My 99 stock aurora has kept up and beat a lot of cars including. The oh so common hondas, mustangs, camaros, Cadillac. These cars are the most overlooked cars in the automotive industry today, but i assure you if you race one of them you will be surprised.
@DOHCCordia lol my aurora isnt stock nor where the cars i raced. I kept the body trim meaning no kits and factory edition wheel meaning no rims. Mines just special and cost 3k to make it special lol
Just to get things straight, When Oldsmobile was still in existence, before GM shut them down in 2003, if you bought a 2003 Oldsmobile Aurora 4.0L you had an option for either installing a Turbo, or Supercharger. Now what i want to know is where can I find such parts for the '03 aurora?
@insanityawakens There does not exist, nor has there ever exsited an option for turbo. The members of the "Aurora Club of North America" have been trying to get a decent charger in these cars for some time now.
@bcuzofview Ok i realize that now, but i have been doing much online research lately, and the only option i could find was a $500 custom single turbo kit on Ebay...
haha funny i have a black 98 as well never raced it yet only has 180 miles on it due to the new engine thats pushing 350hp i might sell it though but ill prolly race it first
it wasnt a bad 0-60, but it seemed to take a while to get to redline.. gm has had problems putting the right transmission in cars.. like my dad's old buick rondezvous..
I too am part of that forum (aura1) and along with rapmastac can tell you that the forum we belong too does in fact have quite a few knowledgable poeople. I along with thousands of other people will agree. It in no way shape or form implys that its members are experts, but many are
WTH are you talking about? I never said my Aurora had any mods what so ever! Check the description. My Aurora is mostly stock, except the exhaust and the gutted intake box. And I don't recall saying my Aurora does any 6.5 seconds.
If everyone is laughing, then why you negged so much? Let's not turn this into a flame war, just keep your rude and ignorantly blatant comments to yourself. Think before you type!
this car dosenthave the caddy engine in it as the descrpition it has a smaller displacment version of the engine, cadillac have 4.6 northstart v-8, the aurora only has a 4 litre
Actually, yes it is a Cadillac Northstar Engine. If you look up the specs for it, it uses the Northstar Label, which is owned by Cadillac. It uses the same exact architecture. There are a few different versions of this engine. It is used exclusively by Oldsmobile but is branded as a "Cadillac Northstar L47" engine.
I know this because I belong to a forum for this car. If it isn't a Cadillac derived design, then how come you can bolt the 4.6 right in and use it without any further mods?
"it has a smaller displacment version of the engine, cadillac have 4.6 northstart v-8, the aurora only has a 4 litre" i never said it wasnt a northstar engine or a cadillac derived engine, i even said it was a smaller displacment version of the cadillac engine, by saying it wasnt the cadillac engine i meant that it was not the 4.6 litre version of the engine used by cadillacs, it is a special 4 litre version which is y like u said u can bolt a 4.6 in with no trouble
first off i never said it wasnt of cadillac design i simply meant it was not the same motor as used in the cadillac which is a 4.6 L, and secondly i said it was a smaller displacment version of the same engine which shud have hinted 2 the fact that i knew nd was implying they were of the same architecture just different displacments
i joined the ACNA the day i got the car. the search thing really stinks, either that or i am just not getting it so i can never find what im looking for. But I also have a factory service manual on its way, that will help :)
I own a 95 aurora i love it not for the "sporty" drive but cuz of the smoothness. However, I have yet to notice the difference in the transmission between "normal" and "power" modes. I think the button should be an overdrive on/off button but w/e
has anyone else here had issues with cooling? i think my fans dont work but im wondering if it is a switch or relay and not the fans themselves.
These cars like to drive hot. The average is around 250-ish. I had to replace my thermostat twice in the two years I have had my car. I also replaced the radiator. The car runs just fine but can run quite hot in stop and go on and off traffic.
Not much you can do about it. Although there is a member of ACNA that has modified the thermostat and got a cooler running engine. He has also hot wired the fans. Google ACNA and join up!
no i mean its actually overheating if left idling or driven lower than like 20 mph for a while. I never hear the fans turn on. I have to try jumping them to see if the motors are blown or if its a fuse
i know this comment is 2 years old but you should know that 250ish is NOT normal. i would be fearful to see my gauge that high. after removing the hood insulation, engine cover, running redline water wetter and cutting intake slits under the headlights mine never sees 225 and stays right around 185 90% of the time .
Are you talking about mine? I have already taken the console apart (long before this video was made) and put in a newer wire that is much longer. The reason I did that was not only for making sure it wouldn't split, but to make it easier to take it apart again if I needed to replace a bulb or something similar.
All the switch really does is raise your shift points a few RPMs, it really doesn't do ALL that much
i think someone lied about the HP rating on the aurora when they announced it got 250..... it performs way too well for such a smallish V8 and such a biggish body
Best car made by GM in the 90's? No, I'd take the Riviera over the Aurora any day. I never did care for the way the V8 is somewhat sluggish. Before I bought the Riv I compared it to an Aurora and the Aurora didn't feel as fast. I have every bit of luxury the Aurora has and I have a tried and true motor that can actually be modded quite a bit (No idea about that 4.0). That and I like the styling of a coupe over a sedan.
and what did I comment exactly that was dumb? nothing. I was ttying to get 95oldsaurora to understand that a 4000 lbs 265 hp(with his mods) car is not going to be faster than a 3400 lbs 330 hp car. and for you to understand that their are alot of better cars than the Aurora. dont get me wrong, its a great car, but there are better cars out there
The Aurora's are the best cars ever made. They are not really a racing car but they do beat alot of cars for its age,size and weight. The best interior and very well advanced. No other car can ever compare the aurora. I like the Aurora's because of the style, luxury,reliable and because its an Oldsmobile. I have owned Aurora's since 1994 and very satisfied with them and own a 2001. I get compliments on my Aurora's everday I drive them.
dude i have one too, very nice car, but some people might think you're a bit... um... "biased" perhaps, with a name like Myaurora2001. try not to be too obsessed. i think there are better cars out there
Well for a four door sedan from the mid-nineties, it can sure hold up a good fight! It puts a lot of base model Mustangs to shame... I know it's faster than the Camaro and Firebirds though!
You have to remember, this is no race car! This car weighs 2 tons, it is a Cadillac pretty much, and it's faster than Cadillacs (except the Eldorado), even though it's engine is a little smaller...
I don't remember if we had premium in the engine at the time or not... Plus, at our altitude it doesn't really matter what you run. The car also says to run 10w-30 but that is too thin, I have to run 10w-40 for any good results. And, this was on a 140,000 miles with not tune up. I now have it tuned up to fresh and I will do another run.
Yes, but at the altitude we are at, it doesn't make a huge difference. Me and some buddies on the Aurora Forums (ACNA) have done experiments and found there really isn't that much of a difference between running premium and not. I only run it once in a while...
Wow my aurora is a 98 and it def. does not take ten seconds to reach 60. I'd be willing to bet 7-8 seconds not ten. But mine feels faster than what your videos show. IDK mebe mines different. and BTW the chevrolet impala SS was a slightly higher tunes 350 out of a caprice NATURALLY ASPIRATED. Def. not supercharged. And taurus SHO had cam probs when it first came out. So aurora seems a lil more reliable. Mine anyways.
Actually the 94-96 caprices and impalas had 260 horses true. But the impala had a limited slip differential and was fitted with other things such as a performance tuned suspension and other unique performance parts. It would outrun the caprice 0-60 but was slightly tuned for more torque than the standard caprice.
Thats right, I forgot about the few extras on the IMpala. The shift was on the floor rather than on the wheel. In theory an impala could outrun a caprice, given the LSD, etc... but i bet the performance times are within 0.2 or 0.3 seconds 0-60 and 1/4 mile.
Yes I wont argue with the fact that the caprice and impala would be a very close cut, But I'd place money on the impala. now if it was an aurora and in impala...id def. pick the impala. auroras are boats true, but they hold their own pretty well. And ive ran my aurora on 89 octane for ever and never had a performance issue or a pingin noise pop up.
Auroras are ok... there are better cars for the same money tho. Its all about preference. I had a huge want for one years ago, but that faded after I got a lexus SC400.
hey dumbass look up the numbers a supercharged stp is faster than an aurora and and your mothers aurora is no exception next time before you open your mouth mke sure u have the facts to back it up
You need to shut your mouth. 0-60 times and 1/2 mile times are NOT what a car is all about. I'm sure you car is faster than mine (it seems fact) no use fighting over that. But I bet anyone who looked at both car interiors could easily decide which one they liked better...
Not only that, but look how more refined the Aurora is, and how much better looking it is (looks are to the beholder) but everyone seems to agree...
No need to get groggy here, I'm just showing this video cuz I filmed it.
you need to shut you mouth, we arent argueing about anything other than speed. of course the aurora is going to have a better interior, its a luxury car. I just dont like it when people are fucking ignorant and say that their 4000 lbs 265 hp car can beat a 3400 335 hp car.
more to cars than power and weight.... i own one also and have beaten cars that have superior numbers. where the power lies is a factor and auroras are made to perform at screaming RPMs which is why they can kick the shit out of ricers that have better power-to-weights
dude if u would have let the car come up to 200 degrees and used 93 octane that thing would have went alot quicker and they run better 0-60 times in 2nd gear with the power tranny mode
Yeah, 0-60 doesn't say much about a car really. This car's speed pulls in between 20 and 40 mph, it can keep up with just about any one of America's production class speedsters. And there are no shifts that high up mayne...
my brother used to have a 1999 Aurora and we did 0-85 in like 7-8 seconds, and the tach would always hit 6800RPM before it would shift so i dont think you were flooring it???
so whats the aurora here with the highest mileage....
my father has a 1995 with i believe 226k miles on it... thing has a shot radiator, bad brakes, bad suspension, is runnign on like 7 and a half cylinders, but still will move and passed inspection lol....
he also has a 1998 with about 78k miles on it
and my mother has a 1999 with 128k miles on it
i have a few video's of me messing with the 1999 in my profile, (shot from camera phone) i will have some more probably a few times a week
I paid over $35,500 for my first Aurora in 1994. And then I paid $36,200 for my 2001 Aurora 3.5L (V6). Overall with the payments and interest I paid about $80,000 all together. All paid off and never selling them in my lifetime. The resale value sucks for these nicest luxury cars. I wish you luck in finding a 99 "great" Aurora, maybe youll get one with low mileage. What year is your Aurora by the way.
Aurora's are good quality cars and will last forever if you take care of them. I know because I own 2 of them. So stop degrading the Aurora's. I own them since october of 1994 and 2001 new.
Amen, they are very good cars of very good quality. I love my Aurora, but the day has come... it is being sold for 3 grand (I paid 1800.00 for it a little over a year ago, so it's good). I want to get a 1999 Aurora in a few years though...
bull this car cant reach no 174mph.anyone who falls 4 that is a CRACKHEAD!!!!!!!
i have a 1996 impala ss with some minor upgrades.stock i had 260hp and 330lb.-ft.now i got about 280hp and 355lb.-ft.the SS weighs 4,357lbs and is powered by a blown(supercharged)5.7liter (350CI)and i top out @ 175mph.theres no way in hell,heaven or earth that car can do 174mph.
I'd be willing to bet that you are on crack as well.
Unless that 350 of yours can tach 10k constant, you're full of it with that 175mph shit. 174mph Aurora? Highly unlikely. The supercharged washtub, 175mph? Also unlikely. Off a cliff. Out of the back of a C-130, but not under it's own power. By the way, what to hell did you do wrong to only realise a 20hp gain from a blower? Either the blower looks like a hamster wheel, or you have retained the stock broom handle cam. Do your valves float?
hew dumb fuck the 1994-96 impala ss came with a stock supercharger.jus like all these little shitte blown 3.8 that u see in GTP's and regls and riveveras and what not.lear what the fuck your talking about be4 comeing to a soon to be(master certfied mancanic) i kno soooo much about cars and crouch rockets you'll drive your self crazy so go look up sum info and try 2 com back with a good comback you lil kid
I did have a good comeback. And, for a master mechanic, you're a dumb shit. Which is it? Do you have a 3800 series II (incorrect swap), or the correct iron block/head NATURALLY aspirated LT1 in that beast? Do you know your own car, scooter? Or do you not have one, and this all just guesswork on your part?
And by the by, while I know it's unnecessary in being a mechanic, you type like hell.
hey stuipd the 3800 are in the gtp's and what not.and what the hell are you talkin about with"Do you have a 3800 series II (incorrect swap), or the correct iron block/head NATURALLY aspirated LT1 in that beast?"
are you slow.......... the 1996 impala ss is my favorite car nxt to the F50.of corse i kno what kinda engine i have.and did u really not kno that the 1994-1996 impala ss had a supercharger on it stock.
Yer a total moron guy... the 94-96 LT1 powered Impala/Caprice did NOT have a supercharger from the factory, and I don't know many people who've added them either.
The caprice and impala in 94-96 had a naturally aspirated, 16 valve, OHV chevrolet 350 cubic inch, 260 horsepower V8. It had no turbo/supercharger of any sort. The initials "SS" stand for "Super-Sport" and was added to remind the heritage of the Impala-SS goes back years and years, in 1964. Again, no blower on any of these cars. A 5.7 liter caprice and a Impala (which all have the 5.7 liter) have the exact same performance.
Well, I'm speaking on behalf of a fellow Aurora owner and he has GPS-Tested his car, after doing some slight mods, and got to 174MPH. The car cuts out at 135-ish from the factory, but you can tell there is a lot more oomph left. It's the beauty that is the Aurora Northstar Engine, same engine used in the Shelby Aurora Project, and that car is damn fast!
Wow! a Taurus being compared to an Aurora. The Taurus is recognized as a shitbox anywhere you go. Aurora's are definitely not the most reliable cars out there either but are still miles above the Taurus.
"theclem87" actually my 95 Aurora is a reliable car it has over 210,000 miles and no problems with it since october of 1994 its is in perfect condition and no mechanical problems since when I bought it brand new off the car lot. But thanks for agreeing with me about the Taurus.
Actually, I wouldn't say the Taurus is more popular because it was liked, they are ugly cars in my opinion. One of the reasons the Aurora is rare is because it was a 40,000.00 USD car when it came out, that is Cadillac money btw. Taurus is a poor man's Aurora...
You need to look up Ford Taurus and see how many people are having troubles with the Taurus, way too many. The Aurora's are on the government Safety list way up there, Oldsmobiles is the best car maker, and very reliable. End of disscussion.
174 mph? I believe the top speed for the car, not limited is like 140... maybe 150 tops. 174 is how fast a bentley continental is, and believe me, they are multiple times stronger.
Believe it or not, it has been proven that this car can reach 174mph (With the Autobahn option and the speed limiter removed). It has been GPS tested. And why shouldn't this car go that fast, it feels really stable going 120mph, but I stay away from high speeds, this isn't a race car. It's one of the defining cars of the '90s.
The reason i do not believe this car can attain that speed is due to the fact that it only has 250 horsepower and it weighs over 3900 pounds. My lexus coupe has 250 horses and weighs only 3500 and maxes out at 150. After 150 mph, a HUGE amount of power is required to increase speed by even a small margin.
bull this car cant reach no 174mph.anyone who falls 4 that is a CRACKHEAD!!!!!!!
i have a 1996 impala ss with some minor upgrades.stock i had 260hp and 330lb.-ft.now i got about 280hp and 355lb.-ft.the SS weighs 4,357lbs and is powered by a blown(supercharged)5.7liter (350CI)and i top out @ 175mph.theres no way in hell,heaven or earth that car can do 174mph.
I forgot to say, there will be no difference in acceleration times by choosing the different trasmission modes. The car will accelerate at the same pace and shift at the same max RPM. The transmission mode selections only change the shift points for when the transmission upshifts and downshifts, not creating faster max acceleration or max RPMs.
Actually, What I did in this scenario wasn't using the Power Transmission by itself, but I was in third gear, which starts me out with a bit more torque, as you can easily feel it as the car bucks you back. It doesn't make a huge difference overall... But you can chirp the tires
Yeah I counted 0-60mph in 10sec. as well. That's pretty terrible for a luxury car, especially one that's supposed to be kinda sporty in nature. Love the Aurora though!
Check my Aurora out. I have a Shelby Series 1 Engine in it.
robertsizemore 1 month ago
What is wrong with people? Why redline a cold engine?
ipodtouchfan221 2 months ago
Good job, i hope it doesnt throw a bearing, with you punching it cold like that..
ipodtouchfan221 1 year ago
My 99 stock aurora has kept up and beat a lot of cars including. The oh so common hondas, mustangs, camaros, Cadillac. These cars are the most overlooked cars in the automotive industry today, but i assure you if you race one of them you will be surprised.
kinfolk1987 1 year ago
@kinfolk1987 While I like auroras if you kept up or beat a mustang or camaro it was a V6 and an older v6 at that. Hondas i can see though!
DOHCCordia 1 year ago
@DOHCCordia lol my aurora isnt stock nor where the cars i raced. I kept the body trim meaning no kits and factory edition wheel meaning no rims. Mines just special and cost 3k to make it special lol
kinfolk1987 7 months ago
literally as fast as my 03 sebring with a 4 cylinder...
thefireburnswithme 1 year ago
Nice, what year is this?
JuggaloAurora 1 year ago
@JuggaloAurora It's a 95. To be more precise it left the factory in October 1994.
Rapmastac1 1 year ago
Just to get things straight, When Oldsmobile was still in existence, before GM shut them down in 2003, if you bought a 2003 Oldsmobile Aurora 4.0L you had an option for either installing a Turbo, or Supercharger. Now what i want to know is where can I find such parts for the '03 aurora?
insanityawakens 1 year ago
@insanityawakens There does not exist, nor has there ever exsited an option for turbo. The members of the "Aurora Club of North America" have been trying to get a decent charger in these cars for some time now.
Rapmastac1 1 year ago
@insanityawakens LMFAO!!! Are you nuts? GM never offered a supercharger OR turbo charger for the aurora. BAHAHAH
bcuzofview 1 year ago
@bcuzofview Ok i realize that now, but i have been doing much online research lately, and the only option i could find was a $500 custom single turbo kit on Ebay...
insanityawakens 1 year ago
@insanityawakens Trust me, it isn't custom. And it isn't about to work with an aurora. But you can give it a shot!
bcuzofview 1 year ago
That has much shorter gearing than my 1999 olds 88. Second comes at 50mph and third starts at 90\
MrPizzaman09 2 years ago
I raced an Aurora with a 4.0 in it while driving my Seville SLS with the 275 hp Northstar in it. I beat him without much trouble :P
Halogen360 2 years ago
why are the gauges flashing blue?
Stephster11 3 years ago
@Stephster11 It's just the crappy camera making it look like that. They are actually a light green/bluish color.
Rapmastac1 1 year ago
nice vid. I had a 98 black aurora. loved it!... till i crashed/totaled it doing, who would have guessed, street racing! lol...
who won btw?
diggydog56 3 years ago
glad to hear you are ok
995715202 2 years ago
haha funny i have a black 98 as well never raced it yet only has 180 miles on it due to the new engine thats pushing 350hp i might sell it though but ill prolly race it first
bubbaman9100 2 years ago
Should have let it completely warm up. That engine was still pretty cold.
Hroller1 3 years ago
i got mine to do 0-60 in 7secs
BigZeb5 3 years ago
it wasnt a bad 0-60, but it seemed to take a while to get to redline.. gm has had problems putting the right transmission in cars.. like my dad's old buick rondezvous..
guitarplayrmikeo 3 years ago
I too am part of that forum (aura1) and along with rapmastac can tell you that the forum we belong too does in fact have quite a few knowledgable poeople. I along with thousands of other people will agree. It in no way shape or form implys that its members are experts, but many are
bcuzofview 3 years ago
WTH are you talking about? I never said my Aurora had any mods what so ever! Check the description. My Aurora is mostly stock, except the exhaust and the gutted intake box. And I don't recall saying my Aurora does any 6.5 seconds.
If everyone is laughing, then why you negged so much? Let's not turn this into a flame war, just keep your rude and ignorantly blatant comments to yourself. Think before you type!
Rapmastac1 3 years ago
this car dosenthave the caddy engine in it as the descrpition it has a smaller displacment version of the engine, cadillac have 4.6 northstart v-8, the aurora only has a 4 litre
mahalo1 3 years ago
Actually, yes it is a Cadillac Northstar Engine. If you look up the specs for it, it uses the Northstar Label, which is owned by Cadillac. It uses the same exact architecture. There are a few different versions of this engine. It is used exclusively by Oldsmobile but is branded as a "Cadillac Northstar L47" engine.
I know this because I belong to a forum for this car. If it isn't a Cadillac derived design, then how come you can bolt the 4.6 right in and use it without any further mods?
Rapmastac1 3 years ago
"it has a smaller displacment version of the engine, cadillac have 4.6 northstart v-8, the aurora only has a 4 litre" i never said it wasnt a northstar engine or a cadillac derived engine, i even said it was a smaller displacment version of the cadillac engine, by saying it wasnt the cadillac engine i meant that it was not the 4.6 litre version of the engine used by cadillacs, it is a special 4 litre version which is y like u said u can bolt a 4.6 in with no trouble
mahalo1 3 years ago
first off i never said it wasnt of cadillac design i simply meant it was not the same motor as used in the cadillac which is a 4.6 L, and secondly i said it was a smaller displacment version of the same engine which shud have hinted 2 the fact that i knew nd was implying they were of the same architecture just different displacments
mahalo1 3 years ago
i joined the ACNA the day i got the car. the search thing really stinks, either that or i am just not getting it so i can never find what im looking for. But I also have a factory service manual on its way, that will help :)
cbburtraw 3 years ago
I own a 95 aurora i love it not for the "sporty" drive but cuz of the smoothness. However, I have yet to notice the difference in the transmission between "normal" and "power" modes. I think the button should be an overdrive on/off button but w/e
has anyone else here had issues with cooling? i think my fans dont work but im wondering if it is a switch or relay and not the fans themselves.
cbburtraw 3 years ago
These cars like to drive hot. The average is around 250-ish. I had to replace my thermostat twice in the two years I have had my car. I also replaced the radiator. The car runs just fine but can run quite hot in stop and go on and off traffic.
Not much you can do about it. Although there is a member of ACNA that has modified the thermostat and got a cooler running engine. He has also hot wired the fans. Google ACNA and join up!
Rapmastac1 3 years ago
no i mean its actually overheating if left idling or driven lower than like 20 mph for a while. I never hear the fans turn on. I have to try jumping them to see if the motors are blown or if its a fuse
cbburtraw 3 years ago
@Rapmastac1
i know this comment is 2 years old but you should know that 250ish is NOT normal. i would be fearful to see my gauge that high. after removing the hood insulation, engine cover, running redline water wetter and cutting intake slits under the headlights mine never sees 225 and stays right around 185 90% of the time .
lancelo96 1 year ago
The wires to the power button break very often. Yours are probably broken.
thurmanrandy 3 years ago
Are you talking about mine? I have already taken the console apart (long before this video was made) and put in a newer wire that is much longer. The reason I did that was not only for making sure it wouldn't split, but to make it easier to take it apart again if I needed to replace a bulb or something similar.
All the switch really does is raise your shift points a few RPMs, it really doesn't do ALL that much
Rapmastac1 3 years ago
Im having overheating problems with mine??? Head gasket maybe..... after like 25mins of driving it starts to get hot?
LoveMyAcuraLegend 3 years ago
i think someone lied about the HP rating on the aurora when they announced it got 250..... it performs way too well for such a smallish V8 and such a biggish body
GoombaDaddy 3 years ago
Best car made by GM in the 90's? No, I'd take the Riviera over the Aurora any day. I never did care for the way the V8 is somewhat sluggish. Before I bought the Riv I compared it to an Aurora and the Aurora didn't feel as fast. I have every bit of luxury the Aurora has and I have a tried and true motor that can actually be modded quite a bit (No idea about that 4.0). That and I like the styling of a coupe over a sedan.
Shintsu2 3 years ago
yeah, I run 8.895 at 84.36 for the 1/8th mile so no, 13.6 is my 1/4 mile time
lurch1489 3 years ago
and what did I comment exactly that was dumb? nothing. I was ttying to get 95oldsaurora to understand that a 4000 lbs 265 hp(with his mods) car is not going to be faster than a 3400 lbs 330 hp car. and for you to understand that their are alot of better cars than the Aurora. dont get me wrong, its a great car, but there are better cars out there
lurch1489 3 years ago
The Aurora's are the best cars ever made. They are not really a racing car but they do beat alot of cars for its age,size and weight. The best interior and very well advanced. No other car can ever compare the aurora. I like the Aurora's because of the style, luxury,reliable and because its an Oldsmobile. I have owned Aurora's since 1994 and very satisfied with them and own a 2001. I get compliments on my Aurora's everday I drive them.
Myaurora2001 3 years ago
dude i have one too, very nice car, but some people might think you're a bit... um... "biased" perhaps, with a name like Myaurora2001. try not to be too obsessed. i think there are better cars out there
GoombaDaddy 3 years ago
Well for a four door sedan from the mid-nineties, it can sure hold up a good fight! It puts a lot of base model Mustangs to shame... I know it's faster than the Camaro and Firebirds though!
You have to remember, this is no race car! This car weighs 2 tons, it is a Cadillac pretty much, and it's faster than Cadillacs (except the Eldorado), even though it's engine is a little smaller...
Rapmastac1 3 years ago
10 seconds lol... my 99 aurora gets up there in almost 6 flat... u should put premium in their like it says to do right on the fuckin fuel gage
dandeisel08 3 years ago
I don't remember if we had premium in the engine at the time or not... Plus, at our altitude it doesn't really matter what you run. The car also says to run 10w-30 but that is too thin, I have to run 10w-40 for any good results. And, this was on a 140,000 miles with not tune up. I now have it tuned up to fresh and I will do another run.
Rapmastac1 3 years ago
ik it isn't up to 150 degrees yet and thats a good way to blow the gaskets
95oldsaurora 3 years ago
you should be running 91-93 octane the auroras were ment to run on it...
acent1 4 years ago
Yes, but at the altitude we are at, it doesn't make a huge difference. Me and some buddies on the Aurora Forums (ACNA) have done experiments and found there really isn't that much of a difference between running premium and not. I only run it once in a while...
Rapmastac1 4 years ago
yeah i can understand that especially when premium is running around 3.40 a gallon yikes!
i run mine on premium cause im pushing about 155k miles now
acent1 4 years ago
Wow my aurora is a 98 and it def. does not take ten seconds to reach 60. I'd be willing to bet 7-8 seconds not ten. But mine feels faster than what your videos show. IDK mebe mines different. and BTW the chevrolet impala SS was a slightly higher tunes 350 out of a caprice NATURALLY ASPIRATED. Def. not supercharged. And taurus SHO had cam probs when it first came out. So aurora seems a lil more reliable. Mine anyways.
bcuzofview 4 years ago
The 94-96 Caprice LT1 and Impala SS had the exact same engine and the exact same performance.
CrimsonGuardJay 4 years ago
Actually the 94-96 caprices and impalas had 260 horses true. But the impala had a limited slip differential and was fitted with other things such as a performance tuned suspension and other unique performance parts. It would outrun the caprice 0-60 but was slightly tuned for more torque than the standard caprice.
bcuzofview 4 years ago
Thats right, I forgot about the few extras on the IMpala. The shift was on the floor rather than on the wheel. In theory an impala could outrun a caprice, given the LSD, etc... but i bet the performance times are within 0.2 or 0.3 seconds 0-60 and 1/4 mile.
CrimsonGuardJay 4 years ago
Yes I wont argue with the fact that the caprice and impala would be a very close cut, But I'd place money on the impala. now if it was an aurora and in impala...id def. pick the impala. auroras are boats true, but they hold their own pretty well. And ive ran my aurora on 89 octane for ever and never had a performance issue or a pingin noise pop up.
bcuzofview 4 years ago
Auroras are ok... there are better cars for the same money tho. Its all about preference. I had a huge want for one years ago, but that faded after I got a lexus SC400.
CrimsonGuardJay 4 years ago
we usually clock round 6.5 to 60 in our 95 oldsmobile aurora
95oldsaurora 4 years ago
thats because its slow lol
lurch1489 3 years ago
thats because ur crappy pontiac junk is slow read all the comments and you'll find out y this particular run in and aurora isnt that quick duh
95oldsaurora 3 years ago
I was talkin about your car lol
lurch1489 3 years ago
yeah ok lyk i care im ogin to stop wasteing my time on u wen i no my aurora could take that lil poser v6 u got
95oldsaurora 3 years ago
hey dumbass look up the numbers a supercharged stp is faster than an aurora and and your mothers aurora is no exception next time before you open your mouth mke sure u have the facts to back it up
lowdak97 3 years ago
Yeah, sure, your moms aurora can beat z28 camaros too. You fucking stupid ass. Quit braggin on your moms car. Prick
Ogdenjor08 3 years ago
You need to shut your mouth. 0-60 times and 1/2 mile times are NOT what a car is all about. I'm sure you car is faster than mine (it seems fact) no use fighting over that. But I bet anyone who looked at both car interiors could easily decide which one they liked better...
Not only that, but look how more refined the Aurora is, and how much better looking it is (looks are to the beholder) but everyone seems to agree...
No need to get groggy here, I'm just showing this video cuz I filmed it.
Rapmastac1 3 years ago
you need to shut you mouth, we arent argueing about anything other than speed. of course the aurora is going to have a better interior, its a luxury car. I just dont like it when people are fucking ignorant and say that their 4000 lbs 265 hp car can beat a 3400 335 hp car.
lurch1489 3 years ago 2
more to cars than power and weight.... i own one also and have beaten cars that have superior numbers. where the power lies is a factor and auroras are made to perform at screaming RPMs which is why they can kick the shit out of ricers that have better power-to-weights
GoombaDaddy 3 years ago
well with a 6,000 redline, I wouldnt say its screaming.
lurch1489 3 years ago
dude if u would have let the car come up to 200 degrees and used 93 octane that thing would have went alot quicker and they run better 0-60 times in 2nd gear with the power tranny mode
95oldsaurora 4 years ago
agree. this vid made it seem slowish. i know i've done better
GoombaDaddy 3 years ago
say what?
shifting at 6800rpms? i don't think so....
and i believe these cars do 0-60 in like 7-8 seconds due to their weight... but 20-50 they'll hang with mustang GT's easy
whatproblems 4 years ago
Yeah, 0-60 doesn't say much about a car really. This car's speed pulls in between 20 and 40 mph, it can keep up with just about any one of America's production class speedsters. And there are no shifts that high up mayne...
Rapmastac1 4 years ago
my brother used to have a 1999 Aurora and we did 0-85 in like 7-8 seconds, and the tach would always hit 6800RPM before it would shift so i dont think you were flooring it???
FASTXCRRacer 4 years ago
Theses car value droped a lot, I had a Fully equiped 98 aurora, near 55K value, had a car crash with it and the insurance gave me only 12K
raphaelalbert 4 years ago
I had the accident in 04
raphaelalbert 4 years ago
god that sounds sweet...
05impala06 4 years ago
sounds great :)
gearhead291 4 years ago
the video's are crapy quality though... just showing off a little in the 1999, running on 89 octane (runs like a champ) no autobahn package...
my father 1998 and my mother 1999 both only hit 118-120 due to a governor (i read the governor is at 110, but it definitely isn't)
my fathers 1995 has the autobahn package, and its been brought to 135mph...
whatproblems 4 years ago
so whats the aurora here with the highest mileage....
my father has a 1995 with i believe 226k miles on it... thing has a shot radiator, bad brakes, bad suspension, is runnign on like 7 and a half cylinders, but still will move and passed inspection lol....
he also has a 1998 with about 78k miles on it
and my mother has a 1999 with 128k miles on it
i have a few video's of me messing with the 1999 in my profile, (shot from camera phone) i will have some more probably a few times a week
whatproblems 4 years ago
ok..... right
what is a 7.3liter in cubic inches?
mr. wise
bigtonegtf 4 years ago
7.3 liters is about 445 cubic inches.
1994-1996 Impala ss's are not blown.
It is a detuned Corvette LT1, which would also ask: Why would you supercharge a detuned LT1 when you could just tune it up to Corvette specs?
I think the only thing blown in this discussion is your brain.
mooserack99 4 years ago
That is just weird because my car never had any problems with it. It is still running like new.
MyAurora1995 4 years ago
I paid over $35,500 for my first Aurora in 1994. And then I paid $36,200 for my 2001 Aurora 3.5L (V6). Overall with the payments and interest I paid about $80,000 all together. All paid off and never selling them in my lifetime. The resale value sucks for these nicest luxury cars. I wish you luck in finding a 99 "great" Aurora, maybe youll get one with low mileage. What year is your Aurora by the way.
MyAurora1995 4 years ago
It's amazing how expensive these cars used to be, but since Oldsmobile lowered its hat, prices have really gone down.
My Aurora is a 1995, the first owner had pretty much all of the initial problems that are known with the first generation...
Rapmastac1 4 years ago
Aurora's are good quality cars and will last forever if you take care of them. I know because I own 2 of them. So stop degrading the Aurora's. I own them since october of 1994 and 2001 new.
MyAurora1995 4 years ago
Amen, they are very good cars of very good quality. I love my Aurora, but the day has come... it is being sold for 3 grand (I paid 1800.00 for it a little over a year ago, so it's good). I want to get a 1999 Aurora in a few years though...
Rapmastac1 4 years ago
bull this car cant reach no 174mph.anyone who falls 4 that is a CRACKHEAD!!!!!!!
i have a 1996 impala ss with some minor upgrades.stock i had 260hp and 330lb.-ft.now i got about 280hp and 355lb.-ft.the SS weighs 4,357lbs and is powered by a blown(supercharged)5.7liter (350CI)and i top out @ 175mph.theres no way in hell,heaven or earth that car can do 174mph.
bigtonegtf 4 years ago
I'd be willing to bet that you are on crack as well.
Unless that 350 of yours can tach 10k constant, you're full of it with that 175mph shit. 174mph Aurora? Highly unlikely. The supercharged washtub, 175mph? Also unlikely. Off a cliff. Out of the back of a C-130, but not under it's own power. By the way, what to hell did you do wrong to only realise a 20hp gain from a blower? Either the blower looks like a hamster wheel, or you have retained the stock broom handle cam. Do your valves float?
RushSampson 4 years ago
hew dumb fuck the 1994-96 impala ss came with a stock supercharger.jus like all these little shitte blown 3.8 that u see in GTP's and regls and riveveras and what not.lear what the fuck your talking about be4 comeing to a soon to be(master certfied mancanic) i kno soooo much about cars and crouch rockets you'll drive your self crazy so go look up sum info and try 2 com back with a good comback you lil kid
bigtonegtf 4 years ago
I did have a good comeback. And, for a master mechanic, you're a dumb shit. Which is it? Do you have a 3800 series II (incorrect swap), or the correct iron block/head NATURALLY aspirated LT1 in that beast? Do you know your own car, scooter? Or do you not have one, and this all just guesswork on your part?
And by the by, while I know it's unnecessary in being a mechanic, you type like hell.
RushSampson 4 years ago
hey stuipd the 3800 are in the gtp's and what not.and what the hell are you talkin about with"Do you have a 3800 series II (incorrect swap), or the correct iron block/head NATURALLY aspirated LT1 in that beast?"
are you slow.......... the 1996 impala ss is my favorite car nxt to the F50.of corse i kno what kinda engine i have.and did u really not kno that the 1994-1996 impala ss had a supercharger on it stock.
bigtonegtf 4 years ago
Yer a total moron guy... the 94-96 LT1 powered Impala/Caprice did NOT have a supercharger from the factory, and I don't know many people who've added them either.
CrimsonGuardJay 4 years ago
dumb fuck look it up the impala only not the caprice,had a stock supercharger.what the hell do you think the "SS" stands for
bigtonegtf 4 years ago
The caprice and impala in 94-96 had a naturally aspirated, 16 valve, OHV chevrolet 350 cubic inch, 260 horsepower V8. It had no turbo/supercharger of any sort. The initials "SS" stand for "Super-Sport" and was added to remind the heritage of the Impala-SS goes back years and years, in 1964. Again, no blower on any of these cars. A 5.7 liter caprice and a Impala (which all have the 5.7 liter) have the exact same performance.
CrimsonGuardJay 4 years ago
Well, I'm speaking on behalf of a fellow Aurora owner and he has GPS-Tested his car, after doing some slight mods, and got to 174MPH. The car cuts out at 135-ish from the factory, but you can tell there is a lot more oomph left. It's the beauty that is the Aurora Northstar Engine, same engine used in the Shelby Aurora Project, and that car is damn fast!
Rapmastac1 4 years ago
Wow! a Taurus being compared to an Aurora. The Taurus is recognized as a shitbox anywhere you go. Aurora's are definitely not the most reliable cars out there either but are still miles above the Taurus.
theclem87 4 years ago
"theclem87" actually my 95 Aurora is a reliable car it has over 210,000 miles and no problems with it since october of 1994 its is in perfect condition and no mechanical problems since when I bought it brand new off the car lot. But thanks for agreeing with me about the Taurus.
MyAurora1995 4 years ago
Actually, I wouldn't say the Taurus is more popular because it was liked, they are ugly cars in my opinion. One of the reasons the Aurora is rare is because it was a 40,000.00 USD car when it came out, that is Cadillac money btw. Taurus is a poor man's Aurora...
Rapmastac1 4 years ago
You need to look up Ford Taurus and see how many people are having troubles with the Taurus, way too many. The Aurora's are on the government Safety list way up there, Oldsmobiles is the best car maker, and very reliable. End of disscussion.
MyAurora1995 4 years ago
174 mph? I believe the top speed for the car, not limited is like 140... maybe 150 tops. 174 is how fast a bentley continental is, and believe me, they are multiple times stronger.
CrimsonGuardJay 4 years ago
Believe it or not, it has been proven that this car can reach 174mph (With the Autobahn option and the speed limiter removed). It has been GPS tested. And why shouldn't this car go that fast, it feels really stable going 120mph, but I stay away from high speeds, this isn't a race car. It's one of the defining cars of the '90s.
Rapmastac1 4 years ago
The reason i do not believe this car can attain that speed is due to the fact that it only has 250 horsepower and it weighs over 3900 pounds. My lexus coupe has 250 horses and weighs only 3500 and maxes out at 150. After 150 mph, a HUGE amount of power is required to increase speed by even a small margin.
CrimsonGuardJay 4 years ago
bull this car cant reach no 174mph.anyone who falls 4 that is a CRACKHEAD!!!!!!!
i have a 1996 impala ss with some minor upgrades.stock i had 260hp and 330lb.-ft.now i got about 280hp and 355lb.-ft.the SS weighs 4,357lbs and is powered by a blown(supercharged)5.7liter (350CI)and i top out @ 175mph.theres no way in hell,heaven or earth that car can do 174mph.
bigtonegtf 4 years ago
well Mine 95 Aurora goes 0-60 in 7.5 secs. thats realy good for a car that weighs 4,000 pounds.
MyAurora1995 4 years ago
a taurus SHO would beat that
andytaurus 4 years ago
no one cares about that. Aurora's weigh alot more than a taurus, plus bigger and safer. its 2 times above government standards.
MyAurora1995 4 years ago
I forgot to say, there will be no difference in acceleration times by choosing the different trasmission modes. The car will accelerate at the same pace and shift at the same max RPM. The transmission mode selections only change the shift points for when the transmission upshifts and downshifts, not creating faster max acceleration or max RPMs.
palebeachbum 4 years ago
Actually, What I did in this scenario wasn't using the Power Transmission by itself, but I was in third gear, which starts me out with a bit more torque, as you can easily feel it as the car bucks you back. It doesn't make a huge difference overall... But you can chirp the tires
Rapmastac1 4 years ago
Yeah I counted 0-60mph in 10sec. as well. That's pretty terrible for a luxury car, especially one that's supposed to be kinda sporty in nature. Love the Aurora though!
palebeachbum 4 years ago
It looked like 10 seconds both times. Too bad it's not the second gen. ;)
MrMcClane 4 years ago