97roara
Aurora Watcher
My 1997 Aurora auto-baughn 4.0 V8 !
|
Post by 97roara on Sept 17, 2008 23:45:52 GMT -6
ok so what does the 4.0 share with the 4.6 ? and what exactly is differint ?? ie: bore or stroke ? or both ? external parts ? top end ? cams ? ecu ? any details would be great . thanks .
,Justin
|
|
|
|
Post by KliffsAurora on Sept 18, 2008 11:38:50 GMT -6
I think there are threads on here that talk about that. Id check in the search engine for them. ITs significant though...
|
|
|
|
Post by 95oldsaurora on Sept 18, 2008 13:34:24 GMT -6
i believe its just that the aurora V8 has a smaller bore size and different govenor
|
|
|
|
Post by alecbeaton on Sept 19, 2008 0:02:32 GMT -6
Just a different bore. An aurora computer will run a 4.6 just fine. Heads are the same, most everything is the same. You can run a 4.0 in a 4.6 car and vice versa.
|
|
|
|
Post by aurorabrain on Sept 19, 2008 14:13:13 GMT -6
Heads are slightly different. You can't interchange them between engines. Pistons are different, crank is different. Rods, lifters, springs, bearings are the same. There are 3 different spec intake cams used between a 4.0-C and a 4.6-Y and 4.6-9. The exhaust cams are the same respectively rh and lh. All electronics are the same, as is the intake and throttle body.
|
|
97roara
Aurora Watcher
My 1997 Aurora auto-baughn 4.0 V8 !
|
Post by 97roara on Sept 19, 2008 18:05:48 GMT -6
so a 4.6 would be a direct bolt in swap for the 4.0 , no changes needed  ? ,Justin |
|
|
|
Post by auroraguy95 on Sept 19, 2008 22:14:27 GMT -6
yup:)
|
|
97roara
Aurora Watcher
My 1997 Aurora auto-baughn 4.0 V8 !
|
Post by 97roara on Sept 20, 2008 3:06:34 GMT -6
well then that makes my life easier if and when my 4.0 kicks the bucket ..... ;D whats the power rating of the 4.6 compared to the 4.0 hp and tq ,justin |
|
|
|
Post by 95oldsaurora on Sept 20, 2008 8:40:01 GMT -6
i believe its 275hp and 260lb ft compared to 250hp and 260lb ft
|
|
|
|
Post by unirok on Sept 20, 2008 9:16:59 GMT -6
well then that makes my life easier if and when my 4.0 kicks the bucket ..... ;D whats the power rating of the 4.6 compared to the 4.0 hp and tq ,justin Idk I owned a 2005 Bonneville GXP with the 275hp version and it felt like a slug. I liked my Auroras 4.0 response and performance much better. Plus the 4.6 burns oil like crazy even brand new ones? I just walked a STS seville the other day and I only have a 4.4 lol |
|
|
|
Post by aldrichd on Sept 20, 2008 10:40:44 GMT -6
Don't forget the 4.0 has the plastic intake for reduced weight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Sept 20, 2008 17:04:27 GMT -6
Don't forget the 4.0 has the plastic intake for reduced weight. As does the 4.6L. |
|
|
|
Post by auroralover on Sept 20, 2008 18:14:41 GMT -6
i believe its 275hp and 260lb ft compared to 250hp and 260lb ft The 4.6 in my GXP has 275 horses and 300 lb ft torque. |
|
|
|
Post by rushsampson on Sept 21, 2008 2:35:22 GMT -6
Lest we forget the later model Seville STS's and some DeVille's that sported the 300hp 4.6L. The SLS was fitted with the 275hp N*.
|
|
97roara
Aurora Watcher
My 1997 Aurora auto-baughn 4.0 V8 !
|
Post by 97roara on Sept 21, 2008 12:10:35 GMT -6
what did gm do to the 4.6 to make the diff between 275hp 4.6 and the 300 hp 4.6???
|
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Sept 21, 2008 15:59:05 GMT -6
Different cams. The 300hp made peak power at like 6.500-6,700 rpm. If you were putting it in an Aurora, you'd probably want the 275hp one.
|
|
|
|
Post by aurorabrain on Sept 21, 2008 18:59:39 GMT -6
The 275hp 4.6 mated to 3.71 gears in an Aurora (Auroraguy95's car) runs well. 9.22 @ 78mph in the 1/8th mile.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmulder79 on Sept 22, 2008 15:06:49 GMT -6
The 275hp 4.6 mated to 3.71 gears in an Aurora (Auroraguy95's car) runs well. 9.22 @ 78mph in the 1/8th mile. So this does work? Maybe we should let the guys at the Cadillac forum know about this. They are constantly saying that the 275hp 4.6 cannot be used in place of the 300hp 4.6. This is good to know. I've got the Autobahn package, and would like the benefit of more torque available at lower rpm's. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Sept 22, 2008 15:20:48 GMT -6
The 275hp 4.6 mated to 3.71 gears in an Aurora (Auroraguy95's car) runs well. 9.22 @ 78mph in the 1/8th mile. What'll it do in the 1/4? |
|
|
|
Post by auroraguy95 on Sept 22, 2008 16:25:51 GMT -6
Estimated 14.3 1/4 mile shouldn't be a problem i just haven't had a chance. The closest strip is 2 hours away and now it will be spring before i go to the track because i have to do HEAD GASKETS!!! but no worries i will go to the track in the spring and get an actual time slip for the 1/4 and it may even beat the estimate time ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by unirok on Sept 22, 2008 18:46:56 GMT -6
Estimated 14.3 1/4 mile shouldn't be a problem i just haven't had a chance. The closest strip is 2 hours away and now it will be spring before i go to the track because i have to do HEAD GASKETS!!! but no worries i will go to the track in the spring and get an actual time slip for the 1/4 and it may even beat the estimate time ;D 14.3 is dreaming no offense. My 2005 GXP Bonneville had that engine tranny combo and was a slug. **My BMW 745i is worlds quicker and wont break a number close to that** |
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Sept 22, 2008 21:12:30 GMT -6
14.3 is dreaming no offense. My 2005 GXP Bonneville had that engine tranny combo and was a slug. **My BMW 745i is worlds quicker and wont break a number close to that** So what was your best 1/4 mile time with the GXP? Or how about with the Bimmer? No offense but if you've never drag raced a car, you probably shouldn't be so firm and rude in your opinion of how a car will perform at it. You could just as easily have said "I had a GXP with that combo, and it didn't feel that fast" or "magazine times for it weren't that fast", etc. Not "you're dreaming and your car's a slug". |
|
|
|
Post by unirok on Sept 22, 2008 21:33:21 GMT -6
14.3 is dreaming no offense. My 2005 GXP Bonneville had that engine tranny combo and was a slug. **My BMW 745i is worlds quicker and wont break a number close to that** So what was your best 1/4 mile time with the GXP? Or how about with the Bimmer? No offense but if you've never drag raced a car, you probably shouldn't be so firm and rude in your opinion of how a car will perform at it. You could just as easily have said "I had a GXP with that combo, and it didn't feel that fast" or "magazine times for it weren't that fast", etc. Not "you're dreaming and your car's a slug". You know me blunt and to the point just like you....anyway since I have OWNED both I stand by my statements. These are seat of my pants impressions not drag race slips that are easily manipulated and magazine rated the GXP slower than a 300c and the 300c is not near a 14.3 quarter mile. |
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Sept 22, 2008 21:44:42 GMT -6
You know me blunt and to the point just like you.... LOL! Touche!  anyway since I have OWNED both I stand by my statements. These are seat of my pants impressions not drag race slips that are easily manipulated and magazine rated the GXP slower than a 300c and the 300c is not near a 14.3 quarter mile. Just curious, how do you mean easily manipulated? If nothing else, one could get video of the car driving and the big sign showing the result. While I'm sure it's possible to fake that, it wouldn't be easy for the average joe. I wouldn't take car rags as the be-all end-all of relative performance. Also they test stock cars, we aren't talking a stock car, but one prepped to drag race. At the very least it has some weight stripped off. |
|
|
|
Post by aurorabrain on Sept 22, 2008 22:02:35 GMT -6
Auroraguy95 and myself were at a 1/4 mile track a year or 2 ago with a guy that had a 2005 GXP. He ran a consistent 15.4 on a warm engine. At the time, Auroraguy95 was running a 15.3 with his stock engine 1995 Autobahn Aurora.
|
|
|
|
Post by unirok on Sept 22, 2008 22:15:02 GMT -6
You know me blunt and to the point just like you.... LOL! Touche! anyway since I have OWNED both I stand by my statements. These are seat of my pants impressions not drag race slips that are easily manipulated and magazine rated the GXP slower than a 300c and the 300c is not near a 14.3 quarter mile. Just curious, how do you mean easily manipulated? If nothing else, one could get video of the car driving and the big sign showing the result. While I'm sure it's possible to fake that, it wouldn't be easy for the average joe. I wouldn't take car rags as the be-all end-all of relative performance. Also they test stock cars, we aren't talking a stock car, but one prepped to drag race. At the very least it has some weight stripped off. I am not saying the Aurora or the GXP are slow but just not as quick as some people think. Yes an Aurora that has been stripped of a lot of weight and prepped for a race would be a lot quicker than I thought. I read BMW specs claiming my 745i will do 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and I shake my head and wonder what the ideal conditions were for these numbers because I know for a fact both my 745s were not that quick to 60. As far as faking numbers I just mean its very easy for someone to scan a time slip for a vette and say it was their car in lane 1 instead lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Sept 23, 2008 10:10:40 GMT -6
Auroraguy95 and myself were at a 1/4 mile track a year or 2 ago with a guy that had a 2005 GXP. He ran a consistent 15.4 on a warm engine. I thought it was faster than that. |
|
|
|
Post by Tortured Soul on Sept 23, 2008 16:01:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 95oldsaurora on Sept 23, 2008 18:16:49 GMT -6
dang i thought they were faster than that
|
|
|
|
Post by unirok on Sept 24, 2008 8:44:12 GMT -6
dang i thought they were faster than that Like I said the Bonneville GXP is not a fast car for some reason. Personally I think the 4.6 Northstar is over rated. I drove a Seville STS with a 300 hp engine a long time ago like 1998 and it only seemed barely quicker than my current Aurora and it was all over the road. I bet the one with magnetic suspension handles better. |
|
? 
