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
Corporate politics can be an ugly thing, and I think the Aurora was a "classic" victim.
And yes, most of my friends that aren't gear heads like me have no idea what kind of car I drive and are shocked when they learn it's a 9 year old american car.
At the end of the 50's Buick was in trouble, mainly because they were too successfull in the mid 50's. They had tried to build more cars than the factory capacity could do right, so they had a lot of problem cars. That resulted in sales dropping to 1/3 of what they had been.
I think Oldsmobile could have been brought back, but all of GM needs help. Cadillac is really developing some good products (CTS, SRX, XLR and soon to be STS), the rest of GM's product line is not real good (its not real bad either - just not great).
a) the car didn't even have the Oldsmobile name on it, except for the radio.
b) they contemplated renaming Oldsmobile to Aurora. The stylized "A" logo almost became the Olds division logo. Frankly, I wish they'd done that - would have been a clean break from the past. The "traditional" Oldsmobile buyer wanted a bench seat, and was unhappy with the model lineup in 2000.
__________________________________________________
You are so right on that, I still cannot get over how they tried to use the thing about attracting younger buyers versus old timers for Oldsmobile.
So their plan did not work out well (because of the bad marketing division) they could of moved on and not kill the Olds brand, Also anyone noticed how they introduced the Classic Aurora, "Aurora by Oldsmobile", not "Oldsmobile Aurora", hm.
I don't know why they gave up easily.
Peace.
J.M.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
Sometimes I think that "protect Caddy" thing does come into play.
FJK - hey, I really think the Impala is the greatest. I love that car. With kids on the way, I truly believe the Impala will keep us away from the dreaded minivan. The car has been very solid with room everywhere. No other car in that price range could save me from a minivan. For that, I'm very grateful to Chevy for the Impala.
Sorry - had to add that.
I think that Oldsmobile/GM tried to sell the Aurora as a "sports sedan" that could/should be comparable to the 5-series BMW. The Aurora is really too big for that, it was really a low priced Lexus 400 LS kind of car. Or really a European luxury sedan with front wheel drive kind of car. The 95 Riviera I had did not have a driver information display which was one place that Buick was way behind on.
I still think many of us here could probably teach some high priced stuffed suits at GM a bit about advertising and promotion on the cars we love. We know what the competition is, but we got what we got and can give lots of reasons. Not enough of these 6-figure goofs are passionate about the product either in development or promotion. There is a lot of corporate politics and good products go to waste.
Another reason - from 95 to 99 they sure should have made some outwardly noticeable changes and or improvements. I know there were continued mechanical refinements, but the general public isn't aware/doesn't care about the suspension improvements too much. Things like different wheels or at least some wheel options go a long way. For 5 years it was the same wheel which was a bit boring to start with. Or how about some minor improvement that boosted power just a little? As for bigger improvements, I thing GM waited too darn long to get VVT.
They are still doing the stupid stuff with the high performance Bonneville. The 4.4 Northstar still wont have VVT and they went out of their way to make it 4.4 liters. Oh boy, somebody might think the Bonneville and Caddy both have a 4.6 - and they won't buy the Caddy. Yeah right - more stupidity. They should at least just drop the out-going 4.6 without VVT into the Pontiac. The performance would be a tad better and it's easy. The Caddy will have the much higher performance version of the 4.6 - fine.
Look at Nissan - they offer that same 3.5 in just about everything and tune it differently/accordingly. It's simple - it works. But GM seems to be afraid of a 4.6 in a Pontiac. Stupid. When will they learn they have to offer as much as they can because there are imports out there too? They have to stop worrying about protecting one line against another and lowering the bar.
Myself, I'd like to see the 3.6L VVT engine in a GTP, along with a decent interior, but that's probably not going to happen. Guess I'll pick up a 2001-2003 Aurora in a year or so, eschewing my GM discounts (employee, GM card, etc.) to get something I like, and hope GM turns it around in another 3-4 years and offers something I like.
--Robert
I really think Cadillac's CTS and other rear wheel drive cars will be good cars. But price tags may make them too expensive. Hopefully, their success will bring affordable RWD cars from Buick/Pontiac in the future. Maybe even Chevy.
The SLS or STS is "nicer" inside than an Aurora, but at the same time it's not as "cool" either. It's a little boring. I think the interior of the new Aurora is the best. It's as cool as the classic, but refined a bit more. I really like it.
Hammen2 - I just read that the GXP will be the 4.4. If it's the 4.6, it is de-tuned because neither the HP or the torque is 300. That's still stupid. But I think it's a 4.4.
What I have read in the car magazines suggests that Pontiac will get one of the standard 4.6 northstars - either the 275 hp or the 300 hp engine. The FWD northstars have not been re_engineered for VVT as yet. Now Cadillac could also introduce a variable length intake manifold to boost the power, so there is room to give the Caddy versions of the engine some extra's and still let Buick and Pontiac have "lesser" versions.
The GXP has the 275 HP, 300 torque 4.6L engine - is this from the SLS?
fjk - I agree with you about "sticker shock". The Aurora came out pretty well equipped at $32,995. My '98 (roof/chromes/Bose/Autobahn) stickered for over $40k, and I, too, bought it for less than half that. GM thought it had a hit and kept raising the price - and then wondered why sales fell.
Personally, I view the car as more Mercedes-like (big solid autobahn-cruising sedan) that BMW-like (smaller, sportier, meant to take the curves quickly, etc.). Having sat in a Riv, I do believe the Aurora's interior was far superior - people, when getting into my car for the first time, still comment on how nice the interior layout is...
--Robert
My 98 Aurora was a program car and I figure I got it for about $30,000. It was a base car - no extras. The Riv dash was "retro" - intended to look a bit like the 1963 I think. What I noticed was the lack of shoulder room in the Aurora compared to the Riviera. My Seville seems bigger too, even though I think the car is smaller. The Aurora's handling was a bit better than the Riv and the Seville too. But not much better. The Aurora was no sports car like my 86 Corvette.
FJK - are you saying that varying the intake length (don't understand that all too well) is something that can be done in addition to VVT for an even better power curve??
The original Aurora is easily GM's best overall car of the last 20 years or so.
Absurd MSRP's and failure to continuously update is what kept it from really being a megahit instead of a hit.
Any tips for me on where to find a good solid used 95-99, someday I may get the urge to sell my v8 SHO and get a used Aurora, just for kicks. What mechanical items should a person watch for?
I think though that magazines tend to portray this like the engine is always optimized at all rpms or something, where as lower-tech engines are all compromised. I think this is basically crap. There are still a ton of variables that have to be tuned for a particular rpm. For example, the runners diameter can't change, and in order to make them variable, they have less control over the actual shape and bending of them. Headers are optimized for a particular rpm in both length and diameter as well, again, as the shape of them (plus, I get the feeling OEM exhaust manifolds are more tuned for easy packaging and easy casting rather than optimized performance).
Even variable-valve timing only reduces the compromises a bit. The valve sizes can't change. The lift generally doesn't change (though some cars have variable lift). But the main thing is that the valve timing isn't really all that variable. What varies is when that timing starts and stops in relation to crank position. So it is mainly the valve overlap that is variable. The actual duration the valves are open doesn't change. For example, you can't have 212 degrees of timing at low rpms, and then 235 degrees at high rpms. But you can have 220 that starts early at low rpms and starts late at high rpms (if that makes sense). Electronically/magnetically activated valves would allow this, though. But there would still be issues with valve sizing and such. Honda's VTECH does actually have differing cam durations, but it only has two variations then. It isn't variable over an rpm range, it has one setting for low rpm and one for high. The cam has two lobes on it for each valve. Basically the follower rolls along the low-rpm lobe until a certain threshold rpm is reached. At that point the cam is forced over so that the second lobe has the follower on it. I don't know how they make a smooth transition with this, and I imagine there are still compromises because of things like that they only have one valve spring means the two cam timings and lift can't be too radically different.
I think that technology in an engine is pretty neat, but it is still a big compromise. Plus, a lot of the real "tech" is in the design and manufacture of an engine, not in how many moving parts it has. So if the technology doesn't make the engine perform much better, than why waste time with it? This is why, in spite of being "low-tech", and engine can still make 405 hp, have a very strong torque curve (peaking at 400 lb-ft), be a low emissions vehicle, and get 29 mpg on the highway.
If a "low-tech" 400+hp V8 engine from Chevrolet can make more total power, produce less emissions, cost substantially less to manufacture, run more reliably, make substantially more torque all over the rpm range, out-accelerate, and use less fuel than a tech-laden 400+hp V8 engine from Ferrari, then what's really the point of all that tech?
Can anyone provide advice and information on how to remove and replace these part?
Thanks in advance,
Steve
and its only the Z06 that makes 405hp. The base model makes 350.
So in a v8 application with that much engineering know how and devoting applied on the part of GM, the 'low tech' approach works. That same level of care and engineering is not applied in their v6's of the same low tech. If the same level of engineering was applied to the 3.8 for example, in normal aspiration ought to make 270hp. Not an underpowered 200.
In the Aurora they could have maybe fit the 5.7 in there, maybe not. But back in 95 that engine still was not making too much more than the 4.0 northstar.
I think it illustrates the difference between having a "car guy" (John Rock) and a business manager (Karen Francis) managing Oldsmobile.
http://wdb.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_oldsmobile_rock_soft/
Unforunately, the rest is history.
http://wdb.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_requiem_heavyweight/
http://www.forbes.com/2000/12/29/1229flint.html
The same is true of the "mere" 350hp of the LS-1. It makes 375 lb-ft, and has an astoundingly flat torque curve. It is a torque monster, especially when compared to the 300+hp of cars like the M3 or 911 (which are as expensive or more expensive). They have pretty weak torque curves, and only make their power very high in the rpm range (around 7 grand) because the torque is so weak. Plus, they get worse mileage and I doubt are as smooth running.
Also, it doesn't take variable-valve timing or variable intake lengths to make a smooth engine. The 3.5L V6 of the Intrigue/Aurora is incredibly smooth and has none of these. It also has a strong torque curve. The Aurora 4.0 is also a strong torquer (if you buy one, you'll notice it's torquier than your SHO V8). Why would they put a 5.7 in the Aurora?
I also don't think I said that things like variable valve timing and variable induction length don't work, just that they don't solve the compromise nature of engine design. Nor do they guarantee strong performance or value. It's the engineering tech in the design and manufacture phase that is the most important.
I think I am failing to see your point.
The other point of interest in this article is that the designer responsible for the Aurora, Dennis Burke, is identified and interviewed.
http://www.luxurycarbuyer.com/reviews-1997-oldsmobile-aurora.htm
I couldn't help but wonder why Olds never tried anything like this when they were going head to head against the legendary Ferrari 333SP's in the World SportsCar championship. It was down to the wire with Aurora clinching the championship in the final race of the season. It's hard to imagine no one at the time thought this was good commercial material...
These designs were from 1990:
http://www.gmphotostore.com/source/PODGallery.aspx?L1=GM+Collecti- ons&L2=12250&page=3
On the VVT northstar I can see the peak torque moving from 4400 RPMs to 3500 maybe and increasing to 325 ft-lbs or so. Then a shorter length runner could boost the horse power to 330 or so. But this is just a guess on my part. The torque did not change much for BMW, but the horsepower did. But for BMW the horsepower moved up to 6000 RPM's which means that they improved the high speed performance. Cadillac is already peaking at 6400 RPM's, so horsepower gains will be harder.
Also the 3800 only makes 260hp when equipped with a bandaid blower. No normally aspirated 3800 has gone much over 200hp. Back in 95, when equipped with a blower I think it only made 205hp.
"It's the engineering tech in the design and manufacture phase that is the most important."
agreed, which is why i think a corvette motor in 2003 is something special. in 95 it wasn't as special as it is now. also its why i think the 3800 is far from special. its not been given the attention the corvette mill has.
NOW as far as the Aurora motor at 4.0 litres it didn't do too bad but the car it was moving was a bit portly, my friend.
And no doubt it will out torque my SHO because it has a .6 litre displacement advantage.
It would have been nice to see Olds bump that motor to 4.4 like Pontiac is doing with it for the GXP.
As for the 3800, why is a supercharger a band-aid? Here's an engine that is not expensive to produce, is highly durable, makes 260 hp, and makes 280 lb-ft of torque with an incredible amount of it available right off idle (the 240 hp engine will easily spin the wheels at anything more than about 1/2 throttle from a start). And it still manages to make about 30 mpg on the highway. Plus, the vehicles that use it tend to be LEV's. I guess I don't see what's "band-aid" about that.
Maybe they should switch to a DOHC engine with VTECH so that they can make the same 260 hp and much, much less torque. Plus, that way they can make the engine at twice the cost and with higher maintenance costs and lower durability. Then it would be a real sweet piece and everyone would love it. Maybe you should just sell the SHO, buy a Type-S, and then when it's in the shop getting a new tranny and getting the engine electronically detuned as part of a "service bulletin" you can marvel at all the technology that makes that possible...
What is it that you find so terrible about the 3800 anyway? It gets high mileage and makes respectable power. 200 hp, especially with such a broad torque curve, in a $20,000 car isn't exactly terrible. Why is it you feel it needs to make 270 hp or more? I mean, what's the formula you use for determining that? Also, have you actually driven a 3800-equipped car? My parents had a 1995 Bonnie with the 205hp 3800, and it is very peppy. The car scoots around great. They also have a 1997 Regal GS with the 240hp 3800S/C. It is a beast, and has more power than most people would know what to do with.
The 3800 was to have been replaced by the 3.5 liter V6 (shortstar). That engine is being replaced by the new 3.6 V6 that is a 60 degree design. GM came to the conclusion that the shortstar was not as good as it could be. The production capacity for the shortstar had not be increased and the production capacity for the 3800 is in place, so it makes sense to go for the better design in the long run and keep the old clunker around a little longer.
All new platforms should get the 3.6 instead of the 3.8. That's what I think, who knows what GM will do.
I agree that the 3800's time may be at hand. For one, the 90-degree nature means it doesn't fit well in smaller cars. That was one of the 3.5 Shortstar's problems too. It was also a 90-degree V6. But I do think it is a lot of engine for the money.
Maybe that's what I didn't make clear to Regfootball. I think high-feature engines certainly have their place. I love the 4-valve design of the Aurora V8, and wouldn't swap it for a pushrod engine. I like how it revs, and how it sounds, and how smooooth it is. But I do not think that features are the be-all end-all of engine design. The fact that an engine doesn't have variable valve timing, or even DOHC, doesn't mean it is low-tech or that it is inferior.
I think part of this stems from the ridiculous notion of relating power and displacement. The magazines do it all the time. I really could care less how much power can be squeezed from a certain displacement. Displacement isn't in short supply, it isn't some rare resource, so who the heck cares? I find it much more impressive to see what kind of power and really what kind of efficiency can be squeezed out for a certain cost... If a $2000 engine can squeeze out 260hp from 3.8L, and a $4000 engine can do it from 3.2L, which one is really the more impressive design? Especially if they both get the same mileage? So one "saves" .6L... So what? Am I going to have a lean Christmas because I blew my all my displacement in one place?
You also at one point mentioned V6's vs. V8's. It's true that a V8 can be counter-weighted such that it is inherently balanced like an I6 or V12. And no V6, no matter how smooth it may be, can ever be balanced like that. So, is that cheating then for GM to take advantage of that? Is there something low-tech about paying attention to the physics behind that? If GM can toss a V8 into a car like the Aurora, and have it compete price-wise with cars with higher-feature V6's, what's wrong with that? It seems a pretty smart move if you ask me... Why waste money on balance-shafts and cam complexity and such when you can just add two cylinders? There isn't a production Honda or Toyota V6 that I'd want to trade my V8 for. An additional payoff for GM is tons of torque, and the incredible note a V8 at full-throttle makes.
And yes certainly there are other factors like smoothness and such, but again it boils down (for me anyway) to how much can be achieved in these areas for the cost, not for the displacement. So while tech has a place in increasing output and smoothness and such, it must be compared to how much extra cost it adds, how much it impacts longer term costs like maintenance and reliability, and what alternatives could be had for that cost (the opportunity cost, if you will).
An I6 can be quite smooth when designed for it, and then when you put two of them together to make a V12, the smoothness is exceeded only by the V16. Pushrods can be designed to operate multivalves and probably could make for a much cheaper engine, at least on V-type designs. The Cadillac Sixteen's engine had VVT on it's single camshaft and supposedly get 80% of the benifits that you would get if it had been DOHCs (with single valves I assume).
http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/NASApp/domestic/proddesc.jsp?year=2004&- amp;regionID=1&divisionID=7&type=0&vehicleID=342&- section=modelhome&page=&butID=1
There is no new 4.4L V8 (note that the above page is the official GM online ordering guide, so it should be taken as fact). Any other magazine or web site that shows anything other than the 4.6 is either old/outdated, or just flat-out wrong.
--Robert
Oh yeah, if you want those peak HP bragging rights, there are some good intake and exhaust mods available for the Aurora that'll get you in the 280 area.
I have both an Aurora and an Impala with the "lowly" 3800. I love both cars. While the 3800 is different, I don't find myself missing the Aurora too much when I'm in the Impala. The off-the-line acceleration is terrific from all the torque - even with a 3.11 transaxle. The mileage is incredible too. When we bought it, the car was much more roomy and comfortable than an Accord or Camry. It weighed more too, but shazamm, that lowly 3800 was rated with the highest mileage. And it really delivers on that mileage. It was the safest too. My only minor complaint is that it fades a little in the power department on the top end - understandable. But when we got it, the performance numbers (not that important for that purchase) were right in line with the competition. Bottom line - I think it's a great engine.
in other words, if you are seeking refinement to go with just raw motivation, then the 'less expensive to produce' engine gives itself away every time as really feeling like its not an appropriate engine to put in many cars, especially high buck luxury cars, ala Riviera ? aurora. Its not appropriate to cheat the customer into giving them a basic engine when the sticker (and as defined by the competition) says it should have a better all around performer.
So yes, my father in law can tell me he loves his oplastic head gasket blowing 3800, and that's fine but everytime I drive it (and I drive it hard and it just doesn't respond) I am underwhelmed and I am able to reaffirm to myself that the bar has been raised by others.
Its not the basic design I have so much of a problem with as hey, a vette enine in an Aurora (or CTS!) is no skin off my back. But the 3800 is nowhere near to the level of the Corvette mill. So lets please not compare them. If GM brings the level of design and engineering, power and smoothness on the 3800 up to that of the Corvette motor without a supercharger, hey, then i will shush.
In a car like an Aurora it is NOT appropriate to select an engine based upon cheap to build. Because the competition puts their best out there. Its not as if GM adjusted the MSRP of any of their cars to reflect the 'cheaper' engine. I mean, 40k Rivieras? 38k SSEis? 32k Regals? There were many cars that had the same level of refinement and luxury for far less. And slapping a supercharger on it adds that cost back in. Why not make the basic design of the motor such that you don't need to force feed it to get it to breathe adequately enough to make competitive power? DOHC can do that alone by just having a centrally located spark plug and more valve area. Less valve float. Smoother operation at higher speeds because of less moving mass.
Its not a vendetta against the 3800. Just a vendetta against GM for not bringing it along engineering wise to the same level as the Corvette or at least to a level where it actually does not have to have apologies made for it when comparing it to a Nissan v6 for example. In 1988 the 3800 could say it was in the top class. In 2003 it really can't. By the mid-late 1990's it really couldn't.
So that was why I really like the Aurora, except that they should have enlarged the displacement or kept it equal to the Seville.
Those aren't luxury cars you mention, and hasn't the riv been gone for some time now? "Total driving experience....even by today's standards a basic midsize sedan." What might those be? The Accord? Please. What are going to do, cite some magazine test numbers that show it accelerates as fast as a C4 Corvette (they exist)?
I'd have a lot more fun with a 3800 than the Lexus 300 series engine too. I've driven those. Talk about overpriced non-performance. But oh, it's so advanced and "refined". The GS is a performance joke for that money and so is the ES. And these engines would likely meet your definition of advanced. Only now are they coming out with the 330 to offer some performance. And I sure hope they take care of that transmission with a mind of it's own. Are those the standards?
How about the oil sludging issue of recent past?
Head gaskets blowing? That's not a problem with the 3800 that I'm aware of. The cast iron block and head would make this unlikely.
Owning both the Aurora V8 and the Impala with the 3800 and driving them both on a weekly basis, I think I'm pretty qualified to say the 3800 isn't lacking. Do I hope for improvements in the future - sure. But I'm extremely satisfied with both. If peak HP and magazine numbers were the end-all, I guess I'd be disappointed - I guess.
Also, what are these best engines the competition is putting out there in the Aurora's price range? I bought my 2002 4.0 loaded, ordered just for me, for about $32k. I could have had what instead? A 220hp V6 in a smaller, floatier ES 300? A V6 with similar power, but worlds less torque in an Acura (one that has a tendancy to blow up its tranny)? An unbelievably small 3-series with a whopping 184 hp I-6? Wow, Olds really dropped the ball... I really have tech-envy when I pass these cars on the road...
I believe you are referring to the leaking intake manifold on some 3800's, not the head gasket. Part of that is the coolant service requires an additive (the service manuals call for this) but it isn't generally done, even by dealers. This is a large contributor to the leaking manifold. It might surprise you to know the intake on the Aurora and Northstar are also plastic composites, as is the intake on the LS-1 and LS-6. Plastic composite results in smoother ports. It really isn't a bad design or a cheap-out.
Also, the supercharger on the 3800 does not add a lot of cost. It is still a very affordable powertrain. Most of the cars that use the 3800 are in the mid-$20k price range, and most with the S/C are in the upper $20k range, not the $30-40k range. A lot of the cost (not that these cars are expensive) is in the actual car. They tend to be larger and roomier than their competition, and have more features and equipment. And I agree, a $40k Park Avenue Ultra should not have a blown 3800 in it. But I'd challenge you to find another engine that makes as much torque and horsepower as the S/C 3800 while still returning such impressive fuel economy from an automatic tranny. It may not be your kind of engine, but it's not a bad one.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
sorry i meant manifold gasket not head gasket. I really like the idea of a plastic manifold actually, but in the case of many GM v6's the execution of the design was a mess.
I have no issues with the engine that was selcted for the Aurora, its the other GM cars using the sc3800 I take issue with when there were better options by far, the aurora motor being one fo them.
I don't think it was a case of the Aurora being underpowered as much as being overweight.
As far as the Nissan plant, each time I have driven the Maxima with the 3.5 I have come away totally impressed. Absolutely smooth and quiet, but guts everywhere in the powerband. Don't blink or you will pass the century mark. No vacuum cleaner noises. How it translated to the 350z I don't know as I haven't taken that one out. The 3800 while being serviceable just clearly isn't in the same league.
I can understand the feelings against the lexus mills , but on the sludge issue all I have to say is people, just change your freaking oil. Every 3000. Don't be a tightwad. Changing oil is the best and cheapest way to prolong the running qualities of your engine. Don't be CHEAP.
Can you tell i am not a big Lexus fan.
"Also, the supercharger on the 3800 does not add a lot of cost."
It is hard for us to know exactly the cost, but as an example, you can get a supercharger as a factory installed option on the Pontiac Vibe. I recall it was priced at at least 2 grand large, if not more. And that is on the 4 cylinder plant. I would venture to guess that by the time you add all the extra parts and engineering and engine management and electronics etc. the cost is most likely within a few bucks of a real honest to goodness non blown motor with a better inherent design.
"Most of the cars that use the 3800 are in the mid-$20k price range, and most with the S/C are in the upper $20k range, not the $30-40k range."
I think the GTP, SSE, Regal GS all are over 30k.
"A lot of the cost (not that these cars are expensive) is in the actual car. They tend to be larger and roomier than their competition, and have more features and equipment."
I think in that case your point can be noted although the Regal and GTP are not terribly spacious, and actually the Bonne has a tight back seat as well. The Riv and Aurora were/are fairly commodious in the back. But compared with say, an Acura TL-s I think the difference in room is negligible.
"And I agree, a $40k Park Avenue Ultra should not have a blown 3800 in it."
Well, I question why it even exists anymore, unless they update it soon.
"But I'd challenge you to find another engine that makes as much torque and horsepower as the S/C 3800 while still returning such impressive fuel economy from an automatic tranny."
I think the fuel economy part of the equation is overated. The 3800 does get good mpg, but on a car that costs 30+ grand or 450+ a month and has expensive insurance, the fuel cost is not gonna be what kills you. If we were talking 4 cylinder cars I would put more credo in the mpg as a factor.
"It may not be your kind of engine, but it's not a bad one."
I guess that's a fair statement. I just think when a car exceed 20,000 or more there really needs to be more refinement, smoothness and go under the hood. On the Aurora it was not so much more go as it was the velvety v8 and smooth throttle response. To me a more expensive car should just not have a cheap engine. If the cheap engine performed as well as the not so cheap, ala corvette, then fine. I like sound, power, smoothness, throttle repsonse. The engine is the heart of the car, and I guess I can live with less 'stuff' in my car in trade for a more fun total experience by having better goods under the hood.
I just don't think stuff is always the best and sometimes more room is not necessailry useful room either.
I think something like the SC 3800 is appropriate to a BASE grand prix at maybe 21,000 out the door. but that's about it.
In a car like the Aurora it just wouldn't have 'fit' the car.
And just checking Edmunds here, a loaded-out S/C Regal GS is 29.8k - with 2000 back, 27.8k TMV. Well under 30k. Not over.
Nice dismissal of the MPG issue. If anything, the import family sedans in the $20k range are just now catching up to the 3800 in that department. As for the performance sedans offered by many of the imports, have you checked their mileage numbers? Many are a joke. Even your Maxima which is lighter than an Impala gets lower highway mileage. Why? Probably because they put a more aggressive transaxle gear to multiply the anemic torque curve (but oh, look at the peak numbers). Why do they do that? To impress the automotive press and enthusiasts that live by the 0 to 60 numbers. I'm sorry, but simply trading fuel economy for aggressive gearing and faster acceleration is not engineering. It's not better, it's not refinement.
As for smoothness, I'll just say it again. I own them both - Aurora V8 and the 3800. That's a lot more than "I drove uncle Joe's car or "test drove a..". Is the Aurora smoother? Heck yeah. Is it a big deal? No. The 3800 simply isn't rough or barbaric or bad at all. It's a pleasure to drive as well. Obviously this is a subjective issue, but you really sound like you have this predetermined revulsion with anything that has a 3800. And again, that Nissan 3.5 has been noted (even by the adoring automotive press) as harsh - even after praising it anyway.
By the way - the Toyota/Lexus oil thing was due to a design flaw - a "hot spot" in the engine. And the owner's manual simply does not state that you have to change the oil every 3000 unless it's an extreme use. I'll live with GM having to add a tablet to the coolant to avoid the manifold gasket. That's not so bad. Oils and engines have improved so much that 3000 is just not required most often - unless you own a certain 3.0 V6. I've sent used oil (admittedly M1 oil) for oil analysis after 3000 miles and the lab report is that it's basically the same as when it came out of the bottle.
something absurd like adding a TABLET to your coolant, but you don't think its a big thing to keep clean oil in your car.
"And again, that Nissan 3.5 has been noted (even by the adoring automotive press) as harsh"
where, and, I doubt its within the context of sedans. EVERY article I've read regarding that Nissan v6 is absolute praise. And I have driven Maximas on 3 separate occasions and some away LOVING it each time. Especially with a stick.
"Is the Aurora smoother? Heck yeah. Is it a big deal? No"
so you answered the question then of which engine is more appropriate. Unless you prefer to settle for less.
I regularly log hundreds of miles in my fatherinlaws cars which have the 3800. Its does NOTHING for me. I don't even care if it gets 28mpg because driving it is an absolute bore. The worst 3800 I drove was the Regal GS. In no way did the car present itself as being anything worthy within 15 grand of its sticker price.
I'm glad the Aurora was equipped with a more suitable powerplant commensurate with its price, and in line with the competition.
Like a Rock
I looked my trade in value up
Like a Rock
At the dollar value I was struck
Like A Rock
It value fell through the Air you See
Like A Rock
No one likes my Aurora but me
Like A rock
It was something to See
Oh Like a Rock