Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Anyway, I'm still amazed that a loaded up ES300 would take you over 40k. I'm sure they are great cars, but not 40k great. I guess I'm just a domestic car owning rube that doesn't get it.
As for Old's demise I have to agree with RJS and also have to acknowledge that FJK's assessment of the Aurora not quite being a sports sedan. It's an awfully sporty luxury car. It a bit too heavy and the FWD omit it from the sport sedan category. Yeah, I don't give a rip about RWD either. I haven't run across the pylons in the road yet but I have seen some real nasty slop every winter. Just give me good looks, lots of room and comfort, and as much power as possible and I'm happy.
The cam timing specs are exactly the same. He didn't post the lift, so I don't know (although I'd guess they are the same). Duration @ .150mm lift, Intake: 242 deg, Exhaust: 236 deg. The rest of the specs like overlap and centerline are the same too, but I didn't want to flood with numbers (at least not more than I already am).
He lists a cylinder head combustion chamber size of 48.6cc. I wish my manual listed that spec, but alas it does not. I imagine if the stroke is the same, either the combustion chamber or the pistons (besides just their width) would need to be different or else the compression ratio on the 4.0 would be lower than for the 4.6. But since the pistons have to be different anyway (different bore) maybe the pistons handle the compression change. I'd really like to know, though, because it would give some insight on how to bore to a 4.6L block. The chamber depth-to-surface is listed for both, and both are the same at 10.470-10.710mm.
The valves are not the same size, though. So even if the heads had the same combustion chamber, the valves would need changing (which may not be very hard). The exhaust valves are the same with a head diameter of 27.880-28.140mm. The intakes are not with the Aurora having 34.090-34.350mm and the 275hp Northstar having 36.090-36.350mm.
Interestingly, the 3.5 V6 has the exhaust valve listed as 28mm (not a range) and the intake as 36.2mm which is basically the same as the Northstar motor. Although the 3.5 does have a cylinder volume that is like the 4.6L V8, not like the Aurora V8 (a 6-banger Aurora V8 would be 3.0L not 3.5). Also, the 3.5 does have the combustion chamber volume listed (this is in the same manual as the 4.0 info, so I don't know why it isn't listed for the 4.0) at 56.0cc. The 3.5 has a 9.3:1 compression ratio. I can't think of anything to infer from the 3.5 info, though. Just thought it was interesting (and maybe you all can come up with something).
Anyway... I just thought someone might find this interesting.
As far as the FWD/RWD discussion. I would imagine TC helps a lot on RWD. But it helps on FWD too. So since FWD gets better traction than RWD when no electronics are involved, I'd think that the TC on FWD would have more to work with, and so FWD would still be preferrable. I don't think RWD would change my driving experience in any way, so I'd prefer FWD for those bad times. Also, traction control doesn't cut down on the huge hump that runs through the floor of a RWD car... Although, I can see having RWD on like the XLR or even the CTS. But the Seville or Aurora? I personally don't think they should (but I think the Aurora and CTS have different audiences). Interestingly, nobody gripes about Acuras or Audis having FWD.
As for the hump - if I remember right, the FWD Toronado/Eldorado did not have any hump. But my Aurora does have a hump and with bucket seats in front, humps don't matter much anyway. My Aurora isn't wide enough to carry 3 big guys in back very far anyway. So if you figure that you've got a 4 passenger car anyway, then the hump doesn't matter much.
Regarding the tuning: Since the Aurora's peak horsepower matched up with the 275 hp northstar, I assumed the tuning was similar. One would think that they could have had the HO tuning part of the autobahn package. Part of the tuning is the intake manifold tuning too.
I think a lot of the 300 Hp thing is simply being able to say "300 HP". Marketing. The torque curve and most of the HP curve on the 300 engine really give up a lot just for that high peak HP. It's sad. Finally the VVT is coming though - a bit late IMO.
So, if the Aurora is tuned like the 275 4.6 that sounds good to me. If I ever were to put the 4.6 in an Aurora (I have the 3.71), I'd want the 275 HP engine.
I have to say, it sounds like Garnes theory is close. Now that there is a better Northstar, the engineers seem freer to discuss the FWD one. If you read the press release on the new RWD Northstar, they mention how the new one doesn't suffer from the 300hp engines crummy torque curve. I guess they have to explain why 315hp is really a better improvement than it sounds like. I've also read a few other articles where GM reps mentioned it. They say the engine could be tuned to either deliver high horsepower or high torque as if they were mutually exclusive in the FWD Northstar. It sounds like that's a polite way of saying the 300 hp Northstar wasn't really the best.
meaning that like Voltage, horsepower is the potential power of the engine.
torque is like amps - the ability to transferr that potential into actual power.
The greater the amps/torque, the more watts/power you actually have.
In other words, birds can sit on power lines because there is voltage (i.e horsepower) but no amps (i.e. torque). The circuit is not complete so the bird just sits there. If however the bird becomes grounded while on that power line, the amps flow and the bird is cooked.
Is this how the horse power torque thing works????
An engine usually produces some amount of torque over a speed range (from ~2000 RPM's to ~5-6000 RPM's) The torque decreases at high speeds because not enough air/fuel can get through the intake valves, so the engines torque decreases fast. But for a given amount of torque, the faster the engine runs, then more horsepower there is. So @5250 RPMs 300 ft-lbs is 300 horsepower, but at 2625 RPMs, there is 150 horsepower.
NOW, what is going on with the message boards? I can't seem to access the other discussions as in the past. I'm sorry if I'm an internet rube, but things seem different for no good reason.
If you are still having trouble, send me an email telling me exactly what you click on and exactly what happens when you do so.
Okay, I feel better now.
Thanks,
Steve
Unfortunity, this is the hardest picture to take and reproduce on the web. You are dealing with a low light situation to begin with where you are looking to highlight the shadows on the body. Add to that the tendency of computers to darken a picture on your computer screen.
And of your car is black . . . . forget about it.
My car is "Light Antelope".
Why did I say all of this??
Because it would be a nice picture to see if somebody actually had the skill to do it. It would make a great wallpaper.
Henri
On a few occassions I have had folks that have seen my in the day time comment on how much better it looks at night. It is always the same
comment. "I never saw the lines in the body before."
Either night or day, its still the best looking sedan on the road.
I know some empty lots with the street lights.
I could do this. I have a tripod and a really nice SLR camera and a good scanner that may not ruin the picture. I've taken night shots before and with the shutter open a long time and a tripod - anything is possible. My car is black and I still think it would work.
A really good digital SLR is still many thousands of dollars. Someday that will be the thing to have. I know that good digital cameras that aren't SLR's allow adjustment of the shutter speed, but I'm not sure they would allow night shots or allow you to make "cotton candy" out of flowing water or anything. Maybe they can.
9.7 hours labor??!!!?!?!?
The service guy tried to tell me the exhaust manifold goes through the oil pan and all that has to be removed?? WHAT???
I can add A LOT of quarts of oil for that! Now, if I could just find a good detergent to get the stains off the driveway......
garnes--- I have the Warranty-by-net on my '95 but haven't had to use it. I've had it almost a year now. The '95 seems to be under control now as far as problems. I don't think you can be without the extended warranty if you own any expensive car.
The only good thing about being at the Olds dealer was I did see an '03 Arctic White one on the show room floor. It really looked great. I asked the salesman what the chances were of ordering one with the 4.6 Northstar, he just smiled.
cwiley1 - thanks. No warranty on the 97? You gotta like a two Aurora guy. Pretty cool.
larryfl - I just had my car in for minor oil leaks. The factory warranty on my 98 runs out December 21, so I'm getting all the little stuff fixed. It has never dripped, but when I do the change I can see it's creeping down the pan. Anyway, what they have to do to replace the pan gasket is drop the engine. It's a big job. The guy at the dealer said they had to remove the engine but upon asking further he said they actually put it on a lift and drop the engine to do it.
Larry
Greg
It is now an official mystery as to what is causingthe sound. The current thinking is that the power sterring replacement unit was defective.
Anybody els out there with this issue pleas let me know how it was settled.
Henri
Looking Forward to Monday,
Taylor
1-The accelerator tapping against my foot during cruising accompanied by a loud clicking noise under the hood. This would sometimes occur even after I turned the car off and pulled the key out of the ignition.
2-Low speed surging - typically when pulling in to parking slot or up to a red light. Even would unexpectedly surge forward while I was stopped in traffic (I got to where I would leave a good 8-10 feet between me and the next car).
3-High speed cruising (80MPH +,-) the car would suddenly jolt for no reason.
4-The car wouldn't slow down. It would ride for miles at a somewhat constant speed with no cruise control and foot off the accelorator. Slowing it down or stopping meant jamming the brake.
5-The "check engine" light would occasionally (4 total over the 3 months) come on, but would be off the next time I started the car.
Of course, the two or three times I took it in, there were no codes written in the computer and the car would act perfectly for the mechanics.
FINALLY, I took it back to the GM dealer I bought it from (Buick/Pontiac - not Olds) and it acted up for them. The Idle Sensor/Program had gotten all out of whack. $ 150 to reprogram / relearn the programs and it's done!
Car drives like a dream again. As good as the day I bought it. Halleluiah!
Henri
http://www.cardomain.com/id/javidogg
Specifics:
2001, 3.5L V-6, 31,000 miles
~400 pounds load including 2 people and luggage
65mph-77mph highway (speed limit plus 5-7 mph)
Mobile 1 oil and K&N filer
30psig in the tires, AC on all the way
It looks to me like the K&N improved mileage by 0.5 mpg. Has anyone else gotten better mileage from just switching to the K&N?
Ken
If you need the procedure, let me know.
If someone knows anything to the contrary, please let us all know.
Chris
Except for the wet/cold connection, your problem sounds similar to a defective fuel pressure regulator that I and several others have experienced. A leaky FPR dumps gasoline into the intake manifold causing a rich/flooding condition. I replaced mine at about 76,000 miles. I had suspected plugs and wires until my motor "exploded" and burned the underhood insulation because of a backfire.
Two weeks ago I replaced the plugs and wires at 83,000 miles. Symptom was intermittent missing; motor usually started OK.