the 3/2000 issue.
>>Peak numbers are 1/2 the story. But everybody seems to care only about peak numbers. How much power is available throughout the power band is the other - for acceleration at least.<<
That is a very good point, and why cars that have a HP curve that climbs at a 45 degree angle and make peak power for about 100 rpms like a VTEC Honda aren't as fast as you'd think by looking at the rated HP.
>>The technician at the dealer said the day after the deal that I really took them for the $6500 trade-in on the Aurora with all the problems they found (still, if she were only a good girl...)<<
Wow that is a good price. That's more than I was able to get on a private party sale for my 96. I had it advertised for 2 weeks before I even got a call. American luxury cars are not that popular here though (Northern CA).
Just don't replace your Aurora web site with a Sonata one... We all still check it out a lot.
Garnes, if you have those dyno charts, I'd like to see them. I have a 2002 brochure, but I don't think I ever noticed a dyno chart in it. The idea that the classic makes 90% of it's peak torque from 1700-whatever and the new makes 90% from 2300-whatever doesn't really indicate much about the low-end torque. For all we know the new car makes 89% from 1700-2300... That isn't really a specific enough statement to deduce much from.
Does anyone have any numbers on the Seville? Was it slower in 2000 than in 1998-99? It had the same engine changes between 99 and 2000. I just would be surprised if they would revamp the engine and end up with a slower car. The Olds engineers predicted a faster Aurora, and I imagine they did some benchmarking. I doubt in the probably two+ years it took to develop the car they never bothered to test it against the old one.
Car and Driver's test had by far the fastest numbers of any other magazine. I doubt it's because most other magazines tested the non-autobahn car. I bet Olds supplied autobahns to most car mags as it was a cheap and common option. If the C&D test appeared in April 1994, then that means they probably actually drove the car in about January (the April issue was probably delivered in early March) or even late 1993. I don't know when the first Auroras rolled off the assembly line, but I bet it was probably April or May of 1994 (they didn't go on sale until May 1994)... The C&D article smacks of "pre-production prototype"... If it's a pre-production then the car was probably hand-made and the engine is probably a ringer with more power than a production model will have.
Ewt, that's what I was wondering if you could read in the article. Do they mention if it's a production model or a pre-production? I really think it has to be pre-production.
On Autosite.com you can find performance times from a bunch of magazines. One of these days I'll haul my old mags out of the attic and flip endlessly through them. However, until then (or until someone else does) this will have to do: Magazine-----------Date--------0-60---1/4 mile
Road & Track-------July 1994---8.6----16.5 Motor Trend--------Sept 1994---8.2----16.3 Popular Mechanics--June 1997---8.3----16.0
Again, I doubt these were all non-autobahn cars... Also, I'm not trying to diss the classic. I just think the C&D times aren't realistic.
On my 95 classic, the pump runs for about 3 to 7 minutes when I turn off the car. Does anyone else does this? This started after I installed new shocks on rear. The air line is connected to both shocks.
gisom - what kind of shock did you install in the rear? my '95 is in desparate need of new rear shocks. right now my air pump does run for about 2 minutes when i shut the car off, but i know it's because the shocks are really old and leaking air.
as for brand new shocks, if they are the AC-Delco ones, it could be that the control link for the unit that turns the air pump on needs adjusting.it's basically and on-off switch that kicks on when the car "sinks" to a certain level.
it also might help if you keep the contents of your trunk to a minimum. just my thoughts...let us know what you figure out.
Hello all. I'm considering a 1995 Olds Aurora. It's a little older than I want, but it only has 50,000 miles on it. Can anyone tell me problems I might expect on the first generation Aurora in general and specifically on a 1995? Is this a good purchase, or should I buy a newer one, or something different altogether? Also, what is the interior noise level like in the Aurora (wind, road, and engine). Thanks for you advice.
what is the danger of not using the correct battery. is it the battery acid fumes that would not be vented out of the inside of the car. also has anyone used any other brands than the factory replacement. i have found out that not too many companies make the style of battery the aurora needs.
Has anyone found a permanent fix to engine light problem? The dealer told me my car needs a new O2 sensor, to have my fuel injection system cleaned, and to have the sensor on my EGR valve replaced. This isn't too cheap but not too expensive. I am wondering, though, whether this will do the trick. Even if it increases performance, will it keep that dreaded light from coming on again and again and again.....
I read your post RE last night and I feel your pain! Some policemen seem to have nothing better to do than to hassle young people. When in my late teens and 20s, I had so many run-ins with them I lost count. I'll email you tonight with some ideas of what to do learned from experiences in my more "formative" younger years.
BUT, the VERY FIRST THING THING TO DO, RIGHT NOW, is to sit down and write down EVERYTHING that you can remember. Every little detail about your actions, the policeman's, your girlfriend, etc. and especially everything you (and they) said while it's fresh in your memory. Leave the emotions out of it, just the facts / details. I'll follow up tonight via email.
Larry
P.S. Pat: Sorry to stray off topic.. taking the rest offline.
Comments
They have a Holley adjustable EFI pressure regulator for the Aurora. $233 is what it costs. Is this much more than a OEM Dealership replacemnt?
The ground cable you have to replace with the shorter battery is about 10 inches longer or so. The Interstate dry-cell I used in both my Aurora's is like the Optima. I have had good luck with them. You don't have to worry about venting them or spilling battery water on your floor board. I have had the dry-cell battery in my '95 for 2 and one-half years, and it has been a good battery.
The Corsa system really was not loud at cruise. I think anything under 65 is pretty much silent. 70 to 75 had just a slight note in the car. It sounded great when you hammered it. It was the lack of a totally silent highway cruise at 75 that got me wondering, so I passed at the last minute. I wasn't loud at all, but I just didn't know what to think.
Funny thing - I remember putting baseball cards in the bike spokes with a clothes-pin for that "cool" exhaust sound. Some things never change!!!
800 - I totally agree with your car care. My goal is not only to maintain good service for 100k to 200k, but to maintain as much as the factory spec performance throughout that range. Doing what you did will help achieve that. I strongly believe that regular oil changes with Mobile 1 will clinch it. Go 5000 miles on it if you want as well. I know a guy with a Probe with way over 100k and the compression test showed it to be still pretty close to spec. Engines are built so much better and the oil and filters are so much better than 20+ years ago.
Also - maybe you could bend the sheet metal at a right angle and screw the angled end to the metal that's under the air box. You would only have to drill a small pilot hole and perhaps use a self tapping screw. The hole would be just a small screw hole and could be filled with any kind of metal/body filler if you wanted.
Again - I would fabricate it so that there is evidence of it pushing up into the hood insulator a little to make sure it seals at the top.
If I do get a total Corsa system, I may go back to the dyno one more time just for the fun of it. While I'm there, I may just test the "redone" MAF. I agree - it's bottom on the priority list and may just stay in the box. It will be set back to factory A/F ratios and will have a possible advantage of just having the screen removed. Assuming the A/F is correct, it might add a little power. I'm not expecting much at all though, and it still could reduce power too.
Question - since the Aurora gains back a sizable chunk of this time difference between the 0 to 60 run and the 1/4 mile, then does this mean the Aurora is quicker from a speed of perhaps 40, 50, or 60 mph?? Would the Aurora have more passing power and merging power?? I think these numbers suggest that it would. The G35 seems to stop pulling as hard after it's initial blast to 60.
I think all the acceleration is in the initial burst - 0 to 50 or 60 for the G35. Perhaps it's another case of all gear and no guts. The laughable mileage on the relatively light G35 would suggest this is true as well.
But hey - all the car mags are impressed. Never mind the passing power or reasonable economy from a mid-size car.
I wish listed performance of cars would regularly include the 30 to 50 and 60 to 80 or whatever data that is only sometimes documented. It would give the true overall performance picture other than just 0 to X - as if all driving situations begin from a dead stop.
-Hard to start sometimes. Rolls over fine but just doesnt start up right away. Somestimes smells like gas."
Those are the exact symptoms of my former (as of this morning) Aurora. The FPR was leaking gas into the intake manifold via the vacuum hose, so it took a long time to start, created a lot of black smoke and smelled like gas after a hot start. It started better after an overnight becuase the gas that leaked evaporated. I didn't have the other driveability problems you mentioned.
To check to see if yours failed like mine did, take the plastic cover off the top of the motor, pull the vacuum hose off the FPR after the car has recently run, and see if there is gas in it. If there is, the FPR is bad.
Eric
Question - since the Aurora gains back a sizable chunk of this time difference between the 0 to 60 run and the 1/4 mile, then does this mean the Aurora is quicker from a speed of perhaps 40, 50, or 60 mph?? Would the Aurora have more passing power and merging power?? I think these numbers suggest that it would. The G35 seems to stop pulling as hard after it's initial blast to 60. "
Keep in mind that a 0-60 run is a measurement to a certain speed, and the quarter mile is a measurement to a distance, so you're comparing apples and oranges when you compare the gap in times between the two cars. They don't necessarily take the same distance to get to 60. The G35 probably gets to 60 in less distance, therefore the gap is bigger. I've driven a G35, and it's considerably faster than an Aurora at any speed. Look at the quarter mile MPH. The G35 is ~8 mph faster, which is a big difference. It's a VERY impressive car for the money. Very nice chassis and motor. Nissan obviously saved some money on some of the interior pieces, but I'd rather see the cost savings there than in performance. Infiniti has a real winner on their hands, which has to be a relief given that the new Q45 isn't selling well.
Eric
I understand that you can get widely different numbers from different sources, but C&D is the only source I'm aware of that states that they make adjustments to the results based on atmospheric conditions. It makes a difference. Perhaps the data you can find varies so much from source to source that such discussions are difficult at best.
Still, you can sometimes tell a lot even if two cars have different final speeds or times in the 1/4 mile. For example, if the 1/4 times were similar but one had a significantly quicker run to 60, you know that one car is stronger in the beginning and the other at the end. There is of course an infinite number acceleration scenarios depending on the gearing and the power characteristics of the engine.
I still have my doubts as to the G35 being much quicker if at all in the passing department. It's mileage is so bad for a car that light that I strongly suspect that it is geared for the 0 to X competition and higher end acceleration would suffer a bit.
I had a friend with a 1987 Monte Carlo SS that had the TH200R-4 replaced with a TH350 that had much lower 2nd and 3rd gears (and no 4th). When cruising at about 60mph, the engine was at about 4000 rpms (and the speedo displayed about 95mph). The car had awesome throttle response on the highway, and it pulled away quickly when pushing the throttle. This was because the car was revving so high already. However, it was quite annoying to listen to, and it got absolutely atrocious mileage.
The acceleration numbers of the G35 suggest to me too gearing that was compromised much closer to the acceleration end of the spectrum than the economy end.
Corsa - Garnes, you and I are thinking along the same lines. I am seriously considering the Corsa exhaust, but I'm not sure I want to invest in a complete custom install, especially since I'm in Florida would have to get someone other than Corsa to do it. If I get just the mufflers, can anyone install them? Would think so, but I guess that's a question for Corsa.
Garnes and ewt- As a former Infiniti Q owner, I know where ewt's coming from. I've always said my '92 Q was the finest driving car I've ever owned. The Aurora's nice, too, but nowhere near road manners and drivability of the Q. I am glad to see Infiniti comming out with such great cars and I've heard a lot of great things about that new Nissan 3.5L. BUT, I don't understand the comparison between the G35 and the Aurora. Apples and Oranges. As ewt pointed out, the G35 is lacking in interior appointments, but not in power. The Aurora is a balanced mix between the two and I don't believe was ever intended just to be the quickest off the line - or on the track. As for highway passing, I'm sure both cars are more than adequate. Believe me, I've NEVER had any trouble passing anyone in the classic. I'm sure the G35 is much smaller/lighter and more nimble; and, I'm pretty sure most Aurora owners are not going to be slinging their cars around the twisties and racing them at the track down the quarter mile. Anyone wanting to do that would probably own a different car. Just my 2cents.
Larry
Corsa - Garnes, you and I are thinking along the same lines. I am seriously considering the Corsa exhaust, but I'm not sure I want to invest in a complete custom install, especially since I'm in Florida would have to get someone other than Corsa to do it. If I get just the mufflers, can anyone install them? Would think so, but I guess that's a question for Corsa.
Garnes and ewt- As a former Infiniti Q owner, I know where ewt's coming from. I've always said my '92 Q was the finest driving car I've ever owned. The Aurora's nice, too, but nowhere near road manners and drivability of the Q. I am glad to see Infiniti comming out with such great cars and I've heard a lot of great things about that new Nissan 3.5L. BUT, I don't understand the comparison between the G35 and the Aurora. Apples and Oranges. As ewt pointed out, the G35 is lacking in interior appointments, but not in power. The Aurora is a balanced mix between the two and I don't believe was ever intended just to be the quickest off the line - or on the track. As for highway passing, I'm sure both cars are more than adequate. Believe me, I've NEVER had any trouble passing anyone in the classic. I'm sure the G35 is much smaller/lighter and more nimble; and, I'm pretty sure most Aurora owners are not going to be slinging their cars around the twisties and racing them at the track down the quarter mile. Anyone wanting to do that would probably own a different car. Just my 2cents.
Larry
I appreciate the tip. I will check out the Dynomax... I just don't know anything about them.
BTW, why does this thing sometimes post twice?? Pat??
That's why I sold my Aurora. I had a 93 Q45 that was totalled in an accident before buying the Aurora, and I decided to get another Q45 a few months ago. After a lot of looking, I found a nice 95 at a good price, so the Aurora is now gone. I liked the 93 better overall, but the 95 has less "issues."
One thing I do miss from the Aurora is the amount of low end grunt it has. Even though it has .5 liters less displacement, it has a lot more power below about 3,000 rpms. It does run out of breath a lot earlier though.
Eric
The quarter mile mph I have for the Classic (Car and Driver April, 1994) the new Aurora (C & D March, 2000) are 88 in both cases. The G35 is 96 (C & D May 2002), so the difference in trap speeds is 8 mph. The Aurora does well in the 30-50 and 50-70 passing tests though. The Classic is a little faster than the G35, and the second generation car is a little slower.
With respect to the gearing issue, the G35 is geared somewhat lower, but faster to any speed C & D tests to. By 120, it's about 7 seconds faster than the Classic, and 10 seconds faster than the second generation car. In anything but passing tests over a short range of speed it seems to be faster, which is consistent with my impressions after driving one. It felt quite a bit quicker than my 96.
Eric
1. Buy their kit for the caddy $999 (which is cat-back) and have it modified to fit. If you go to Corsa (outside of Cleveland) for the fitting, they said $200 for customizing fit. Or buy the kit and have somebody else make it fit. Jim said that he has done this for his neigbor's Classic with no problems. He told me that the difference in fit is: the long straight pipe needs to be shortened and the rest is just angling the mufflers and tips differently/correctly.
2. Buy their 3 muffler set for $450 or mufflers and tips for $600. The tips are attached to the Y-pipe that connects to the mufflers. Jim said that the Angle is somewhat adjustable. Then take your mufflers to your local HotRod shop and have them bend you the rest. I was qouted around $300 for a custom bent exhaust, cat-back with my supplied Corsa 3-piece mufflers and tips.
The Corsa mufflers are 2 1/2 in/out. I believe stock is 2 1/8 on Classic's. I don't know much on how you can convert a 2 1/8 pipe to take a 2 1/2 muffler. I beleive that If you want to use Corsa mufflers, you need to up-grade pipe diameter too.
So wheither it's Corsa's mandrell bent 2 1/2 pipe or your local exhaust experts mandrell bent 2 1/2 pipe, the finished exhaust system in basicly the same. So the gains in performance should be the same.
Personally, I'm planning on getting Corsa's mufflers and tips, and having someone locally make the rest. I haven't decided who will do it yet, I'm still in the interviewing process. Probably go with E&R Racing in Lombard, IL. They are a full service HotRod shop, you dream it, they build it. Find a shop that has a good reputation for quality, and works with American V8's new/old. Don't take it to an import tuner shop that usally only bends one pipe down the middle all day.
I just love the "tuned" sound of the Corsa RSC mufflers on a Northstar! http://www.corsaperf.com/flashcadillac.htm
Still second thoughts about loudness though, BUT there's only one way to find out. I think I can stand a slight note at crusing speeds above 70mph, even though my daily comute is usally above 70. I relize that I won't hear it anyway. I won't have to turn up the stereo one notch either to compensate because I'm usally ROCKING OUT anyway. But, what will the cops think? What will they hear first, my 800watt system or my exhaust? The Corsa is quite at cruise, but with my lead foot, it will be loud all the time.
Dynomax-I thought of using their mufflers and up-grade piping from Y-back, like others from caddyinfo. But no one has any sound clips. I imagine the Dynomax sound being the same tone, just getting louder as RPM's increase. I like the fact they Corsa advertises their RSC mufflers with NO interior noise at cruising speeds, loud when you want it to be. Also the Corsa mufflers are all straight thru design, you can see right throught the mufflers. The Dynomax Turbo flow's are a chamber muffler, meaning not staight thru and more restrictive. Corsa's third muffler is a extra resonator, to make their tuned sound and muffle the sound more since there's less restriction and muffling action w/straight thru designs. Dynomax is a division of Walker. Walker makes most stock GM exhaust systems and owns 3 other companies that sell non-oem replacement bolt-on exhaust. Basicly same design on all, different logo on it. Corsa's Caddy set-up is specifically designed for Northstars. It creates enough amount of back-pressure for a rasp-free down shift. I don't think Corsa Performance would sel'sl bad products. They are expensive and mostly deal with higher line cars. They also put their exhaust systems on many PaceCars over the last couple of years, including the Caddy STS Pace cars.
My 2 cents.
800wattAurora
(take out the spacing in zinc ster, cant post characters 115 units long)
http://members.fortunecity.com/zinc ster/images/99whtfx.jpg
http://members.fortunecity.com/zinc ster/images/97whitecustom.jpg
I think that line is part shadow and the tape showing from the GFX piece meeting the body. Looking for this line on Razzi's pictures and it's not there.(Better paint job) But I did notice that they added a piece of body/side molding on the crack, where the two pieces meet. The molding is only on the silver Aurora on picts 4&5, not on baige Aurora 1,2,3. Compare picts 3&5 for it.
(take out the spacing in olds mobile, cant post characters 115 units long)
http://www.razzi.com/vehicles/olds mobile/gfx/large/aurora_9500_4dr_2121_1.jpg
http://www.razzi.com/vehicles/olds mobile/gfx/large/aurora_9500_4dr_2121_2.jpg
http://www.razzi.com/vehicles/olds mobile/gfx/large/aurora_9500_4dr_2121_3.jpg
http://www.razzi.com/vehicles/olds mobile/gfx/large/aurora_9500_4dr_2121_4.jpg
http://www.razzi.com/vehicles/olds mobile/gfx/large/aurora_9500_4dr_2121_5.jpg
Kinda of interesting. I usally don't like how GFX look where they meet the body, hard body line. Don't get me wrong, I like how some Groundeffects look, just not where they meet the body. I thought about adding a piece of molding to the crack before, to fix this problem.
Looking Hard at the Silver Aurora, looks good with the molding. Opens up possablities to mine.
Emailed Razzi, and they faxed me the instructions for thier kit, and sent me two high res. picts of a Dark blue Aurora with a taller spoiler. Haven't seen these picts before, Anybody want them, ask.
LarryFL- Good info from Razzi, "BTW, I asked Razzi about their Aurora they use as a model. It was a one-off project car by Oldsmobile Special Vehicle Divison. They were never able to get an answer from olds as to where the wheels came from - so I have no idea. Also, Oldsmobile had modified the suspension - lowering it about 3/4", so the visual effect isn't entirely from the razzi package." Interesting, didn't know that one. I'm also toying with wiether to get the Razzi kit. Go with your instincts about picking a body shop, try to find one that guarenties their work. Ask them what happens if you think the paint dosen't match exactlly? Re-Paint for free? How many Coats of paint/clear do they put on?
Everything should be perfect looking on this luxury-sport sedan IMO.
What Spoiler do you like?
It looks like the Spoiler on the silver, pict5 looks sligtly taller than pict3, looks little better, but I still don't care for it. The spoiler on the high res. picts is same style, even taller.
Personally, I like and want the kit, but I don't know if around $$2-GRAND$$ is worth it. I can justify two grand on performance mods, but for looks only? Hum. But, than again my stereo system cost almost double that. I justfy that purchase to myself by, that investment plays very loud high quality music, not looks really cool. Also my system can and will go into my next car.
800wattAURORA
From what you are saying, you could just as easily make a case that the Aurora performance excels for many driving situations. I usually hammer my 98 autobahn for a grin from a roll of 30 to 50 mph. However 0 to X is the most common measure of performance. That G35 is so darn fast out of the hole that it's going to be quicker to any speed I guess. But from a roll - it gets interesting as the G35's initial cannon shot is not there.
I have to admit that G35 is good looking and a great performer for the $$. If it has a nice luxury touch, it's one of the best buys for the money. Imagine if Toyota/Lexus designed something other than a slab sided yawn on four wheels and got edgy like Nissan/Infinity....
I remember talking to Jim and he said he needed to get his neighbor's Aurora in the shop to measure it up. Sounds like he ended up putting a system on it and found out a bit more on how it fits. I am really warmed up to the idea of doing this again and it's all you fault 800.
By the way - the stock Aurora exhaust has a resonator in the middle too.
Larryfl & 800 - I know I've mentioned it a lot, but I rode in that white STS on Corsa's site when I visited. It was not loud at 70 or 75. Just a little note. You could easily carry a normal conversation and it was not bad. It sounded good really. Cruising around town was pretty much quiet once up to speed and regular accelerations were not obnoxious or anything.
The only reason I backed out was that it was not vault quiet at 70 to 75. That's an unrealistic expectation - stupid really. It may be very close though in the 60's.
with the modified induction, a K&N, and the exhaust, you should be over 270 HP and perhaps 280 torque - and maybe even flatter curves.
Heatshield idea's are growing. I like the hood liner indentation marks, that i'll definatly shoot for. Fitting something around the actual induction pipe is going to be difficult though, I think. I Probally won't get to Dyno with this shield in place. I won't have it made before hand. I don't want to put the RSM kit on just to make this shield, than put stock back to test against, than put the RSM back on. I won't have a good way to supply the engine with ouside air, since I won't have my "ram-air" and heatshield in place. Not that they will help much since the car is sitting still on a Dyno anyways. These just makes me want to Dyno with the hood open even more, just to show what happens with max. air flow available to both while sitting still.
Back to construction of this shield, It Has two be at least two pieces, to fit around the round pipe, the bigger main bottom piece with a cut-out for the bottom of induction tube, second piece to fit over top of induction tube. Going to be tough to cut 2 perfect half circles in sheetmetal though. How to make them attach non-permently too? Probably won't seal either, just sit close. Slice some rubber tubing to slide over all the cut edges of the sheetmetal, recomeded by Jadcock on his Caddy mod Site http://jadcock.oldsgmail.com/cadsls/filter.html. Jadcocks shield has a cut-out around the induction that sits pretty close to the induct tube, even with square cuts. Not bad on the cut-out around the intake, just that the left side sits too close to the filter,UNLESS. Thinking about runnig the "ram-air" hosing into that part of the left side of the shield, this on Jadcocks could be very benifical, breathing in ouside air through an opening for the hose, right were the shield looks too close to the filter, http://jadcock.oldsgmail.com/cadsls/images/intake3.jpg If I seal the "ram-air" hose to the heatshield wall, it still shouldn't suck any water right? Since this isn't really "ram-air", there's no vacum, it's just allowing outside air to draft into the filter area. With the hose staring low, by the air dam, running up-word should make any water drain down&out,right?
Responses?
800wattAURORA
This summer I'll be running mine in a 1/4 mile bracketed track runs to see how she does. I'll keep you all posted on the numbers.
frog- sorry but I have yet to come up with a web site for Schucks autosupply on the pressure regulator.
So what does this mean? I think that the effective average is on about 30 gallons of gas, but I also think that there is some weighting of newest gallons vs oldest gallons. Probably the oldest gallons are weighted less and there are more of them - so actual average may be a weighted average over 50 gallons. The last 25 gallons count less then the first 25.
The average does seem to get close after a couple of tanks of gas (25 or so gallons). But to get a good trip average one needs to reset the average just as you start out.
I think the reason the Aurora is so quick on the 20 mph passing tests is that the transmission downshifts aggressively (very quickly and into a lower gear even at high rpms), and it drops you right into the meaty part of the torque curve. However, in in looking at the times, I'm actually very suspicious that the 50-70 time of 3.2 is a typo because it's faster than the difference between the 0-70 time of 9.4 less the 0-50 time of 5.5. I don't think that is possible since there is lag from the time to punch it at 50, and lag while the transmission downshifts before you start accelerating, so that time can't be faster than continuous acceleration over the same range of speeds. The G35 has a 50-70 time of 4.2 and a difference between the 0-70 and 0-50 times of (8.1-4.7) = 3.4 seconds. Therefore, I'd guess the real 50-70 time for the Classic is quite a bit slower than 3.2 seconds.
>> By the way, what are the total times to 120?? For differences of 7 or 10 seconds, that must take awhile. I don't know, past 100 really doesn't do anything for me. I'm not going to be tearing up to 120. Just don't.<<
G35: 25.3
Aurora Classic: 32.8
New Aurora: 35.8
I don't spend a lot of time at 120 either outside of the racetrack,
Eric
I would be willing to do real world test if anyone would care to lend me their Ferrari. I would even pay the track time.
Garnes, I know you think the classic has more power, but I do wonder. The new one only dropped .3 points of compression which isn't inconsequential, but also isn't huge. In exchange it got bigger intake valves and a better intake tract. Also, the addition of roller followers, which do make a difference (on small-block Chevy's, a roller cam and roller rockers can free up about 10 hp), and coil-on-plug ignition which can deliver about 30% more voltage. Plus, the car is about 160 lbs lighter (which isn't huge but also isn't inconsequential).
I just wonder if C&D's numbers in this case are the best comparison. Unfortunately nobody seems to care about the Aurora anymore and there aren't too many other magazines that tested it, or at least that tested it extensively.
I think I have decided against buying a GTech like product. It seems like a lot ov money for something that doesn't actually do anything. I mean, the car won't be any faster... I'll just know how fast it is. Some day I'll get the Corsa system... I did get a K&N and put it in. Not really sure if it made a difference, but I'm sure it didn't hurt. Actually, I drive my car pretty gently most of the time. I'm mainly interested in the Corsa because of it's nice sound rather than the performance gains (although that would be nice).
800Watt, I see what you mean about that seam on the white Razzi car. It does look a bit weird. I too like the grey peices on the front and back of the classic Aurora. It works in harmony with the shape. It looks a little weird without it. Actually, I'm not usually a big fan of ground effects kits. I wonder how much of an "improved" look you could achieve by just getting 17-18" wheels and a subtle spoiler... I'm also not usually a fan of spoilers. To me they usually indicate that the designers couldn't get the rear to look right so they covered it up with a spoiler. The classic has a nice rear and I don't really think the spoilers help it. I always though Corvettes with spoilers had been ruined. The Aurora isn't quite as anti-spoiler, but I don't think it needs one to finish the rear.
Just my thoughts and opinions...
Oh, I took a trip to Chicago and got about 24.5 mpg up there and about 24 back. I drove a bit faster back, and there was a lot of winds. Rained both ways... I didn't stop in Berea (to Corsa) as I didn't have time. I did swing by Cleveland for lunch with family, though. It's a nice place as far as big cities go. I wouldn't mind living in the midwest.
I also didn't know the trunk was different on 4.0 and 3.5 models. I'll have to watch for that (if I ever happen to see another 2001+ Aurora... )
Also rethinking the Ground effects. rjs200240 makes a good point. If I'm going to spend something north of $1400, why not wheels/tires. At least I can move them to my next classic!!
Also considering replacing the new Monroe Sensa-Tracs w/ KYBs in the front. The Monroe's still aren't stiff enough.
Funny how a kid starting college next fall (the only one he wants to attend is private, out-of-state)and the potential loss of "the big sale" can re-prioritize your thinking on $$s spent on mods...
Larry
Hope it helps!
Pat
Sedans Host
Sorry for missing your question yesterday.
Pat
Sedans Host
rjs - I know we've exchanged different ideas on this before, but C&D supposedly measured the classic autobahn at 7.4 to 60 and the new Aurora at 7.6. I don't have that old C&D, but that's what has been related here before. I kind of like the C&D numbers only because they are the only ones that seem to address a standard atmospheric condition for the tests.
In addition, as fjk points out, the torque curves are significantly different. I've got the new Aurora brochure with (an admittedly crummy)little HP and torque curve. The Classic brochure has large easy to read curves. But the differences are large and easy to see with just a quick comparison between the curves. I believe there are differences of over 15 lb-ft of torque over a lot of the curves. The new Aurora's torque curve is basically flat from 2000 to over 3500 if I remember right, while the classic is practically near peak torque at 3500 - and climbs nicely from 2000 to 3500. There is still a good difference at 4000 rpm. I really think that makes a difference. There is a similar disparity with the HP curves, but it's not that big.
Maybe I'll just blow the small curve up and plot both against each other.
Peak numbers are 1/2 the story. But everybody seems to care only about peak numbers. How much power is available throughout the power band is the other - for acceleration at least.
Don't forget some of those acceleration numbers you cite for the classic might be for the 3.48 standard classic Aurora. The Autobahn 3.71 was only an option and I'd guess is on a small minority of the cars. I'd expect a 3.48 to get to 60 in 7.7 to 8.0. Just a guess.
I've heard on the gear head TV stuff that 100 lbs is worth about .1 seconds in the 1/4. Just a rough rule of thumb. It's probably less than that when discussing weight loss on a 2 ton car. So, I wouldn't expect the 160 lbs to make that much difference to only 60 mph and I would not expect it to offset the large torque difference.
Hey, maybe with my intake mods, I can keep up with that G35 from that dang blasted 50 to 70 - typo or not! :-> There sure does seem to be a little more passing power. More response.
Wish me luck in my little piece of Korean Heaven. Take care, guys.
Everybody but us is probably tired of seeing this beat into the ground,:) but what I'm saying is that the time for the 50-70 passing test (3.2) is less than the amount of time the car took to go from 50-70 (3.9) in continuous acceleration (as measured between the difference between the 0-50 time of 5.5 and the 0-70 time of 9.4). That doesn't make sense since the 50-70 passing test requires pushing the accelerator and a downshift before acceleration starts, where the continuous acceleration test consists of a run from 0-130, with intermediate times (like 50 mph and 70 mph) recorded along the way by the timing equipment. Since the car is accelerating constantly, there is no lag for downshifts etc. between 50 and 70. I don't think it's possible for the 50-70 passing time to be quicker.
The 50-70 passing time on the new Aurora seems plausible. It is 4.5 compared to a time of 3.9 on the 0-70 (9.6) less 0-50 (5.7) times. Based on the difference between the new Aurora's 0-70 and 0-50 times, I'd guess the actual 50-70 passing time for a Classic is also about 4.5. The C & D test of the Classic I'm using is in the April 94 issue, and it is an autobahn based on the 3.71:1 final ratio. The G35 has a passing time of 4.2 and a difference of 3.4 (8.1 - 4.7). I meant to take my non-autobahn Classic to the drag strip to see how it actually did, but I never made it.
>>C&D supposedly measured the classic autobahn at 7.4 to 60 and the new Aurora at 7.6.<<
Those are the correct numbers. The new Aurora test is in the 3/2000 issue.
>>Peak numbers are 1/2 the story. But everybody seems to care only about peak numbers. How much power is available throughout the power band is the other - for acceleration at least.<<
That is a very good point, and why cars that have a HP curve that climbs at a 45 degree angle and make peak power for about 100 rpms like a VTEC Honda aren't as fast as you'd think by looking at the rated HP.
Eric
Wow that is a good price. That's more than I was able to get on a private party sale for my 96. I had it advertised for 2 weeks before I even got a call. American luxury cars are not that popular here though (Northern CA).
Eric
Garnes, if you have those dyno charts, I'd like to see them. I have a 2002 brochure, but I don't think I ever noticed a dyno chart in it. The idea that the classic makes 90% of it's peak torque from 1700-whatever and the new makes 90% from 2300-whatever doesn't really indicate much about the low-end torque. For all we know the new car makes 89% from 1700-2300... That isn't really a specific enough statement to deduce much from.
Does anyone have any numbers on the Seville? Was it slower in 2000 than in 1998-99? It had the same engine changes between 99 and 2000. I just would be surprised if they would revamp the engine and end up with a slower car. The Olds engineers predicted a faster Aurora, and I imagine they did some benchmarking. I doubt in the probably two+ years it took to develop the car they never bothered to test it against the old one.
Car and Driver's test had by far the fastest numbers of any other magazine. I doubt it's because most other magazines tested the non-autobahn car. I bet Olds supplied autobahns to most car mags as it was a cheap and common option. If the C&D test appeared in April 1994, then that means they probably actually drove the car in about January (the April issue was probably delivered in early March) or even late 1993. I don't know when the first Auroras rolled off the assembly line, but I bet it was probably April or May of 1994 (they didn't go on sale until May 1994)... The C&D article smacks of "pre-production prototype"... If it's a pre-production then the car was probably hand-made and the engine is probably a ringer with more power than a production model will have.
Ewt, that's what I was wondering if you could read in the article. Do they mention if it's a production model or a pre-production? I really think it has to be pre-production.
Magazine-----------Date--------0-60---1/4 mile
Road & Track-------July 1994---8.6----16.5
Motor Trend--------Sept 1994---8.2----16.3
Popular Mechanics--June 1997---8.3----16.0
Again, I doubt these were all non-autobahn cars... Also, I'm not trying to diss the classic. I just think the C&D times aren't realistic.
If you guys have any advise or comment please send them to bent@hushmail.com. I feel like complete crap right now. I wish it never happend but it did.
what kind of shock did you install in the rear? my '95 is in desparate need of new rear shocks. right now my air pump does run for about 2 minutes when i shut the car off, but i know it's because the shocks are really old and leaking air.
as for brand new shocks, if they are the AC-Delco ones, it could be that the control link for the unit that turns the air pump on needs adjusting.it's basically and on-off switch that kicks on when the car "sinks" to a certain level.
it also might help if you keep the contents of your trunk to a minimum.
just my thoughts...let us know what you figure out.
BUT, the VERY FIRST THING THING TO DO, RIGHT NOW, is to sit down and write down EVERYTHING that you can remember. Every little detail about your actions, the policeman's, your girlfriend, etc. and especially everything you (and they) said while it's fresh in your memory. Leave the emotions out of it, just the facts / details. I'll follow up tonight via email.
Larry
P.S. Pat: Sorry to stray off topic.. taking the rest offline.