|
Post by Custom88 on Dec 11, 2004 12:26:20 GMT -6
Hey all, I'm new here. I was referred to the forum by Jim W. (from the bonneville club.) I wasn't sure of a proper place to post this so I figured this would be the closest thing. (maybe it should be 2nd gen 2001+ Aurora General discussion instead.) But anyway. I have a 1997 Riviera right now but am looking for something newer with less miles. (the Riviera has 120,000 right now.) I just got the Riviera paid off and would like to save some money before buying a new car but would like to get some oppinions first. You can see my Riv here: members.cardomain.com/blown97rivieraI am trying to decide if I should go with the Aurora 3.5 or the Aurora 4.0. I have test driven a 3.5 because there is a pearl white one at a local dealer for 13,100 with only 39,000 miles on it. All of the 4.0's are 16,000 easy here unless they have over 70,000 miles. (which would defeat the purpose of buying something newer with lower miles.) I was pleasantly surprised by the performance of the 3.5. It was quicker than I was expecting it to be. (still no where near what I am used to though.) another plus to the 3.5 is the gas mileage (29?). The V8 would definately be nice for the smoothness and the acceleration but the gas mileage is dissapointing at 25 highway. Basically I suppose that I just want to hear from owners of both the V6 and V8 models and hear their thoughts about this. Keep in mind that I'm also 19 so insurance is a factor. My normal driving habits are usually 450 miles a week, high way mostly (65+ MPH.) I also drive the car pretty easy so don't worry about me trashing it. Just look at the riv.. I've had that car for almost 2 years now and I usually don't even go above 2,200 RPM when accelerating. I do like to get on it every once and a while but that's just when merging onto the highway or passing somebody so I'm definately by no means a 'hot rodder.'
|
|
|
Post by kobalt on Dec 11, 2004 13:59:59 GMT -6
Custom98 - Go for the 4.0 - save up for a little more if you have to. There is not much difference in power between the v6 and the v8 around town - the 3.5 has a long stroke which translates into good low end. The v6 is a great motor, but does not compare to the 4.0 above 2k rpm or when acceleration really counts, say when you encounter a merge right into the fast lane. NJ is famous for its fast lane merges, they can be downright dangerous if you don't have the power to accelerate briskly. Plus you probably do not want a leaking tunk lid, which the 3.5s are famous for
|
|
|
Post by JimW on Dec 11, 2004 15:23:48 GMT -6
Alright! Custom88 made it! ;D You'll be happier with the 4.0L for sure, it may be more expensive but the trade off is well worth it. The 4T80E is a better transmission, the gearing is nicer on the 2nd gen Aurora V8, and IIRC the 2nd gen doesnt need premium fuel The 3.5L is good, but the reasons it went into the Aurora is because 1. It got lighter, 2. Aurora was being phased out and the Intrigue was still being built for one more year. the 3.5 really does belong in the Intrigue...not the Aurora btw Kobalt! welcome back man, we missed ya!
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Dec 11, 2004 15:38:30 GMT -6
I am trying to decide if I should go with the Aurora 3.5 or the Aurora 4.0. I have test driven a 3.5 because there is a pearl white one at a local dealer for 13,100 with only 39,000 miles on it. All of the 4.0's are 16,000 easy here unless they have over 70,000 miles. (which would defeat the purpose of buying something newer with lower miles.) I was pleasantly surprised by the performance of the 3.5. It was quicker than I was expecting it to be. (still no where near what I am used to though.) another plus to the 3.5 is the gas mileage (29?). The V8 would definately be nice for the smoothness and the acceleration but the gas mileage is dissapointing at 25 highway. Basically I suppose that I just want to hear from owners of both the V6 and V8 models and hear their thoughts about this. Keep in mind that I'm also 19 so insurance is a factor. The EPA ratings for the highway were only 2mpg apart in 2001, and only 1 mpg apart in 2002. However, I'd bet a real person could get a few more mpg from the V6 if they were so inclined. Those prices you mention seem a little bit high to me, but I haven't really looked in a while. My dad bought a certified used 2001 with about 35k miles for $17k a year ago. I would think they've dropped a bit in a year. But if you are looking at $13's, then yeah, probably no 4.0s for that unless you look at the old body style. The 3.5 is a nice car, and it weighs 165 lbs less than the 4.0. So it doesn't need as much power. It's certainly a nice car and not underpowered. If insurance and mileage are your big factors, it can't be overlooked. It has the 4T65-E, which you are familiar with. That said, I'd get a 2002 or late-build 2001 if I were shopping a 3.5. The 3.5 was the first down the line when the car was new, and so many 2001 3.5's are very early builds. They tend to have some problems, as do early 4.0s. Just to reduce the odds, I'd go with an '02. There are plenty of 3.5 '02s out there, most Auroras made that year were V6's (by far). Do you plan to keep it for a while? If so, might you want the V8 at some later point and regret not getting it? The 4.0 also had a lot more stuff standard, like rain-sensing wipers, stability control, the whole passenger thing, etc. And are you the Blown97Riv from regalgs.org?
|
|
|
Post by Custom88 on Dec 12, 2004 0:00:29 GMT -6
The EPA ratings for the highway were only 2mpg apart in 2001, and only 1 mpg apart in 2002. However, I'd bet a real person could get a few more mpg from the V6 if they were so inclined. Those prices you mention seem a little bit high to me, but I haven't really looked in a while. My dad bought a certified used 2001 with about 35k miles for $17k a year ago. I would think they've dropped a bit in a year. But if you are looking at $13's, then yeah, probably no 4.0s for that unless you look at the old body style. The 3.5 is a nice car, and it weighs 165 lbs less than the 4.0. So it doesn't need as much power. It's certainly a nice car and not underpowered. If insurance and mileage are your big factors, it can't be overlooked. It has the 4T65-E, which you are familiar with. That said, I'd get a 2002 or late-build 2001 if I were shopping a 3.5. The 3.5 was the first down the line when the car was new, and so many 2001 3.5's are very early builds. They tend to have some problems, as do early 4.0s. Just to reduce the odds, I'd go with an '02. There are plenty of 3.5 '02s out there, most Auroras made that year were V6's (by far). Do you plan to keep it for a while? If so, might you want the V8 at some later point and regret not getting it? The 4.0 also had a lot more stuff standard, like rain-sensing wipers, stability control, the whole passenger thing, etc. And are you the Blown97Riv from regalgs.org? yup. that would be me. The guys over on there (on the Riviera part) are really anal about changing nothing on the Riviera. If you change anything they'll jump all over you and say that Buick wouldnt' have designed it that way so you shouldn't change it. (as if buick engineers are gods and know how to make the perfect car.) Most also have the atittude that nothing compares to the Riviera and that it's the best designed car out there. It sure looks different, but in my oppinion it's definately not the best looking car out there, by a long shot. anyways, back to the aurora. lol. Basically it's between an SSEi Bonneville and an Aurora as of now. I plan to keep the car for a while whichever one I get so I'm just trying to make a good decision. The way I see it, the way I take care of cars if I get one with low miles it's going to last a really long time. The Riviera was neglected most of its life and it's showing somewhat by the paint fading on the trunk because the previous owner had never waxed it once. The transmission is starting to act pretty funky too every now and again. My biggest fear is all of the electronics on the Aurora. The Bonneville is also an electronic haven, but the Aurora has even more on it. I'd like to look for a model without the rain-sensing wipers if possible. (I really don't want them.) Currently my car's electronics are starting to go. The ECC buttons don't light up, my headlights keep melting (I've gone through 4 this month!), The car refuses to start 20% of the time because the VATS is going bad, and a few other minor problems that will make you want to get rid of a car. Since I want this to be a car I can keep for a while, how are the northstar engines holding out in their higher miles? I've had mechanics tell me they're a nightmare on their second half of their lives. I already know that the 3800 that's in a Bonneville will run damn near forever which is also apparent since I also have that same engine in my car and it's doing awesome considering it has 120k miles on it. I'll have to check on insurance sometime too and see how bad, or hopefully good, it is. Right now my insurance is $860 every six months on the Riviera. But, the Riviera was classified under a 2 door sport/luxury coupe. The prestige package also tacked on a few bucks per month because it included the supercharger. From what I hear the Aurora is under the "old" man category insurance-wise so I'm really hoping it's not too bad. If it is, that will be a real dissapointment. I'll be around. thanks everyone for your comments, they're really appreciated and I'll be looking forward to more! I'll be around.
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Dec 12, 2004 9:09:18 GMT -6
My biggest fear is all of the electronics on the Aurora. The Bonneville is also an electronic haven, but the Aurora has even more on it. I'd like to look for a model without the rain-sensing wipers if possible. (I really don't want them.) Currently my car's electronics are starting to go. The ECC buttons don't light up, my headlights keep melting (I've gone through 4 this month!), The car refuses to start 20% of the time because the VATS is going bad, and a few other minor problems that will make you want to get rid of a car. Well, the Bonnie and the 3.5 Aurora have the 4T65-E, which I think is a lot less reliable than the 4T80-E. The 3.5 engine in the Intrigue was actually ranked as more durable than the 3800, probably mostly due to the cheapness of the 3800. They cut costs on that thing like crazy it seems. The 3.5L has been referred to as "gloriously expensive" in at least one write-up I'd seen (I believe in Wards). I think the 3.5 and 4.0 are pretty solid engines, most problems were with the early engines from the early-mid 90's. Rain-sensing wipers are standard on any 4.0 except 2003. So it's either get them, or get a 2003 or get a V6. For your VATS, have you tried getting a new key? The pellet in the Pass-Key/ Pass-Key II can wear down over time and not make a good connection anymore. A new key will often fix the problem. The 2001+ Aurora uses Pass-Key III which does not have a resistor pellet.
|
|
|
Post by Custom88 on Dec 12, 2004 9:29:50 GMT -6
Well, the Bonnie and the 3.5 Aurora have the 4T65-E, which I think is a lot less reliable than the 4T80-E. The 3.5 engine in the Intrigue was actually ranked as more durable than the 3800, probably mostly due to the cheapness of the 3800. They cut costs on that thing like crazy it seems. The 3.5L has been referred to as "gloriously expensive" in at least one write-up I'd seen (I believe in Wards). I think the 3.5 and 4.0 are pretty solid engines, most problems were with the early engines from the early-mid 90's. Rain-sensing wipers are standard on any 4.0 except 2003. So it's either get them, or get a 2003 or get a V6. For your VATS, have you tried getting a new key? The pellet in the Pass-Key/ Pass-Key II can wear down over time and not make a good connection anymore. A new key will often fix the problem. The 2001+ Aurora uses Pass-Key III which does not have a resistor pellet. Thanks for the insight. I have found quite a few local auroras with around 65-75K miles in the 11-12.5K price range. I think I'll have to go into that mileage category possibly. For now I'll probably be looking at a buy around July possibly if all goes according to plan. As for my VATS, I thought the key pellet was the culprit as well but I installed a resistor in the VATS wiring the same resistance as my key pellet and I still get a no-start situation every 2 out of 10 starts. Stupid security light will stay on for 3 minutes and won't let me start the car. It's a real PITA and will piss you off really quick if you're in a hurry, late for work, or it's really cold out! I've already driven the V6 so I'm hoping to find a local V8 for a test drive so I can compare the two and see how much I'd be missing out on a V8 possibly. (just to see)
|
|
|
Post by kobalt on Dec 12, 2004 13:56:23 GMT -6
Custom88, the real difference between the engines can be felt from 2k rpm on. Also I must stress what Aurora40 said, look for a 02 if possible. My 01 was built in January 2000 and it has quite a bit of electrical gremlins: Power seat, seat heat, DIC, clock and auto lights all work intermittently and when they feel like it. I don't understand how GM could call a car built in the very beginning of 2000 a 2001 model, so be careful and check the build date if you decide to go with the 2001 model. Also do yourself a favor and look at some Cadillac Sevilles as these are similar to the Aurora (sedan, luxorious, powerful, northstar v8) and in your price range.
|
|
|
Post by Custom88 on Dec 13, 2004 5:02:25 GMT -6
so when would be a good starting build date for a 2001 that would be considered safe?
|
|
|
Post by kobalt on Dec 13, 2004 9:48:20 GMT -6
If I had to do it all over again I would go for anything not 2000
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Dec 13, 2004 10:18:57 GMT -6
Make sure on any car that you get the service/repair history from a GM dealer. You can see how many warranty issues it has had. My dad picked up a 9/2000 build car that so far seems fine. Like Kobalt says, though, the later the better. 2001 MY production went from Jan/2000 until about May/2001. 2002's would have started in about August or Sept/2001. My car is an Oct/2001 build.
|
|