I worked at an Olds dealer when these things hit the market. They were sharp, competent, modern, fairly well-priced... and stayed absolutely anchored to the showroom floor.
I've had the pleasure of owning one of these beauties back in the day! I've owned a few Oldsmobiles in my lifetime such as the Cutlass Supreme, Intrigue and of course the first gen Oldsmobile Aurora. That car is still my favorite vehicle that I've ever owned. I ended up selling mine and bought a Chevy Suburban in it's place for more cargo room. I would love to own one of these Auroras again if I could find one in decent condition. Being behind the wheel of one of these was like being inside the cockpit of an airplane. The way that the dashboard was laid out was next level. 👍🏾 Damn I miss that car! GM definitely created a one of a kind vehicle that was way ahead of it's time and I'm glad that I had the chance to have experience that.😊
First time I saw this car I didn't think much of it. I worked at body shop and my boss bought one from a costumer cuz he was selling it dirt cheap. Few days later my Ranger's transmissions quit on me and my boss let me used his Aurora. Boy was I wrong.....I loved driving that thing around....seats were super comfortable....cabin was quite and ride was like floating on a cloud....still to this day one of the smoothest transmissions ever....and that radio was banging...sound quality was really good.....I wish I can find one in a decent shape.....I would buy it without thinking twice
I have been looking for a decent one for a long time and they are impossible to find. There were only 5 model years of this generation and cars for cash back in 2007 did a lot of these cars in.
GM Design was really shooting for the stars in the late 1980s, when those cars came together. The Aurora body was designed in 1989. Both the internal design study known as the The Tube Car and production car. Didn't see production until 1994. Came late to market.
I thought the same at the time, but I feel like it has aged surprisingly well. I far preferred the Aurora's interior, but I know. Appreciate how a subdued the Riviera was at that time when interiors were far more garish and pillowy.
Saw one of these in the showroom in 1996 priced at $34k (about $60k today), which was the most expensive car my 14yr old self had ever seen 😄. My dad was deciding between the Aurora and a Buick Roadmaster - he went with the Roadie. The Aurora was a great car for the time, reliable and futuristic, not traditional. My dad learned how to drive on a 1959 Fleetwood so the Roadmaster was a better fit. We had family friends that bought a new 1996 Delta 88 which was also a great car.
When I worked at GM in the late 1990s, these first-generation Auroras were "the" hot item. I loved them since they were very nicely shaped, well-designed, solid, and nothing like any other GM car at the time. Olds really took it up a few notches. I preferred to drive Auroras a lot more than driving the Cadillac Sevilles, DeVilles, and Eldorados. I'm leaving out the Cateras since those were just embarrassing. One thing that really struck me was how cramped Auroras felt in all positions. I'm a smaller guy and the driver's position just was right there around you. Same goes for front passenger and definitely rear passengers. Felt almost like a compact car inside. Yet, everyone still loved them .. they were just that good for their time. We called the 4.0L the Baby Northstar. I am not 100% sure, but I think the Aurora was its own platform and not shared by any of the other GM Divisions. Unfortunately the second generation Aurora was very unremarkable and I believe was just another shared and rebadged platform.
Yeah the 1st gen shared a platform with the Riviera. The 2nd gen shared with the LeSabre and Bonneville, IIHS applied the LeSabre crash test results to all three models.
Ah, the Riviera of that day. I also really liked that frog car. Strangely, the "Rivi" floated like a boat and came with the 3.8 l or the 3.8 l supercharged. The Baby Northstar was not an option. A very luxurious car and many of them were available for powertrain testing. Most of my testing was done on the Rivi.
The northstar and derivatives literally separated due to GM using too short of bolts. It wasn't until recently the Northstar 2.0 [essentially] got flagship again. It was an amazing engine in many ways, but flawed to literal death in another.
The Cutlass Ciera was mostly fleet sales by then. Unless you really really wanted a station wagon rather than the Silhouette minivan… the dealer was likely going to steer you towards the Achieva or Cutlass Supreme… or a Corsica or the newly designed Lumina on the Chevy side.
I remember when these first came out.. Aurora & the Mazda Millenia were my favorite styled entry luxury cars of the 90s.. they’re designs & presence on the road were just brilliant .. for it’s time ..
My 3rd grade teacher had a 929, and to this day, I don’t think I’ve ever seen another one in person. I’ll always remember how wide they looked, liked a stretched 626.
@@larkthomas3371 the largeness of it made it have much more presence in person, than in photos. When the movie Whole Nine Yards came out in 2000, I remember seeing Bruce Willis drive a shiny Blue Millenia, and was instantly hooked on those final year Millenia, too. Years later, my neighbor ended up getting a pearl white one, 2002 - gorgeous to look at IMO.
I always wanted one of these . And now I can’t find one that isn’t run down locally . It was always a beautiful car to me and the designer who came up with it has since passed . It’s still one of my dream cars
One of my most favorite 90’s GM vehicles of all time. I was fortunate enough to be able to review a Deep Emerald Green over Neutral Beige Leather (how much more 90’s can you get?) Aurora that was well-equipped. Found it to be a most impressive automobile, despite it being almost 30 years old!
I still remember seeing the ad of this car when i was 4 /5 years old, mind was blown. There was nothing looks like it in my country, very good looking car. Sadly not really much on the road right now.
Love these cars, hope they had better electrical systems and head bolts. I had a 96 Riviera; local shop cannot replace the window weather strip because GM didn't make em anymore. The turn signal stalk had problem and caused the wipers to stop intermittently, and it wasn't interchangeable with other GM cars. And the 4T60EHD gave up at only 86k miles even I never stepped on it. I wish GM could build these sturdier.
@@jamescanfield7251 the 4.0 northstar had less head issues than the 4.6 did. I know there are a few of these around were i live one is real rough but has 280000 on the original head gaskets and bolts. I think these were solved since shelby and the indy races were using them.the v6 was pretty good too dont remember hearing much bad about them.
This was another GM car that looked like one of the concepts. The riviera and the reatta are two others that come to mind. The first gen was very cool.
I first noticed one of these in a parking lot not too long ago and was dumbfounded. The taillights were what really stood out to me. I had never seen anything like it!
I bought a 97 when it was a year old. Loved the speed, looks and luxury. However,it was a mess with electronics problems, ivory colored leather started flaking in about a year and air conditioner vents were very flimsy. Traded it in on a Mercedes C ...it was smaller and less luxurious but was much better sorted out than Aurora was. I kept it for several years. Still, the Olds was a beauty to look at.
I remember consumer reports back when this came out gave it a "design demerit" because if the fueling door was open and you opened the back door it would scrap/hit the fuel door.
I was in a 4th Generation Camaro / Firebird club where a guy broke his windshield on his 2002 SS 35th because he opened the hood with the wipers in the up position, as it pushed the wipers into the glass. Same time I met at the Chicago Auto Show, Scott Settlemeire, then Camaro brand manager and asked him why they put the cupholder in front of the shifter and he said they had no other place to put it. Just goes to show, even design engineers are human.
I think this may have been the best looking sedan of the 1990's. When this came out, it really was sexy and turned lots of heads. I remember my father looking at buying one, but the price was almost like buying a Mercedes. I believe a loaded one stickered around $40k. I heard they had lots of quality issues, typical of GM cars that were cutting edge.
I vividly remember when the Aurora came out. I was 12 and totally enamored with the design. It was so futuristic and beautiful from every angle. It was my dream car as a kid (one of many). A neighbor down the street had one and one of my high school teachers had one. They weren't as rare as some people are making them out to be. It was just an expensive luxury car so not everyone had one like a Taurus or a Cavalier at the time.
We’re about the same age. At the time my parents had a new 1992 Mercedes’ 300e and I remember olds kept comparing the Aurora to the e class structural rigidity, but the Mercedes was already 8 yrs old by that time. I loved the futuristic styling of the Aurora, but it was just too big for my parents. I heard they weren’t too reliable, which is a shame.
@@Wasabi9111 Later as an adult I had an '87 300E. Weird of Olds to compare the Aurora to it because they were vastly different cars. Large car vs. midsize car. V6 vs. V8. The interior quality of the 300E was vastly better. Knowing now what I do about both cars I'd absolutely choose the 300E, even if it seems like less car for the money.
Looking at these old drive tests you realize how many regular sedans had V8 power under the hood in the 90s.....and they were probably smoother than any V6 of the time...
I have a 1995 Aurora with 59,500 miles on the odometer - going for a drive today. Actually, the Riviera with the 3.8 V6 supercharged engine was very stylish too - and the engine was more durable. Northstar engine needs TLC.
I've had the pleasure \ misfortune of owning 3 Auroras, a 96 and two 1997 models. They typically last around 180 K miles. They ride very comfortably, and get 17-22 mpg. If the engine overheats, it's done. You absolutely need to use 93 octane Premium gas. The 244 ci. engine is 10:85.1 compression. They'll do everything on the 140 mph speedometer. If you disconnect the rev limiter, they still pull past 140, if you keep it floored. I saw my 96 model pegged out at 148 mph. Don't think an Olds Aurora won't get with it down the interstate. It cost $5,500 to replace the head gaskets, not many mechanics will attempt that job. The heater core is bad to suddenly bust, filling the interior carpet with antifreeze. Replacing the serpentine belt is a nightmare--an all day job. If the transmission goes out, you're looking at $5,000--$6,000 to get it fixed \ replaced. The windshield cost $1,000 to replace. The traction control didn't work in any of my Auroras. You have to rent a special socket to replace the water pump. I'd like to have a new one, but I'll never buy another used Aurora.
Thanks for posting. I was aware of the head gasket issue, but not the others, so that really helps! Would you at all consider a very low mile, garage kept example? I've always wanted one, but I think that is the only way I'd get one.
@@chgojoearchivist If the milage was below 50 K I'd buy it in a second. I wouldn't touch an Aurora with an overheating problem. The block has to be taken out of the engine bay, then you have to buy new head bolts, the block has to get re-taped. Before you can put the heads back on. The V-6 Auroras get less gas milage that the V-8. Beautiful car, but costly to maintain.
For future reference if you ever want to own a northstar caddy or the " shortstar" in the Oldsmobile you can put down about 3k and have the engine " bullet proofed" and it will eliminate the shortcomings from the factory. I agree its alot of money to spend on an old platform but if you wish to relive your old days and don't want to have these issues there are options. The trans can be bulletproofed as well they were a standard gm mil and none of them were particularly " long lived".
I had a '95 and I loved it. Sadly it had a ton of issues, including a blown motor at 65,000 miles/ My father had a1999. He had issues in the beginning but were all covered by warranty and repaired promptly. He racked up a ton of miles on that car and had zero issues.
I was going to say that the caddy 4.5 v8 Northstar had major engine issues including cracked engines blocks, which a friend's 94 Seville had. I wonder if the 4.0 v8 Northstar had the same problem.
@@casualsuede the excuse my mechanic gave me was that the AC Compressor froze and instead of free wheeling it locked up and the strain broke a cam. Now, I didn't believe that until years later I wondered on to some Auora forum and that was indeed an issue on first year, and some second year models. Very strange
Yes I owned a '95 as well and as much as I loved the car it was a money pit. I had a variety of engine and transmission issues including the Northstar leaking oil due to the two-piece design. A beautiful car but had to retire it early.
This first gen Aurora was absolutely beautiful. It would fly off the lots in 2024 if it were brought back today. General Misdirection didn't give Olds the time to survive when the Olds was completely revamped from what it traditionally was ; an older market upper segment conservative brand of car in the Buick Olds Cadillac group in GM.
The Aurora was one of Oldsmobile's very last cars that you'd see in good numbers on the road. It's styling looks something like a modern-day 1966-69 Toronado with European contemporary styling.
Crazy to think 15-20 years later and my 4 banger crossover have the same performance as this thing lol. Those damn old 4 speed autos killed so many cars potential no matter the brand it seems
If I could go back in time I’d have one of these in white, a Chrysler Concorde in black and a dodge Dakota in blue. All bought new off the showroom in 1995.
This really was a solid value when it came out. Modern and original styling, solid fit and finish and a powerful V8 by 1995 standards. Even the name was cool. Instead of building off of its success GM basically killed the Aurora in it's next generation which lost all of these strengths.
This was one of best GM cars of 1990’s. I was pleasantly surprised when I drove it. It was much closer to German sport sedans than other GM sedans of time. Very rigid chassis. The doors shut like German sedans. Suspension wasn’t sloppy GM. GM/ Oldsmobile had a really great product. Unfortunately because it had an Oldsmobile badge it never caught the attention of buyers of sport sedans. It was a pity. The Alero replaced the Aurora and sold in larger numbers, but it was a much, much inferior car . Back to GM business.
Aleros are like bad pennies though. 20 years later and you still see them everywhere. Say what you want about the cheap plastic and fit and finish. The 3.4 V6 and 4T45-E transmission thrive on abuse and neglect and are almost indestructible.
I totally remember when the Aurora came on the scene it was very cutting edge for the times. It was like when the ford taurus came out very forward thinking and futuristic like America had arrived finally yay! I hope gm will get it's mojo back by producing cars people are actually excited about but unfortunately it's main priority is stupid electric cars nobody cares about.
@jarrodmcmillian1747 Yeah till they break mate, also the American cars from the 50s, 60s, and early 70s are definitely wayyyyyyy more robust than whatever Euro crap you drive mate.
That engine sounds amazing at full-throttle. What a shame it ended up being problematic. GM might’ve given up their small block altogether if this was reliable.
I look forward to the review of the next gen aurora. I heard there were issues with the rearview mirror in this car that distorted visibility. Was that a thing?
Assuming it was an auto-dimming mirror then yes, they were well known for the special fluids inside the glass which give the dimming effect to leak out. BMWs of the era had them as well, I owned a '97 528i and '01 728i - both the interior and door mirrors were basically unusable!
I have been toying with the idea of buying one of these for years. At some point I need to either do it or give up on it because There are only a handful for sale at anyone time
The trim around the trunk and fuel door release that "moves" when you use those buttons shows how GM was still making cars cheaply in spite of trying to compete with the Japanese.
3:57 I love how after John praises the interior quality, we see just how flimsy the trunk release button/surrounding panel is. GM gonna be GM, I guess!
Even if the materials in GM cars feel cheap and loosely fitted together, they don't squeak and rattle as much as other more luxurious cars. Wonder why! At least that is how my Buick was
There were several points in the video where the interior plastic flexed and shifted around when the reviewer touched a knob or button. Made the car look flimsy and cheap. Otherwise, A really decent looking vehicle.
@@CalvinHikes The Cadillacs did that with a gigantic grill. It was just a bad engine design They didn’t get right Until about a decade after introduction
Oldsmobile, Mercury, Plymouth, Merkur, Pontiac, Saturn. All of these divisions have disappeared and sadly the marketplace hasn't missed them very much. (Except perhaps Saturn, which started out as GM's disruptor project but eventually drifted off-track.) In the "malaise" / "downsizing" era, most of these bygone divisions were selling variations of designs of other, parent divisions. (Mercury sold the Sable, a variation of the Taurus; Oldsmobile sold the Cutlass Ciera, which was an A-body like the Buick Century and Pontiac 6000; etc.) Remarkably, when Oldsmobile adopted the "Tube Car" design language for its new appearance, the Aurora's design began to look more and more like Ford's Taurus and Mercury's Sable; this was especially true of the 2001-02 Aurora's rear. At the end of the day, the Aurora was simply a higher-quality front-wheel-drive sedan with a much more aero appearance. So, for all the fuss, GM simply used the "Tube Car" project to re-invent the wheel. Once again, GM failed to re-align at least one of its divisions to become manifestly different from the others. GM never picked Oldsmobile or Pontiac to become an all-wheel-drive products line to compete with foreign all-wheel-drive luminaries such as Audi and Subaru. While it's undeniable that the Aurora was an exceptionally good sports sedan, there are some serious issues that Oldsmobile (and GM) failed to consider. This car took far too long to reach the marketrplace. The Taurus and Sable were already on their second generation by the time the Aurora became reality. This Aurora should have been the 1988 Cutlass instead of the lackluster W-body. But the quiet part that nobody mentions out loud is the most disturbing part: from 1979 forward, Ford, GM and Chrysler invested billions in their downsizing projects, shifting most of their car lines from V8 body-on-frame rear-wheel-drive to Four/V6 unibody front-wheel-drive. That transition was costly, but with important purpose: the government wanted a more fuel-efficient fleet on the road, and the public mostly did as well. Fast forward to the mid-1990s, when it was becoming obvious that those lessons learned were being forgotten. Why on Earth did GM need a downsized, front-drive sedan with a V8??? In 1990, Autoweek published a report that Olds had taken two Quad4 engines, put them together at the crankshaft, and made a V8 called the Quad8, supposedly capable of as much as 320 horsepower. While this prototype would have made an interesting motor for a Corvette, Camaro or Firebird, nobody seriously thought it would be used in a front-wheel-drive sedan. Why do that? GM just downsized the rear-drive Cutlass Supreme out of existence. While there is no doubt that gearheads at the car magazines thought the V8-powered Aurora looked sweet, the vast majority of the public had moved beyond the idea of a big step backwards like that. And while it's true that the Aurora was also offered with a V6 version of the V8, that was also re-inventing the wheel. If Oldsmobile really wanted to come up with a totally new car to match its quest for re-branding, why not go bold and do like Audi did with its five-cylinder? Oldsmobile introduced the impressive Quad4 engine in 1987. Why not add an extra piston and call it the "Quad5"? If the Quad4 produced 150 to 160 horsepower in mass-market form, with a 180 hp "high output" version, then a Quad5 would logically offer 187 to 200 hp for the regular version and 225 for the high-output version. Also, GM failed to consider that the Quad4 and Quad5 derivative would be more logical for the market's future, whereas yet another V8 would be more in-line with the market's past. It is supremely ironic that GM wanted to use the new Aurora design to rehabilitate Oldsmobile's aging public image, but that bold new image never extended to a forward-thinking engine that would be more in line with modern needs and sensibilities. Using a Quad5 and/or all-wheel-drive would have been a bold and ambitious project indeed, but it also would have set Oldsmobile apart. Of course, the Oldsmobile name with too strongly linked to rockets and the early days of the Cold War, when the highways were dominated by big V8 rear-drive cars. Small wonder that Oldsmobile became a casualty of its own contradictions.
The interior quality of GM in the 90s was still not up to the standards of Honda vehicles costing half as much. Check the entire assembly panel moving when pushing the trunk release at 3:59. In a vacuum, these were high-end quality vehicles (compared to a Cutlass Supreme, Eighty-Eight, or Ciera); against a Lexus GS300, Acura Legend, or even a Honda Accord of the same era - they were same-old same-old from GM.
3:58 When the button was pressed, the whole label strip was moving as well. MotorWeek don't really care about fit and finish, I guess, that's why they thought this car was holding its own against top competitors from Japan and Germany 0:26 :)
My Uncle Paul bought a New Oldsmobile Aurora V8 back in the 90’s. We took it to Virginia Beach from Chicago IL. We were in Kentucky going East. These Honda’s and Toyota’s were irritating my Uncle by tailgating him (Jealousy). My Uncle told me to hold on. He smashed down on the accelerator and was at 140mph in seconds. He told me to look back. I looked back, my uncles Aurora left those Honda’s and Toyota’s way back on the Hill. It was THUNDEROUS POWER and EXHILARATING. Just say we never saw those cars again
Such a beautiful car and probably the most favorite I’ve ever owned. Never a days problem with mine up to 295k until my 16 yo nephew flipped it and it was still running. This car was really ahead of it’s time but GM shafted Olds by leaning the ENTIRE divisions fate on one car. And look what happened they shuttered Olds in lieu of Saturn🤮🤮🤮🤮, Saab, and Hummer…and subsequently shut down those lame ducks too. Such a mismanaged company that GM
I'd say Saturn deserved to live on. Saab... not so much. And hummer could have done some great things and still hold their value. I do agree these " olds" were pretty amazing when they were new.
GM signed a contract with the Chinese government in 1999. The deal was, trade your car secrets for billions in profit. They took it, and shut down Oldsmobile to move to China. Only they didn't realize that shutting down your ONLY r&d brand would bankrupt them. And now, thanks to the government meddling and $80 billion in free money they never paid back, they moved overseas completely, and all of their vehicles after 2009 are junk. You get what you pay for.
@@keithbaker1951 Saab more than any of those brands. GM ruined Saab. They gave it less quality and reliability when they took over. How the hell did they try and make a Saab suv using that ugly arse Trailblazer body. 🤮
Given that the 4.0 in this car was a derivative of the infamous NorthStar, does anyone know if it suffered from the head gasket problems as the NorthStar?
The Oldmobile Aurora is the ultimate of late-20th century General Motors highs and lows. It's obviously a high-quality car, very well designed and put-together for what it is. Olds checked several boxes: Cadillac-derived V8, check; high-quality sleek sedan design, check. But unlike Ford's equally impressive MN12-based Thunderbird, Cougar, and Continental Mk 8, the Aurora is missing one key ingredient: rear-wheel-drive. If GM went to all the trouble of downsizing and standardized on front-drive-only sedans and coupes to achieve smaller engines and better fuel economy, and if the Aurora is such a superior and memorable sport sedan, why are both the Aurora, and all of Oldsmobile, but a fading memory today? Or, to put it another way, why didn't Oldmobile develop a front-drive car with a V6 derived directly from its Quad4 engine from the late 1980s? If a 2.3-liter Quad4 developed 160 horpsepower, a Quad V6 should develop over 215, without a turbo. Olds was also said to have a 2.3-liter Quad4 Turbo worth 250 hp. Either hypothetical engine, paired up with front- or rear-wheel-drive would've made the car stand out more, and scored better gas mileage to boot. But this is illogical GM in the 1990s, having never learned from its mistakes. Gone is the rocket logo, as if that were a liability. Gone also is any common sense. Yet another forgetable front-drive car with a silly, over-the-top V8 under the hood. If Olds couldn't offer the Aurora with rear-wheel-drive, why not offer it with all-wheel-drive? They did that ten years earlier with the Pontiac 6000STE. Of course, both Olds and Pontiac have gone the way of the dinosaur. There should be no wonder as to why that happened...
Why did they bother to tool for that engine, why not just use the 4.6L? It's just as bad on fuel and 2.4s slower 0-60. It's 2.2s slower than a 3.8 SII S/C and probably 0.8s slower than a regular 3.8 SII and gets worse milage than both. Really a shame, I wanted to see Olds live on. They should have imported the Holden tooling and sold a legit rwd fullsize car with 2 or 4 doors with two wheelbase and a wagon. Once the LS1 debuted they could have sold that for the same or less than this car. There could have been a new 442, Cutlass, 88, 98 and Vista or Custom Cruiser.
One word, marketing. GM has notoriously always chaffed at putting the high end motors in their mid level cars. Their perception was their Cadillac customers would be mad that their "exclusive" northstar engines were going in cheaper oldsmobiles. Its the same reason why Camaros and Firebirds would get detuned versions of the Corvette motor, if only on paper. They didn't want the more expensive cars looking bad, even superficially
I worked at an Olds dealer when these things hit the market. They were sharp, competent, modern, fairly well-priced... and stayed absolutely anchored to the showroom floor.
... if you were a sh¡tty salesman.
Lmao
My dealership sold two and three Auroras per day.
They were trendy looking very expensive Oldsmobiles, then people figured out they didn't last. In a word, North Star lol.
You must be one of the reasons Oldsmobile failed then...
ALWAYS
BE
CLOSING
I've had the pleasure of owning one of these beauties back in the day! I've owned a few Oldsmobiles in my lifetime such as the Cutlass Supreme, Intrigue and of course the first gen Oldsmobile Aurora. That car is still my favorite vehicle that I've ever owned. I ended up selling mine and bought a Chevy Suburban in it's place for more cargo room. I would love to own one of these Auroras again if I could find one in decent condition. Being behind the wheel of one of these was like being inside the cockpit of an airplane. The way that the dashboard was laid out was next level. 👍🏾 Damn I miss that car! GM definitely created a one of a kind vehicle that was way ahead of it's time and I'm glad that I had the chance to have experience that.😊
First time I saw this car I didn't think much of it. I worked at body shop and my boss bought one from a costumer cuz he was selling it dirt cheap. Few days later my Ranger's transmissions quit on me and my boss let me used his Aurora. Boy was I wrong.....I loved driving that thing around....seats were super comfortable....cabin was quite and ride was like floating on a cloud....still to this day one of the smoothest transmissions ever....and that radio was banging...sound quality was really good.....I wish I can find one in a decent shape.....I would buy it without thinking twice
@@betterdeadthanred839 Most definitely! 👍🏾
I have been looking for a decent one for a long time and they are impossible to find. There were only 5 model years of this generation and cars for cash back in 2007 did a lot of these cars in.
Nice😀
@@rwj777 I miss my 72 olds 442.
Way ahead of it’s time design wise. Always thought the Aurora and Riviera were cool. Tragic it was discontinued.
GM Design was really shooting for the stars in the late 1980s, when those cars came together. The Aurora body was designed in 1989. Both the internal design study known as the The Tube Car and production car. Didn't see production until 1994.
Came late to market.
The Riv always looked like a Catfish. I never liked that rear was an almost teardrop shape.
*I* *T* *S* FOR F*CK'S SAKE.
I thought the same at the time, but I feel like it has aged surprisingly well. I far preferred the Aurora's interior, but I know. Appreciate how a subdued the Riviera was at that time when interiors were far more garish and pillowy.
My Aunt had a Riviera and I was once given one as a rental. It was weird lol.
Saw one of these in the showroom in 1996 priced at $34k (about $60k today), which was the most expensive car my 14yr old self had ever seen 😄. My dad was deciding between the Aurora and a Buick Roadmaster - he went with the Roadie. The Aurora was a great car for the time, reliable and futuristic, not traditional. My dad learned how to drive on a 1959 Fleetwood so the Roadmaster was a better fit. We had family friends that bought a new 1996 Delta 88 which was also a great car.
Good choice!
Too bad
When I worked at GM in the late 1990s, these first-generation Auroras were "the" hot item. I loved them since they were very nicely shaped, well-designed, solid, and nothing like any other GM car at the time. Olds really took it up a few notches. I preferred to drive Auroras a lot more than driving the Cadillac Sevilles, DeVilles, and Eldorados. I'm leaving out the Cateras since those were just embarrassing.
One thing that really struck me was how cramped Auroras felt in all positions. I'm a smaller guy and the driver's position just was right there around you. Same goes for front passenger and definitely rear passengers. Felt almost like a compact car inside.
Yet, everyone still loved them .. they were just that good for their time. We called the 4.0L the Baby Northstar. I am not 100% sure, but I think the Aurora was its own platform and not shared by any of the other GM Divisions. Unfortunately the second generation Aurora was very unremarkable and I believe was just another shared and rebadged platform.
I believe the Aurora’s platform sister was the slick last gen Buick Riviera
Yeah the 1st gen shared a platform with the Riviera. The 2nd gen shared with the LeSabre and Bonneville, IIHS applied the LeSabre crash test results to all three models.
Ah, the Riviera of that day. I also really liked that frog car. Strangely, the "Rivi" floated like a boat and came with the 3.8 l or the 3.8 l supercharged. The Baby Northstar was not an option. A very luxurious car and many of them were available for powertrain testing. Most of my testing was done on the Rivi.
@@carexpertandy well the g, h , and k platforms are all variants of one another.
Well also that stupid Catera was just an Opel rebadged. This was an original American auto.
Love this car. The Aurora engine dominated Indy racing at this time. A very underrated future collectible car.
Definitely one of the best used cars on the market!
The northstar and derivatives literally separated due to GM using too short of bolts. It wasn't until recently the Northstar 2.0 [essentially] got flagship again. It was an amazing engine in many ways, but flawed to literal death in another.
agreed
Loving My 96 olds Aurora rare collectible
Lol Settle down… this is absolutely not gonna be a "cOlLeCtOr'S cAr", relax
Crazy to think in 1995, you could find the Aurora and the Cutlass Ciera, a car that was designed in the 80's on the same dealer lot.
The Cutlass Ciera was mostly fleet sales by then. Unless you really really wanted a station wagon rather than the Silhouette minivan… the dealer was likely going to steer you towards the Achieva or Cutlass Supreme… or a Corsica or the newly designed Lumina on the Chevy side.
You could still buy a brand new Old Beattle in VW Mexico, 2001.
@@calvinnickel9995 The Olds Aurora is advanced desing from 1995
I remember when these first came out.. Aurora & the Mazda Millenia were my favorite styled entry luxury cars of the 90s.. they’re designs & presence on the road were just brilliant .. for it’s time ..
My mom used to have a 1993 Mazda 929 in the late 90s I always thought that car was ahead of it’s time also
My 3rd grade teacher had a 929, and to this day, I don’t think I’ve ever seen another one in person. I’ll always remember how wide they looked, liked a stretched 626.
@@FELIPE8226M they were way ahead… Mazdas entry luxury cars were so very nice 929 and Millenia were stylish GEMS .. ..!!!
@@jfish9014 yep.. ur right.. the 929 was just lower wider and longer .. it looked like a Jaguar..
@@larkthomas3371 the largeness of it made it have much more presence in person, than in photos.
When the movie Whole Nine Yards came out in 2000, I remember seeing Bruce Willis drive a shiny Blue Millenia, and was instantly hooked on those final year Millenia, too.
Years later, my neighbor ended up getting a pearl white one, 2002 - gorgeous to look at IMO.
I always wanted one of these . And now I can’t find one that isn’t run down locally . It was always a beautiful car to me and the designer who came up with it has since passed . It’s still one of my dream cars
One of the most beautiful rear ends of any affordable car from the 90’s.
One of my most favorite 90’s GM vehicles of all time. I was fortunate enough to be able to review a Deep Emerald Green over Neutral Beige Leather (how much more 90’s can you get?) Aurora that was well-equipped. Found it to be a most impressive automobile, despite it being almost 30 years old!
This car still looks good! I remember driving on I95 and seeing one overtake another car, 2 puffs of black smoke out the tail pipes and it was gone! 💪
That might have been me!
Thanks for the review. I spoke on this car as well. A very unique vehicle for its time, indeed.
Thanks for talking about this car. I owned a ‘99 myself.
Marvelous
Always had a soft spot for the Aurora. It had its angles.
This was my first car at 16. It was used and had 150000 miles, mostly road, but I loved it.
I still remember seeing the ad of this car when i was 4 /5 years old, mind was blown. There was nothing looks like it in my country, very good looking car. Sadly not really much on the road right now.
Right?
Love these cars, hope they had better electrical systems and head bolts.
I had a 96 Riviera; local shop cannot replace the window weather strip because GM didn't make em anymore. The turn signal stalk had problem and caused the wipers to stop intermittently, and it wasn't interchangeable with other GM cars. And the 4T60EHD gave up at only 86k miles even I never stepped on it. I wish GM could build these sturdier.
Do they make a similar head bolt kit for the Olds like they make for the Cadillac?
@@jamescanfield7251 the 4.0 northstar had less head issues than the 4.6 did. I know there are a few of these around were i live one is real rough but has 280000 on the original head gaskets and bolts. I think these were solved since shelby and the indy races were using them.the v6 was pretty good too dont remember hearing much bad about them.
This was another GM car that looked like one of the concepts. The riviera and the reatta are two others that come to mind.
The first gen was very cool.
I first noticed one of these in a parking lot not too long ago and was dumbfounded. The taillights were what really stood out to me. I had never seen anything like it!
Still looks fresh and futuristic in 2022
Yess💪🏾
I bought a 97 when it was a year old. Loved the speed, looks and luxury. However,it was a mess with electronics problems, ivory colored leather started flaking in about a year and air conditioner vents were very flimsy. Traded it in on a Mercedes C ...it was smaller and less luxurious but was much better sorted out than Aurora was. I kept it for several years. Still, the Olds was a beauty to look at.
Typical 90's GM.
The new Lucid Air looks like an Oldsmobile Aurora to me.
I remember consumer reports back when this came out gave it a "design demerit" because if the fueling door was open and you opened the back door it would scrap/hit the fuel door.
Wow, scrapping the fuel door each time could get really expensive. That's a lot of replacements every year.
Hahah what a shit box
I was in a 4th Generation Camaro / Firebird club where a guy broke his windshield on his 2002 SS 35th because he opened the hood with the wipers in the up position, as it pushed the wipers into the glass. Same time I met at the Chicago Auto Show, Scott Settlemeire, then Camaro brand manager and asked him why they put the cupholder in front of the shifter and he said they had no other place to put it. Just goes to show, even design engineers are human.
I think this may have been the best looking sedan of the 1990's. When this came out, it really was sexy and turned lots of heads. I remember my father looking at buying one, but the price was almost like buying a Mercedes. I believe a loaded one stickered around $40k. I heard they had lots of quality issues, typical of GM cars that were cutting edge.
Futuristic styling, even by today's standards.
I vividly remember when the Aurora came out. I was 12 and totally enamored with the design. It was so futuristic and beautiful from every angle. It was my dream car as a kid (one of many). A neighbor down the street had one and one of my high school teachers had one. They weren't as rare as some people are making them out to be. It was just an expensive luxury car so not everyone had one like a Taurus or a Cavalier at the time.
We’re about the same age. At the time my parents had a new 1992 Mercedes’ 300e and I remember olds kept comparing the Aurora to the e class structural rigidity, but the Mercedes was already 8 yrs old by that time. I loved the futuristic styling of the Aurora, but it was just too big for my parents. I heard they weren’t too reliable, which is a shame.
@@Wasabi9111 Later as an adult I had an '87 300E. Weird of Olds to compare the Aurora to it because they were vastly different cars. Large car vs. midsize car. V6 vs. V8. The interior quality of the 300E was vastly better. Knowing now what I do about both cars I'd absolutely choose the 300E, even if it seems like less car for the money.
Looking at these old drive tests you realize how many regular sedans had V8 power under the hood in the 90s.....and they were probably smoother than any V6 of the time...
Always loved these. A genuinely beautiful and well thought out car.
GM bubble cars of the 90s. They had some awesome concept cars back then. Liked how many of them ended up in Demolition Man as futuristic vehicles.
I have a 1995 Aurora with 59,500 miles on the odometer - going for a drive today. Actually, the Riviera with the 3.8 V6 supercharged engine was very stylish too - and the engine was more durable. Northstar engine needs TLC.
Oldsmobile Aurora is different car
@@fernandorocha8459 Same platform.
I've had the pleasure \ misfortune of owning 3 Auroras, a 96 and two 1997 models. They typically last around 180 K miles. They ride very comfortably, and get 17-22 mpg.
If the engine overheats, it's done. You absolutely need to use 93 octane Premium gas. The 244 ci. engine is 10:85.1 compression. They'll do everything on the 140 mph speedometer.
If you disconnect the rev limiter, they still pull past 140, if you keep it floored. I saw my 96 model pegged out at 148 mph. Don't think an Olds Aurora won't get with it down the interstate.
It cost $5,500 to replace the head gaskets, not many mechanics will attempt that job. The heater core is bad to suddenly bust, filling the interior carpet with antifreeze.
Replacing the serpentine belt is a nightmare--an all day job. If the transmission goes out, you're looking at $5,000--$6,000 to get it fixed \ replaced. The windshield cost $1,000 to replace.
The traction control didn't work in any of my Auroras. You have to rent a special socket to replace the water pump. I'd like to have a new one, but I'll never buy another used Aurora.
Thanks for posting. I was aware of the head gasket issue, but not the others, so that really helps! Would you at all consider a very low mile, garage kept example? I've always wanted one, but I think that is the only way I'd get one.
@@chgojoearchivist If the milage was below 50 K I'd buy it in a second. I wouldn't touch an Aurora with an overheating problem.
The block has to be taken out of the engine bay, then you have to buy new head bolts, the block has to get re-taped. Before you can put the heads back on.
The V-6 Auroras get less gas milage that the V-8. Beautiful car, but costly to maintain.
For future reference if you ever want to own a northstar caddy or the " shortstar" in the Oldsmobile you can put down about 3k and have the engine " bullet proofed" and it will eliminate the shortcomings from the factory. I agree its alot of money to spend on an old platform but if you wish to relive your old days and don't want to have these issues there are options. The trans can be bulletproofed as well they were a standard gm mil and none of them were particularly " long lived".
I had a '95 and I loved it. Sadly it had a ton of issues, including a blown motor at 65,000 miles/ My father had a1999. He had issues in the beginning but were all covered by warranty and repaired promptly. He racked up a ton of miles on that car and had zero issues.
I was going to say that the caddy 4.5 v8 Northstar had major engine issues including cracked engines blocks, which a friend's 94 Seville had.
I wonder if the 4.0 v8 Northstar had the same problem.
@@casualsuede the excuse my mechanic gave me was that the AC Compressor froze and instead of free wheeling it locked up and the strain broke a cam. Now, I didn't believe that until years later I wondered on to some Auora forum and that was indeed an issue on first year, and some second year models. Very strange
Yes I owned a '95 as well and as much as I loved the car it was a money pit. I had a variety of engine and transmission issues including the Northstar leaking oil due to the two-piece design. A beautiful car but had to retire it early.
*I’ve always loved that car!*
This first gen Aurora was absolutely beautiful. It would fly off the lots in 2024 if it were brought back today. General Misdirection didn't give Olds the time to survive when the Olds was completely revamped from what it traditionally was ; an older market upper segment conservative brand of car in the Buick Olds Cadillac group in GM.
I guess we can pretend like we didn't see the cheap plastic panel give way when the trunk button was pressed at 3:57
Beautiful Car! Greetings from AUSTRIA :-)
Upload a review of the 2nd gen Aurora
Beautiful then, beautiful now.
Looks modern and fresh. Even today!🎉
The Aurora was one of Oldsmobile's very last cars that you'd see in good numbers on the road. It's styling looks something like a modern-day 1966-69 Toronado with European contemporary styling.
Crazy to think 15-20 years later and my 4 banger crossover have the same performance as this thing lol. Those damn old 4 speed autos killed so many cars potential no matter the brand it seems
I'd rather drive an Aurora. That's why I have 5.
Closer to 30 years ago. That's like saying you can't believe your current cellphone is more advanced than a 30 year old computer.
I'm suspecting John is the voice behind in-car warning chimes :) 0:43
....btw I used to like the Aurora, I think I still have a thing for it even now.
i had a 99...was a great car
If I could go back in time I’d have one of these in white, a Chrysler Concorde in black and a dodge Dakota in blue. All bought new off the showroom in 1995.
I would still drive one of those..
This really was a solid value when it came out. Modern and original styling, solid fit and finish and a powerful V8 by 1995 standards. Even the name was cool. Instead of building off of its success GM basically killed the Aurora in it's next generation which lost all of these strengths.
There's a possibility that Aurora could've been the salvation of Oldsmobile, done properly. Unfortunately it was too little, too late.
I loved my 96' Aurora and at the same time I realize having a grill might have allowed the engine to run coolor. 🤦🏽♂️
2000
This was one of best GM cars of 1990’s. I was pleasantly surprised when I drove it. It was much closer to German sport sedans than other GM sedans of time. Very rigid chassis. The doors shut like German sedans. Suspension wasn’t sloppy GM.
GM/ Oldsmobile had a really great product.
Unfortunately because it had an Oldsmobile badge it never caught the attention of buyers of sport sedans. It was a pity.
The Alero replaced the Aurora and sold in larger numbers, but it was a much, much inferior car . Back to GM business.
Aleros are like bad pennies though. 20 years later and you still see them everywhere.
Say what you want about the cheap plastic and fit and finish. The 3.4 V6 and 4T45-E transmission thrive on abuse and neglect and are almost indestructible.
Who knew
My Cobalt LT2 Coupe was even faster to 60 mph
and 1/4 mile
Aurora's were Dream Cars
Definitely
I totally remember when the Aurora came on the scene it was very cutting edge for the times. It was like when the ford taurus came out very forward thinking and futuristic like America had arrived finally yay! I hope gm will get it's mojo back by producing cars people are actually excited about but unfortunately it's main priority is stupid electric cars nobody cares about.
It’s amazing that Saab right after this was able to get that amount of horsepower out of a four-cylinder.
The euros know how to make a car properly lol
@jarrodmcmillian1747 Yeah till they break mate, also the American cars from the 50s, 60s, and early 70s are definitely wayyyyyyy more robust than whatever Euro crap you drive mate.
@@jarrodmcmillian1747Yeah, right. They’re maintenance NIGHTMARES
Innovative car. Also, a nightmare at every turn. Very GM.
That engine sounds amazing at full-throttle. What a shame it ended up being problematic. GM might’ve given up their small block altogether if this was reliable.
I look forward to the review of the next gen aurora. I heard there were issues with the rearview mirror in this car that distorted visibility. Was that a thing?
Assuming it was an auto-dimming mirror then yes, they were well known for the special fluids inside the glass which give the dimming effect to leak out. BMWs of the era had them as well, I owned a '97 528i and '01 728i - both the interior and door mirrors were basically unusable!
It was actually the rear glass responsible for the distortion, which was corrected for the '96 model.
I have been toying with the idea of buying one of these for years. At some point I need to either do it or give up on it because There are only a handful for sale at anyone time
I love the aurora, as beautiful as its princess namesake! Love its sleek curves and Mk4 supra like interior!
Absolutely stunning car!
The trim around the trunk and fuel door release that "moves" when you use those buttons shows how GM was still making cars cheaply in spite of trying to compete with the Japanese.
Holy crap, look at the plastic flexing at 3:59. GM interior quality didn't miss this one either.
I saw that too!
All Olsmobiles And Pontiacs Had That Distinct Smell.
I want Oldsmobile back, with the Aurora heavily remastered but not electric.
The MPG isn't bad at all for a V8 in a big car...
3:57 I love how after John praises the interior quality, we see just how flimsy the trunk release button/surrounding panel is. GM gonna be GM, I guess!
I thought the same thing!
I couldn't help but notice how everything moved when touched. All the parts bin plastics. 😂
Yep- right down to the 1970s' shiny metal seatbelt buckles with the giant "GM" logo button...
Even if the materials in GM cars feel cheap and loosely fitted together, they don't squeak and rattle as much as other more luxurious cars. Wonder why! At least that is how my Buick was
There were several points in the video where the interior plastic flexed and shifted around when the reviewer touched a knob or button. Made the car look flimsy and cheap. Otherwise, A really decent looking vehicle.
That was a great looking car.
I'm not a mechanic by any means, but how did that engine breathe without a front grille?
You're right. You're not a mechanic by any means.
There's some vents in the bumper, 90s cars were all about minimizing the grille instead of maximizing
It overheated and blue head gaskets is how it handled it.
@@CalvinHikes The Cadillacs did that with a gigantic grill. It was just a bad engine design They didn’t get right Until about a decade after introduction
If you look at about 1:08, you'll see there is the air intake closer to the ground. This was typical for sporty cars like the Trans Am.
Was ahead of its time, powerful for its time with an ergonomic cockpit. Unfortunately its giant Saturn-like styling didn't age well.
Oldsmobile, Mercury, Plymouth, Merkur, Pontiac, Saturn. All of these divisions have disappeared and sadly the marketplace hasn't missed them very much. (Except perhaps Saturn, which started out as GM's disruptor project but eventually drifted off-track.) In the "malaise" / "downsizing" era, most of these bygone divisions were selling variations of designs of other, parent divisions. (Mercury sold the Sable, a variation of the Taurus; Oldsmobile sold the Cutlass Ciera, which was an A-body like the Buick Century and Pontiac 6000; etc.) Remarkably, when Oldsmobile adopted the "Tube Car" design language for its new appearance, the Aurora's design began to look more and more like Ford's Taurus and Mercury's Sable; this was especially true of the 2001-02 Aurora's rear.
At the end of the day, the Aurora was simply a higher-quality front-wheel-drive sedan with a much more aero appearance. So, for all the fuss, GM simply used the "Tube Car" project to re-invent the wheel. Once again, GM failed to re-align at least one of its divisions to become manifestly different from the others. GM never picked Oldsmobile or Pontiac to become an all-wheel-drive products line to compete with foreign all-wheel-drive luminaries such as Audi and Subaru.
While it's undeniable that the Aurora was an exceptionally good sports sedan, there are some serious issues that Oldsmobile (and GM) failed to consider. This car took far too long to reach the marketrplace. The Taurus and Sable were already on their second generation by the time the Aurora became reality. This Aurora should have been the 1988 Cutlass instead of the lackluster W-body. But the quiet part that nobody mentions out loud is the most disturbing part: from 1979 forward, Ford, GM and Chrysler invested billions in their downsizing projects, shifting most of their car lines from V8 body-on-frame rear-wheel-drive to Four/V6 unibody front-wheel-drive. That transition was costly, but with important purpose: the government wanted a more fuel-efficient fleet on the road, and the public mostly did as well. Fast forward to the mid-1990s, when it was becoming obvious that those lessons learned were being forgotten. Why on Earth did GM need a downsized, front-drive sedan with a V8??? In 1990, Autoweek published a report that Olds had taken two Quad4 engines, put them together at the crankshaft, and made a V8 called the Quad8, supposedly capable of as much as 320 horsepower. While this prototype would have made an interesting motor for a Corvette, Camaro or Firebird, nobody seriously thought it would be used in a front-wheel-drive sedan. Why do that? GM just downsized the rear-drive Cutlass Supreme out of existence.
While there is no doubt that gearheads at the car magazines thought the V8-powered Aurora looked sweet, the vast majority of the public had moved beyond the idea of a big step backwards like that. And while it's true that the Aurora was also offered with a V6 version of the V8, that was also re-inventing the wheel. If Oldsmobile really wanted to come up with a totally new car to match its quest for re-branding, why not go bold and do like Audi did with its five-cylinder? Oldsmobile introduced the impressive Quad4 engine in 1987. Why not add an extra piston and call it the "Quad5"? If the Quad4 produced 150 to 160 horsepower in mass-market form, with a 180 hp "high output" version, then a Quad5 would logically offer 187 to 200 hp for the regular version and 225 for the high-output version. Also, GM failed to consider that the Quad4 and Quad5 derivative would be more logical for the market's future, whereas yet another V8 would be more in-line with the market's past.
It is supremely ironic that GM wanted to use the new Aurora design to rehabilitate Oldsmobile's aging public image, but that bold new image never extended to a forward-thinking engine that would be more in line with modern needs and sensibilities. Using a Quad5 and/or all-wheel-drive would have been a bold and ambitious project indeed, but it also would have set Oldsmobile apart. Of course, the Oldsmobile name with too strongly linked to rockets and the early days of the Cold War, when the highways were dominated by big V8 rear-drive cars. Small wonder that Oldsmobile became a casualty of its own contradictions.
Looked good back then.
This is the standard Northstar V8...and this was the first of the new design language for Olds.
Awesome times compared to now.
The interior quality of GM in the 90s was still not up to the standards of Honda vehicles costing half as much. Check the entire assembly panel moving when pushing the trunk release at 3:59. In a vacuum, these were high-end quality vehicles (compared to a Cutlass Supreme, Eighty-Eight, or Ciera); against a Lexus GS300, Acura Legend, or even a Honda Accord of the same era - they were same-old same-old from GM.
At 5:51 does the music sound very similar to Donna Summer's "The Wanderer"?
I had the predecessor to this, Oldsmobile Achieva......with the 3.3L V6
This guy really loves Sprite
Underrated comment lol
Why wasn't this a roaring success? How could anyone buy a boring Lexus LS400 when you could have had this?
Because it was a typical lousy pre-bankruptcy GM product, and like so many others, it was a great concept that died in execution.
@@VideoAmericanStylecuz americans had a questionable tastes...
4:29 Raiti’s Rides? 😂
This was a head gasket blowing nightmare
i hate that no matter what gm did they could no longer get really any sales from oldsmobile
These looked like space ships back then, and space ships now!
I love this car, I come to discover this model.
The New Aurora Was All New Oldsmobile Flagship For The 21st Century
Should've made it RWD and added a 2-door version as well as a twin turbo option making at least 350hp.
3:58 When the button was pressed, the whole label strip was moving as well. MotorWeek don't really care about fit and finish, I guess, that's why they thought this car was holding its own against top competitors from Japan and Germany 0:26 :)
My dad bought one in 98 a black one right off the show room floor then bought my mother a Pontiac Grand am gt
My Uncle Paul bought a New Oldsmobile Aurora V8 back in the 90’s. We took it to Virginia Beach from Chicago IL. We were in Kentucky going East. These Honda’s and Toyota’s were irritating my Uncle by tailgating him (Jealousy). My Uncle told me to hold on. He smashed down on the accelerator and was at 140mph in seconds. He told me to look back. I looked back, my uncles Aurora left those Honda’s and Toyota’s way back on the Hill. It was THUNDEROUS POWER and EXHILARATING. Just say we never saw those cars again
Love the look of the car, specially the rear. Not a fan of the boring wheels, they could have done something better.
It looks like the 2023 vehicles are going to be rounded like these 90s and early 2000s vehicles.
This car, along with the early Saturns, reinforced the sad reality that GM was capable of building genuinely good cars, but usually chose not to.
Good show
...and now you can't find one hardly anywhere on the road lol! This car was built for 5 years of life. Anything after, good luck 🤞
I remember watching this when it aired live, and being so shocked and amazed by the Aurora, that I yelled for my mom and dad to come watch too.
Mom and dad were like: “oh, yep… very nice, honey.”
Women loved these cars in the nineties. I had 3 kids of this car
Back when sedans were still made in America.
Such a beautiful car and probably the most favorite I’ve ever owned. Never a days problem with mine up to 295k until my 16 yo nephew flipped it and it was still running.
This car was really ahead of it’s time but GM shafted Olds by leaning the ENTIRE divisions fate on one car. And look what happened they shuttered Olds in lieu of Saturn🤮🤮🤮🤮, Saab, and Hummer…and subsequently shut down those lame ducks too. Such a mismanaged company that GM
I'd say Saturn deserved to live on. Saab... not so much. And hummer could have done some great things and still hold their value. I do agree these " olds" were pretty amazing when they were new.
Corporations doing what they do best. Scrap everything and keep investors executive profits up
@@keithbaker1951 If anything is like how Peugeot Citroen made a success out of Opel after being sold by GM, Saab would've had a fighting chance.
GM signed a contract with the Chinese government in 1999. The deal was, trade your car secrets for billions in profit. They took it, and shut down Oldsmobile to move to China. Only they didn't realize that shutting down your ONLY r&d brand would bankrupt them. And now, thanks to the government meddling and $80 billion in free money they never paid back, they moved overseas completely, and all of their vehicles after 2009 are junk. You get what you pay for.
@@keithbaker1951 Saab more than any of those brands. GM ruined Saab. They gave it less quality and reliability when they took over. How the hell did they try and make a Saab suv using that ugly arse Trailblazer body. 🤮
Given that the 4.0 in this car was a derivative of the infamous NorthStar, does anyone know if it suffered from the head gasket problems as the NorthStar?
The Oldmobile Aurora is the ultimate of late-20th century General Motors highs and lows. It's obviously a high-quality car, very well designed and put-together for what it is. Olds checked several boxes: Cadillac-derived V8, check; high-quality sleek sedan design, check. But unlike Ford's equally impressive MN12-based Thunderbird, Cougar, and Continental Mk 8, the Aurora is missing one key ingredient: rear-wheel-drive. If GM went to all the trouble of downsizing and standardized on front-drive-only sedans and coupes to achieve smaller engines and better fuel economy, and if the Aurora is such a superior and memorable sport sedan, why are both the Aurora, and all of Oldsmobile, but a fading memory today? Or, to put it another way, why didn't Oldmobile develop a front-drive car with a V6 derived directly from its Quad4 engine from the late 1980s? If a 2.3-liter Quad4 developed 160 horpsepower, a Quad V6 should develop over 215, without a turbo. Olds was also said to have a 2.3-liter Quad4 Turbo worth 250 hp. Either hypothetical engine, paired up with front- or rear-wheel-drive would've made the car stand out more, and scored better gas mileage to boot. But this is illogical GM in the 1990s, having never learned from its mistakes. Gone is the rocket logo, as if that were a liability. Gone also is any common sense. Yet another forgetable front-drive car with a silly, over-the-top V8 under the hood. If Olds couldn't offer the Aurora with rear-wheel-drive, why not offer it with all-wheel-drive? They did that ten years earlier with the Pontiac 6000STE. Of course, both Olds and Pontiac have gone the way of the dinosaur. There should be no wonder as to why that happened...
I was lucky enough to buy one with the notorious blown head gasket. Great car otherwise. Too bad it flopped.
Did this mini Northstar have issues like the Cadillac engine? And almost as Peppy as the mid '90s LS400 engine
Why did they bother to tool for that engine, why not just use the 4.6L? It's just as bad on fuel and 2.4s slower 0-60. It's 2.2s slower than a 3.8 SII S/C and probably 0.8s slower than a regular 3.8 SII and gets worse milage than both. Really a shame, I wanted to see Olds live on. They should have imported the Holden tooling and sold a legit rwd fullsize car with 2 or 4 doors with two wheelbase and a wagon. Once the LS1 debuted they could have sold that for the same or less than this car. There could have been a new 442, Cutlass, 88, 98 and Vista or Custom Cruiser.
Exactly mate
Aurora was also several hundred pounds heavier than any car powered by the 3.8 SC.
I think these engines were supposed to be about being smooth rather than being powerful and fast
One word, marketing. GM has notoriously always chaffed at putting the high end motors in their mid level cars. Their perception was their Cadillac customers would be mad that their "exclusive" northstar engines were going in cheaper oldsmobiles. Its the same reason why Camaros and Firebirds would get detuned versions of the Corvette motor, if only on paper. They didn't want the more expensive cars looking bad, even superficially
4.0 is more rev happy than the 4.6, and no comparison to those weak ass v6 engines
Pretty car but oh that Northstar
Imagine this car having heated seats, a back up camera, bluetooth technology, and an infotainment system.
They had heated seats. I just dont think the early 95s had it as an option yet.