Which do you like better?

[coldfire]

Uh, title pretty much says it. Do you think the '95-'99 model is better? Or the '00-'03? I think the '00+ look WAY better, sweet styling, but I have heard (although never verified it personally) that they are manufactured to a lower quality than the original model. Post your opinion!

[HighHopingAurora]

I would have to go with the 00-03 for the design but for performance the
95-99.. I have a '96 aurora myself and I am trying to see how nice I can make it so I have a question for anyone who can answer it.. are there headers for a 1996 aurora anywhere out there? I've looked for a long time and am tired of looking.. Thank you,
Adam

[coldfire]

Like I'd said I kind of heard the same thing about performance...

[HighHopingAurora]

lower quality can be anything from lights to steering..

[J'ville]

The early Auroras actually had some quality problems butr were screamers.
This engine took the Daytona 24 hour endurance race and in at least one year, nearly every Indy car had this Olds engine for power. Even the V-6 version was almost as fast. The engine is really a downsized Northstar, but as a result would rev well beyond the Northstar. Olds had massaged this engine to their liking, and when left unhampered by General Motors, would build killer engines. But unfortunately the EPA and the General put a stop to that.

[coldfire]

You know that was a major question when I heard that Olds was being phased I was like "don't ALOT of Indy cars use the Aurora engine? How can a company that's so involved in racing be doing poorly enough its being killed off?" Not to mention the rich racing heritage from the early NASCAR days and the pettys etc.

[J'ville]

Not many people know this, but Olds actually had a quad valve, twin OHC big block that was designed for the sole purpose of being a hemi killer. It was to debut in 71, but was killed off by the General. That engine found its way into the Oldlsmobile Pro-stockers and is now the engine Pontiac uses in their current Pro-stockers. The now call it a GM engine.

[Oldsguy]

I saw one of those, they are awsome

[coppertopgmc]

My personal choice would be the 95-99. I like the style of the rear tail light and Razzi makes a killer body kit and rear wing!!!

[elwood565]

i know this thread is a couple of years old, but im trying to reach out to any aurora owners, or anyone that has any knowledge of the aurora. ive always loved them, and i really want one as a nice, presentable, daily driver. i prefer the 00-03 styling, but im just interested in learning more about them in general. i know the basic stats of all the auroras, but im hoping to hear if there is anything i should be made aware of before buying a certain year, if one year was better than another, or things of that nature.

-Bob

[rocketraider]

If the 00-end styling is your preference, great. The car lost most if not all of its distinctiveness when they made the styling change.

With the 1st-gen Toro-inspired tail treatment, there was no mistaking what the car was.

Afterward, to me it looked a lot like a fricking Volvo or Nissan from the rear.

[elwood565]

see, thats where i come to a crossroads. i really love the toro inspired rear end, and the other small stylistic details that made the 1st gen so unique for its time, but now, the 1st gen design as a whole gives off a "cab forward" chrysler style, like the intrepid. but this is just me, and im certainly not knocking the 1st gen....or at least i hope not. and im not saying that i think that the 2nd gen cars make a bold styling statement, but to me they come across as a little less dated as the 1st gen.

i guess all i really know is that if i had the money, id buy one of each. but i dont have the money for either right now, just trying to gather some info from the experts.

-Bob

[rocketraider]

"they come across as a little less dated"

Precisely because they look like so many other cars on the road. If I see one, I have to look close to tell what it is because there are no standout styling cues. I don't have to do that with 1st gen Aurora.

Elwood, you're among a group of people who don't necessarily WANT a car that looks like everything else.

[elwood565]

rocketraider, i agree with you completely...its why i drive my 71 98. i think the first gen aurora's are beautiful cars, and if i had one, i probably wouldnt want to drive it in the winter, because its not like they're making any more of them, and they are already over 10 years old and definitely something that is worth hanging on to. one of the second gen cars i wouldnt mind (as much) putting it through a couple of winters, serving daily driver duty. but trying to find one of these cars to use as a well kept winter driver, be it first or second gen, is something im working on and just trying to gather info about them.

-Bob

I like the 1995-99 Auroras better myself. There was no 2000 model Auroras.
In 2000 Oldsmobile pushed the 2001 Auroras for almost 2 years (remember the 1983/84 Corvettes)?

My olds 95 Aurora
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2972018

David North designed both the Toronado and the Aurora.

[Randy T.]

I am glad you said something about the non-existent 2000 Aurora.

'95 was the first year for Auroras. The '95 had a higher flow oil pump. And they also had crappy brakes and suspension. '95-'97s also have an oil cooler and bigger radiator that they dropped in early '97. '97 came out with better suspension which is unique to the '97 year. '98-'99 had the superior suspension of the Auroras.
I think '99 would be the year to go with if you were interested in a Classic Aurora. Putting an oil cooler and bigger radiator in a '99 would be the ideal setup. Keep in mind these are just some mechanical things, there were also a lot on other changes of options through the years.

2nd gens are a whole different story, I don't know that much about them, but I love them all!!

[44TEETWO]

I have owned three Aurora's all 95's and I am looking at buying a Diamond White 99 with 83k now. I only have one now and I bought it in 98 from a doctor that leased it. It is in storage for winter, thats why I have my Dodge Pick-up so I can beat that. These cars are the most unique, best driving, and most attractive cars GM built. They actually showed some stones and went beyond the fold, unlike the decision to discontinue Oldsmobile. The 95-99 Auroras were a DRIVERS car! and quite a sleeper to boot!

I liked teh styling much better on 95-99 Classics, but some folks had told me they ike the rdie and handling of the '01-'03 better.
No 2000 modles were made. As soon as the last of 1999s passed through, the 2001 stared up (ie they were sold through out the 2000 and 2001 model year), that is why 53,000 plus 2001 Auroras were sold.

Auroras are very safe cars too. I remeber reading a story of a guy who totaled his 1st generation Aurora , back inthe last 1990s. The car hit a sof shoulder, flipped, a few time(and hitting the roof too),, and the guy only ealked away with two broken ribs.
Instead of taking the $22,000 insurance mny to get a replace Aruroa, he had that VERY WRECKED AURORA FIXED by th elocal Oldsmobile dealship.

I'll trade my 85 Riv (get 24 mpg) for a 1st generation Toronado, or 1995-1999 Aurora
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2972022