This just in.. V6 Aurora 0-60 times

[Custom88]

I did 0-60 today in the Aurora. Was I impressed? no. Long story short the 0-60 time ended up being 9.1 seconds. That's what my first car, a 1988 Buick LeSabre did it in. lol. Here are the conditions

7/8 tank of gas (almost full)
tires filled to 38 PSI
outside ambient temperature 89 degrees
outside humidity 90%
Engine to almost full operating temperature.
A/C off
Gear selector in D

I got a little bit of wheel spin for about a second then it caught. It had decent pickup before 20 MPH then it dogged way down until after 40 MPH then it started picking up decently. The quickest acceleration didn't even happen until after 50 MPH though. That is when it started speeding up very rapidly. I shut it down after that. These DOHC just don't have any low-end grunt to them unfortunately. Ah well, I'm happy enough with it as it is. This just finally lays to rest what their real times actually are.

[Aurora40]

custom88 said:

7/8 tank of gas (almost full)
tires filled to 38 PSI
outside ambient temperature 89 degrees
outside humidity 90%
Engine to almost full operating temperature.
A/C off
Gear selector in D

Do it on a day in the 50's or 60's and low humidity. You will improve a lot. Also, the engine should be totally warmed up. Lose some gas, and put it in "2".

Was this just on some road? It's possible it wasn't totally level.

[Custom88]

it was a road by my house which was pee-graveled about two years ago. (high traction surface.) the road looked pretty flat to me. No hills or anything. the temp gauge was only about 1/8" away from being up to operating temperature. in another mile of driving it would have been there.

[Aurora40]

Oil takes longer to warm up than coolant. Being fully warmed up helps, and is probably better for the car too. All those things together can make a difference.

I ran a 16.01 best at the track the first time I went, and a 14.86 the next time. I didn't do much to the car in between, just exhaust and breaking the car in more. Weather and such played a role as well.

[Marc]

Custom88.......What gasoline are you using? If it's regular, the knock sensor won't allow full spark advance.
That'll cause a big drop in power. Try using premium.


___________________

GM!!! BRING BACK OLDS!!!

[Custom88]

it has 89 octane in it.

[Marc]

custom88 said:

it has 89 octane in it.

That might be the problem. The 2001 owner's manual says to use premium for best performance. Use up the
tank of regular & then try the highest octane premium
you can find.


_________________

GM!!! BRING BACK OLDS!!!

[stevensolds]

Yeah dan just try premium a few times and try it again. It may help.

I just did a 0-60 today and it turned out to be almost 8 seconds. I forgot to put the trans in "power", which i doubt would have helped anyway. It was also in "D".

Once before i was able to get 7 seconds flat when i manually threw the selector while holding the gas to the carpet. I think i disabled torque management it would be a LOT quicker.

[Aurora40]

I don't know what you think torque management is. It limits the power during a shift. If your car instead put down 1500hp just for the milliseconds torque management would ordinarily kick in, and then was back to normal power outside the torque management window, how much faster do you really think you'd do 0-60 or the 1/4 mile in?

[GlennS87]

Did you use a GTECH or something like that? I have found that measurements by using one's watch can be inaccurate. Think about it, a difference of .5 sec when using a watch or other non-professional timing method is imperceptible. .5 secs means a lot on the 0-60 time though.

Also I agree with the poster above who discussed the weather conditions. Heat and humidity will kill power output. In fact the high heat makes running premium even more important given the greater possibility of pre-ignition.

[stevensolds]

aurora40 said:

I don't know what you think torque management is. It limits the power during a shift. If your car instead put down 1500hp just for the milliseconds torque management would ordinarily kick in, and then was back to normal power outside the torque management window, how much faster do you really think you'd do 0-60 or the 1/4 mile in?

Are you implying that i dont know what Torque Management is? I know very well what it is, having been at LS1tech forums since 2000 i have read quite a bit about Trans Ams and GM A4 trannies & torque converters, how they work and so on. I was a T/A nut, then went to mustangs and what not.

Anyway Yes it limits the power on a WOT upshift and sets the timing back to -45 or something. Disabling will not get you 100k out of the transmission, maybe 30k, depends on how you beat it. However i would just like to be able to drive without it one day and see if theres a difference.

[Aurora40]

stevensolds said:

Are you implying that i dont know what Torque Management is?

I think I made my statement pretty clearly. How long do you think your car spends with torque management retarding the timing when you accelerate? You've said before you think a V6 would perform like a V8 if it were disabled. What do you think a V8 would perform like, a V12? Do you think an automatic car would be faster than a manual version of the same car if only that pesky torque management could be removed? Because stock, auto and manual F-bodies aren't that different, yet you think torque management steals seconds worth of time.

The fact that you read other people talk on other forums, and then spout it off here as an "expert" hardly backs up any statements you are trying to defend.

If you ever disable it and go to the track with your Aurora, make sure you bring a helmet. Most tracks won't let you run without one when you break into the 12's.

[Custom88]

Torque management can be designed to decrease overall performance, not just during shifts on some vehicles. I don't think that the Aurora V8 is one of those engines however. I do know however that the grand prix GXP with the 5.3 V8 has tremendous torque management because for one, it uses the same transmission that my aurora has in it! The torque management can also be referred to as "detuning" an engine. Like I said, I don't think the aurora V8, or V6 for that matter put out enough power to need the aggressive torque management that limits torque output at all engine RPM's. They only have the torque management to limit power just before, and during shifts. It's there to save your transmission. Steven, it's not there only during WOT, it's there during most shifts actually. You won't notice it really. The PCM pulls timing an instant before the shift to keep the transmission from dealing with all the stress of an engien putting out full power. You don't need that much power giong to the transmission during a shift. It's only going to cause problems, nothing else. It won't make you faster...

[Aurora40]

Yes, on some cars there is more aggressive management. On the 4L60-E in the Corvette, the engine can make more torque than the tranny is rated for. So this is pulled back. This was why the LS1 was rated at 375lb-ft in a manual, but 360lb-ft in an auto. The F-bodies shouldn't have that problem as they made a lot less torque than the 'vette.

Torque management also engages when you start off in 1st for our cars, which is why it's fairly hard to break the wheels loose in the 2nd gen, but somewhat easier in the 1st gen. They really need this in the 3800 S/C cars since they will spin one wheel like mad very easily. I believe this has progressed as the car controls have gotten more advanced.

However, we all drive Auroras. And this conversation is about Auroras. And I can recall numerous threads in which I've read the exact same nonsense about disabling torque management on our cars being some kind of magic fix that will make them monsters.

[Custom88]

aurora40 said:

However, we all drive Auroras. And this conversation is about Auroras. And I can recall numerous threads in which I've read the exact same nonsense about disabling torque management on our cars being some kind of magic fix that will make them monsters.

you're right. The DOHC engines don't even put out enough torque to need torque management. No sense limiting it when the engine doesn't even put out enough to cause damage anyways. lol. I drove an L67 powered car again yesterday and I miss it. lol. Don't get me wrong, the northstar engines are smooth and all, but they just don't have the balls that the pushrod engines do.

[Aurora40]

To get back on topic, Road and Track clocked the 2001 3.5L at 8.0 seconds 0-60, and 16.1 @ 88.5mph in the 1/4. They never tested a 2nd gen 4.0L.

[Custom88]

you read that on the internet, or do you have the magazine?

[Aurora40]

I read it in the road test review. The summary in the back of a later issue. I probably have the magazine. Let me check...

[Aurora40]

Ok, I've got the magazine. It's actually a 4-car comparo of V6 sedans. The Catera, 300M, LS, and Aurora. The Aurora tied for 1st with the Chrysler, and was the second fastest car. The nice thing about comparos is they run them on the same track at the same time, etc. So they were in the same weather and whatnot. Much more comparable than magazine tests months apart.

I can scan it up and mail it to you.

In this magazine also, it seems to me the 300M does not perform like a 250+hp, 3650 lbs car should. It edges out the heavier V6 Aurora by only .2 seconds to 60 and .2 seconds in the 1/4 with identical trap speeds.

[Custom88]

that would be awesome! I would really enjoy that. Thanks man! BTW, your sig pic is such a teaser! I want to see more pictures of your Aurora. Have any recent ones you can post in "your ride"?