2001-2003 owners, what do you love most?

[Aurora40]

There's a lot of subtle things I love about my car, and I bet there are ones you love too, so let's post them up! Let's talk about the great style on the new car. I know the auto media liked to call it plain, but what do those chuckleheads know? What things do you just love to look at on your car?

I love the body crease/character line. I love how it starts off so close to the front wheelwell, but gets higher as it goes back. It's much higher than the rear wheelwell and gives the car a stance, some aggressiveness to it. Plus, the crease becomes more defined as the upper part gets closer to horizontal. And I love how it gently tapers off and back on in the middle. It's really a compound shape, and I wonder if it was expensive to stamp:



Another thing that I really love is how the car tapers in at the middle. It really has a sexy shape that doesn't always convey in photos. But whenever I look at it in the parking lot, the curve is obvious. You can also see it in the molding, look at how it is thick in the middle and tapers off as it goes out. Look at how the reflection of the parking line curves along the body:



I absolutely love to run my hands over the body, and one of the most relaxing things is to take a towel and wipe it down with some great smelling quick detailer like Final Detail or Crystal Mist. The car can be a pain to wash and wax since it's so big, but wiping it down by hand when I don't need to but just want to is a real dream...

Post it up, what do you love about your 2001-2003? Let's see some of your favorite close-ups of the body! Or go snap one of a detail you just love! Let's see some of the Final 500 badges up close and personal, let's see the dash, the engine cover, let's see whatever you love about it!

[Marc]

I think that the engine is the best feature of my 2001 4.0.
Much more power than I had expected.
Also, the A/C in this car is easily the powerful that I've ever
felt. On a 100* summer day, the interior will be cooled off
in under 5 minutes.
There is actually only one thing that I don't like about this
car: I'll never be able to get another Aurora, thanks to the
Great Geniuses At GM!


___________________

GM!!! BRING BACK OLDS!!!

[JimW]

*quietly enters*

If you dont like the 2001+ model, don't open a can of haterade in this thread, please. We love theses cars no matter what

Carry on

[Aurora40]

Marc said:

On a 100* summer day, the interior will be cooled off in under 5 minutes.

Snap a pict of the condensor or something! I think that Solar-Ray glass helps with the heat too. Even in the hot of summer parked in the sun, the car never gets super hot. It sure gets hot, no doubt, but it doesn't seem to get seatbelt'll scald you, can't touch anything hot. I think the glass reflecting ~50% of radiant heat helps.

Here's a pict of your favorite, Marc!

Marc said:

There is actually only one thing that I don't like about this
car: I'll never be able to get another Aurora, thanks to the
Great Geniuses At GM!

You can get one of the 240 day supply ones and shrink-wrap it until yours gets too many miles on it! I guess it would be revamped probably for 2005-6 if it were still around, so we wouldn't be able to get one of our body style again anyway.

[Aurora40]

Another thing I like is how the front and back look in person. In pictures they tend to look fairly Aleroish, but in real life out on the road in motion, they have scale. The car is very wide and imposing and not all that tall. The back especially looks very imposing in person but not so great in photos. In person it seems like a big powerful cruiser, which it is. I think it really comes together when it's moving through traffic vs sitting in a parking lot.

I also like the rear lights a lot more in person. They are very large and light up in a jewel-like way, especially the blinkers. And I love how they have the same compound curve that the trunk has. I drove behind my dad the whole way back when he bought his 2001, and I couldn't stop looking at the back. The few times my wife drove away in my car I couldn't help but watch it go and be impressed with the view. You can see how the lights retain the crease at the top of the trunk, and sort of see how wide it is vs tall:


I really hope you other 2001-2003 owners will chime in with your faves and keep this thread going for a bit! These are great cars, let's share the great things about 'em!

[scottydl]

Aurora40 said:

...It really has a sexy shape that doesn't always convey in photos ... I absolutely love to run my hands over the body ... and one of the most relaxing things is to take a towel and wipe it down ...

Are you talking about your CAR or your WIFE!? LOL! ;D

[erw38]

Aurora40 said:

...It really has a sexy shape that doesn't always convey in photos ... I absolutely love to run my hands over the body ... and one of the most relaxing things is to take a towel and wipe it down ...

I would be willing to recommend someone in your area that would be glad to talk to you about your "relationship" with your car.


;D

just giving you a hard time. don't take it personally.

[JimW]

scottydl said:

Are you talking about your CAR or your WIFE!? LOL! ;D

BAHAHAHAHA

Nice one ;D *stay away from my gf 40 *

Good thread guys, nice to see this enthusiasm

[Marc]

Aurora40 said:

Here's a pict of your favorite, Marc!

Aurora40....Thank you for the pic of the engine. To my
eye, that is drop dead gorgeous


_____________________


GM!!! BRING BACK OLDS!!!

[rocketman]

I would have to say the view of the car from the rear at a slight angle to see the sides somewhat. However, you must see it from the same plane, not above as in a pick-up.

[Aurora40]

rocketman said:

I would have to say the view of the car from the rear at a slight angle to see the sides somewhat. However, you must see it from the same plane, not above as in a pick-up.

The car definitely looks best when seen on the road from another car!

[Tshot]

I like the heated seats especially when it is -02 f. I also like the lines of the car , the air gulping ports in the front , the width and size of the fog lamps and the rear end of the car when you are following.

[Letitroll98]

From the distaf side, the things I like better on the 2nd Gen vs the Classic are:

The dash is much more classy with the chrome bezels and the modern treatment of the central pod.

I would consider the body design an evolution from the Intrigue/Alero family, not the Classic. So it stands on it's own as a...well...yes, sexy design. Comparable only in terms of size and bulk to the Classic tho. An Intrigue done right.

The car feels so much lighter on it's feet than the Classic. Much more tossable and...well...Honda like. And I would say that, in a complimentary way, if Honda built a big V-8 sedan it would come very close in form and function to a 2nd Gen Aurora.

Happy driving from the other side.

P.S. 40man, I don't think you're wierd. I do the same thing with mine. Well, ok, maybe not the best endorsement considering the source.

[Aurora40]

What are some of the things you don't like about your 2001-2003 from a design perspective, not to turn this into a gripe session about stuff breaking or whatever?

I don't like how the trunk feels when you close it. The aluminum trunk is so light it bounces around and feels cheapy. I can appreciate the weight savings, and wouldn't swap it out, but it doesn't feel good to close.

I also find the bottom of the rear doors is very narrow in the opening. It can be hard for me to get my feet in and out. Once in there's room, but getting in/out can be slightly annoying for my 10 1/2 feet.

Oh, another thing I love is how there are no 1/4 windows. Sure the back windows don't go down that far, but I'd take it over a 1/4 window any day!

[Custom88]

I don't like the design of the inside door panels. I find that I like to rest my arm on the top of the door panel but I can't on the Aurora because it's sloped.

[Marc]

Marc said:

There is actually only one thing that I don't like about this
car: I'll never be able to get another Aurora, thanks to the
Great Geniuses At GM!


___________________

GM!!! BRING BACK OLDS!!!

Quoting myself for what I don't like


__________________


GM!!! BRING BACK OLDS!!!

[Tshot]

I do not like the location of the cruise control, I have accidently shut it off with my knee. Also the speedo and tach get blocked by the steering wheel.

[rocketman]

I don't like the wind noise on the highway and really think that minor bumps are taken way too hard. I wish it had ATV like dual rate springs to absorb small bumps better but still be firm enough for handing.

[kobalt]

I think that the 2nd gen interior is one of the most (if not the most) attractive GM interiors. Some say the exterior styling is blant - I could not disagree more; Just like 40 said, the car MUST be seen in person to truly appreciate it's sleek lines. That said, the V8 wheels look absolutley stunning.

[skexius]

Since I have a 2003 Aurora, I guess I'd better contribute and give my likes and dislikes about the car.

Likes:

• I like the ambiance and design of the interior of my Aurora. When I first test drove a 2003 Aurora, it was for just a few minutes, but it sold itself to me right then. It is the only other GM car that has ever made me feel as if I was driving a Cadillac. The aroma of the Nuance Leather, the REAL wood appliques, the wrap-around dashboard, and all the luxury features that you could get on it, such as the BOSE sound system, Memory Personalization, and even an optional Navigation radio that you couldn't get on other lower-level GM luxury cars. It's like driving a Cadillac with an Oldsmobile badge. The only GM car besides Cadillac that offered REAL wood interior as STANDARD equipment no less. Oldsmobile really knew how to do luxury. I LOVE IT!!!
• I love the sound and power of the baby Northstar 4.0L V8. I promised myself years ago that I would never own a V8 car because of the low gas mileage they get. However, one drive of this car and that idea got thrown right out the window. This car is fast when you really get on it hard. Feels like you are driving a Cadillac Seville, but for far less money.
• I like that I am privileged to own a Final 500 Aurora from brand-new. I love the special Dark Cherry Metallic paint color, all the Collector's Edition badges and chrome wheels on it, and the Collector's Appreciation package that Final 500 owners received after purchase of the car. In my opinion, this is the BEST Aurora of all the Auroras made. Again, I LOVE IT!!!

Dislikes:

• I don't like that the car gets 17 mpg in the city and 26 on the highway for 2003. I am not sure why the Aurora's gas mileage varied among all three years that it was made. I wish that it got the mileage that the 3800 V6 gets. However, the 2002-2003 Aurora actually gets very good mileage for a V8 based on the EPA numbers. I can't complain too much though. It can be run on 87 octane - something you cannot do with the supercharged Series II 3800 V6 in Bonneville and Park Avenue.
• I don't like that the Aurora is kinda small in the interior. I am used to the large interior space of my 1990 98 Touring Sedan that I also own and drive as my daily car. I personally like big interior luxury cars with large stretch-out room for my passengers so they can be comfortable. But, alas, GM doesn't make them as big as they used to back in the day. However, it has enough for most average-sized people. I LOVE IT STILL!!
• I don't like that the trunk is not vacation-sized like my 1990 98 Touring Sedan. I like big trunks so I can throw lots of stuff in them. However, they shaped the trunk to be more useful in the space that it has so it appears bigger and roomer than it is. I still has good space and the steel trunklid on the 2003 V8, so I can't complain too much. I LOVE IT STILL!!

So, there are my quick likes and dislikes of the Aurora. I could go on and on for days going through all my individual likes and dislikes, but this gives a quick highlight of my biggest ones.

skexius

[Aurora40]

Thanks Skexius! I'm glad you're enjoying your Collector's Edition. You are right about the Caddy comments. In fact, for 01-02 the Aurora 4.0 had standard features (they were still available features in 2003, just no longer standard to help fill the lower price point vacated by the 3.5L) that were not even standard on the STS, and many that weren't standard on the SLS in spite of the much larger sticker price.

I think the Aurora is a lot more attractive too. The Seville is a nice shape, squarish and lux looking. But it's fairly plain. It's like an Audi. It looks luxurious and solid but not beautiful. The Aurora has curves.

The EPA ratings for 2001 was 17/26, and for 2002/03 were 18/26. I believe the change came from some PCM tweaking and retesting of the car. I dont' know if it's related, but the earlier 2001's had an incredibly sensitive throttle tip-in. It's almost difficult to start the car gently. A slight touch and the car takes off. They seemed to retune this at some point in the 2001 MY run, and possibly this is what improved the city economy number. (And no, the more sensitive tip-in didn't increase the overall power. If you put the pedal all the way down they all feel the same.)

[Custom88]

Aurora40 said:

Thanks Skexius! I'm glad you're enjoying your Collector's Edition. You are right about the Caddy comments. In fact, for 01-02 the Aurora 4.0 had standard features (they were still available features in 2003, just no longer standard to help fill the lower price point vacated by the 3.5L) that were not even standard on the STS, and many that weren't standard on the SLS in spite of the much larger sticker price.

I think the Aurora is a lot more attractive too. The Seville is a nice shape, squarish and lux looking. But it's fairly plain. It's like an Audi. It looks luxurious and solid but not beautiful. The Aurora has curves.

The EPA ratings for 2001 was 17/26, and for 2002/03 were 18/26. I believe the change came from some PCM tweaking and retesting of the car. I dont' know if it's related, but the earlier 2001's had an incredibly sensitive throttle tip-in. It's almost difficult to start the car gently. A slight touch and the car takes off. They seemed to retune this at some point in the 2001 MY run, and possibly this is what improved the city economy number. (And no, the more sensitive tip-in didn't increase the overall power. If you put the pedal all the way down they all feel the same.)

the build on my 2001 is june 2001 and mine still has the excessive tip-in even though it's a 3.5. I kept almost spinning the tires when taking off because I wasn't used to it. You barely touch the gas pedal and the car takes off. Give it a little more gas and it does barely anything. The initial press of the pedal is definately over exaggerated. I really hate the feel of the gas pedal on this car. It's stiff and notchy feeling, unlike the buick I used to own which was smooth and linear. I also do not like how the center console extends back to beside the gas pedal. My feet are large (size 12 1/2" ) and my foot rubs on the carpet with my foot rested on the gas pedal making it very annoying. The resistance of the carpet on the side of my foot makes for unsafe driving as you have that initial period where the gas pedal doesn't want to go down then as your foot slides on the carpet you just about mash the gas pedal down. The center console shouldn't extend as far back into the dash as it does. It's unsafe to have it less than 1" to the side of the gas pedal in my oppinion.

[Aurora40]

Hmm, weird. I could be wrong about when it was corrected. My dad's 4.0 is a 9/00 build (I'm pretty sure, going off memory) and it does not have the overly-exaggerated pedal feel that the other 2001's I'd driven had. I also test drove a few 2001's when I was shopping for mine (and decided to wait for the 2002's) which was summer of 2001. I don't recall any of them having that crazy tip-in. I mean, the difference is pretty significant, like you said it is overly exaggerated. I of course wasn't looking for differences like that back then, but I think it would have made an impression on me.

I wonder if the 3.5's were ever changed? They never got re-rated for economy. Though maybe Olds wasn't as concerned since they had better numbers anyways. I also wonder if you can have a service shop change that tip-in? I think you'll find the later pedal more linear and smooth.

I found the pedal to be akward at first too. But in a different way. It seemed hinged far back such that my foot would literally slip off the pedal completely when I floored it. That used to happen on occasion, but I guess I've changed where I place my heel as it doesn't bother me anymore. Hopefully you'll find a position that's more comfortable for you.

[rocketman]

OK, so I am NOT nuts?! I have repeatedly thought the '01 4.0 was quicker than the '03 4.0. I thought the PCM may have been tweaked at the dealer on the '01 when they reprogrammed the crank sensors. If I like the acceleration of the '01 better can I change out the one part on the '03 to make it accelerate like the '01?

[scottydl]

It sounds like you may just have to hit the accelerator pedal harder on the '03 to get the same result. If the only difference in throttle response relates only to the amount of force placed on the accelerator (and not any mechanical/electrical parts), then there is no actual performance difference. Right?

[Marc]

rocketman said:

OK, so I am NOT nuts?! I have repeatedly thought the '01 4.0 was quicker than the '03 4.0. I thought the PCM may have been tweaked at the dealer on the '01 when they reprogrammed the crank sensors. If I like the acceleration of the '01 better can I change out the one part on the '03 to make it accelerate like the '01?

Sounds to me as if the difference between the 2001
and the 2003 is a matter of PCM programming. I don't
think that you'd have change any parts on the 2003.


_________________

GM!!! BRING BACK OLDS!!!

[rocketman]

Next magical question-

How do I get the programming (mapping) into the '03? I guess you need a computer scanning tool to do that.

[Aurora40]

If you don't have any non 2001 options, you might be able to use the programming for a 2001 VIN of a vehicle with the exact same equipment level. I'm not sure. Or maybe there's some parameter they can tune (if there's a TSB on how to tune down the '01, this might help tune up the '03). I am pretty sure you'd need the dealer or at least a Tech-II tool to do this.

Just to be clear, though, it isn't actually faster, it just opens it up more on tip-in. I.e. if you opened the throttle 3/4 when the person presses the pedal 1/2, it'll feel stronger, but when you floor it, it's not any different. It's like opening the throttle more for you with lesser pedal movement. I suspect it is all programming, but it could be there were small differences with the throttle-body and/or cable.

Just to be more clear, it's possible an '01 is faster than an '03 due to production tolerances and such, but it wouldn't relate to the tip-in. Any particular '03 is probably as likely to be faster than any particular '01 and the other way 'round due to various random tolerance differences.

[rocketman]

I have an idea! Why not switch the PCMs and see what happens? Now that ought to mess a thing or two up. The two cars are equipped identically with the exception of the '03 having the CD changer.

I JUST WANT MY '03 AS FAST AS MY '01. Maybe I need the '03 to break in better. I don't think I have a total of 6,000 miles total on it yet. Don't Northstars often take up to 10,000 miles to break in?

[Marc]

Rocketman....To reprogram the PCM, you need a scan tool and access to a GM site, www.techline.gm.com
from where the fresh programming comes. You need a
user name & password to get in on that site, though.
I guess that you would have to ask GM about how to get those.
What you do is, you get the new software from that
site with the scan tool, and then download it to the
PCM.
Knowing the PCM as I do, I don't whether or not you could switch them between the 2001 & '03.


_______________

GM!!! BRING BACK OLDS!!!