|
|
Post by sall on Mar 12, 2015 13:47:06 GMT -6
With doing research for a brake swap I want to make sure I get the correct springs to do what I want to do. The load on the springs according to Moog is 1200 lbs. for 95-96 and 1121 lbs. for 97+. This is a 79 lb. difference. The only differences I know of are ridding of the steel control arms and cast knuckles and replacing with the cast aluminum control arms and knuckles. Would this really equate to a 79 lb difference per side? Am I forgetting any other differences?
|
|
|
|
Post by rorafan on Mar 12, 2015 16:19:31 GMT -6
This is interesting. There's got to be a bunch of little things that would equate to that difference. Weren't rear bumper covers different between years? More material under the car in one version?? Enough tiny things like that to save $ and/or weight and it adds up.
They didn't really "de-content" any standard features, so that really wouldn't factor in I don't think.
|
|
|
|
Post by sall on Mar 12, 2015 16:33:30 GMT -6
I mean I have a '96 and a '98 and not many visible difference. I failed to include the larger rotors and calipers. They have to equate for a few lbs of difference as well. I don't believe there was a fascia difference though but could be wrong. That would be weight over the rear springs though I guess technically and included in their load rating.
|
|
tigger
Administrator 
Posts: 2,844 
Staff Member
|
Post by tigger on Mar 12, 2015 21:23:38 GMT -6
It's probably calculated rather than measured (i.e., curb weight X weight split% / 2). How much less did it weigh overall?
|
|
|
|
Post by sall on Mar 13, 2015 12:39:18 GMT -6
Not sure. As the rear load is only 763 lbs for both gens. According to google search the curb weight is identical for 95-99 Classics. Which is 3,967 lbs. The 2G 4.0L is 3,803 lbs and 3.5L is 3,627. Yet the 2G front for both 3.5 and 4.0L coil spring load is 1004 lbs. No curb weight difference for the Classic but different springs/load. It doesn't make too much sense. I am sure there are a million factors not accounted for haha. Number crunching is fuuun.
|
|
bobsblue95
Super Moderator 
Scars of pleasure, scars of pain. Atmospheric changes make you sensitive again.
Posts: 3,125
Staff Member
|
Post by bobsblue95 on Mar 13, 2015 12:43:49 GMT -6
Sounds suspiciously like pencil-whipped stats by GM. I can't imagine the car is over 150lbs lighter just in front suspension.
|
|
|
|
Post by sall on Mar 13, 2015 12:49:16 GMT -6
That's what I'm saying. The aluminum control arms and aluminum knuckles cannot equate for that and those are the only major differences I can come up with not including the calipers/rotors which isn't that much. Worst case is I use the 1200lb load for '95-'96 and I am off by a few fractions of an inch from shedding the cast iron knuckle weight.
|
|
RCA1186
Administrator
Rob
Go Pack Go!
Posts: 4,808
Staff Member
|
Post by RCA1186 on Mar 13, 2015 13:38:09 GMT -6
Weren't the motor mounts changed....or actually I think they added one haha.....hmm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Aurora^Talks about year to year changes. You're right though, can't think of anything that would cause that much change. Couldn't be the oil cooler lines and adapter  |
|
|
|
Post by sall on Mar 13, 2015 13:42:08 GMT -6
They ridded of the front trans mount. Put the front engine mount in in '99 IIRC and chnaged the rear trans mount. Yeah those coolers lines probably weigh about a lb each. Just minuscule stuff that can't possibly add up to that IMO. I dunno. I'll compare the cast iron and cast aluminum knuckle weight once I get the cast iron ones off.
|
|
|
|
Post by rorafan on Mar 16, 2015 8:26:10 GMT -6
Couldn't be the oil cooler lines and adapter I have a tech doc for a late '80s Vette...for kicks I looked up some various weights: - Oil cooler +3.8 lbs
- Optional stereo w/ cassette +1.5 lbs
- Optional Bose +8.1 lbs
So, yeah...a looong way from 80 lbs, and I bet that's a beefier cooler than what the 'rora had. Weren't gas tanks changed too? Tank's over the rear again but still a difference -- but in the wrong direction if I'm understanding correctly (later ones were larger?). Could be difference in options (sunroof's gotta add some) or just calc'd different. For me I just find it interesting to see how the car evolved through the years - not much visually of course but under the skin there are changes. |
|
|
|
Post by ohiobuckeye on Mar 17, 2015 8:52:04 GMT -6
Sall, if your charm and good looks aren't enough, flip the the scale operator at your local scrapyard a $10 and put the guesswork behind you.
|
|
randnon
Aurora Passenger
Posts: 246
|
Post by randnon on Mar 22, 2015 22:12:07 GMT -6
I think the spring load is not a measure of the car weight but a measure of spring stiffness. Olds received some complaints that the early Auroras were a little to stiff ,Especially with the autobahn's stiffer tires. My 99 is definitively a softer riding car than my 95. Springs from the Park Avenue are softer again but longer than the Auroras. In 97 they changed the front suspension quite a bit, control arms, springs , struts , and knuckles. Both my 95 and 99 cars on my registrations have a listed weight within about 50 lbs. The earlier Aurora's had a larger fuel tank and I wish I had that 1 -2 gals in my 99 sometimes. Rich
|
|
|
|
Post by sall on Mar 23, 2015 12:18:52 GMT -6
13lb difference between spring rates. The spring rate, load and coil height are directly related to ride height. At any rate my preference is stiffer setup. As one would see from current '96 setup is 1000x more 'sporty' than my stock '98.
... and yes I am swapping suspension to 97+(minus control arms) and going big brakes. This was just a curiosity as I want to go with ~27-27.5" ride height all around this time. Pretty much as low I can get it...
|
|
|
|
Post by jimrockford007 on Jul 21, 2022 7:03:42 GMT -6
problem is knuckles and lower control arms are unsprung weight. The weight of them rest on the tires, not on the springs. sprung weight is everything above the spring. could be more sound insulation also that adds up quick. beefier side impact beams and hidden ******* like that.
|
|
