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

[AMGoff]

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]

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]

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

[caddycruiser]

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.howstuffwor...ile-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/au...merreview.html

...and others.

[caddycruiser]

This reminiscent of what you saw?

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...e=&cardist=487





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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The motor was used to set numerous international endurance records. It's too bad they were terminated.

[CadillacSTS2003]

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]

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

[Playdrv4me]

Originally Posted by eldorado99

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]

A big thanks for pretty much all of the thoughts/comments so far... Anyway, just to follow up a bit...

Originally Posted by eldorado99

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

Originally Posted by Playdrv4me

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.

Originally Posted by I~LUV~Caddys8792

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.

Originally Posted by hueterm

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.

Originally Posted by Destroyer

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).

Originally Posted by Jesda

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...

[Playdrv4me]

Originally Posted by AMGoff

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.