TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
motor city poster
Joined
·
2,029 Posts
P.S. it will probably pull even with you to about 50 or 60 but after that you should start to take it.... all the times ive been to the track monte SS's and Impala SS's keep up with me to about 60 but after that i take off and leave them behind by a second in the quarter mile
 

·
Jedi Master
Joined
·
3,647 Posts
some year auroras do have a V8, a 32v as a matter of fact, the later models only came with a V6
I think the aurora would win, those northstar V8 with 32v really helps it
 

·
Boom.
Joined
·
5,238 Posts
Red96Bird said:
Um the aurora desnt have a v-8 its just a 4.0 L V-6 should be able to beat it no problem
Nope.

SPECIFICATIONS
2001 Oldsmobile Aurora 4.0

Base Price $ 34,305
Price As Tested $ 36,670
Engine Type dual overhead cam, 32-valve V8
Engine Size 4.0 liters / 244 cu. in.

Horsepower 250 @ 5600 rpm
Torque (lb-ft) 260 @ 4400 rpm
Transmission 4-speed electronically-controlled automatic
Wheelbase / Length 112.2 in. / 199.3 in.
Curb Weight 3880 lbs.
Pounds Per Horsepower 15.5
Fuel Capacity 17.5 gal.
Fuel Requirement unleaded regular, 87 octane
Tires P235/55 HR17 Michelin Pilot MXV4
Brakes, front/rear vented disc / solid disc, antilock standard
Suspension, front/rear independent MacPherson strut /
independent multilink
Drivetrain front engine, front-wheel drive

PERFORMANCE
EPA Fuel Economy - miles per gallon
city / highway / observed 17 / 25 / 18
0 to 60 mph 7.6 sec
1/4 mile (E.T.) 15.9 sec
Coefficient of Drag (cd) 0.32
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
yeah its a v8 Im an olds dork too so I know. the 4.0 was like a Northstar but smaller displacement and less options that gave the caddy the edge.. more power but its a screamer the 3.5 was an option in laters olds. it was basicallya v6 version of the same motor. But they disconetined them to go with the 3.8 that all the cars use. Is till loved my cougar and tbird but an aurora is pretty. Or course the IRl engine was a 4.0 olds auror and to confuse ya they made too much power and won to many races so I belive the destroked or somthing to gett hem to 3.5 liters s well. Now they say CHEVROLEt on them even though not much has changed although still 6-800 hourse Im not sure.
when I get doone maybe my Tbird could kick some major butt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
so who would win the aurora or the cougar. should the cougar win because of the 4.6l or just because the aurora has a northstar 4.0 thats the advantage it has?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
top end the aurora should spank a 4.6, my old man has a 97 with a 4.0 32 valve, they have 250 horse so it should take you once you get up in the revs...i thought the newer ones got beefed up to 300 horse...or was that just the cadillac northstars? either way unless youve got either a heavily worked 4.6 or a DOHC motor dont expect to win.


have a good one.
josh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
the 4.6 are now at around 300 hp and they have quad cams too northstars that is.
 

·
Boom.
Joined
·
5,238 Posts
wigglesrewind said:
unless youve got either a heavily worked 4.6 or a DOHC motor dont expect to win.

Originally posted by Palmguy
0 to 60 mph 7.6 sec
1/4 mile (E.T.) 15.9 sec
Many of our 4.6 cars are that fast or faster stock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
926 Posts
The stock cougar has more torque too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
statement retracted. i though with 250 horses they would run low 15s, i've heard that their trannies are slushboxes which is probably why they are so high in the 15s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts
well considering that the 4.0 DOHC V8 in the Aurora has 250 hp (basically 50 more than you) and its going through a GM automatic (p'owns ours I assume) I would put the money on the 4.0!

Besides 0-60 in 7.6 seconds is a fair bit faster than our 4.6 MN12s!!!

Now if our 4.6s where DOHC.......

Jake
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
MN12BIRD said:
well considering that the 4.0 DOHC V8 in the Aurora has 250 hp (basically 50 more than you) and its going through a GM automatic (p'owns ours I assume) I would put the money on the 4.0!

Besides 0-60 in 7.6 seconds is a fair bit faster than our 4.6 MN12s!!!

Jake
You can't just go by horsepower alone, there are too many variables to consider that an acurate comparison. All depends on driver, conditions and so forth......

Motor Trend

Thunderbird 96' _________ Aurora 01'
HP: [email protected] _________ [email protected]
TQ: [email protected] _________ [email protected]

Base curb: 3673lbs _________ 3880lbs

0-60 7.9 sec _________ 7.5 sec
1/4 mile 15.8 @88.4mph _________ 15.7 @89.4mph
60-0ft 124ft _________ 123ft
slalom mph 63.2mph _________ 63.6mph

sex apeal
factor: A+ _________ C-

ok........ok......so maybe the last one wasn't in there, but the other facts sure are. Looks like it would be a close race, however, I do believe the T-bird has the Aurora heavily out weighed in aftermarket, and i know personally it doesn't take a whole lot to start shaving time of those figures in the birdy. I do like the aurora though, just heard a lot of bad things about them. When I used to rent cars, I knew the guys at the Olds dealership really well since I was getting their customers into replacement cars.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,894 Posts
i got 50 bucks on the cougar (shows how confident i am in a mn12 vs an aurora, ive seen alot of mn12s go alot quicker then high 15s stock)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts
dont forget that this guys cat is a 94 and the motor trend specs where for a 96. We all know the 96-97s are a bit faster than the 94-95s.

Besides I like the Aurora in the looks department. Sure it may be FWD but its still a cool car in my book. Its one of the first cars I drove!! My boss's was an older style than the newer ones but still had the DOHC 4.0 V8 in her!

Don't get me wrong, I love MN12's and sure a modded 94 would be able to beat it. But I think you would loose stock for stock.

Jake
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top