: So what's the overall consensus on an '01+ Aurora?



AMGoff
04-05-08, 05:22 PM
So there's an Aurora for sale not too far from me and needless to say, it's piqued some primal curiosity in me. The reason why it caught my eye is because it was this really pretty slate blue color with a charcoal interior and it was loaded... it even had a nav system, which I wasn't even aware they were ever offered in the Auroras.

It's kind of weird... I find the Aurora to be one of those cars that get better looking as the years go by. I was never really taken with the original Auroras and the '01 redesign left me largely indifferent at the time of their release... but I gotta say, I think they're a really handsome car these days... especially in that color.

It stood out mostly because the only ones I've really ever seen have either been white/ivory, beige/tan/gold, silver, or the occasional bronzemist... that's it!

Like I said... I really dig that slate blue color, but I wonder... did they ever make them in a dark green, with say a tan interior? I've always been a sucker for that color combo... I think that slate blue with a tan interior would be fetching as well.

So... say I or anyone really, were to hypothetically think about buying one... what would be the best configuration to go with? I remember reading that the Aurora V8 was never really a barnstormer... but that the Shortstar was even more anemic and didn't really offer much in the way of better fuel economy... is that about right? So I'm guessing either way, the V8 would be the better option. Does the 4.0L suffer from all the same problems as its big brother... or does the smaller displacement somehow help to cure some of its woes? Did the 4.0L undergo the same redesign/tweaks as the Northstar did in 2000?

Other than that, am I right in saying that there was never really anything mechanically spectacular with those late model Auroras... they were basically just a Seville-"Lite"?

The fact remains though... I find it to be a really good-looking car these days, and they're only getting rarer and rarer. I think as far as a daily driver would go, they'd be a hard option to overlook.

My brain is a sponge... educate me.

eldorado99
04-05-08, 05:26 PM
The only thing I have against them is the lack of a proper grille. Other than that they seem like decent cars.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-05-08, 05:48 PM
:vomit:

In short, I like everything about the 1995-99 Auroras more.

caddycruiser
04-05-08, 06:02 PM
They're really not bad cars, and really unique sort of, for being a last Oldsmobile.

The 3.5L is quite strong and the 4.0L is a performer, though I too have wondered if it's ever been as problem common as the Northstar big brother. They actually even only did the V6 for part of the run, according to this:

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2001-to-2003-oldsmobile-aurora.htm

Compared to the '95-99, they didn't feel as heavy/substantial and were meant to be a bit lighter and more lithe--well, as much as a G-body was at the time. The interiors also were quite nice, at least for GM at the time.

I've always liked them, and wanted to know more. Really my only background is:

http://www.edmunds.com/oldsmobile/aurora/2001/consumerreview.html

...and others.

caddycruiser
04-05-08, 06:06 PM
This reminiscent of what you saw?

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=237699697&dealer_id=57517596&car_year=2001&model=AURORA&num_records=25&systime=&make2=&start_year=2001&keywordsfyc=&keywordsrep=&engine=&certified=&body_code=0&fuel=&awsp=false&search_type=both&distance=0&marketZipError=false&color2=&search_lang=en&make=OLDS&keywords_display=&color=BLUE&page_location=findacar%3A%3Aispsearchform&min_price=&drive=&default_sort=priceDESC&max_mileage=&style_flag=1&sort_type=priceDESC&address=19966&advanced=y&end_year=2001&doors=&transmission=&max_price=&cardist=487

http://images.autotrader.com/images/2008/1/28/237/699/4008138151.237699697.IM1.MAIN.565x421_A.562x421.jp g
http://images.autotrader.com/images/2008/1/28/237/699/4008138177.237699697.IM1.02.565x421_A.562x421.jpg
http://images.autotrader.com/images/2008/1/28/237/699/4008138273.237699697.IM1.04.565x421_A.562x421.jpg

I think of them as the smaller, sportier, rarer cousin of a Seville at the time. But really without the complicated suspension choices or Northstar.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-05-08, 07:57 PM
I guess it's just me, but if you're gonna go 75% of the way (to a Seville), why not just go all the way?

hueterm
04-05-08, 08:37 PM
I think the '95-99s have more personality -- but the '01-03 is much more liveable. It has more interior room, and if you can find one w/a nav, that's even better. (I believe it's a CD unit, but it's still an OEM unit.)

I've never driven the 4.0, but the 3.5 is OK, and would probably get better mileage. (I didn't see where you said if it was a V8 or V6.) IIRC, the 4.0 was in between the 3.8 S/C and the 275HP N* in terms of power. But it's a heavier car than say, the Regal GS, so it probably would feel about the same. The V6 is comparable to a base 3800 Series II.

Depending on the mileage and the price, I would definitely consider it.

Their tans were fairly light, no darker than what was in the Seville. I can't remember ever seeing a green '01+ -- but I know that the '95-99 was available in green. That blue is a great color though. The lions share you see are the champagne like my Riv was. My favorite is the black or the black cherry.

ted tcb
04-05-08, 08:49 PM
Not a fan of the Shortstar motor.
I drove a 2001 Intrigue, and found it to be anemic and raspy.
Nowhere near the refinement of the Northstar motor.
I much prefer the older body style. The newer Aurora's just looked like snub nosed Alero's to me.
I'd go STS, or if I wanted a more dependable powertrain, I'd go for a Riviera with a 3.8V6.

Destroyer
04-05-08, 10:07 PM
All the problems of the Northstar with less power is what it boils down to. I like the looks of the Aurora, dont get me wrong. Problem is that they are just as hard to work on as a Northstar Cadillac and are worth even less. The car comes up with one big repair and its pretty much junkyard material unless you want to dump more money fixing it than its worth. To someone that plans on collecting it or using as more of a Sunday car, maybe but there are much more reliable/easy to maintain cars for the money. Thats just the way I see it.

dkozloski
04-05-08, 10:23 PM
The motor was used to set numerous international endurance records. It's too bad they were terminated.

CadillacSTS42005
04-05-08, 11:49 PM
the motor was used in the Shelby Series 1 and II

to answer the OP no the 4.0 is not as "terminal" as the 4.6, the smaller bore on the calendars gave larger walls and therefor a wider gap and larger gasket with more integrity
thats not to say its immune to it though but keep in mind that the 00+ 4.0 went under the same changes as the 00+ N* and therefore itself is even structurally stronger.

Jesda
04-06-08, 01:50 AM
The big sell for me is the interior. Its gorgeous and comfortable in there.

Playdrv4me
04-06-08, 01:55 AM
The only thing I have against them is the lack of a proper grille. Other than that they seem like decent cars.

You know it's funny. I NEVER noticed that until I saw that overhead shot posted earlier in the thread, and now that you pointed it out it sticks out like a sore thumb!!! The front looks completely slapped on.

AMGoff
04-06-08, 03:37 AM
A big thanks for pretty much all of the thoughts/comments so far... Anyway, just to follow up a bit...


The only thing I have against them is the lack of a proper grille. Other than that they seem like decent cars.

You know it's funny. I NEVER noticed that until I saw that overhead shot posted earlier in the thread, and now that you pointed it out it sticks out like a sore thumb!!! The front looks completely slapped on.

You know... I never really thought about it either. But I think they definitely gave the second gen a much more polished look with(out) it all.


I guess it's just me, but if you're gonna go 75% of the way (to a Seville), why not just go all the way?

Couldn't the same be said to why someone would get a 3.2L S-Class instead of a 4.2/5.0/6.0?? Besides... we've already done a Seville... different is better.


I think the '95-99s have more personality -- but the '01-03 is much more liveable. It has more interior room, and if you can find one w/a nav, that's even better. (I believe it's a CD unit, but it's still an OEM unit.)

I've never driven the 4.0, but the 3.5 is OK, and would probably get better mileage. (I didn't see where you said if it was a V8 or V6.) IIRC, the 4.0 was in between the 3.8 S/C and the 275HP N* in terms of power. But it's a heavier car than say, the Regal GS, so it probably would feel about the same. The V6 is comparable to a base 3800 Series II.

Depending on the mileage and the price, I would definitely consider it.

Their tans were fairly light, no darker than what was in the Seville. I can't remember ever seeing a green '01+ -- but I know that the '95-99 was available in green. That blue is a great color though. The lions share you see are the champagne like my Riv was. My favorite is the black or the black cherry.

This particular one was an '03 4.0L... which if I recall from what I've read elsewhere, was the only engine available for the final year. I have no experience with the Shortstar... but again, from what I've heard from some others the 4.0L wasn't overly-peppy in a car the size of the Aurora... so I'd imagine the 3.5 would be pretty pathetic especially since it doesn't seem to offer that much more in fuel economy.

I'd have to guess that it would actually be pokier than a car with a SC3.8... my GS made 240/280 and the 4.0L makes what, 250/260? Then add on the fact that the Aurora probably weighs more as you mentioned.


All the problems of the Northstar with less power is what it boils down to. I like the looks of the Aurora, dont get me wrong. Problem is that they are just as hard to work on as a Northstar Cadillac and are worth even less. The car comes up with one big repair and its pretty much junkyard material unless you want to dump more money fixing it than its worth. To someone that plans on collecting it or using as more of a Sunday car, maybe but there are much more reliable/easy to maintain cars for the money. Thats just the way I see it.

So despite the smaller displacement, the Aurora V8 shared and suffered all the calamities as the 4.6 from which it was born? I guess it makes sense that it would boil down to the basic design, especially due to the inherent resiliency of aluminum (when kept within proper temperatures that is).


The big sell for me is the interior. Its gorgeous and comfortable in there.

It is quite a handsome interior, just as is the whole car. Like I said... it's definitely one of those cars that's grown on me as the years have gone by.

Oh! And CC... That actually looks a lot darker... I finally found pretty much the exact same car (minus the nav), even though I had to expand my search all the way to Michigan to find one! This blue is definitely lighter...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2201/2391926912_ec79468383.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/2391926860_1ca35859b8.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2151/2391096387_22d758bbf9.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/2391096363_655dae9cc2.jpg?v=0

Playdrv4me
04-06-08, 03:47 AM
So despite the smaller displacement, the Aurora V8 shared and suffered all the calamities as the 4.6 from which it was born? I guess it makes sense that it would boil down to the basic design, especially due to the inherent resiliency of aluminum (when kept within proper temperatures that is).

I heard of ALOT more problems with the 95-99 in terms of similar problems to the 4.6. I have never heard of any issues with the newer body one, but that might just be because it's not all that popular, they are quite rare, which also makes them desirable and different.

It's unfortunate the Aurora doesn't have a similar gauge setup to the Seville with EL backlighting etc.

Night Wolf
04-06-08, 09:14 AM
Schweet.

I like them, alot.... a personal favorite of mine. 4.0 V8 for me please.

The interior is awesome, as was mentioned, darn nice for that era GM.... the gauges are quite slick, as well as the rest of the design of the interior, door panels and stuff... I dunno, I take notice to alot of that stuff.

Plus it's an Oldsmobile, and that to me is cool.

I seriously considered one before the Town Car.... but finding one in mint shape was about twice what I paid for my Town Car..... plus I wanted a V8, RWD, column shift, hood ornament boat. Still tho, I like them alot :).

hueterm
04-06-08, 09:34 AM
W/the lower torque number (wasn't sure how those compared), it would probably feel slower than the GS. However, the interior is a lot nicer, and that makes up for some loss in performance in my book.

And yes, the V8 was the only engine for the final year -- I personally would only consider the V8. The only V6 of that era that I would want would be the 3800 Series II S/C.

MauiV
04-06-08, 11:13 AM
In the right color with the right rims it is a good looking car. In the wrong color and with most stocker rims it looks like a grandmas car.

I dated a girl in the mid 90's whos dad had the 1st model year. I loved the interior of that car. I have considered one for a daily beater if I can find the right miles and color.



I

caddycruiser
04-06-08, 11:18 AM
Ah, yes, that does look NICE and that color is not overly common--really like it.

Here's a couple of interesting videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISiVrRcXlM0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-AUOmdSeT8

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Aurora-idling_78170.htm

The 4.0L is quite the stormer, really, and since the car isn't as bulky as a Seville, it feels quite alive--and sounds great. I remember someone, back when these were new, who ordered a new V8 model and then had the Corsa exhaust for a Seville put on...and I think that might be the last video.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-06-08, 12:57 PM
Couldn't the same be said to why someone would get a 3.2L S-Class instead of a 4.2/5.0/6.0??

Nope, it's different. It's the same car, with a different, smaller engine. It's like comparing an SLS to and STS. A car which you had said, for all comparative purposes, was the same darn thing....same body, most of the same features, just a smaller engine. Besides, the 320 was the only thing on the market in my area at the time, and it probably saved me $2,000 over the 420/500. :)

Think of the Aurora and Seville as cousins.....one has a lot of the features as the other, but comes with a cheaper price and without the cache that the other does. The Aurora definitely is the more economical purchase of the two, but maybe it's because I love the 98-04 Seville so much, but I definitely wouldn't purchase an Aurora over it...but I love the 98-04 Seville....pretty much everything about it, so I'm a little biased. :D
And I can understand how you've already had a Seville and would want to try somethin' new, while staying with the same general type of car.

But on the other hand, the Aurora is much harder to find, and I can certainly see how that would be a plus for you Adam, and you seem to be a very logical person, so I can see how buying the Aurora would be a logical move by saving all that money over the comparable Cadillac. And I think that's something you consider heavily in the purchase of a car.



Just out of curiosity though, have you looked at a used 3.6L Lacrosse or Lucerne yet? I really like those new offerings from Buick, especially the Lucerne. In fact, the Lucerne seems like the current version of the Aurora. By that I mean you get 90% of the Cadillac's features at 70% of the price, plus, I really like how they did the exterior and interior on the Lucerne, but I don't know if they drive as sporty as the Aurora did....

Or heck, how about a 98-03 STS?

AMGoff
04-06-08, 03:37 PM
Nope, it's different. It's the same car, with a different, smaller engine. It's like comparing an SLS to and STS. A car which you had said, for all comparative purposes, was the same darn thing....same body, most of the same features, just a smaller engine. Besides, the 320 was the only thing on the market in my area at the time, and it probably saved me $2,000 over the 420/500. :)

Think of the Aurora and Seville as cousins.....one has a lot of the features as the other, but comes with a cheaper price and without the cache that the other does. The Aurora definitely is the more economical purchase of the two, but maybe it's because I love the 98-04 Seville so much, but I definitely wouldn't purchase an Aurora over it...but I love the 98-04 Seville....pretty much everything about it, so I'm a little biased. :D
And I can understand how you've already had a Seville and would want to try somethin' new, while staying with the same general type of car.

But on the other hand, the Aurora is much harder to find, and I can certainly see how that would be a plus for you Adam, and you seem to be a very logical person, so I can see how buying the Aurora would be a logical move by saving all that money over the comparable Cadillac. And I think that's something you consider heavily in the purchase of a car.



Just out of curiosity though, have you looked at a used 3.6L Lacrosse or Lucerne yet? I really like those new offerings from Buick, especially the Lucerne. In fact, the Lucerne seems like the current version of the Aurora. By that I mean you get 90% of the Cadillac's features at 70% of the price, plus, I really like how they did the exterior and interior on the Lucerne, but I don't know if they drive as sporty as the Aurora did....

Or heck, how about a 98-03 STS?

I was just busting your balls with the Mercedes... I should have said why not an SL5/600 or a W220 - that would have made more sense.. although speaking of an SL500, I have a little story which I'll have to make a post about.

I'd say I usually buy with a 70/30 ratio of logic and emotion.. although that's not always the case... case in point - a slightly rare '89 Eldorado... the was about 3.47% logic and the rest all emotion! Then what was originally logic devolves into all emotion, like with an '89 Grand Wagoneer... lol - it was pretty damn logical when gas was 1 buck a gallon when I bought it, but now I keep it out of pure irrationality... and will continue to, all the way to a divorce if it came down to it! :eek: :shhh: j/k...

Anyway... there would be zero point in getting a 98-03 STS, as you so astutely pointed out how I always astutely pointed out, for all practical comparative purposes - a Seville is a Seville, despite whatever others may argue til blue in the face... and I already had a Seville, so there wouldn't be much point. Now... an '05+ STS, that's a different story... it's something completely different and if I were in the market for a real luxury sports sedan, that would be a much better and more logical option... I'm glad the General finally realized to make an honest, competitive sports car - sedan, coupe, or otherwise it has to be RWD... or at the very least AWD as Audi has shown through the years. RWD just makes more sense... as I'm sure your experience with the Merc has shown you Chad.

Beyond that... having already owned a Seville, an Aurora just makes way more sense if for nothing else than the relative rarity of it. I never see one on the road... and if I do, it always catches my eye - as a car design, it has really aged well and I think they look better now than when they were new... Some cars are just like that... the Jaguar XJS is another good example - when they were making them, I thought they were appalling, especially the coupes with their "flying buttresses." Now I think they're jaw-droppingly gorgeous (although the convertibles are still better looking).

Rarity is a big selling point in my book... especially for something as mundane as a daily driver... and even more so when it's a relatively rare car in an equally rare color. A Seville? I still pass at least one on the road each and every day... still a good looking car, still kind of wish I had mine... but everything happens for reason, and the motoring gods said my time with the Seville was to be short!

You know... it's funny you mentioned the Buicks. One of our Board members is a principal over at his family owned Buick/Pontiac dealer. His son (whom I also went to school with) came on campus Friday for whatever reason and we ended up grabbing lunch. We got talking about the new Enclaves as well as the Lucernes (especially those seats!), and I said I had never really gotten up close and personal with them yet (well, more the Enclave as my uncles has a Lucerne, but still..). So needless to say, he told me to just swing by on Monday and he'll let me take both out for a spin just for poops and giggles... They've got an '08 Lucerne CXS as well as whatever the top Enclave is (although I know they all come with the same 3.6 across the board)... Evidently, they also just got a CTS-V in on trade - so I might try sweet talk the keys for that as well! But yeah... definitely looking forward to that tomorrow!

The Lacrosse doesn't really float my boat... I don't like the front end.. at least the ones offered in this country. The only one I'd even possibly want to take out for a spin is the Lacrosse Super with the 5.3L V8, but even then I could just take an Impala SS out to get the same general gist. I like the looks of the Lucerne and even more so the Enclave... but Buick isn't really offering all that much which really pushes my buttons like the GS did or even the Riviera did. I keep praying that GM takes their heads out of their butts and brings over the Chinese Park Avenue... the day they finally bring out a rear-drive Zeta Buick with a V8, I'll drop everything and buy one in a heartbeat... especially if they call it the Roadmaster... I salivate at the thought!

But yeah... I'll definitely post my thoughts on the Buicks tomorrow afternoon.

"G$"
04-06-08, 03:44 PM
i came extremely close to buying an aurora but couldn't negotiate the proper trade in and financing that was suitable. I was ready to buy it and did my research too. The V6's in 01 were good cars, the V8's were good cars. The interior's were great. I love the interior and how the dash is angled at the driver to give it that cockpit feel. It is a rare find but they made them in black with gold lettering/trim that looked fabulous. I would definitely consider it if I were you. Some of those old Aurora's are legendary.

hueterm
04-06-08, 04:49 PM
Isn't your Eldo almost the same color as the Aurora you saw? (Mid/light blue?) It's a sign...go for it.

AMGoff
04-06-08, 05:19 PM
Isn't your Eldo almost the same color as the Aurora you saw? (Mid/light blue?) It's a sign...go for it.

Tis true indeed.... not only that, but the wife's Liberty is a medium metallic blue as well... and beyond that, for 1989 they had a color called "Baltic Blue" as an option for the Grand Wagoneers which I've always fancied - especially with the tan interior like mine has and I have been toying with the idea of getting her repainted for a while now... and further still... I'm wearing blue boxers right now... lol... The planets must be aligning in my favor!

hueterm
04-06-08, 06:02 PM
If you own that color of Speedo, pls keep it a mystery to us :-)

AMGoff
04-06-08, 06:15 PM
If you own that color of Speedo, pls keep it a mystery to us :-)

LOL... rest easy in knowing I'd never even consider such an abomination!

Night Wolf
04-06-08, 09:48 PM
It's a 1st gen...but sounds good... pretty quick too.

I much prefer the overall inside and outside look of the 2nd gen... the interior is really nice.

UqgmhhfqWbo

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-06-08, 09:58 PM
Adam, I sat in a brand new Lucerne CXL yesterday at work, man, was that thing nice. It felt nice like no Buick had in quite a long time. The leather felt *wonderful* and smelled excellent too, the seats were extremely comfortable, and just the overall design of the car was very pleasing to the eye.

I mean, I like the Regal GS and Riviera as much as the next guy (well, maybe not as much as you Adam :D ) but these current Buick offerings are miles ahead of those in terms of build quality and quality of materials. I just wish they offered the S/C 3800 still, and the Lacrosse doesn't look as nice as the Regal GS did. The GS was nice because it was beautiful in a real subtle way. The Lacrosse doesn't look blend in like the Regal did...it sticks out, and has a personality and look all it's own. Some like it, you and I don't. But that Lacrosse Super would be the fastest Buick since the '87 Grand National....

Destroyer
04-06-08, 10:05 PM
Some cars are just like that... the Jaguar XJS is another good example - when they were making them, I thought they were appalling, especially the coupes with their "flying buttresses." Now I think they're jaw-droppingly gorgeous (although the convertibles are still better looking).

The XJS is sexy, the Aurora is not. The Aurora looks good but still looks like the failed GM effort it is. The Aurora is "kinda cool" and the XJS IS cool.

Jesda
04-06-08, 10:15 PM
Jesda is cool.

In Jesda's mind.

Playdrv4me
04-06-08, 10:55 PM
The XJS is sexy, the Aurora is not. The Aurora looks good but still looks like the failed GM effort it is. The Aurora is "kinda cool" and the XJS IS cool.

I don't even understand what this means. The Aurora was not a failure, it was Olds in general that GM saw fit to dispense with, but the Aurora was always a steady seller, at least in it's first iteration.

orconn
04-06-08, 11:37 PM
Just after the 2nd generation Aurora was introduced back in 2000, my wife needed a replacement for her leased busness car. So we began driving different candidates and finally arrived at two cars for final consideration: the Aurora and the Catera. We both like the Aurora's looks and it's general handling ......... but found the interior very dark and depressing, the back seat in particular was rather claustrophic. The Aurora was certainly adeguate but was not standout even in comparison to the '97 Buick Regal GS were turning in. Maybe the upholstery was a grade above the Regal but not that much better. The Catera was a much better car in my opinion, certainly as far as the quality of materials and the fit and finish went. Handling of the Catera was also superior to the Aurora and it was as quick ae the V-6 Aurora as well (the lease on the V-8 was a finacial disaster!). As Cadillac was offer the Catera on a 30 month lease for $299.00 no money down and would absorb the last two months on the Regal we went with the Catera. During the 30 months we had the Catera it was a really very nice car ........ giving decent European handling and decent performance when one utilized its' capabilities. It is a shame they got such a poor reputation and GM didn't support them with decent parts prices.
We turned in the Catera when its' lease was up. All in all, I 'd say t he Aurora was a nice car, I too liked the styling, but up close and personal I'd have to say it was just a car ....... nothing really special.

hueterm
04-06-08, 11:44 PM
The Aurora's failure was no fault of its own. It just didn't fit in w/the rest of Oldsmobile. If when the Toronado died in 1992 that had been it...and seeing the writing on the wall, the 1995 Aurora had been introduced as a Buick -- it would probably have had more support and success.

AMGoff
04-07-08, 12:09 AM
The XJS is sexy, the Aurora is not. The Aurora looks good but still looks like the failed GM effort it is. The Aurora is "kinda cool" and the XJS IS cool.

The point is that the XJS is sexy NOW... I didn't appreciate it whatsoever when it was actually being made... I personally only find it to have gotten better with age and I know some others who share the same sentiment. With Jaguar's case, I think they just have a habit of being ahead of their time... the XK8 is another example... I thought it was rather gangly and ugly when first introduced... but toward the end of it's run and after a few tweaks I found it to be striking. I feel the same can be said for the Aurora... it was ahead of it's time and I think it's a much more handsome car now than when it was introduced.

And for what it's worth... I agree with others in saying that I can't see how the Aurora was a failure... I don't even think of Oldsmobile as a failure... it was more a case of a fine brand being cut down before it's time. A brand had to go and Olds drew the short straw... even though some thought (and still think) that Buick should have been the one to get the ax.

I also tend to agree with hue... had the Aurora been released as a Buick, it would have been a much bigger success... in fact, I think they would have been better served if they had simply continued production under another badge or even just as a standalone model... it could have been like the "Cher" of cars...

CadillacSTS42005
04-07-08, 12:16 AM
Ah, yes, that does look NICE and that color is not overly common--really like it.

Here's a couple of interesting videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISiVrRcXlM0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-AUOmdSeT8

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Aurora-idling_78170.htm

The 4.0L is quite the stormer, really, and since the car isn't as bulky as a Seville, it feels quite alive--and sounds great. I remember someone, back when these were new, who ordered a new V8 model and then had the Corsa exhaust for a Seville put on...and I think that might be the last video.


yup
that last vid is of the Aurora with Corsa
hes a member at ACNA

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-07-08, 12:34 AM
I did like how the Auroras always had the dash that surrounded the driver....always thought that was a neat idea. I have the brochures from the 1995-99 Aurora, and in there Olds really went on to show how much time and effort was put into these cars, and compared to the other offerings from Oldsmobile at the time, it was worlds apart. Anyone care to remember the Achieva or Ciera? Haha!

As far as I'm concerned, the original Aurora was as much of a milestone for Oldsmobile as the 1966 Toronado was.

Destroyer
04-07-08, 12:36 AM
The point is that the XJS is sexy NOW... I didn't appreciate it whatsoever when it was actually being made... I personally only find it to have gotten better with age and I know some others who share the same sentiment. With Jaguar's case, I think they just have a habit of being ahead of their time... the XK8 is another example... I thought it was rather gangly and ugly when first introduced... but toward the end of it's run and after a few tweaks I found it to be striking. I feel the same can be said for the Aurora... it was ahead of it's time and I think it's a much more handsome car now than when it was introduced.

And for what it's worth... I agree with others in saying that I can't see how the Aurora was a failure... I don't even think of Oldsmobile as a failure... it was more a case of a fine brand being cut down before it's time. A brand had to go and Olds drew the short straw... even though some thought (and still think) that Buick should have been the one to get the ax.

I also tend to agree with hue... had the Aurora been released as a Buick, it would have been a much bigger success... in fact, I think they would have been better served if they had simply continued production under another badge or even just as a standalone model... it could have been like the "Cher" of cars...The XJS was sexy when it was new and just as sexy now, at least to me. Always loved the way they looked except for the cabrio models. I actually think the hardtop looked better than the vert. If you know me, then you know I'm a huge fan of Oldsmobiles having owned several from 60's models through 1980's. I've modified several and consider them to have been some of the best that GM has put out. I never took a liking to any GM or American FWD cars though. The one time I did and bought a '98 Deville was clincher for me.

Playdrv4me
04-07-08, 12:45 AM
I did like how the Auroras always had the dash that surrounded the driver....always thought that was a neat idea. I have the brochures from the 1995-99 Aurora, and in there Olds really went on to show how much time and effort was put into these cars, and compared to the other offerings from Oldsmobile at the time, it was worlds apart. Anyone care to remember the Achieva or Ciera? Haha!

As far as I'm concerned, the original Aurora was as much of a milestone for Oldsmobile as the 1966 Toronado was.

I'd say the Aurora was even more important, it was supposed to redefine the entire brand, to the extent that the Aurora introduced the world to the new logo that would replace the aging "Oldsmobile" script and the red rocket emblem once and for all.

hueterm
04-07-08, 12:48 AM
I had (and may still have somewhere) that same brochure. In terms of body structure and design, both the '95 Aurora and Riv were revolutionary designs for GM and were absolute tanks in comparison to almost anything short of an M-B.

Outside of the fact that it was a 4-door, the Aurora was a worthy to successor to the Toronado. I don't think either version looks dated, even today.

For a while, when Olds was near its demise, there was talk that the Aurora name would take over for the Olds brand name -- and then that the Aurora would move over to Saturn as its flagship.

And re: the XJS -- while it's no 560SEC, it is and was gorgeous. I loved them at the time, although it was 3rd place behind the SEC and the 635 -- but now, the XJS is a strong #2 for me in that comparison. And if one can find a British Racing Green and Camel combination -- it really gets close.

hueterm
04-07-08, 12:49 AM
I'd say the Aurora was even more important, it was supposed to redefine the entire brand, to the extent that the Aurora introduced the world to the new logo that would replace the aging "Oldsmobile" script and the red rocket emblem once and for all.

Beat me to it LOL.

AMGoff
04-07-08, 01:09 AM
The XJS was sexy when it was new and just as sexy now, at least to me. Always loved the way they looked except for the cabrio models. I actually think the hardtop looked better than the vert. If you know me, then you know I'm a huge fan of Oldsmobiles having owned several from 60's models through 1980's. I've modified several and consider them to have been some of the best that GM has put out. I never took a liking to any GM or American FWD cars though. The one time I did and bought a '98 Deville was clincher for me.

Yeah... we're definitely going to have to agree to disagree on that one. While I do think the XJS is stunning today... when they were actually in production, I thought they were a DOG! They didn't have all the lovely lines a Jaguar should have and it was especially horrid to think that they were built as the replacement for the E-Type - which was hands-down, one of the most gorgeous cars ever to have graced the earth. So most especially in that context, going from the E-Type/XKE to the XJS made the latter look even worse.

And we're also polar-opposite on the models as well... if I ever were to buy one (a thought I've toyed with from time to time), it would certainly be the convertible. These days, my jaw drops when I see an XJS convertible go by... the coupes - not so much. I always hated those flying buttresses, not only because they look horrible, but because they also nothing more than an overlooked mistake that should have been removed. As I'm sure you're probably aware... the XJS was originally meant to be mid-engined so those buttresses were to have an actual, practical purpose... but it was changed to a traditional front engine layout before they started production... they just forgot to remove those damn buttresses! They're probably the biggest reason I prefer the looks of the 'vert better than the coupe.


I'd say the Aurora was even more important, it was supposed to redefine the entire brand, to the extent that the Aurora introduced the world to the new logo that would replace the aging "Oldsmobile" script and the red rocket emblem once and for all.

I'd say that the Aurora was technically successful in it's mission to redefine the brand for the 21st century... the design language was trickling down and they were replacing their old names and models with new names and better models... They were just cut down in their prime.

I sometimes wonder what sort of cars Oldsmobile would be rolling out today, especially taking into consideration they types of vehicles GM on a whole, is producing today. I've always felt that if you want to pinpoint the start of GM's "renaissance" all you have to do is look back to the revitalization of Olds.

Jesda
04-07-08, 01:11 PM
Oldsmobile died when the cast of "Coccoon" started kicking the bucket.

Destroyer
04-07-08, 06:00 PM
Yeah... we're definitely going to have to agree to disagree on that one. While I do think the XJS is stunning today... when they were actually in production, I thought they were a DOG! They didn't have all the lovely lines a Jaguar should have and it was especially horrid to think that they were built as the replacement for the E-Type - which was hands-down, one of the most gorgeous cars ever to have graced the earth. So most especially in that context, going from the E-Type/XKE to the XJS made the latter look even worse.

And we're also polar-opposite on the models as well... if I ever were to buy one (a thought I've toyed with from time to time), it would certainly be the convertible. These days, my jaw drops when I see an XJS convertible go by... the coupes - not so much. I always hated those flying buttresses, not only because they look horrible, but because they also nothing more than an overlooked mistake that should have been removed. As I'm sure you're probably aware... the XJS was originally meant to be mid-engined so those buttresses were to have an actual, practical purpose... but it was changed to a traditional front engine layout before they started production... they just forgot to remove those damn buttresses! They're probably the biggest reason I prefer the looks of the 'vert better than the coupe.



I'd say that the Aurora was technically successful in it's mission to redefine the brand for the 21st century... the design language was trickling down and they were replacing their old names and models with new names and better models... They were just cut down in their prime.

I sometimes wonder what sort of cars Oldsmobile would be rolling out today, especially taking into consideration they types of vehicles GM on a whole, is producing today. I've always felt that if you want to pinpoint the start of GM's "renaissance" all you have to do is look back to the revitalization of Olds.First Jags I liked were the late 70's-80's XJS and XJ6 models. Makes sense I suppose cause I was pretty young in the late 70's and unfamiliar with the XKE models but I do like the older Jags now as well. I dont like the CABRIO XJS but I do like the convertibles (I like all convertibles:cool:). The fly buttresses (never even knew they were called that) is one styling feature that I actually like about the XJS and thats the part that is missing from the verts. We all have different tastes though, none are better or worse than the other, just different.

The early Aurora's looked cooler than the later model ones IMO. They were unique whereas the newer ones just mix in with every car that size.

MauiV
04-07-08, 09:20 PM
Mid-late 60's E Type. That IS Jaguar.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-07-08, 09:37 PM
Oldsmobile died when the cast of "Coccoon" started kicking the bucket.



I ate Quaker oatmeal because Wilford Brimley said so.

hueterm
04-07-08, 11:02 PM
I always remember W.B. from "The Firm"....which does kind of crack me up...

Back to Auroras...does anyone know how many of the 1st series "Autobahn" versions there were? Can one still find them?

Aurora5000
04-08-08, 09:32 AM
I had an 02 for 4 years V8 and lust loved it. Try here for more info.


http://www.oldsmobileforums.com/forums/index.php

gdwriter
04-08-08, 01:56 PM
Mid-late 60's E Type. That IS Jaguar.:yeah:
I got the pleasure of driving a 67 E-Type roadster doing a classic car inspection. It was, how do I put this delicately, an automotive orgasm.

Amazingly, all the original Lucas electrics worked.

AMGoff
04-08-08, 02:03 PM
Mid-late 60's E Type. That IS Jaguar.


:yeah:
I got the pleasure of driving a 67 E-Type roadster doing a classic car inspection. It was, how do I put this delicately, an automotive orgasm.

Amazingly, all the original Lucas electrics worked.

Exactly... Hence why I felt the XJS was such a dog throughout it's production... it's only been in the years since that I've found it has grown on me.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-08-08, 02:08 PM
I guess the thing that sums it up the most is that the original Aurora was cutting edge, and looked unlike anything else Oldsmobile, or anyone else, had ever made. The second generation Aurora looked like a bloated Alero.

The original was a brilliant effort from a company that was largely known for bland, boring family sedans. In other words, it was a very european car from a very sedate, american brand. It's rather like what the 1992 or 93 STS did for Cadillac. It rejuvinated the brand, made them more appealing in the eyes of the import fan, etc etc.

It's too bad that the original Auroras didn't hold up better to time. It's too often that we see some that are beat to hell or under appreciated.

Jesda
04-08-08, 04:19 PM
I would argue that the Aurora was way more car than the typical Olds buyer of the time deserved. There was more maintenance and care involved, and owners just destroyed them.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-08-08, 04:29 PM
You want a Cadillac at Oldsmobile prices??? You can't handle a Cadillac at Oldsmobile prices!!!!!!! Here! Have a damn Achieva!

Jesda
04-08-08, 08:08 PM
You want a Cadillac at Oldsmobile prices??? You can't handle a Cadillac at Oldsmobile prices!!!!!!! Here! Have a damn Achieva!

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-08-08, 08:13 PM
You stinking peasant, proletariat filth!