At the track, you get two times for the 1/4. Your reaction time, RT, and your elapsed time, ET. If you add these together you will get your total time, although they won't be added together on your slip. The number that will flash will be your ET. However, it's possible to beat your opponent by having a lower RT and a higher ET. In this case, the signs will show you as the winner even though the other guy will have a lower time displayed. This is called beaing the guy with a hole-shot, meaning you were out of the hole faster, but he was faster down the track. Whoever gets to the end first is who wins, not who gets the best ET.
For posting here, though, it's your ET that matters more. We don't care if you beat the guy next to you. We just care what your ET was. (Well, we care some, but we care more about the ET.) You can usually drop your ET a little at the expense of your RT by staging shallow. This means you pull up until you just barely set off the second staging light. This way, you can get the car moving before you are away from the lights. It will hurt your RT, but help your ET because you will already have some speed as you leave the lights. Leaving the lights is what determines where your RT ends and your ET begins. Also, I've heard that you should leave on the last yellow. Apparently it will take you longer to leave the line than it will for the light to change (.4 seconds for the light to change).
Some people ice their intake manifold, but I'd be worried it would distort or crack (it's plastic). To me that wouldn't be worth it. You should definitely jettison the spare tire. Some people even remove their headlight to get more cool air in by the airbox. Show up with like 1/4 of a tank of gas too. I've heard selecting 2nd gear raises the tranny's line pressure for harder, quicker shifts. It can't hurt. When my car is warmed up, doing this results in a shift at 6400 rpm. I also turn the traction control off and left-brake the car. The wheels squeal a little, but not a lot. The car really takes a good set this way. If your car peels out a lot then maybe you should try a different way.
As an aside, I've now noticed three different WOT shift points. Before the car would always shift at either 5800 rpm or 6200 rpm. I'm beginning to suspect it had to do with the car being fully warmed up. However, the times that I've put it down into 2nd, the car has shifted right up against the redline at 6400 rpm. It doesn't appear to hit the rev-limiter at 6500, though (although I'm not sure what to be paying attention for).
I was just looking at the vernjohnsonmotors.com site, there is a 2001 aurora with a couple pics that they modified with 3inch exhaust and modified airbox, but they don't say how they modified the airbox.
Good luck at the track. An easy way to shave 17 pounds is to remove the rear seat bottom cushion -- an easy 1-minute task. Removing the rear seat back and seat belts is more time-consuming and will yield an additional 16 to 17 pounds. I've also thought about replacing (temporarily for the track) the huge 55-pound battery with something very light like a motorcycle or lawn tractor battery.
If you decide to shed weight, please keep track of it so that we observers will be able to factor that into comparisons with our own Auroras.
I'm not overweight at all, but man you are starting to make me feel bad about my weight as it relates to the olympics. Musclecar better skip the donuts for sure!!!!
I got the package. Thanks. I should have that used TB soon to send to RSM.
I was looking through the pages and saw something about the crankcase breather pipe. Did you have to wrestle with that too? I don't remember you mentioning it.
Your web site is great. Some pictures of the mods like RJS has shared and you'll be over the top.
Garnes-Glad you got the package. The crankcase breather pipe wasn't a problem. Have you talked to RSM about sending them your TB, yet? Mention my name next time you talk to them
1/4 mile- I don't think 16-17lbs will make any difference to the times. Its already 2 tons, 17lbs. more shoudn't even be noticable with timeslip comparsion. If you want to shave some time, go buy some 100 octane racing fuel. That would help more than -17lbs. Is your car stock?
Of course you're right about 17+16 pounds not making significant difference in 1/4-mile times. I was just suggesting additional items to remove since musclecar97 stated that he planned to remove the spare tire and jack.
How would 100-octane racing fuel improve the performance of a motor designed to run on 91 octane (unless its compression ratio has been modified)?
If you can remove 15 lbs. here and 15 lbs. there, it will add up. Each 15 lbs. doesn't make much difference, but all together it might. That's usually how weight is shaved off of cars. A little here, a little there. There isn't some 100 lbs. part on the car that doesn't need to be there. Couple the seats, tire, and jack with having a less-than-full gas tank and I bet you could shave 150 lbs. off of the original weight. I guarantee that will make a difference.
Blk97, I bet that even with 93 (or 91) octane there are occasions where your car runs at less than the max ignition timing. This is because the car will push the timing right up until it gets knock. I think you'd still need the knock-sensor even if you promised to use quality 93 all the time. So I imagine an octane booster would get the car to run the timing a little deeper. It may not make a huge difference, but it can't hurt.
Really, you'd probably think about trying anything (that isn't bad for the car) if it will shave an extra .1 seconds from your run. It isn't a big deal, but imagine if you kept running a 15.6. That is almost what the best magazines ran (I think 15.7?). I bet you'd try anything to get it down to 15.5 or 15.4. They sound a lot better even though it's a small gain.
Yep, I called RSM and they said "oh that's good, then we don't have to go and find one". I mentioned your work and they certainly know about Taylor in the Chicago area.
MHO on that 99 Aurora. Those wheels actually look OK. I think the body on the classic is perfect just the way it is and needs nothing. Forget the spoiler. The car is just so clean as-is. Also the ground effects do look tough, but then it starts looking like a Bonneville or something else. It's kind of busy too. As for the estimated 280 HP - that may be a stretch for exhaust with a K&N only. Unless the exhaust mods are really doing something incredible. I'll bet it sounds terrible too - it seems kind of pieced together - kind of hokey. As for the other bells and whistles well... I don't know. Just give me the latest escort/passport.
In short, I'd say you are going to have a much better/nicer performing car than that with the new induction, throttle body and a first class exhaust system made for the northstar.
I was just trying to be funny. But yes, at 60 mph (for example), I think the car would travel almost 9 feet in .1 seconds. So when it's an actual race, every little bit sure counts. I'd still have a donut though. Hmmmm donuts.
The one 800wattAurora linked to a few posts up. I don't think it looks bad, but I like it better straight with no body alterations. The body is pretty bold as-is. A lot of the other "stuff" I would never want, and the exhaust seems to be a Frankenstein creation of various components. 280 HP - I don't know about that. If he want's to know what 280+ HP really feels like (and SHOULD sound like), he should ride in Taylor's car when he is done - and hopefully my own when I'm done.
I think the ground effects make it look as if it rolled out of a Pontiac showroom. If it were a bland car like a regal, maybe it would be great, but I really think the classic looks perfect right from the factory - inside and out. My only beef is the stock wheels are a little plain. Stock chrome helps though.
Just my HO. It's all really subjective. But if bright calipers indicate a liking for Uncle Ben's (I still love that), all that other stuff, well, ... I guess I'm just getting prematurely old at 36.
Just give me an Aurora that looks like a wet piece of candy and go heavy on the straight line acceleration - I can always use more of that no matter what the factory provides.
I Kinda of like it, The rims look pretty good. I think the razzi kit looks good from the side, but the rear piece ruins it for me. I don't care for the mold/in-dent behind the rear tires. But the Front looks better with the lower piece gone. Kinda answered my previous dilemia on how the kit looks on white. I won't get it though, not on my 6yr old 84K car. The pefectionist that I am would make me paint the whole car, to clean up the wear & tear aged original paint. Dosen't need new paint, YET?!?! His estmate of 280hp is way high. No way. I agree about the pieced together exhaust. Flowmaster 50's? That's a rumblely LOUD muffler. I don't think Flowmaster even makes a quite exhaust, I looked into it before. But to each his own.
Can't wait for the Corsa Install myself!!! Garnes Aug. 1st is next Thursday!!! We'll need to talk soon. Anybody else interested in one? They could probably make it when we go and ship it, bolt-on ready. Let Garnes or myself know.
1/4 mile. Shaving 16-17lbs won't make much difference but if you collectively get 100+ gone it could make a small difference. If your going for fastest possibly renthe weight reduction route. Cool. Shave as much as you can for the best time possible. A higher Octane rating WILL make difference. Use 100 octane pump gas, not booster in a bottle which only raises tenths of points, not full points, "octane 5in a bottle"= 93.5. In the my GM service manual, it talks what the what % of highly-combustable gas additives can be used to raise octane points.
Hopefully I'll get MY pics up in 2-3weeks, maybe sooner.
Don't know how I missed that. I even checked out the link. I guess I just looked at the picture then went back to Edmunds. I'm a dope...
That car looks ok, I guess. I'm not a big fan of body kits and lower cladding. Ditto Garnes' comments. I think if a car looks sporty, then it looks sporty. If it doesn't, lower body cladding and a spoiler don't help (think the new Corolla S). The Aurora definitely doesn't need generic cladding to look cool.
That guy seems to want a lot of money for his car. He mentions sinking $7,000 into modding it, but he will never see a return on that. Modding your car usually lowers the value more than if it were still stock. Once you personalize the car, no one else really wants it. It isn't their personal taste... The Flowmasters seem like a bad choice. However, some people think loud is tough. The louder it is the better. I'm sure you've seen Mustang V6's with the triple spoiler and blaring exhaust. Apparently the impression of performance is more important than actual performance. Especially since all the ridiculous mods probably cost as much as the V8 did. That Aurora guy replaced his resonator with a Borla racing muffler? So he has three mufflers? How the heck would that work? I bet it sounds weird...
I thought the car looked like a Grand Prix when I first saw the picture (though Bonnie is a good choice also). In any event it was very Pontiac looking.
I do not think the Classic needs any help in the looks department. It has a "clean elegance" to it all by itself. I think the only thing the Classic needs is the 2001 17" Chrome Rims and performance/handling mods.
IMHO,
Henri
P.S. I did not know this but a salesman told me that the Classic has a tighter turning diameter then the Y2K. This is because the wheels on the Classic pivot when you turn and this technology was removed for the 2K1 cars.
Henry - ditto. Let me know if you are interested in the Aurora 17's for that 99 if you ever get it.
RJS - yeah, that exhaust system he describes is a nightmare. Yeah he is asking a lot for a car that has been messed with all over. You never get that stuff back and it can make the car harder to sell if the looks or drivability are significantly changed.
That's why I'll keep a stock intake and exhaust. Somebody may very well love those upgrades because they are not radical and help performance. They may even pay a bit for it, but you never know who will be buying your car. They may not want that stuff at all. I don't intend to sell the thing any time soon so it's kind of a moot point.
The wheels on every car pivot to turn. This is in fact how turning is accomplished... Henri, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. It's possible the classic's rack allowed the wheels to turn more or something, but the wheel itself doesn't have any device in it to aid turning. If it does, please send picts, because they would blow me away!
I got a response to my inquiry into RSM. Here is what they said when I asked about a TB for the new Aurora: The 96 and newer TB is the same size in the Aurora and the Cadillac northstar engines, it is 75 mm stock. The larger TB will fit the 2002 Aurora engine as well we just have to update the year on the site.
I'm not sure if I want to do it, though. I'll have to think about it a little.
What's interesting to me is that the Caddy has the same 75mm TB. I imagine a bigger one would have even greater effect on the Northstar since it needs to breath more than the Aurora V8. The Aurora would really benefit if the intake and head passages and valves are the same size too. That would mean that the Aurora breaths better to start with (although it would mean the Northstar would respond better to changes).
You are of course right that all wheels pivot when they turn. I will have to go back to the saleman and ask him the details of what he was talking about.
Another thing he mentioned was that the 95-96 Classics should hold the road better than the 97-99's. Why? Because Olds changed how airflows over the car in 1997 to eliminate the so called "distortion" in the rear window that people were complaining about. If you look at a 97-99 compared to a 95-96 you can see that the slope of the window is different.
The car was originally designed with the window pictched in such a way to force air down on the body of the car (less wind flow under the car). In addition the "muscles" on the body of the car are not just for looks but for airflow. What the saleaman said kind fo makes sense since the Classic uses air differently than other cars (e.g., no front grill).
But like I said, I will check back with him on the turning diameter thing. Although, I think the turning diameter of the car is given in the books for the cars. Anybody having the turning diameters for both the 95 and the 2k1 could varify if the 95's diameter is actually smaller.
RJS - the classic TB has the MAF bolted to it and the duct attaches to the MAF. I'd think the new aurora TB would be different as to how the ducting attaches since you don't have the MAF attached to it. I hope RSM wasn't thinking a 96 through 99 would fit the new 4.0. I don't think it would work.
I checked the book for the 1995 it gives the diameter at 41 feet. the 2002 book give the diameter at 39.5 for the V6 and 40 for the V8. Now I really will check back with salesman because someone is wrong and I am not willing to say the saleman given the amount of incorrect information that is out there about the 2K1's.
Anybody with a 2k1 care to meet me at the local mall parking lot? Bring your chalk and measuring tape.
where are you getting your info from? I know the rear glass was redesigned because of distortion complaints, but it's hard to see how the rear glass would affect airflow under the car. Also, less airflow underneath doesn't necessarily mean more downforce. In fact, if you can get more air to flow under the car, then the air has to flow much faster (assuming it's flowing through the same amount of space. If you raised the car up to increase flow, obviously this wouldn't apply) under the car. This in fact increases downforce (or reduces lift) by Bernoulli's principle. This is illustrated in F1 by the raised noses that force more air under the car. Venturi tunnels would increase this effect by further speeding up the airflow under the car.
I would think the main result the glass shape would make is to smooth the airflow and thus reduce drag (and possibly reduce lift a little). It's hard to imagine it creating downforce considering how any rear window has to be shaped.
As far as no front grill, most cars are bottom breathers (like the Aurora) meaning they scoop their radiator air up from under the bumper. The grills usually don't contribute the majority of air to the cooling, and are mainly for looks. Not all cars would look very good with no grill. It also helps the horn... Corvette's haven't had grills since 1962. It isn't particularly revolutionary.
I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, it's just that a lot of that sounds rather dubious...
I haven't found any information in the owner's manual to be incorrect. The only problem has been with info on their websites. So if the turning info is from the owner's manual, I see no reason to doubt it. If it is on the website, the only errors I've found have been repeats of the classic info. Obviously this isn't a repeat since it isn't the same (although that isn't a guarantee it's correct).
Garnes, RSM is saying the 96-99 TB fits my car. I too found that a little strange, especially in light of how your MAF attaches. Well, if I do it, I'll go find a junkyard TB or just suck up the deposit. I do want to keep the original part.
RJS - The face of the TB is flush with 3 taps for the MAF. Those pictures you posted seem to indicate the new 4.0 has a differently formed TB. Inside they are probably the same, but I sure think everything hooks together a little different.
Since your MAF is in-line in the duct, I would expect your TB to be formed a little different.
I talked with RSM this weekend and they are offering even more for us. Zsolt told me that they NOW offer ported heads and ported intake manifolds. No talk on claims yet, they'll get back to me tomarrow for more info. I told them I was interested. He also said that they ARE going to help us get ride of our non-aurobaun speed limiter, I want that too.
Last week they closed shop and went/entered in several US car shows. They just finished Supercharging a GrandAm 3400 and ran a 13.92 in 1/4mi. Zsolt said that with this, building a 13 second Aurora would be no problem! "If there are any takers" Qoute Zsolt. They want to Supercharger a Northstar. Zsolt might just do his, since he's the BOSS. The Kit the would use would definitly make over +100HP he said. Any takers??? www.rsmracing.com
I've also aked them about the TB's. I guess the classics is the same TB as in the Caddys. RJS- I asked them about 2nd Gen Aurora's, they tell me tommarrow. I personaly have never looked under the hood of a 2nd Gen. I can't really comment about if it fits. Bet yours is a little different, if your MAF is different. But who knows. They could still bore it out for you if it is different.
Henri- I think the salesman is full of it, You need a shovel, he's laying it on thick. To my knowledge, all Aurora's(classics) have the same shape/size rear glass. The "Distortion" only applies to 95's. The first year the car came out, people complained about the shape of things out of the rear glass, it makes everything look WIDE'er than it is, Saab looking. In 96 they changed the viewing angle "within" the glass to correct this, not the size of the glass.
As for the 95-96 should hold the road better. Where's the shovel? The 98-99's have the tightest and most refined suspension. The 95-96 had the first Suspension setup, in 97 the changed it, I heard that they didn't like the something about it, so 98-99 get's the 95-96 setup, but everything is beefed up. Thicker sway bars, and something else. So i figure that the 98-99's ride, is the best. Most auto makers make tweeks from last years complaints.
I'm just trying to tell the facts. We all know that most/all car salesman/saleswomen (gotta be politically correct) are FULL of it. They'll tell you anything!!!
When I checked the books and found his numbers to be off on the turning diameter and one other thing he said questionable I wouldn't stake my rep on his talk being right.
800watt...I'll wait in line w/you for the supercharger. I've been to caddyinfo.com checking on the Caddy s/c and no updates since March 7th. I wish they'd release it, I'd imagine it could be modified for the 4.0. RSM have any initial cost estimates? My kids would surely understand why they can't go to college because my car isn't fast enough:)
800Watt. There is no reason they can't affect the distortion without changing the overall shape of the glass. And he's right about the suspension changes. 97+ was firmer than the 95-96 Aurora. They also got bigger brakes in 97.
Hey Henri, come over here for a minute... Ok, let's GET HIM EVERYONE!
I've noticed that car salesmen seem to know less about cars than just about any other human being on earth. If you had all day to read info from GM (better info than we get) all prepared in a nice folder for you, wouldn't you know everything there was to know about the lineup? Man, imagine getting paid to research stuff about the Aurora... It's amazing they are as dumb as they are. You'd think just being around cars all day you'd have to pick up something...
RJS - I agree about the salesmen. They generally know nothing - and I mean NOTHING. It's amazing.
sbeaupre - I think you are talking about extreme motor sports. I hate to say it, but they said they would be developing the supercharger (I would not do this however), a unit to make adjustments to the computer, and last spring they were supposed to have a cold air induction for the caddy. I could be wrong, but I don't think any of these things ever happened and I just dismiss those guys right now. I was interested in the cold air as it might be applicable to the aurora.
800 - man, you are going to get me in trouble. Heads and intake manifolds would certainly add power. I'll bet that would be expensive though. I don't think I'd go that far. The Tim Allen DTS had all that done. Perhaps a modified cam as well - can't remember. I wonder if they got at the computer programming. I wonder if it would be necessary for the heads and such. Maybe so.
That throttle body from the junk yard had a tag tied to it that listed that it cam from a 97 aurora and the VIN was included. It was all computer printed. I thought it was interesting.
October-Novemeber??? I can't wait that long. I want it NOW!!! Oh well, it'll happen when it happens. That exhaust has been delaying my trip to the track. I wanna see what my Aurora's going to run in the 1/4m with intake&exhaust "de-bottled-up" Maybe i'll go to the track with just my intake mods. Really wanted to wait for that Corsa though. I'll give them a call in 3-4 weeks and see if things can happen sooner. (sigh)
That's nice that you got the print out on your TB. I didn't even notice if there was a VIN# on mine. I haven't returned my old TB yet. I'm debating if I should keep it or not. Haven't decided. Maybe when it's time to move on, I'll swap everything back to stock and put everything up for sale. Someone other Northstar owner would probably buy it. Again, Haven't decided yet, It's still sitting in a box. Do I want that $300 back?
Garnes, have you checked out http://discussions.gmforums.com/index.php yet? I know you haven't because your not posting, YET! The Aurora section is picking up some, I always read the Caddy Performance too, there's alot more info. RJS posts there as well, he's Aurora40. Bruce nunnally post there often who runs caddyinfo.com. He's trying to add more to it lately, he put two Auroras up on the performance list, guess who? You and me! check it out http://web2.airmail.net/nunnally/sts/nsmodsummary.htm more to come.
VIN - it's not on the TB, it was just printed out on the tag that was attached to it with a wire. For some reason, the yard included that info with the part. I'd keep the TB. I'll keep mine and the Granatelli MAF can keep it company!
If you sent it back, and I did not find one, I'd probably get your TB on my car.
Garnes, I think a cone inside the box would be great. The new Aurora has a pretty good airbox to keep heat out already. It's basically like most aftermarket ones (especially for imports). Except they have a cone in them. If someone made a similar replacement, or a cone that fit inside the current box, I think that would be excellent. Perhaps I should try to convince RSM to build it.
I really think the heat was a big factor. Just the fact that I was so close to that turbo Volvo was inspiring. They are no slouch in the quarter. And I was within .25 seconds of an Integra Type-R with intake work (and a manual tranny). I definitely want to try again in the fall.
I agree totally about the cone in the box. I always thought that would be the best set up. I guess the box would have to be pretty big though. I would not want any tight clearances around the cone where you would have some high velocities swirling around in the box.
I remember some guy on the Intrigue board posting a link to a company that seemed to make a cone-in-the-box set up for the Intrigue. That was a long time ago.
I didn't mean the general "heat" - sure a hot day will cost you a little. I meant the hot plastic air box. The plastic always gets hot. Basically the air is in there for a very short time. It's not like there is much time for any convection from the plastic. At 350 cfm (I think that's about what it comes out to be at 5000 rpm), you got almost 6 CF passing through the box every second. What's the volume of the box? .2 CF? .1 CF? (A Cubic Foot = 7.48 gallons! - it bigger than you think). So that air is in there for .015 or .03 seconds maybe?? And that assumes (incorrectly)that the entire volume is utilized - no short circuiting. I just don't see the fresh air being pulled in being heated much in a hundredth or two of a second. This is all ball park stuff, but I think the time of contact with the plastic box is faster than the blink of an eye at WOT at virtually any RPM.
I used to have a turbo Eclipse and in hot weather it definetly had an advantage over the naturally aspirated cars, it also had an advantage as you got further up from sea level. Bottom line I wonder if you might have taken him on a cooler day!
Garnes, I knew what you meant. Also, plastic isn't a great heat conductor so even if it was hot, not too much of that would transfer anyway. The stock box is fairly big. It would be huge if it weren't divided into two parts. Maybe a replacement box that were the same size but with only one chamber would be the best. Then a pretty large cone could fit in there with no clearance problems at all.
Mike98, I too would imagine a hot day affects a turbo car less. Especially with an intercooler. On a 70 degree day, their intake air might be 120 degrees and on a 100 degree day, maybe it's 130. Whereas for a normal car the intake air is 70 on a 70 degree day and 100 on a 100 degree day. So the intercooled/turboed car would suffer a lot less as their intake temp hasn't really changed much. I mean, the turbo generates way more heat than the hot day does, so a hot day isn't really much more heat for the intercooler to deal with.
The heat had a pretty big affect on me too. You have to keep the windows up, and you aren't allowed (nor would you want) to have the a/c on. You're supposed to wear long pants, but I didn't know that. I was sweating like crazy in the car. I just cleaned the leather a few days ago, but I'm going to do it again (after I take the car back to the dealer for them to fix the mirrors). The heat was incredible.
I would be interested in trying the 100 octane gas they had there, but I'm not sure how I'd do that. I'd basically have to coast into the place on fumes in order to still have a 1/4 tank or less and also have the 100 octane not be too diluted. I'm not sure it's really possible since the track is about 50 miles from me.
There is an indy engine on ebay which we could buy for $37,0000.00 and change. Who's going to go for it? I'm not interested since its just a 3.5.... kidding, just kidding.
That would be very cool if you tested the g-tech at the track. I love side by side measured comparisons like that. Let us know.
Yep, in that stop & go, it's hopeless. On a hot day, the temp is over 100 at the pavement and then the car is just radiating heat like mad all over. I'd think things cool off as soon as you are consistently rolling even at a slow speed. Is that so?
When I adjust the air in the tires on a hot day - man is it hot just crouched down next to the car.
Thanks for that info about the bottom deflector. I know you posted it before, but I bet a lot of people don't know how important it is for proper cooling and air flow.
I am thinking of stocking up by geting two of these things now for my 95. I see this as a part that will ultimately be impossible to find since it is not the kind of thing that would be available aftermarket.
I wonder if anyone out there is interested in talking about very minor modifications on their Auroras. I get a kick out of the information about TBs, and Corsa exhausts, Razzi, etc. But, because of finances, time, and personality, I'm just not there, yet. What about some little things? What small and clever, or trivial mods have you seen or accomplished? For anyone who's interested in this line of discussion, I'll offer a couple of starter ideas.
1. I cut and installled pieces of adhesive-backed felt to line the inside of the driver door map pocket to keep my dash dust brush from clacking around as I make the normal neighborhood and city turns and stops. The clacking wasn't that big a deal to begin with, but the noise did momentarily distract me while driving. (I presume that anyone reading here has a dash dust brush, right?)
2. I asked the dealer service technician to modify the dipstick so that "ENGINE OIL" is legible from the front of the car. (Actually, I asked the service representative at the dealership - - you know, the guy that writes down all your problems when you first pull in. He got that glazed look that said "Oh no, not another pain-in-the-butt customer. Why do I do this job?" But, to his credit, he and wrote it down without comment.) The technician just used a pair of pliers to make a very slight crimp in the cable. (The 3.5L has a cable dip stick.) The top of the dipstick is now about 90 degrees from the factory position, and can be read from the front.
...welllll...it wasn't as easy as I anticipated. I've moved several, but they may not be in sequence as the software kept giving me fits. If I totally messed up the thread, my apologies. :-(
Is that a new acronym? I'm not sure what you mean by bending the dipstick. Did you have the tube bent, or the dipstick itself? I looked at the manual to see what your's looks like. It sticks straight up just like mine, and has a bit of an "S" bend to it (but backwards). Did you just want the words "Engine Oil" on the top of the stick to be more legible? That's pretty weird. I mean, it's the only yellow handle in there. You could blacken the letters or something. I would be concerned that bending the dipstick or the tube will create an inaccurate reading of the oil level.
That's strange that your dipstick is a cable. Mine is a thin strip of metal like usual. My dipstick actually has to bend a whole lot more than the 3.5's does. It is an "S" also, but much much tighter.
I cannot comment about the 3.5 Litre engine but the dipstick on the the 4.0 Litre engine (the V8)has "Engine Oil" printed on both sides of the handle. I have a 99 Aurora and the 96 I had probably had the same configuration. I trust the dealer didn't charge you for the service. I cannot believe that the dipstick could not be simply turned around and re-inserted in the engine. Whew! I cannot believe I actually went out and looked at my engine to comment on this. BTW, the 4.0 has a cable dipstick.
Thanks for the new thread Karen, yes a few are out of order, but at least they are all in one place where we can find them.
The dipstick on the classic is a cable like rod with a plastic fitting attached to the bottom with the add/fill stuff on the fitting. Its very hard to read and as long as I've got oil close to the top of the fitting I figure its good to go.
Comments
For posting here, though, it's your ET that matters more. We don't care if you beat the guy next to you. We just care what your ET was. (Well, we care some, but we care more about the ET.) You can usually drop your ET a little at the expense of your RT by staging shallow. This means you pull up until you just barely set off the second staging light. This way, you can get the car moving before you are away from the lights. It will hurt your RT, but help your ET because you will already have some speed as you leave the lights. Leaving the lights is what determines where your RT ends and your ET begins. Also, I've heard that you should leave on the last yellow. Apparently it will take you longer to leave the line than it will for the light to change (.4 seconds for the light to change).
Some people ice their intake manifold, but I'd be worried it would distort or crack (it's plastic). To me that wouldn't be worth it. You should definitely jettison the spare tire. Some people even remove their headlight to get more cool air in by the airbox. Show up with like 1/4 of a tank of gas too. I've heard selecting 2nd gear raises the tranny's line pressure for harder, quicker shifts. It can't hurt. When my car is warmed up, doing this results in a shift at 6400 rpm. I also turn the traction control off and left-brake the car. The wheels squeal a little, but not a lot. The car really takes a good set this way. If your car peels out a lot then maybe you should try a different way.
As an aside, I've now noticed three different WOT shift points. Before the car would always shift at either 5800 rpm or 6200 rpm. I'm beginning to suspect it had to do with the car being fully warmed up. However, the times that I've put it down into 2nd, the car has shifted right up against the redline at 6400 rpm. It doesn't appear to hit the rev-limiter at 6500, though (although I'm not sure what to be paying attention for).
Good luck, and post your results!
Good luck at the track. An easy way to shave 17 pounds is to remove the rear seat bottom cushion -- an easy 1-minute task. Removing the rear seat back and seat belts is more time-consuming and will yield an additional 16 to 17 pounds. I've also thought about replacing (temporarily for the track) the huge 55-pound battery with something very light like a motorcycle or lawn tractor battery.
If you decide to shed weight, please keep track of it so that we observers will be able to factor that into comparisons with our own Auroras.
Light the rockets!
I was looking through the pages and saw something about the crankcase breather pipe. Did you have to wrestle with that too? I don't remember you mentioning it.
Your web site is great. Some pictures of the mods like RJS has shared and you'll be over the top.
1/4 mile- I don't think 16-17lbs will make any difference to the times. Its already 2 tons, 17lbs. more shoudn't even be noticable with timeslip comparsion. If you want to shave some time, go buy some 100 octane racing fuel. That would help more than -17lbs. Is your car stock?
Heres a COOL CUSTOMIZED AURORA!!
http://www.farnell-equipment.com/olds/index.htm
Very interesting, I want the spoiler and KVR rotors/pads next.
800wattAURORA
Of course you're right about 17+16 pounds not making significant difference in 1/4-mile times. I was just suggesting additional items to remove since musclecar97 stated that he planned to remove the spare tire and jack.
How would 100-octane racing fuel improve the performance of a motor designed to run on 91 octane (unless its compression ratio has been modified)?
Blk97, I bet that even with 93 (or 91) octane there are occasions where your car runs at less than the max ignition timing. This is because the car will push the timing right up until it gets knock. I think you'd still need the knock-sensor even if you promised to use quality 93 all the time. So I imagine an octane booster would get the car to run the timing a little deeper. It may not make a huge difference, but it can't hurt.
Really, you'd probably think about trying anything (that isn't bad for the car) if it will shave an extra .1 seconds from your run. It isn't a big deal, but imagine if you kept running a 15.6. That is almost what the best magazines ran (I think 15.7?). I bet you'd try anything to get it down to 15.5 or 15.4. They sound a lot better even though it's a small gain.
MHO on that 99 Aurora. Those wheels actually look OK. I think the body on the classic is perfect just the way it is and needs nothing. Forget the spoiler. The car is just so clean as-is. Also the ground effects do look tough, but then it starts looking like a Bonneville or something else. It's kind of busy too. As for the estimated 280 HP - that may be a stretch for exhaust with a K&N only. Unless the exhaust mods are really doing something incredible. I'll bet it sounds terrible too - it seems kind of pieced together - kind of hokey. As for the other bells and whistles well... I don't know. Just give me the latest escort/passport.
In short, I'd say you are going to have a much better/nicer performing car than that with the new induction, throttle body and a first class exhaust system made for the northstar.
I think the ground effects make it look as if it rolled out of a Pontiac showroom. If it were a bland car like a regal, maybe it would be great, but I really think the classic looks perfect right from the factory - inside and out. My only beef is the stock wheels are a little plain. Stock chrome helps though.
Just my HO. It's all really subjective. But if bright calipers indicate a liking for Uncle Ben's (I still love that), all that other stuff, well, ... I guess I'm just getting prematurely old at 36.
Just give me an Aurora that looks like a wet piece of candy and go heavy on the straight line acceleration - I can always use more of that no matter what the factory provides.
I Kinda of like it, The rims look pretty good. I think the razzi kit looks good from the side, but the rear piece ruins it for me. I don't care for the mold/in-dent behind the rear tires. But the Front looks better with the lower piece gone. Kinda answered my previous dilemia on how the kit looks on white. I won't get it though, not on my 6yr old 84K car. The pefectionist that I am would make me paint the whole car, to clean up the wear & tear aged original paint. Dosen't need new paint, YET?!?! His estmate of 280hp is way high. No way. I agree about the pieced together exhaust. Flowmaster 50's? That's a rumblely LOUD muffler. I don't think Flowmaster even makes a quite exhaust, I looked into it before. But to each his own.
Can't wait for the Corsa Install myself!!! Garnes Aug. 1st is next Thursday!!! We'll need to talk soon. Anybody else interested in one? They could probably make it when we go and ship it, bolt-on ready. Let Garnes or myself know.
1/4 mile. Shaving 16-17lbs won't make much difference but if you collectively get 100+ gone it could make a small difference. If your going for fastest possibly renthe weight reduction route. Cool. Shave as much as you can for the best time possible. A higher Octane rating WILL make difference. Use 100 octane pump gas, not booster in a bottle which only raises tenths of points, not full points, "octane 5in a bottle"= 93.5. In the my GM service manual, it talks what the what % of highly-combustable gas additives can be used to raise octane points.
Hopefully I'll get MY pics up in 2-3weeks, maybe sooner.
800wattAURORA.
That car looks ok, I guess. I'm not a big fan of body kits and lower cladding. Ditto Garnes' comments. I think if a car looks sporty, then it looks sporty. If it doesn't, lower body cladding and a spoiler don't help (think the new Corolla S). The Aurora definitely doesn't need generic cladding to look cool.
That guy seems to want a lot of money for his car. He mentions sinking $7,000 into modding it, but he will never see a return on that. Modding your car usually lowers the value more than if it were still stock. Once you personalize the car, no one else really wants it. It isn't their personal taste... The Flowmasters seem like a bad choice. However, some people think loud is tough. The louder it is the better. I'm sure you've seen Mustang V6's with the triple spoiler and blaring exhaust. Apparently the impression of performance is more important than actual performance. Especially since all the ridiculous mods probably cost as much as the V8 did. That Aurora guy replaced his resonator with a Borla racing muffler? So he has three mufflers? How the heck would that work? I bet it sounds weird...
I do not think the Classic needs any help in the looks department. It has a "clean elegance" to it all by itself. I think the only thing the Classic needs is the 2001 17" Chrome Rims and performance/handling mods.
IMHO,
Henri
P.S. I did not know this but a salesman told me that the Classic has a tighter turning diameter then the Y2K. This is because the wheels on the Classic pivot when you turn and this technology was removed for the 2K1 cars.
RJS - yeah, that exhaust system he describes is a nightmare. Yeah he is asking a lot for a car that has been messed with all over. You never get that stuff back and it can make the car harder to sell if the looks or drivability are significantly changed.
That's why I'll keep a stock intake and exhaust. Somebody may very well love those upgrades because they are not radical and help performance. They may even pay a bit for it, but you never know who will be buying your car. They may not want that stuff at all. I don't intend to sell the thing any time soon so it's kind of a moot point.
I got a response to my inquiry into RSM. Here is what they said when I asked about a TB for the new Aurora:
The 96 and newer TB is the same size in the Aurora and the Cadillac northstar engines, it is 75 mm stock. The larger TB will fit the 2002 Aurora engine as well we just have to update the year on the site.
I'm not sure if I want to do it, though. I'll have to think about it a little.
What's interesting to me is that the Caddy has the same 75mm TB. I imagine a bigger one would have even greater effect on the Northstar since it needs to breath more than the Aurora V8. The Aurora would really benefit if the intake and head passages and valves are the same size too. That would mean that the Aurora breaths better to start with (although it would mean the Northstar would respond better to changes).
Another thing he mentioned was that the 95-96 Classics should hold the road better than the 97-99's. Why? Because Olds changed how airflows over the car in 1997 to eliminate the so called "distortion" in the rear window that people were complaining about. If you look at a 97-99 compared to a 95-96 you can see that the slope of the window is different.
The car was originally designed with the window pictched in such a way to force air down on the body of the car (less wind flow under the car). In addition the "muscles" on the body of the car are not just for looks but for airflow. What the saleaman said kind fo makes sense since the Classic uses air differently than other cars (e.g., no front grill).
But like I said, I will check back with him on the turning diameter thing. Although, I think the turning diameter of the car is given in the books for the cars. Anybody having the turning diameters for both the 95 and the 2k1 could varify if the 95's diameter is actually smaller.
Henri
800 - don't worry, I'll call Corsa soon.
Anybody with a 2k1 care to meet me at the local mall parking lot? Bring your chalk and measuring tape.
I would think the main result the glass shape would make is to smooth the airflow and thus reduce drag (and possibly reduce lift a little). It's hard to imagine it creating downforce considering how any rear window has to be shaped.
As far as no front grill, most cars are bottom breathers (like the Aurora) meaning they scoop their radiator air up from under the bumper. The grills usually don't contribute the majority of air to the cooling, and are mainly for looks. Not all cars would look very good with no grill. It also helps the horn...
I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, it's just that a lot of that sounds rather dubious...
I haven't found any information in the owner's manual to be incorrect. The only problem has been with info on their websites. So if the turning info is from the owner's manual, I see no reason to doubt it. If it is on the website, the only errors I've found have been repeats of the classic info. Obviously this isn't a repeat since it isn't the same (although that isn't a guarantee it's correct).
Garnes, RSM is saying the 96-99 TB fits my car. I too found that a little strange, especially in light of how your MAF attaches. Well, if I do it, I'll go find a junkyard TB or just suck up the deposit. I do want to keep the original part.
Since your MAF is in-line in the duct, I would expect your TB to be formed a little different.
Last week they closed shop and went/entered in several US car shows. They just finished Supercharging a GrandAm 3400 and ran a 13.92 in 1/4mi. Zsolt said that with this, building a 13 second Aurora would be no problem! "If there are any takers" Qoute Zsolt. They want to Supercharger a Northstar. Zsolt might just do his, since he's the BOSS. The Kit the would use would definitly make over +100HP he said.
Any takers???
www.rsmracing.com
I've also aked them about the TB's. I guess the classics is the same TB as in the Caddys.
RJS- I asked them about 2nd Gen Aurora's, they tell me tommarrow. I personaly have never looked under the hood of a 2nd Gen. I can't really comment about if it fits. Bet yours is a little different, if your MAF is different. But who knows. They could still bore it out for you if it is different.
Henri- I think the salesman is full of it, You need a shovel, he's laying it on thick. To my knowledge, all Aurora's(classics) have the same shape/size rear glass. The "Distortion" only applies to 95's. The first year the car came out, people complained about the shape of things out of the rear glass, it makes everything look WIDE'er than it is, Saab looking. In 96 they changed the viewing angle "within" the glass to correct this, not the size of the glass.
As for the 95-96 should hold the road better. Where's the shovel? The 98-99's have the tightest and most refined suspension. The 95-96 had the first Suspension setup, in 97 the changed it, I heard that they didn't like the something about it, so 98-99 get's the 95-96 setup, but everything is beefed up. Thicker sway bars, and something else. So i figure that the 98-99's ride, is the best. Most auto makers make tweeks from last years complaints.
I'm just trying to tell the facts.
We all know that most/all car salesman/saleswomen (gotta be politically correct) are FULL of it. They'll tell you anything!!!
800wattAURORA
whah whah wah MOMMIE!!!
Remember
I am a LOVER not a TECH HEAD.
Hey Henri, come over here for a minute... Ok, let's GET HIM EVERYONE!
I've noticed that car salesmen seem to know less about cars than just about any other human being on earth. If you had all day to read info from GM (better info than we get) all prepared in a nice folder for you, wouldn't you know everything there was to know about the lineup? Man, imagine getting paid to research stuff about the Aurora... It's amazing they are as dumb as they are. You'd think just being around cars all day you'd have to pick up something...
sbeaupre - I think you are talking about extreme motor sports. I hate to say it, but they said they would be developing the supercharger (I would not do this however), a unit to make adjustments to the computer, and last spring they were supposed to have a cold air induction for the caddy. I could be wrong, but I don't think any of these things ever happened and I just dismiss those guys right now. I was interested in the cold air as it might be applicable to the aurora.
800 - man, you are going to get me in trouble. Heads and intake manifolds would certainly add power. I'll bet that would be expensive though. I don't think I'd go that far. The Tim Allen DTS had all that done. Perhaps a modified cam as well - can't remember. I wonder if they got at the computer programming. I wonder if it would be necessary for the heads and such. Maybe so.
He said two cars will probably be fine. The systems could be mostly clamped too for easy removal if ever needed.
Jim also commented - "have you driven the new Aurora?" He went on to comment on how "tight" it felt and was generally impressed with the handling.
That's nice that you got the print out on your TB. I didn't even notice if there was a VIN# on mine. I haven't returned my old TB yet. I'm debating if I should keep it or not. Haven't decided. Maybe when it's time to move on, I'll swap everything back to stock and put everything up for sale. Someone other Northstar owner would probably buy it. Again, Haven't decided yet, It's still sitting in a box. Do I want that $300 back?
Garnes, have you checked out http://discussions.gmforums.com/index.php yet? I know you haven't because your not posting, YET! The Aurora section is picking up some, I always read the Caddy Performance too, there's alot more info. RJS posts there as well, he's Aurora40. Bruce nunnally post there often who runs caddyinfo.com. He's trying to add more to it lately, he put two Auroras up on the performance list, guess who? You and me! check it out http://web2.airmail.net/nunnally/sts/nsmodsummary.htm more to come.
800wattAURORA
If you sent it back, and I did not find one, I'd probably get your TB on my car.
I really think the heat was a big factor. Just the fact that I was so close to that turbo Volvo was inspiring. They are no slouch in the quarter. And I was within .25 seconds of an Integra Type-R with intake work (and a manual tranny). I definitely want to try again in the fall.
I remember some guy on the Intrigue board posting a link to a company that seemed to make a cone-in-the-box set up for the Intrigue. That was a long time ago.
I didn't mean the general "heat" - sure a hot day will cost you a little. I meant the hot plastic air box. The plastic always gets hot. Basically the air is in there for a very short time. It's not like there is much time for any convection from the plastic. At 350 cfm (I think that's about what it comes out to be at 5000 rpm), you got almost 6 CF passing through the box every second. What's the volume of the box? .2 CF? .1 CF? (A Cubic Foot = 7.48 gallons! - it bigger than you think). So that air is in there for .015 or .03 seconds maybe?? And that assumes (incorrectly)that the entire volume is utilized - no short circuiting. I just don't see the fresh air being pulled in being heated much in a hundredth or two of a second. This is all ball park stuff, but I think the time of contact with the plastic box is faster than the blink of an eye at WOT at virtually any RPM.
I wouldn't worry about the hot air box.
Bottom line I wonder if you might have taken him on a cooler day!
Mike98, I too would imagine a hot day affects a turbo car less. Especially with an intercooler. On a 70 degree day, their intake air might be 120 degrees and on a 100 degree day, maybe it's 130. Whereas for a normal car the intake air is 70 on a 70 degree day and 100 on a 100 degree day. So the intercooled/turboed car would suffer a lot less as their intake temp hasn't really changed much. I mean, the turbo generates way more heat than the hot day does, so a hot day isn't really much more heat for the intercooler to deal with.
The heat had a pretty big affect on me too. You have to keep the windows up, and you aren't allowed (nor would you want) to have the a/c on. You're supposed to wear long pants, but I didn't know that. I was sweating like crazy in the car. I just cleaned the leather a few days ago, but I'm going to do it again (after I take the car back to the dealer for them to fix the mirrors). The heat was incredible.
I would be interested in trying the 100 octane gas they had there, but I'm not sure how I'd do that. I'd basically have to coast into the place on fumes in order to still have a 1/4 tank or less and also have the 100 octane not be too diluted. I'm not sure it's really possible since the track is about 50 miles from me.
Aurora Owners: Modified Acceleration Stats
Yep, in that stop & go, it's hopeless. On a hot day, the temp is over 100 at the pavement and then the car is just radiating heat like mad all over. I'd think things cool off as soon as you are consistently rolling even at a slow speed. Is that so?
When I adjust the air in the tires on a hot day - man is it hot just crouched down next to the car.
Thanks for that info about the bottom deflector. I know you posted it before, but I bet a lot of people don't know how important it is for proper cooling and air flow.
Henri
Aurora Owners: Acceleration
Yes, I can move posts, but it would be helpful if you gave me the post numbers to be moved.
OR, if you are the author of those posts, you can copy/paste the text as a new post in that discussion. That way you can also add/edit the message.
Let me know how you want to proceed.
1. I cut and installled pieces of adhesive-backed felt to line the inside of the driver door map pocket to keep my dash dust brush from clacking around as I make the normal neighborhood and city turns and stops. The clacking wasn't that big a deal to begin with, but the noise did momentarily distract me while driving. (I presume that anyone reading here has a dash dust brush, right?)
2. I asked the dealer service technician to modify the dipstick so that "ENGINE OIL" is legible from the front of the car. (Actually, I asked the service representative at the dealership - - you know, the guy that writes down all your problems when you first pull in. He got that glazed look that said "Oh no, not another pain-in-the-butt customer. Why do I do this job?" But, to his credit, he and wrote it down without comment.) The technician just used a pair of pliers to make a very slight crimp in the cable. (The 3.5L has a cable dip stick.) The top of the dipstick is now about 90 degrees from the factory position, and can be read from the front.
Any other ideas?
Ken
That's strange that your dipstick is a cable. Mine is a thin strip of metal like usual. My dipstick actually has to bend a whole lot more than the 3.5's does. It is an "S" also, but much much tighter.
The dipstick on the classic is a cable like rod with a plastic fitting attached to the bottom with the add/fill stuff on the fitting. Its very hard to read and as long as I've got oil close to the top of the fitting I figure its good to go.