Oldsmobile Aurora

fjk57702 · September 2003

The reviews of the 95-99 Aurora (in various places - like Edmunds) talked about the car not meeting their expectations - interior space seemed small for a big (Park Avenue size) car. I think that is a valid point. My 95 Riviera seemed much bigger inside. I really liked the Aurora's V8 and trip computer. Perhaps the "real" problem was that it was not rear wheel drive.

rjs200240 · September 2003

While Olds is responsible for their own marketing, they aren't in charge of their own budget. I get the feeling they did not have a large advertising budget. While there were a fair amount of Aurora ads in 1994, and at least a few in 2000, there really weren't a lot in the other years. Plus, what did those ads push? I don't recall any Indy-related ads, or IMSA-related ads. Nor any that compared the luxury/power to other $35,000 cars. I think marketing was a big factor in Old's lack of profitability.

larryfl · September 2003

I think Olds' advertising of the car - such as it was - completely missed the mark. Not only was the message totally wrong (I especially remember an ad showing a woman driving the car inside a painting - huh?), I think some GM execs had begun to decide to kill Olds and so didn't fully fund or get behind the marketing.

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.

fjk57702 · September 2003

I think at some point after the Saturn division was put in place, GM must have decided they had too many divisions. I don't think the Oldsmobile divisions problems were any one single thing. Marketing may have been badly done, but the classic Oldsmobile buyer must have drifted off for other reasons too.

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).

javidogg · September 2003

In Reply To:

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.

fjk57702 · September 2003

that Oldsmobile dealers had to pay for a franchise to sell the Aurora. I don't know if this is true or not - but this is what an Oldsmobile/Aurora salesman told me and others.

sda · September 2003

I think there was some consideration about changing Oldsmobile to Aurora, but GM ran into copyright problems with Hankook tire which already had claim to the Aurora name. In some literature you will see the disclaimer, Aurora name used with permission from Hankook. oops.

garnes · September 2003

I think all you guys are making good points. Olds did have the best line-up. The advertising was flat out stupid, and there was very little if any capitalization on the Indy and other racing heritage of the Aurora - stupid.

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.

fjk57702 · September 2003

I have not looked at Chevys recently. The Impala looks like a good car - except for style. The big tail lights don't seem to fit. One thing Chevy should have is some kind of midsize wagon. Or one of the divisions should have some wagons (besides Saturn).

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.

garnes · September 2003

All in all, when you step back and look at the big picture, Olds did have the best line of cars offered by GM and they're now dead. There is no single reason/screw up. There were lots of them and I bet we hit a lot of them right here.

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.

hammen2 · September 2003

The Bonneville GXP is getting a version of the 4.6L Northstar - just not sure which one - and not the ex-Aurora bored-out 4.4L.

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

fjk57702 · September 2003

Having owned the 95 Riviera and then 98 Aurora, I guess that I am not sure the Olds line was all that great. I was disappointed that Buick was not given a chance to use the V8 too. I do have to say that my 2002 Seville with the 275 hp northstar is much nicer than either the Buick or the Aurora. But for the money, the 95 Aurora was a lot of car. By 98 though, the price tag on the Aurora was too high for what you got I think. And, my Seville was $10,000 off the list price or it would not have been a good deal either.

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.

garnes · September 2003

fjk - I wasn't including Cadillac. Of course their stuff is top shelf, but usually at a large premium to the other lines. I hear you about the price for an Aurora by the late 90's. My 98 stickered for over 39k I think. I got it used with 13k miles for less than 1/2 of the sticker.

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.

fjk57702 · September 2003

The Aurora's dash was different and nice. But I found that the design of the dash made for a lot more reflections in the windshield. The Aurora was a definite step in a new styling direction for Oldsmobile and perhaps GM.

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.

hammen2 · September 2003

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

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

fjk57702 · September 2003

That is the SLS engine (which I have). I like the low end torque and the axle gearing. I can cruise at 70 MPH at just under 2000 RPM's (2000 RPM's = 72 MPH).

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.

fjk57702 · September 2003

I should add that my axle ratio (on the seville) is a 3.11:1, not the 3.71:1 that the bonneville has.

garnes · September 2003

I just read that it was a 4.4 as I glanced through one of the latest car rags. Evidently there is some confusion out there. Giving the GXP the 4.6 as is in the caddy would be the way to go.

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??

regfootball · September 2003

GM is GM, that's about the only explanation you give for all the stupid things they do.

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?

rjs200240 · September 2003

Just like there is a certain valve timing and valve size and such that is more beneficial at a particular rpm, there is an intake tube lenght and diameter that is more beneficial at a particular rpm. BMW in particular has an intake that can vary the runners from like 7" to 20" or something. It is basically two curved runners, one of which can slide over the other. So when they overlap more they have a shorter overall length, and when they overlap less they have a longer overall length. At lower rpms, they would be longer and they would shorten up as the rpm increases. It has something to do with how the air pulses through the runners and some other stuff that I don't really understand very well. I remember someone here posting a good explanation once, though.

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?

ethink · September 2003

I have a crack in the reflector panel and I have a source for the replacement part.

Can anyone provide advice and information on how to remove and replace these part?

Thanks in advance,
Steve

regfootball · September 2003

sure if all GM's low tech engines had 400hp and a basic archtiecture (v8) that allowed for inherently vibration free operation......

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.

ethink · September 2003

Interesting article.

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.

ethink · September 2003

from: Ward's Dealer Business, Feb 1, 2001

http://wdb.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_requiem_heavyweight/

ethink · September 2003

from: Forbes.com, Jerry Flint, 12.29.00

http://www.forbes.com/2000/12/29/1229flint.html

rjs200240 · September 2003

Well, for one you are focusing on peak horsepower in describing GM's engines. However, that's only a small part of the story. What is much more impressive about them is the torque they make, and more specifically the whole torque curve. The 3800 is an incredibly torquey engine. Also, it does make 260hp in its top trim. In addition, it gets pretty incredible mileage considering the size of cars that use it, and the amount of power and torque it makes. The S/C 3800 can still easily make 28-30 mpg on the freeway.

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.

ethink · September 2003

This article identifies many of the significant and unique characteristics of the "Classic" Aurora.

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

rjs200240 · September 2003

I'm watching the ALMS race at Miami, and Corvette had a real cool commercial about the C5-R effort. They focused a lot on the legendary Ferrari they compete with, and how the Corvette took top spot in the first 5 races of the season against them. It was a pretty cool commercial with plenty of shots of Corvettes cruising around in front of the red Prodrive 550 Maranellos.

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...

ethink · September 2003

From the GM Photostore Website, "Collections" area:

These designs were from 1990:

http://www.gmphotostore.com/source/PODGallery.aspx?L1=GM+Collecti- ons&L2=12250&page=3

fjk57702 · September 2003

The BMW 7 series engine has a continuously variable manifold length. This is probably expensive (at least to fix). The northstar intake manifold is about 20 inches long I think. Longer (say 30 inches) will increase the low speed torque. Shorter will improve the high speed performance. A simple port in the design can halve the length of the tube for high speed performance. Mercedes 3.2 V6 does this. The Catera V6 also had a 3 stage intake manifold to improve the performance at different engine speeds. The new 3.6 also has a two stage manifold. The different stages involve changing the apparent length of the intake runner.

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.

regfootball · September 2003

the northstar 4.0 spots the 5.7 a whole 1.7 litres of displacement, so i hope you can forgive it in not making the 265hp that the Impala SS made in 95.

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.

rjs200240 · September 2003

Again, I'm not really sure what you are getting at. I mentioned that the features on an engine like variable-whatever aren't necessarily amazing, and don't ensure a superior engine. You seem to be taking issue with this, but I can't figure out what the issue is.

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.

fjk57702 · September 2003

Beginning with the 91 model year the 3800 had been re_engineered and produced 170 HP I think. Then a supercharged version was introduced, possibly with 205 hp. My 95 Riviera had a 225 horsepower supercharged engine. The base 3800 was upgraded to 205 hp that year and the 96 model year got a 240 HP supercharged engine. These later engines were re_engineered and had an all new design - but still used the old tooling and cast iron block.

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.

rjs200240 · September 2003

I think GM will have two V6 lines. The high-feature line and the high-value line. I assume the 3.6 you refer to is the high-feature V6 debuting in the 2004 CTS and SRX. However, they also have a redesign of the 3.4/3.1/2.8L V6 engine which will be the high-value V6. It's still pushrod, but is a 60-degree engine unlike the 3800. That will appear in the new Malibu.

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).

rjs200240 · September 2003

I've been putting up some long posts... Sorry guys...

fjk57702 · September 2003

Yes, the 3.6 I referred to is the DOHC VVT variable length manifold high feature V6. The comparable pushrod is the new 3.5 high value V6. There is supposed to be a larger version of each at some point I think.

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).

hammen2 · September 2003

FYI, when the Bonneville GXP was announced, it was supposed to have a 4.4L bored-out version of the Aurora V-8, but GM has (wisely, IMHO) backed away from this, and is just using the SLS 4.6L motor:

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

garnes · September 2003

Thanks. The 4.6 was the way to go. Offer more and it's cheaper and easier. That car would be worth considering as a future used purchase. Although a CTS-V or a GTO would give you that tire roasting ability.

fjk57702 · September 2003

What I read about the proposed 4.4 was that it would be a shorter stroke 4.6. But the stroke is already shorter than the bore (84mm stroke and 93 mm bore), so that did not make a lot of sense. At one time the VVT northstar was going to be 4.2 liters too. But maybe the supercharged/turbo_charged version will be 4.2.

garnes · September 2003

If you get an Aurora, I'd look for a 98 or 99. They have some improvements over the earlier years and are simply a bit newer of course. Try to find one from a private party - an older person preferably. That would be the best. Some of the Auroras I've seen on used lots are sad to see as they have been abused. One sure way to be dissatisfied is buy a used/abused car of any make.

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.

garnes · September 2003

Thanks for all the long posts. They are informative. Don't mind ol' reg too much. He's been somewhat of a domestic basher or at least with GM and seems to loath the 3800. If you look at the peak power numbers only, and focus on the magazine opinions and test numbers, that would maybe explain things.

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.

regfootball · September 2003

I've driven plenty of 3800's (SSeis, Riviera, 88's, Impala LS, Regal GS, Grand Prix, LeSabre, and on, and on) on test drives and relatives cars, supercharged and not, and none of them deliver the total driving experience commensurate with a luxury car or even by today's standards a basic midsize sedan.

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.

garnes · September 2003

Maybe our seat of the pants meters were calibrated differently. I've driven most of those cars too and was not disappointed. I haven't driven a SC 3800 though, but if you were under whelmed by it's performance - you better not get an Aurora. I know, how about a plasticy, buzzy, Altima-looking G-35? Go for it. No matter the plastic or buzzyness, the automotive press will praise your decision to drive one.

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.

rjs200240 · September 2003

Funny you mention the Nissan V6. A friend of mine at work has a 2003 350Z (which, at about 5K miles needs a new tranny). He knows a guy who blew up his engine at the track (not Nissan's fault, the point is coming) and it costs around $10,000 for a new engine from Nissan (not including labor). When you look at that cost, the engine isn't quite as impressive as it may have seemed. In fact, even Car & Driver, the Nissan/Infiniti lovers (the ones who called the horrific plastic center console in the G35 "satin nickel"), said the engine was harsh and trucklike in the upper rev range. So what are you paying for? Powerful for a 3.5L V6, but not really powerful in general (Camaros were makng that power back in 1993)... Wow. I'll keep my low-tech 4.0, thanks. Though his engine does do a nice impression of a swarm of mosquitoes, so that's something...

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.

sda · September 2003

If I were looking for a used Aurora classic, it would be a '98 or '99. Not only are they newer, but they also benefit from a revised and improved front suspension. The ride and handling are greatly improved. Ride is more supple, with less porpoising of the front end. I've driven a '95, and '97 to buy myself some years ago. Later I helped my parents buy a '98 Aurora with 23,000 miles in 1999. It currently has 53000 miles, and is a delight to drive

regfootball · September 2003

your points are noteworthy as well.

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.

garnes · September 2003

You can cite a maxima all day, but as you can see, there are plenty of other "refined" engines out there that don't really outperform the 3800 - or it's not a big difference either way.

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.

regfootball · September 2003

"I'll live with GM having to add a tablet to the coolant to avoid the manifold gasket. That's not so bad"

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.

Henry · October 2003

Hmm, it seems the the Chevy Truck song also applies to Aurora. Thank you Bob Seger.

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

Henry · October 2003

inspired by the $15,995 price advertised for a diamond white 4.0 2001 Aurora with abiut 25k miles.

Oldsmobile Aurora

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles