3.5 mods

[Custom88]

Are there any modifications for the 3.5 that's in the V6 Aurora/Intrigue? Basically what I'm looking for is the power increase without the engine being louder (by much.) This leaves out intake mods. I gutted the airbox in the Riviera and put in a K&N filter but that made the car sound kind of junky when the engine was cold and idling. You could really hear the engine sucking in air. Any throttle body mods or anything simple that can be done? Thanks!

[w3rk5]

I don't think you have to worry about the sound issue if you gut the air box of the 3.5L. I did it to mine and it still sounds stock especially when you punch it. Maybe it's a DOHC thing. I'll try and get a recording of it if you want.

Later on this year I might remove my u-bend. I wonder if your Aurora has a u-bend? You can also try a grounding kit. ;D I don't think it'll give you hp/tq increase but it's a kewl mod with benifits.

To be honest with you, there really isn't too many "simple mods" for our engines. If you know of any let me know.

Oh yeah! Here are the parts I removed from my airbox.

[Aurora40]

Our airbox is pretty good as-is. I'm not sure a gutting will do anything but increase noise and turbulence. A K&N is a good idea, should get a small gain. After that it's exhaust.

[JimW]

Yep. Its pretty limited out there. Intrigue guys would know best. Somehow I think the Aurora doesnt have the U-bend. The 3.5L Aurora is to Bonneville what the Intrigue is the Grand Prix (with regards to U-bend). The HP numbers are a tad higher in the Aurora to make it more "attractive" as a flagship car then the middle of the road Intrigue.

I dont know for sure tho, just sayin. But ya, a nice catback exhaust and an intake gut would be a good start. Yer not really a speedy guy anyway Custom, so I would put some dough towards a bit of tint, upgraded headlights (if needed), heh you dont need rims.

My thoughts anyway

[Custom88]

actually I was looking more towards the gas mileage increase as one of the reasons to do it. The extra horsepower also would be nice to close the gap between what I was previously used to and what I have now. The rims I basically agree with also. The stock ones are attractive, plus the rims I had on the Riviera don't look to me like they'd look good on my car. I already put my silverstars in the Aurora last night.. what a huge difference that made! I also want to upgrade the fog lights too so the lights match. As for tint, I'm not sure if that'd look good or not either. If I did it, I'd go lighter than what's on the riv right now. Maybe 35% for the rear and 50% for the front. I'm not sure yet about that though. One thing I really want to do is replace the speakers with Infinities. The stock Delco system sucks. The Bose systems really do make a big difference on these cars. anything more than 30% volume and all the speakers do is make farting noises.

[JimW]

Freer flowing in/out will help your hwy mpg, but wont help city mpg. I have mild mods on my Aurora as you know, and you've heard enough from me about what the car is like and how it behaves.

I think tint would look nice, but ya, go light

[Marc]

If the exhaust pipe diameter in the 3.5 is the same as in
the 4.0, then the Corsa or any other high performance
aftermarket exhaust system should fit the 3.5.


_____________

GM!!! BRING BACK OLDS!!!

[Aurora40]

JimW said:

Yep. Its pretty limited out there. Intrigue guys would know best. Somehow I think the Aurora doesnt have the U-bend. The 3.5L Aurora is to Bonneville what the Intrigue is the Grand Prix (with regards to U-bend).

I think you're trying to say the Aurora is to the 'Trig what the Bonnie is to the GP? The 3.5L Aurora has the same airbox as the 4.0, and I believe it has the same exhaust system. It definitely has the same shape to it anyway, no U-bend.

You could get Corsas I bet, but it might make more sense to get some Dynomaxes or something. Something a bit less restrictive to boost the mileage a bit, but not loud since you said you want it quiet. The Corsa will do that too, but for a lot more. Might not be worth it on the 3.5 as the exhaust is probably 4.0 sized, thus already fairly flowy for the V6.

[Black02Rora]

Hello all. I'm a new member and I'm glad I found this place. This is my first post here and my 02 Aurora and me are home.

As far as this thread goes on power, it's not like you feel a substansial difference in power from the 3.5 and 4.0 Auroras. I have driven both and it's not a lot of difference. 215 (documented hp) vs 250 from the V8. I agree with Jim W that the Aurora 3.5 probably does have a few more than the rated 215 horsepower that's in the Intrigue. Especially since it has the same intake and exhaust as Aurora 4.0 (not as restrictive as with the Intrigue). Besides, the weight of the V8 offsets most of the gains from having the V8 version too.... that explains why there is only a tenth or 2 tenths of a second difference in 0-60/quater mile runs. I actually have to tell myself that since I was looking for a V8 originally. I purchased the V6 since no V8s were available at the time. So I found a fully loaded V6 (Sunroof, heated seats, climate pkg., and even the Bose system). No it's not a V8 but it's got all the toys (except navigation)

I have been thinking of an intake or a computer chip/timing adjuster of some sort (haven't seen much about this). I have seen that Air Intake Sensor Resistor on Ebay. Does anyone have any experience on this resistor? Does that trick really work?

I'm glad to be with some common owners of Auroras. Lets talk.

[stevensolds]

yes but there is a much better sound with the V8. I love the deep and rumbling tone of the 8 cylinders. I always have. If i cant have an 8 cylinder i will take public transporation or drive my moms beater truck.

I will never drive a 4 or 6 cylinder. 250HP is a lot better than 215. You probably hear a buzzing in the V6 too. I doubt it sounds anything like the Premium V8.

[Custom88]

stevensolds said:

yes but there is a much better sound with the V8. I love the deep and rumbling tone of the 8 cylinders. I always have. If i cant have an 8 cylinder i will take public transporation or drive my moms beater truck.

I will never drive a 4 or 6 cylinder. 250HP is a lot better than 215. You probably hear a buzzing in the V6 too. I doubt it sounds anything like the Premium V8.

There's no buzzing from mine. I think there has to be quite a difference between the V6 and V8 models. My Aurora has 215/230 torque. My last car, the Riviera, had 240 horsepower and 280 torque.. there's a absolutely huge difference in acceleration power. The Riv was 7.3 seconds 0-60, the V6 Aurora (as documented) is 8.9 seconds. I think i read that the V8 Aurora is somewhere around 7.9 seconds. So, you actually lose a full second getting to 60 with the V8 and you have a much smoother drivetrain. But, definately don't look down on the V6 anyone, it's not that bad. The savings in gas are worth it if you don't need the top end power. Around town the two are really close but once out on the open road on the highway the V8 easily takes over.

[Aurora40]

Black02Rora said:

that explains why there is only a tenth or 2 tenths of a second difference in 0-60/quater mile runs.

I in no way mean to bash the V6. It's a great car that costs less than a V6 ES300 or even a loaded Camry did at the time. And it gets nice mileage, probably a bigger difference than EPA numbers would suggest.

But I find a tenth or two in the 1/4 to be highly unlikely, and unlikely to 60. I'm willing to eat crow, for sure. And I'm not saying they can't be that close. But if anyone has a V6 with mild work (all I have is K&N and cat-back) I'd be glad to meet you at some local track and we can put it to the test. It'd be fun.

That said, the V6 is nice, DOHC with dual balance shafts, 6700 rpm fuel cutoff, coil on plug ignition. It's pretty sweet.

As to "they feel the same", I hear that a lot. I think the suspension and seats and such make a big difference in seat-of-the-pants feel. I've raced my dad a few times when I had an '87 Corvette and he had a Regal GS. They are surprisingly close. But they feel very different in the drivers seat. The Corvette feels faster because it's louder, it's stiffer, and the seats weren't very plush. A buddy of mine always says it'd feel a lot faster if you were replaced the seat of the Aurora with a crate. I think if you lined them up, the difference would be more apparent.

[Custom88]

Aurora40 said:

But if anyone has a V6 with mild work (all I have is K&N and cat-back) I'd be glad to meet you at some local track and we can put it to the test. It'd be fun.

Even if I had a couple hundred into it I still wouldn't feel comfortable with that. I'd rather save the humiliation. ;D

[stevensolds]

i like the top end and overtaking power the V8 has. this thing really hauls ass when you get past 4000 rpms. my aurora actually pulled to the side when i raced some kid in a acura integra. thats how much power it has.

Of course, i blew him out of the water. I raced a Manual V6 Mustang once and it beat me off the line, but i easily blew him out once my tranny shifted into 2nd. i had a full gas tank that time too...so if i had a quarter like the first time it would have been better im sure

[Black02Rora]

Hey! You guys are claiming not to dog the 3.5 Aurora but fudging the numbers say otherwise. I have proof from ROAD and TRACK (July 2000) which performed a comparison test between the Oldsmobile Aurora 3.5, Chysler 300M, Cadillac Catera Sport, and Lincoln's LS (all V6 models). Aurora 3.5 came out the winner with a "published" 0-60 in 8.0 seconds flat (I can attest that mine gets there a smidgen quicker than 8 seconds). The quater mile is done in 16.0 seconds @88.5 mph.

As for your Aurora 4.0, Car and Driver (May 2000) tested the Olds against some other top contenders and came out in last place (Audi A6, BMW 528i, Jaguar S-type (V-6), Lexus GS300, Lincoln LS (V-8), Saab 9-5 Aero, and Volvo's S80 T6 (not in that order of course).

The Olds Aurora 4.0 had a tested 0-60 of only 7.8 seconds (hince the 2 tenths difference from the 8.0 seconds of the 3.5 Aurora). The quater mile is quoted as 15.8 seconds @88 mph. The Aurora 3.5 actually has a higher mph trap speed of .5mph in the quater mile with only that 2 tenths of a second difference once again.

So that backs up my post (Custom 88 and Aurora 40) about there not being very much difference in the V6 and V8 Auroras. It's documented as a .2 second difference. Honestly, who feels .2 of a second? Sure you get a little burble from the V8, but it also shows the power rating of the V6 Aurora are slightly higher than 215 hp/230 tq.

Just sticking up for my baby Aurora 6. I know what she can do. LOL

[Custom88]

Black02Rora said:

Hey! You guys are claiming not to dog the 3.5 Aurora but fudging the numbers say otherwise. I have proof from ROAD and TRACK (July 2000) which performed a comparison test between the Oldsmobile Aurora 3.5, Chysler 300M, Cadillac Catera Sport, and Lincoln's LS (all V6 models). Aurora 3.5 came out the winner with a "published" 0-60 in 8.0 seconds flat (I can attest that mine gets there a smidgen quicker than 8 seconds). The quater mile is done in 16.0 seconds @88.5 mph.

As for your Aurora 4.0, Car and Driver (May 2000) tested the Olds against some other top contenders and came out in last place (Audi A6, BMW 528i, Jaguar S-type (V-6), Lexus GS300, Lincoln LS (V-8), Saab 9-5 Aero, and Volvo's S80 T6 (not in that order of course).

The Olds Aurora 4.0 had a tested 0-60 of only 7.8 seconds (hince the 2 tenths difference from the 8.0 seconds of the 3.5 Aurora). The quater mile is quoted as 15.8 seconds @88 mph. The Aurora 3.5 actually has a higher mph trap speed of .5mph in the quater mile with only that 2 tenths of a second difference once again.

So that backs up my post (Custom 88 and Aurora 40) about there not being very much difference in the V6 and V8 Auroras. It's documented as a .2 second difference. Honestly, who feels .2 of a second? Sure you get a little burble from the V8, but it also shows the power rating of the V6 Aurora are slightly higher than 215 hp/230 tq.

Just sticking up for my baby Aurora 6. I know what she can do. LOL

I'm not bashing the V6 for sure since I own one. I'm curious if maybe the car and driver magazine did not run premium gasoline in the V8 engine. If not that'll make a significant difference. I don't remember if this was mentioned earlier either, but the 0-60 and the 1/4 mile times are very similar on the V8 and V6 engine. After you get to 60 the V8 will start to show it's real strong side. The V8 is strongest in it's top end at high speeds but that's not the kind of power I really need considering the driving I do. (mostly 55 MPH and below.) The weight difference probably makes a difference too. The V8 is something like 200 pounds heavier than the V6 model and it has 35 more horsepower and 30 more ft-lbs of torque. (as stated by GM but that might have been a marketting gimmick to distinguish further between the V6 and V8 model. If they had said they were only a few horsepower apart everyone would say "why would I want to spend so much more for only a tiny bit more of power and sacrifice a few MPG?) After the weight difference I'm not sure how much more power that leaves for acceleration. What I do know though is that my 1997 Supercharged Riviera would absolutely blow by the 3.5 that's in my Aurora. (it had 245 horsepower and 280 torque.) the riv would break the tires loose at a 40 MPH downshift into first gear when passing. It would totally fly around people just by barely pushing the gas pedal down at all. The 3.5 on the other hand struggles to accelerate in passing situations unless you just about floor it which I don't like doing. I never drove the V8 Aurora but I can only assume that the riviera and the V8 Aurora would have to be somewhat similar considering their similarities in the power department. The 0-60 on my Riviera was right around 7.2-7.4 seconds. I don't know the 0-60 on my 3.5 as I have no tested it and probably wont' for some time. There's too much snow around here. But I would certainly be pleasantly surprised to know that it'll do better than 9 seconds to 60 though I am still doubtful. My brother's 2000 Bonneville SLE with 205 horsepower and 230/torque is also right around 9 seconds to 60 and they're the same weight and same power just about... I'm not trying to argue with you, trust me, I just find this discussion pretty interesting that there are so many oppinions on the differene between the V6 and V8 models.

[Aurora40]

Black02Rora said:

So that backs up my post (Custom 88 and Aurora 40) about there not being very much difference in the V6 and V8 Auroras. It's documented as a .2 second difference. Honestly, who feels .2 of a second?

As I said, it's not my intent to bash the car. If you think it is, well I apologize. I like the V6 Aurora and have thought about picking one up for my wife to drive, but it just doesn't make financial sense.

As to the magazines, the two cars were never tested back-to-back. Magazine times across different magazines are not at all comparable, and from different events they aren't all that comparable either. You say you can back your argument up with articles, but I've seen (Marc can probably link you to it) articles that had the 4.0 running the 1/4 in about 15.1 seconds. And I have time slips to back up what my car can do it in.

But really, the best way is just to line 'em up. As I said, I'm willing to eat crow and I really think it would be fun. Maybe we can put something together at Carlisle this year.

If you go by published numbers, the EPA rating for the 2002 V6 Aurora is 18/27 mpg, and the V8 is 18/26 mpg. Do you think these published numbers reflect reality? One could make a similar argument to your .2 second one and say why sacrifice some power just for one measly mpg? If you crunch those numbers, you are 2.6% slower to 60mph, and get 1.2% better combined fuel economy (using the EPA formula for determining combined economy).

[stevensolds]

You cant compare the EPA gas numbers because from car-to-car it depends entirely on how much the owners' like to do Regular Maintenance (ie Regular oil changes, air filter changes, etc). The books recommend 7500miles which is way too long in my opinion. 3000miles sounds about adequate with conventional oil.

[Black02Rora]

Oh no offense was taken. It's all good. We 3.5 owners are just as passionate as the 4.0 owners. ;D

[Black02Rora]

Oh BTW, I use 93 octane gas in my tank. Does anyone else??? Olds says Gen II Auroras will run as normal on 87. I don't know if it's psychological or what, but I notice with 87 octane my foot stays on the floor even for a modest acceleration. When I use the premium fuel the throttle respone is 10 times better. But Rora definately feels more spunky with 93 octane. I use it faithfully. Anyone else?

[stevensolds]

Yes i use 93 octane, every fillup no matter what the price as recommended for my 1995.

[Marc]

Aurora40 said:

You say you can back your argument up with articles, but I've seen (Marc can probably link you to it) articles that had the 4.0 running the 1/4 in about 15.1 seconds. And I have time slips to back up what my car can do it in.

Here's the link:


www.autonetdirect.com/hot_car_01olds.aurora.html


Black02Aurora....Let me tell you this about the 2001/03
4.0: If you give it a careful break in, and use premium,
you will get excellent performance. I did that with my
2001 4.0, and it runs 99% as well as my prior car, a
1972 442 W-25 455.
Aurora40's 2002 4.0 runs in the high 14s with very little
work having been done on it. If an Aurora 4.0 couldn't
run in the low 15s to begin with, there's no chance
that it could run high 14s on only the 2 mods that
Aurora40 did....the Corsa exhaust and a K&N.
IMO, a lot of the road testers actually understated
the Aurora 4.0's true performance. Some of them made it out to be a brick. I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT IT IS NOT!!!
I have been driving since 1959, and this car gave me
the biggest surprise in the area of performance that
I have ever had. When I first got it, I didn't expect the
level of performance that it has. In fact, it's so good
that I have never done any speed work on it, and have
no plans to do so.


_____________

GM!!! BRING BACK OLDS!!!

[w3rk5]

Aurora40 said:

Our airbox is pretty good as-is. I'm not sure a gutting will do anything but increase noise and turbulence. A K&N is a good idea, should get a small gain. After that it's exhaust.

After I gutted the box on my Intrigue I did notice better Hwy fuel economy. The increase in noise is very minor. Regarding turbulence, I dunno what you mean.

Black02Rora......I wouldn't get the "Air Intake Sensor Resistor". You might get more power but I don't think it's good for your engine. I'v read a couple of articles on that mod and none of them suggested anyone do it.

[JimW]

That and your car is to smart for that IAT resistor. No matter what initial power you get to start, the PCM will compensate.

[Aurora40]

w3rk5 said:

After I gutted the box on my Intrigue I did notice better Hwy fuel economy. The increase in noise is very minor. Regarding turbulence, I dunno what you mean.

The 3.5 Intrigue and the 3.5 Aurora have different air boxes.

[Black02Rora]

Thanks for the advice and discussion guys. I realize I am part of an elite American (Olds/GM) car group and I take pride in my ride. I won't bother modifying the "mark of excellence". LOL

[w3rk5]

Custom88.......I just got my u-bend & resonator removed. I replaced it with 2.25" stainless steel pipe. There's no drone nor rasp at all. I was worried that it was gonna be loud but I guess the stock muffler and the 2.25" pipe took care of my worries. It still sounds like stock until you puch it. Then you'll hear a little deeper growl. I can't really tell any performance gains though. Then again I'm not gonna try on the current road conditions here.

Overall, I'm sure this mod will should free up a little hp/tq. I'm also talking with a guy who ported and polished his throttle body. He said he noticed gains in the higher rpm range. I'm gonna try and check out his work. Oh yeah! He has a 3.5L Intigue.

[Aurora40]

w3rk5 said:

Custom88.......I just got my u-bend & resonator removed. I replaced it with 2.25" stainless steel pipe. There's no drone nor rasp at all. I was worried that it was gonna be loud but I guess the stock muffler and the 2.25" pipe took care of my worries. It still sounds like stock until you puch it. Then you'll hear a little deeper growl. I can't really tell any performance gains though. Then again I'm not gonna try on the current road conditions here.

Heheh, I'm pretty sure this also won't apply to the 3.5L Aurora. It has the exact same, or at least the same general (same layout for sure) exhaust as the 4.0L. There is no U-bend on the car. There is a resonator, though I'm not sure it causes much restriction. I believe the U-bend is pretty much a W-body thing.

[w3rk5]

Okay then. If that's the case, disregard removing the resonator. I got rid of it cause it only costs a little bit more to do. ;D I'm sure the throttle body still applies............I think. lol.

[stevensolds]

i have no resonator either. sounds better i think...has a nice burble at idle with the Super Turbo mufflers

im gonna get the y-pipe next though, it will sound a hell of a lot better im sure. when you run through the RPMs you cant really hear the exhaust on mine, like you can on Jim's 97.

the outside you can really hear it though hehe. i had my mom drive my car and floor it on hte highway while i followed, and it was loud when u have the windows down.