(first posted 6/21/2016) The decline and fall of Oldsmobile. It is a story that has been told so many times here before, so I won’t go into great detail of it. What you need to know is that from the early-1970s to the mid-1980s, Oldsmobile was riding a tidal wave of popularity and strong sales, largely helped by the widespread appeal of the mid-size Cutlass. A car with upscale but not over-the-top for the times styling and many available amenities, it struck a “just-right” spot for millions of middle-class Americans during this period, who kept buying one after another, helping it become one of the best-selling American cars of all time.
But like most tidal waves do, this one came crashing down. The 1980s saw consumer preferences greatly shift, with a large majority of younger, upwardly-mobile buyers taking to import brands. Olds was slow to change its once winning formula of vinyl roofs, loose pillow seats, and wire wheels, and by the time it finally did begin to offer cars aimed squarely at imports, it was a tarnished brand with little meaning and enthusiasm amongst younger buyers, other than the stereotypical cars their parents and grandparents drove.
Yet Olds didn’t go down without fighting, and there was no car that better exemplified this than the 1995 Aurora. A sleek, heavily concept car-inspired luxury sports sedan with an exclusive V8, the Aurora looked, felt, and drove like no other Oldsmobile at the time, so much so that it didn’t even wear any Oldsmobile badges. For the car that was meant to “save” Oldsmobile by injecting into it new life and bringing forth a new direction for the brand, the fact that it bore no explicit Oldsmobile badging only made clear just how much Oldsmobile’s brand equity had diminished.
The Aurora was not a perfect car, suffering from much of the expected corporate generic-ness when it came to many interior materials, despite all the effort made to give it an interior design that was very distinctive from other Oldsmobiles and GM cars. Beginning in early 1994, sales started off to a strong 45,000-unit start, helping Oldsmobile post a an 80,000+ volume gain over 1993. Unfortunately both Aurora and Oldsmobile brand sales immediately trailed off, in the case of the Aurora a victim of the car’s high price tag that climbed from $33,065 to $36,229 (excluding destination) over the vehicle’s life cycle, as well as a lack of any significant enhancements over its five-year run.
Although it was not successful on all fronts, the Aurora did provide a great beacon of hope for Oldsmobile, proving that the brand could again build a car that appealed to contemporary consumer tastes. Although it did not enjoy the level of sales Oldsmobile hoped for, it was at least capable of competing with brands such as Acura and Lexus, and not just Buick and Chrysler. More lastingly, the Aurora single-handedly set the tone for all future Oldsmobiles of the brand’s numbered days.
Which brings us to the second generation Aurora, sold for just the 2001 through 2003 model years (skipping the 2000 model year in favor of an early 2001MY introduction), its early retirement the result of Oldsmobile’s announced death. Had the original Aurora and Oldsmobiles that soon followed been more profitable, it’s highly likely that the next Aurora would’ve been taken further upmarket in size, performance, and luxury, creating more space for an additional Eighty-Eight successor slotted between it and the smaller Intrigue.
Whatever plans for this that were on the table, they were ultimately scrapped due to Oldsmobile’s irreversible sales decline and GM’s own financial imposition. The second generation Aurora was resultantly not as unique of a car as the first, now sharing significantly more with other vehicles that had since been moved to its once nearly exclusive G-platform. Due to this, the second generation Aurora was both smaller and less visually distinctive as the original.
Now depending on the eye of the beholder, these two facts of course can be negatives or positives. Though it did not look as sleek as the original, reduction in size meant that the Aurora was lighter for better handling, and closer in size to competitors including the Lincoln LS, Chrysler 300M, Lexus GS, and Acura RL. Interior space didn’t suffer much either, actually growing in several dimensions. Let’s call the Aurora’s smaller size a positive.
More obviously a negative, was the second generation Aurora’s styling. While the mid-to-large luxury sports sedan segment generally favors a degree of understated conservatism with a hint of athleticism, above all, it was the original Aurora’s dramatic and unmistakeable styling that made it the standout it was, gaining widespread recognition, and likely a primary driver in the purchase of many first generation Auroras.
For a car whose styling was such a key part of its identity, the decision to go with a less emotional, more generic design was somewhat of a tragic move. While the 1995 Aurora was a trendsetting design, spearheading the new “look” of Oldsmobile, the 2oo1 broke no new ground, something made glaringly obvious by the fact that it looked like a lesser Alero or Intrigue to the untrained eye.
Despite the second generation car’s decreases in length, width, and weight, visually the car had a heavier, less athletic look to it. Although it shared no sheetmetal with them, it was obvious that the Aurora shared some relation to its platform mates, particularly the Bonneville, which it shared similar body lines and contours with, a similar dash structure, and the exact same door handles inside and out. Overall, the redesigned Aurora just didn’t project the same premium-ness, exclusiveness, and most importantly, that special feel as the original.
Inside, the Aurora’s dash largely retained the same shape of its predecessor, which wasn’t a bad thing, though the center stack and air vents now sported more whimsical curves for an updated look. Despite the retention of genuine burled walnut trim and addition of chrome rings around the instrument cluster gauges and the gearshift selector, the dash came across as somewhat cheaper, a result of the expanse of cheap looking black plastic and switchgear occupying the center stack, and the wood trim’s thinner, tacked on look.
Door panels thankfully, were more interesting and elegant in their appearance and materials. Seats now featured more luxurious looking loosely gathered leather seating surfaces, and front seats now housed side-impact airbags for the front occupants as standard equipment. Unfortunately, these front seats were also cursed with the same “seatbelts-in-the-seats” as GM’s full-size pickup trucks, which resulted in the unsightly outboard pods atop the front seatbacks, which looked liked vestigial second heads on a body.
Performance-wise, the Aurora was a very competitive front-wheel drive sports sedan, improving on the strong reputation of its predecessor. The standard engine under the hood now was not the aptly-named L47 “Aurora V8”, but a V6. This wasn’t necessarily a bad thing however, as that V6 was 3.5L LX5 “Shortstar” that was exclusive to Oldsmobile and found only in the Aurora and Intrigue. Derived from the L47 Aurora V8, itself derived from the Northstar V8, the LX5 featured dual overhead cam design and four valves per cylinder, with output an impressive 215 horsepower and 234 lb-ft torque. The LX5 was easily GM’s most advanced V6 engine for its time, making Ward’s 10 Best Engines consecutively from 1999-2002.
The Aurora’s exclusive L47 Aurora V8 was naturally still offered, making an identical 250 horsepower and 260 lb-ft torque as before. Both engines were mated to 4-speed automatics, with features such as a four-wheel independent suspension, speed sensitive power steering, and anti-lock brakes. Standard on the V8 and optional on the V6 were traction control and vehicle stability assist.
As with its predecessor, the second generation Aurora received favorable marks for its performance, especially with less weight to move around. Both engines were praised for their power delivery, though the V8 was clearly the way to go for the enthusiast, especially with its wider aspect-ratio 17-inch wheels which resulted in superior handling versus the V6’s 16-inchers.
Standard amenities included the aforementioned leather and real walnut trim, as well as a 6-speaker AM/FM stereo with CD and cassette, automatic climate control, steering wheel controls for audio and HVAC. Optional on V6s and standard on V8 models were a power passenger’s seat with power lumbar support, driver’s memory seat, dual-zone climate control, universal garage door opener, rain-sensing wipers, while features such as heated seats, power moonroof, and premium Bose 8-speaker sound system were optional on both Auroras.
Starting at $30,619 ($41,366 in 6/2016 USD) for the “Aurora 3.5” V6 and $34,794 ($47,006) for the “Aurora 4.0” V8 in 2001 excluding destination, the second generation Aurora represented a strong value in its class, offering capable performance and a wealth of luxury features at a lower price than comparable import and even domestic rivals such as the Lincoln LS. Helped by an early-2000 introduction and its reduction in base price, first year sales were strong. Unfortunately, long-term success would not befall the second generation Aurora.
Although an overall class-competitive vehicle, the second generation Oldsmobile Aurora failed to noticeably build upon the original’s effort. As a result, the Aurora fell short in offering any truly noteworthy qualities the would’ve helped it gain the widespread recognition and acclaim both it and Oldsmobile so badly needed. If the Aurora wasn’t specifically on someone’s radar, to the untrained eye it looked like just another Oldsmobile or GM sedan.
In light of this, first year sales of the new 2001 Aurora were more than double that of the previous generation’s final year. In fact, at over 53,000 units, Oldsmobile sold more 2001-model year Auroras than any other year, helped by the car’s early-2000 introduction. Unfortunately, this strong start was immediately curtailed by GM’s December 2000 announcement of Oldsmobile’s termination. With V6 models ending production in June 2002, and V8s in March 2003, combined production of 2002 and 2003 Auroras fell to under 18,000 units.
Which still brings me to the unanswered question: Was the second generation Aurora better than the first? I guess it doesn’t really matter now.
Featured silver Aurora photographed at Scituate Harbor, Scituate, MA; September 2015
Related Reading:
“looked like a lesser Alero”. You could say that again! A styling non-event – it’s as if they tried to create a generic car which could be, for example, used in a typical real estate development project ad.
My mother, who still owns her Sterling 2001 Aurora 4.0 today, hated the first generation and has been in love with the much more conservative second generation since it launched. I mildly prefer the second generation in any color other than non-pearl white.
The second generation offered a very rare color for 2002 called Chestnut – a deep mocha brown metallic. I have seen pictures of perhaps 3 3.5s and 1 4.0. No clue about actual production numbers. PPG lists a 2002 GM paint code for it. Wish I knew the actual number of cars ordered that way.
Must be one of the rarest GM car/color combinations of the last half century.
Is it as bold as the first-generation, inside or out? No. But it looks classy and elegant. The feature line adds a nice dimension and I think it has aged very well. The only sore points are the wheel designs and those naff rear fog lights.
I loved these and was so sad when Oldsmobile was axed. I remember bitterly thinking, “It should have been Buick”. Of course, now that brand has come around nicely and I’m happy it’s staying put.
I would say it’s the phantom of the Chinese elite saved Buick.
The second-gen Aurora was planned as an Eighty Eight, and built to the same general size and spec as its traditional Le Sabre and Bonneville siblings, except for the Northstar engine family. Olds changed the name to Aurora when the true Aurora successor was cancelled, because the Aurora name was reckoned to be more prestigious.
Yup. It was supposed to be called Antares. I really wonder what a “real” second Aurora would have been like!
This statement has been on Wikipedia with no valid source to support it for years. I looked hard to try and find evidence of this plan elsewhere, but couldn’t find anything from anywhere besides Wikipedia, which is why I didn’t explicitly state this whole Antares plan, however believable it seems.
Antares was also the name of the concept car which gave its design language to the Intrigue.
I would imagine if the plan existed, it was folded down when Riviera was planned to be discontinued ( or any premium specialty cars from GM ) Eldorado was rumored to be redesigned, but the redesign never came, and soon Riviera was discontinued.
I know I read more than once in both Motor Trend and C&D’s future vehicle issues during the late ’90s. A quick Google search revealed this 1996 Chicago Tribune story:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-08-25/travel/9608240239_1_alero-achieva-olds-aurora
That’s what I was looking for 🙂
The decision to delete the brand Oldsmobile from the car shows what a total impossibility success for the Aurora was. The buyers of a full size front drive car are always going to be older. The older buyer will remember Cutlasses and Deltas from the heyday. The marketing people seem to think there was some sort of large cohort of unserved, wealthy 25 year olds that were just waiting to buy your car if you could just make them forget it was an Oldsmobile.
In just a decade, Olds went from four large cars, to just this one. The volume was drying up do to the switch to trucks, and the new volume on the market from the USA aimed larger Camrys, Accords and now Avalons. This volume had to come from somewhere. This was not the fault of GM but is the reality they had to deal with.
To have borrowed so much money to do the Aurora was a disaster. The H body 88 was well placed in the nineties with it’s sensible size, best in class 3800 drivetrain, and comfortable quiet ride. The 88 also was roomier and a full 500 pounds lighter than the Aurora. To reinvent the wheel was a mistake. A program of gradual improvements could have continued, while factory sizing to maximize profit on realistic sales goals. This could have easily sold more units than a factory at 25% capacity and a large debt to service that was the reality of the Oldsmobile Aurora.
Agree, the money would have been far better spent properly upgrading the H-Car.
I would guess the mechanical department realized H-Body was a set of old bones too weak to save in terms of structure rigidity for handling.
Possibly, but some combination of hydroformed reinforcements and heavier gauge steels could have offered improvements (and at much less of a cost).
Ford did a similar upgrade of the Panther in the same timeframe (admittedly not a perfect comparison, give the BOF v. Unibody distinction).
Ultimately these G-Bodies were a tremendous waste of resources.
I suppose that is also your opinion of the ATS-CTS platforms too. The G-platform was the beginning of GM’s transition to decent body structure across the whole lineup.
What’s most odd in the second Aurora is the frontal design, it’s giant eyes too close each other is out of a pleasant proportion and the little mouth right above the licence plate turned the frontal bumper into an enormous jaw, it even have lips! It got really weird.
I never noticed the “mouth” until you mentioned it, and now I can’t un-see it!
Hahahaha, I can’t unsee it too, it also looks like the main dragon from that movie “How to train your dragon”…
Nobody is mentioning the poor quality reputation that the original Aurora picked up as the cars aged. Had GM been capable of building a car with the original Aurora’s appeal and the durability of the 88/98, GM’s trajectory would have been different.
+1.
So true JP. My Mom’s best friend traded a 1990 Toronado for a new 1995 Aurora and absolutely hated it. They had more problems with that car than you could imagine. There were always issues with the door seals leaking air, and then when the car simply died on a trip to Montreal they decided it was time to go. Sadly, they were Oldsmobile customers for over 30 years and vowed this would be the last one, which it was. They traded it in 1999 for a Mercedes and have stayed with the brand ever since.
+2 A friend’s father had one of the first generation and had a lot of problems with it. I admired that car – I was one of those younger guys who
Oldsmobile, erh, Aurora was chasing – but like all those young guys I couldn’t come close to affording one and an Alero had all the appeal of a 13 year-old sister with braces.I gradually fell out of love with the Aurora though as my friend’s reports of frustrations kept rolling in; the car went away when the transmission failed and it was replaced by a more boring but more reliable Lexus.
The Aurora pretty well finished any hope of a GM Renaissance for me – I came to the conclusion that even when the GM engineers designed a good car the accountants prevented them from building it.
Maybe things are different now though.
Another very good point. I’m willing to bet that this further shunned away buyers who deep down wanted to continue their business with Oldsmobile.
The second generation looks very much like a Saturn S Series front was grafted onto a Taurus/Sable body. The roofline, windows and backlight all look Taurus derived. Like a tracing.
Not bad looking at all, though.
I never liked the tail lights on the original Aurora. The 2001 is an improvement.
I have a soft spot for the second-gen Aurora, as involved as an engineer on the headlamps. I preferred the first-generation headlamps, from an appearance perspective, but projector lenses were in vogue at the time, even for halogen lamps, and I think that styling wanted that updated look, rather than lens optics as in the first composite headlamp. The projector or “glass eye ball” as I liked to refer to it, made a nice paperweight, we had some extra ones around the office. I agree there is too much empty chrome plated plastic in the headlamp, but that’s what styling (designers) came up with.
This was around the time that designers wanted to get away from lens optics and go to reflector optics with a clear lens. The big challenge was that made the interior of the lamp a surface visible to the customer, whereas before it was obscured by the lens optics. You could get away with a less than perfect metallized reflector as long as the output measured OK at various points depending on function. It put a lot of pressure on the manufacturing side to create the mirror like surfaces. Tooling was pretty expensive!
The second generation Aurora has some pretty neat lighting elements for sure. The tail lamps seem to glow a deeper red than most others, the CHMSL is a massive row of LEDs across the rear window top, and the projector headlights are very early 2000s stylish. I have also noted that neither generation of Aurora seems to develop the UV haze that came with the switch to plastic lenses in the mid 90s. Better quality plastics than most, perhaps? Would be interested in your knowledge of the matter.
These Auroras may very well have the most unaesthetic projector-lamp design I can think of, and this was AFTER they had become incorporated into auto design for 10+ years… Inexcusably bad for a premium product, IMO.
I recall 15 years ago the 1st gen Aurora was considered to be collectible. Its unique styling and package attracted interest, especially when the 2nd gen was cheaper and more generic.
I came across several owners who were disappointed in the new model and were determined to keep their original cars going indefinitely.
At the time, it seemed like the late 70’s Sevilles all over again. But I’m not so sure now. The Northstar’s reputation spooks some potential collectors, including me.
Ohh, that face!
Bob Lutz wrote of GM at his arrival that an emphasis on cutting lead time with no effort to cut bureaucratic red tape and executive dithering meant that the path of least resistance to cutting time went through Design, and they were putting their first drafts into production. Add to that, they still focus-grouped them and invariably came off worse than all competitors, but made no changes because that would extend the lead time and affect the line executive’s standing in the company worse than a dud would.
The Aurora was interesting in many ways, but as per GM practice at the time, the car was hindered by terrible marketing and confused positioning.
IIRC, the car was originally intended to be a Toronado replacement, developed alongside the Riviera for the G-body. It was actually quite smart to add 4 doors to the platform, as big coupes were floundering. I can also understand dropping the Toronado name, as that model nameplate had been absolutely wrecked with the ’86 design. But to not brand the new car an Oldsmobile? Lunacy, especially given the fact that the Aurora was supposed to serve as a halo for the entire Oldsmobile brand.
Then of course there was the confusion around all the sedans Olds offered at the time. Eighty-Eights and Intrigues were bigger inside and cost less than the Aurora, and it felt like Olds just offered all sorts of similar big cars. Multiply that by the redundant big car offerings at other GM divisions at the time, and it’s easy to see why the Aurora had trouble.
The Gen2 Aurora wasn’t bad, but the damage had been done. Too little too late. I also always thought that the frontal styling was awkward–the look reminded me of the cartoon character villain Black Manta from Super Friends. Something about those headlights…
Spotted one in Porta del carmen ,lanzarrote last May. Did well abroad .
That would eb the two-sizes-smaller Alero, which was sold outside the US as the Chevrolet Alero. As has been mentioned in several earlier comments, the Aurora perhaps looked too much like its cheaper siblings (although the Germanic practice of familial styling has since been adopted by nearly every carmaker – Olds was perhaps prescient in this tactic, for better or worse).
By Gen 2 the Aurora had no reason to exist, the Intrigue offering nearly an identical experience at a cheaper price and without the anxiety of GM’s trick Northstar-based OHC engines.
The “Shortstar” 3.5 V-6 was made standard on the top-of-the-line Intrigue GLS at the beginning of the 1999 model year, and then phased in for the rest of the line during the year. The 3.5 V-6 was based on the Aurora V-8.
Yes, I understand that the DOHC V6 was available as an option on the Intrigue.
But the 3.8L still made up the majority of the units (and the one buyers with any sense would seek out used).
Shouldn’t have offered the V6 in the 2nd gen. I know it was an effort to lower the base price and accommodate GM corporate stupidity but it was supposed to be the FLAGSHIP dang it! There was even rumors at one point that GM would rename the whole freaking division “Aurora”.
This is the only Oldsmobile my dad truly lusted after between the early 70s (pre Colonade) Cutlasses and the demise of the division. The 1st gen Aurora reminded him of the first Toronado and that rekindled the teenage desire he had for that vehicle. Being an avowed used car buyer, by the time Aurora prices fell into his budget Oldsmobile was a moldering in her grave and my mother was pushing SUVs/CUVs like every other woman in America.
The problem was that the second-generation Aurora was also supposed to cover the market segment once served by the Eighty-Eight. Hence, the V-6 version.
Hence my line of “corporate stupidity” by trying to cover two market segments with one vehicle. AS JPC said: “The only alternative would have been to give all five (six with GMC) Divisional dealers the franchise to all six brands, and then thin the product offerings to a single model or two under each brand name.”
I wouldn’t go that far (one or two models) but if GM dealers were GM Stores and sold all the generals wares there could have been much less cannibalization (cannibalization that is still going on i.e. Verano vs Cruze) and GM would have been better off for it.
No, (part of) the corporate stupidity was thinking that there was still room for two full size cars (three if you count the Ninety Eight/Regency) in the late ’90s.
The Eighty Eight should have died off along with with the Cutlass Supreme when the Intrigued debuted. Instead, despite spending a decade trying to run off “traditional” buyers, Olds got cold feet and refused to fully cede retiree mantle to Buick until almost the bitter end. That made it a lot harder to sell their new sophisticated image to import buyers. Well, that, along with the cheap interiors and poor quality.
Two of the three BOP brand probably should have disappeared by the ’90s. Sadly, I still think Olds would have been the best positioned to survive.
GM was typically thinking in the very short-term sense when they killed Oldsmobile instead of Buick and/or Pontiac. When this decision was made around 2000, Buick and Pontiac were selling loads of dated, uncompetitive, image-hurting cars such as the Century, LeSabre, Sunfire, and Grand Am, in many cases to the tune of steep discounts/rebates, but nonetheless translating to some profit due to their archaic origins.
Of course, look where that got them in a couple of years. Despite the introduction of cars such as the G8 (basically the same idea as the Aurora), Pontiac’s image was so tarnished, it was seen as a lost cause to those who decided its fate. Somehow, Buick managed to limp along, really only saved by the sheer grace of the CUV gods by the 2010s who are making it profitable and appealing to younger buyers. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for Buick’s cars.
Brendan, FWIW the decision to terminate Pontiac Division was an edict from the Automotive Task Force (ATF), not GM Corporate as was the decision with Oldsmobile. Granted, Pontiacs were probably the sportiest rental cars you could find, but basically the ATF killed Pontiac, not GM.
Buick survived due to it’s popularity in China, in fact GM lobbied the ATF to save Buick Division because of this fact. The SUV phenomenon was just a happy accident of it’s survival. GM marketers correctly read the market in the early part of this decade and surmised that SUVs were the way to go. So far, they’ve been correct.
I have a feeling that the made-in-China SUV will be another raging success for Buick dealers. As much of a heartland booster that I am, I realize that most folks really don’t care where their stuff comes from, so long as it shows up.
The Eighty Eight and Intrigue only shared showroom space for two model years of their respective 8 and 5 year runs. There was little canibalization, I would wager.
@Brendan – Inspire of the fact that Olds had changed the names on their cars, and had made a good effort to convert them to Euro style, what they were selling at the end of the nineties was much the same thing as Buick or Pontiac. The 1997 Buick Park Avenue was basically the Aurora without the Euro style, and the basic design got some refinements, look at the trunk opening. The Olds 88 was the same as the Bonneville/LeSabre. The Bonneville/Lesabre moved to the Aurora body for the 2000 model year when the 88 was dropped.
I am of the opinion that Corporate had decided that either Buick or Oldsmobile needed to go at the end of the 80’s, but directed Buick to be an American sedan and Oldsmobile to become a European style sedan. Which ever division did the best would survive. The problem for Oldsmobile is that their customer base was more American style sedan than European (mercies) style.
@ Brendan:
“. When this decision was made around 2000, Buick and Pontiac were selling loads of dated, uncompetitive, image-hurting cars such as the Century, LeSabre, Sunfire, and Grand Am, in many cases to the tune of steep discounts/rebates, but nonetheless translating to some profit due to their archaic origins.”
Not so regarding Pontiac; Bob Lutz was asked flat out, during The Bailout, when the last time Pontiac turned an actual profit:
“Sometime in the late 1990’s.”
Yeah, peace out Pontiac…
I doubt any passenger cars were making profits for GM in 2000. If it wasn’t for trucks and SUVs, GM would have gone bankrupt a long time earlier.
GM was a very sick company because their cost structure was absolutely disastrous. As they kept losing market share (and employees) since the 80s, there was an ever-shrinking base of manufacturing, revenue (and employees) to support an ever increasing number of retiree pensions and health care. They were in a death spiral, almost went bankrupt in 1991, and only survived as long as they did due to outsized profit margins on trucks/SUVs.
The reason GM kept cranking out passenger cars despite losses on each one was simply because killing more lines and shutting more plants would have just made the situation more dire in the short run. So they dragged it out as long as the truck profits made it possible.
My GM Death Watch starts in about 1985. As their market share shrunk, they became terminal, despite several temporary remissions.
I remember in the early 90s there was a change in accounting rules (for retirement funding, I think), and GM took a $30+ Billion hit. That was a fair amount of money 30 years ago. The chickens from decades of union contracts came home to roost.
The 2nd Aurora was supposed to be the “Anteres”, replacing the 88. And a new ‘halo’ Aurora was to come.
But, as stated “… mother was pushing SUVs/CUVs like every other woman in America.” and this fashion change led to decline of large car market. “Honey, I don’t want to drive an Oldsmobile as my grandma drove, I want a Tahoe!”
Just a guess on my part, but I think that not badging the Aurora with Oldsmobile badges might have been part of a long term strategy to rebrand Olds. From a 21St century marketing perspective the name Oldsmobile is all wrong. The first syllable is Olds. Not the image that they want to project because people think Old. The there is the rest of the name, mobile, clearly a reference to horse and buggy days. One strange thing about the second generation Aurora was the taillights in the bumper were always on in the day time and the were bright. They always looked like brake lights that were stuck on.
Those lower bumper taillights were actually rear fog lights. The Aurora was one of the few domestic cars to be so equipped from the factory and it’s telling that, in most cases, Aurora drivers seemed to drive around with them mindlessly left on…All…The…Time.
A real shame since rear fog lights are such a useful safety feature (they’re mandatory in Europe), but only when they’re used as intended. You know, like when it’s actually foggy outside…
I had a feeling that might be what they were but like you say, so many owners just left them on all of the time that I didn’t know that you could shut them off. Thanks for the info.
The truly sad thing is that it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that GM, in their seemingly infinite cheapness, had both the front and rear foglights operating off of the same switch, meaning the driver had to have both front and rear on or off at the same time.
Of course, it probably wouldn’t have made any difference. It’s not like yahoos with cars that have front foglights ever turn them off, either. It’s just that, with an Aurora, you would know they had the front foglights on for no reason if you were behind one.
Incorrect. The fog light switch has off, front, and front and rear settings.
However, there is another maddening idosyncracy with the fog system. If the main light switch is in “Auto,” the lights use the dashtop sensor to cycle on and off when needed. The fog light switch, in either front only or front and rear settings, overrides the auto setting and runs with front or both fog lights all of the time, as well as all parking lights. Thus, the auto setting only toggles between DRL and low beam headlights due to light conditions.
The last 16 or so years of Volvo cars share this idiosyncracy. I have never understood it.
No GM built on anything other than the G body has this oddity.
Would it be correct to say that the foglights operate completely independent of the headlight switch? If so, that’s not so bad (particularly since the rears can be turned off). Of course, so long as the foglights deactivate when the ignition is turned off, too.
Theoretically, there might be times when running with foglights, alone (sans headlights), might be desirable. Say, maybe in extremely heavy fog where the headlights, even low beams, would just reflect back into the driver.
Nevertheless, it reinforces the notion that people in the States simply haven’t a clue (and could care less) on how rear foglights should be properly used.
My 2001 Aurora has been my daily driver for the last 4 years. Those rear fog lights are VERY bright. I only use them in the densest of fog, and it gives me a great feeling of security knowing that I’m the one least likely to be rear-ended in those conditions.
My ex father-in-law bought a first year ’95 Aurora to replace his ’89 Ninety Eight Touring Sedan (which was a beautiful car, and a great mix of traditional styling and “New Age” performance, I was sad to see it go). The Aurora was stunning, but troublesome. Over the course of 7 years or so the typical Northstar issues presented themselves, but there were also quirky engine management electronic troubles. In the cold and damp Northeast the car was plagued by weather stripping freezing, which caused the seals to become damaged as they literally tore when doors or windows were forced open against the frozen rubber strips, ultimately resulting in excessive wind noise on the highway and leakage. There is no denying that the styling was a bold step though, and the car really did have presence. I was a backseat passenger many times in that car, and I have to concede that it was not an unpleasant place to be at all. The Intrigue and Alero, which sported the Aurora’s design language, proved that the styling was the right step in a new direction for Olds, I always thought. Obviously just a bit too little and too late.
A couple of thoughts regarding the last days of Oldsmobile:
Although I’ve never been an enthusiast towards the marque, or considered owning one (in that class I’m definitely a Buick man), I was livid regarding GM’s announcement that they were shuttering the brand. How could they close down the only surviving American marque that had a history going back into the 19th century?
The reality though was that the brand was dead the day they released that “Not your father’s Oldsmobile” campaign. I will always regarding it as one of the worst advertising campaigns ever done. Prior to it, the general clientele was thinking and maybe whispering that Oldsmobile was an old man’s car. Once the campaign came out, the general reaction was a verbal “The hell it ain’t.” Anyone who worked on that should be drummed out of the advertising business for life.
And it became the usual GM “take-a-good-idea-and-nickle-and-dime-it-into-mediocrity” process.
As to the lack of Oldsmobile badging, one of the last gasp desperation ideas being considered was to rename the entire brand Aurora, had the car been successful. At which point even GM management realized that the grand old marque was beyond saving.
Back then, to anyone with a sense of history, the only brands GM could have dumped would have been Pontiac and Saturn, as everything else had its beginnings somewhere between 1896 and 1911.
The problem was that once the GM hierarchy of five mostly-independent Divisions went down the toilet by the 70s, there was really no need for all those brand channels. You could see it unraveling in the early 60s when Buick could sell a stripper Special and Chevrolet could sell a loaded Caprice. Once they became four separate flavors of the same car, there was probably nothing else to be done. The only alternative would have been to give all five (six with GMC) Divisional dealers the franchise to all six brands, and then thin the product offerings to a single model or two under each brand name. They would all be under the same roof, much as a ChryCo dealer does it now. Of course, that assumes the ability to put out a competitive product, which more often than not was a problem in the last 20 years of “old GM”. And the dealer cull would have been a bloodbath (not that there wasn’t one as it was.)
“That doesn’t look like a Buick!” Another great advertising idea.
Especially when the design language uses about as many old school Buick cues (ventiports, waterfall grill, side accent line, etc) than ever in the last twenty years or so…
Not a Buick? Are you freakin’ kidding me?!
It amazes me that, after “Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile” went down as one of the worst most self-destructive advertising campaigns of all time, automotive or otherwise, GM uses the exact same concept for Buick.
That tells me that despite what the sycophants in the automotive press say, the company is still run by tone deaf idiots.
+1. You’d think they’d have learned by now.
I agree with Syke and FromaBuick6, the “Not your father’s Oldsmobile” ads were insulting and dumb. They were talking trash about me and my car choices way back when, and talking trash about my father and his choices even further way back when.
What an insulting way to try to make a point.
Bingo.
Not reaching anyone new, yet alienating those who may have chosen one again…
I am doubtful that the advertising had much impact one way or the other. The “not your Father’s Olds” was used first in 1988. Oldsmobile moved their product lineup in a new direction (Aurora, Intrigue), but the real problem was that their customer base was the same. The new stuff probably was not quite what they wanted.
I googled the advert, and probably the real problem with it was that it said what Olds was not, but there was no indication of what it was or why you should bother to look. Advertising needs to get people into the showrooms.
“The real problem with it was that it said what Olds was not, but there was no indication of what it was”
Actually, the rest of the tagline was positive/proactive: “this is the new generation of Olds.” But it was still a sucky campaign.
But everyone remembers it…..
For being terrible.
I was a big fan of the first generation Aurora. I was partial to Oldsmobile having a ’83 Cutlass Supreme and hoped the new direction would revive the marque. The second generation had no appeal.
I would have bought the Intrigue (the initial reviews were positive), but it arrived 6 months after I had bought a new Toyota Camry. I need to replace the Cutlass because the A/C was dead and it was leaking a quart of oil every week.
Ah, Oldsmobile. A mismanaged brand that suffered for the incompetence of the higher ups. I was only 8 when Olds shuttered, so I never grew up around their cars or with memories. But overtime, their cars were very appealing to a budding gearhead like myself. I think it was inevitable, it had been mismanaged horribly for years, but I still think that the final product line showed some life in the brand.
I think that the second gen Aurora isn’t a bad looking car, I think the rear end is odd, but the rest of the car is okay. I just think that the first gen was really jaw dropping in it’s aesthetics that anything that would come after wouldn’t be nearly as good. Of course, had these cars been built with the same car and attention that went into making them unique from the other Olds products, maybe it might be a different story. But that’s old GM, “coulda, shoulda, woulda.”
Funny how it seems most GM write-ups concerning their cars of the 80’s and 90’s always lead to some sort of sadness. Oldsmobile should never have gone away. In fact, I can recall my Dad in the late 70’s driving by a local Olds dealer that was ALWAYS busy. He said “You’ll never see that place go out of business!” Pretty ironic, huh?
GM had the technology, money and power to do whatever they wanted. Maybe that was their downfall – they weren’t afraid enough to try and stay ahead of the competition. It was always too little too late. If someone told me in the 80’s that 20 years from now Pontiac and Oldsmobile would no longer exist I would have thought they were crazy.
Never appealed to me, like most of GM’s offerings in the ’90s and 2000s. Too organic looking. Sat in one of these things at an auto show back in the day, and for a guy my size (5’7″ and about 170lbs) it was just too much car for me, and the outward visibility was nothing to write home about.
One thing forgotten that caused Olds death was rise of SUV sales and decline of large cars. Buyers in the 2000’s wanted a GMC Yukon/Chevy Tahoe, etc, not an Aurora or Bonneville anymore.
It wasn’t as if there were still Oldsmobile Rocket V8’s being built separately anymore, too.
Door handle.
Is that the same door handle used on Buick Century, Chevrolet Malibu and Corvette?
Ugh, that flimsy ellipse-style plastic door handle. Saying it was shared with the Bonneville doesn’t mean much, because GM must’ve used it on at least 15 models between 1997-2005. Off the top of my head…
LeSabre
Century
Regal
Park Avenue
Impala
Monte Carlo
Malibu
Grand Prix
Bonneville
Intrigue
Aurora
Riviera
Corvette
I’m probably forgetting a couple. Cadillacs got their own tooling, and for some weird reason the 1999 Grand Am/Alero got their own, almost-identical design. Strange for a low-end, heavily beancounted platform.
I must be one of the few people who – marginally – prefer Gen 2 of the Aurora to Gen 1. It must just be that I hate hate absolutely hate the 90s, beginning in 1993 anyway (1990-92 still felt like the 80s to me in every way). I was a teenager in the 90s and that decade destroyed many of the important things that I really cherished as a kid: my movie heroes (Indiana Jones remained in the 80s, along with all the good stuff from Arnold and Stallone), hard rock and heavy metal (replaced by grunge right around 1992 when all of a sudden it became uncool to play guitar solos), and COOL 80s cars. From age 4 to 10 I lusted after the C4, the F-body Camaro and Bird, the Fox-body Bird and Mark VII, the Testarossa and the F40, and of course the original NSX. I lusted after them all!!! Then the 90s kicked in and rounded off every angle on virtually every car everywhere. I HATED the way they all looked, from the C5 on down to the F50. And that was before I started driving and realized how much I despised electrically boosted steering vs the pure hydraulic assist. Needless to say, owning and restoring my 80s hero cars was in my future.
Anyway, you can probably see where this is going. The Gen 1 Aurora was right up there for me with the rest of the actual 90s. I can tolerate it now though. If pressed to choose – which is basically saying if I could only choose between these two cars – I’d go with Gen 2 however 😀
Wow, so much hate for the ’90s. I can relate though, I was born in the early-1990s, and that’s how I feel about the ’00s. Between everything from pop culture to cars to global events to personal events, I feel like my childhood came to a screeching halt right around 2002-2003.
Ah, it wasn’t all that bad. I was trying to be a little facetious in that post, actually. I do much prefer the 80s and the 00s, however :p
The first generation Aurora was striking: Modern styling with styling cues right out of “Forbidden Planet” and Robbie the Robot. I loved it and even got to ride in one a friend had a few times. Unfortunately, they had problems, indicative of what GM’s future would bring.
Generation 2 Aurora was toned down considerably, but was it a better car? I don’t know. I was still a hard-core Chrysler fan in those days and still mad at GM for they did in the 1970s!
I became rather “Intrigued” by it all …
Consider me an outlier, I was not a big fan of the original Aurora. Along with the then current Chrysler 300M the 2nd gen Aurora was a great car, if I would have had the bucks to buy one.
When I saw concepts of the original Aurora, I thought this is great! But then I actually saw the car and thought it was humpy, lumpy and obese. To me, the styling came off as less than athletic and it was just huge. I’ve been in several of these over the years and I rather like the interior, but the total package leaves me wanting.
The smaller, lighter and somewhat more conservatively styled 2001 Aurora appealed to me in every way. Even the Shortstar version was desirable to me. Friends of my in-laws had a very early 4.0L version, I was able to pilot it around extensively through the Indianapolis suburbs for a very pleasant summer’s day of driving. At the time, it was as high-tech as I thought I could get.
Too bad the party couldn’t continue.
I am reminded that when the Aurora and Riviera first came out, there was a big thing made of “body tuning”. GM engineers had supposedly figured out that the reason a Mercedes sounded so great when you shut the doors was that the body was tuned to a certain frequency. I have forgotten the specific frequency (something-hertz) but every press report I read at the time referred to it, and I figured that this would be the “next big thing” in body design.
However, I have never heard of this again. Was this more PR nonsense (like how the split in wheelbase on the 1968 A bodies to 112 and 116 was done to eliminate a bad ride on highways caused by the 114 inches of the prior generation)?
The big thing about the G-body was it stiffness. The stiffer body would have a higher frequency. Mercedes bodies were stiffer from the sixties. GM bodies were quite flexible as the body on frame design did not require the body to hold up the car. But the FWD bodies in the 80’s were not stiff designs either. Body stiffness has increased, and todays ATS/CTS bodies are the stiffest designs that GM has had.
The G-body was designed to compare with the Mercedes bodies probably from the mid-eighties for structural stiffness. The design was started about the end of the eighties, and Cadillac would have liked to use it on 1992 Seville, but they were still some time away from a production design.
I thought that the “frequency” measurement was related to body rigidity. GM made a big deal over the stiffness of the Aurora’s structure at the time. It was the stiffest car ever made by GM up to that point, if I recall correctly.
Reviewers of the time agreed that the Aurora’s structure was, in fact, very stiff. The problem was that the interior components weren’t attached very securely to the main body, so the feeling of solidity was undermined by penny-pinching on the interior parts.
Seem to remember GM saying that the W124 Benz was the stiffest car they could find and the first Aurora matched it. In the real world of course it did not and the Aurora was 500 pounds heavier than the 88 as a result of trying to match a specific number.
This is often where the quality movement fails. It will boil a complex system down to one number that people will figure out how to game.
GM was trying to make the G platform comparable to Mercedes for stiffness. There are a number of vibration modes for a car body. I don’t think GM tried to copy Mercedes. I can tell you that when my 1995 Riviera was put on the lift to get its first oil change, the body settled on three points, where older Buicks bodies would sag onto all four points on the lift. This shows that there was very little flex in the body.
Car folks go on about how “beautiful” the last Olds models were and how “they should have made it”.
But, they had quality issues, and just didn’t cut it. Do any of the sheet metal admirers have ownership experience? Examples posted above: “Over the course of 7 years or so the typical Northstar issues presented themselves” and “They had more problems with that car than you could imagine…”
Styling alone can’t compensate for time in the shop and expensive repair bills.
I do have ownership experience, and the fact that I work in an auto repair shop means i have wider reliability experience, too. My mother has owned from new a 2001 (build 6/00) Aurora 4.0. It was actually rather reliable up until 2014, when several things stopped working. Between then and now, approxomately $6000 has been invested in repair, maintenance and update items and at this point (97,000 miles) it will need an exhaust soon. Her car has been what I would term considerably below average for mechanical reliability, the interior started to delapidate at about year 5, and is rather worn looking now, despite regular cleanings and applications of leather cleaner. The headliner has been reglued multiple times with varying amounts of success. I did most of the work on the car so it would have cost the average person, say, 3-4,000 more to have done the last two years worth of updates. Much of the work was age and mileage related, but a few things (coil packs, a/c compressor, intermediate steering shaft, oxygen sensors) went rather early based on the mileage. I have owned several first generation Toyota Avalons, which didn’t cost as much, had 95% of the features, and virtually never broke at double the mileage and more.
The last Oldsmobiles were decent when new, endemic of the times and engineering/quality control ethos at GM, fell apart rather harshly, were far more expensive to fix than the depreciated value of the cars, and 90% well designed. Most other cars on the market not made by GM were either much better made (Japanese), much better value (Germans, Koreans, each for different reasons), or no less reliable but with simply different styling which meant a buying decision was just personal preference (Chrysler and Lincoln). I know there is a lot of gnashing of teeth still about stopping Olds production, but in hindsight it was utterly inevitable. There was never much reason for them to exist after about 1997, in spite of my (and others’) affinity for them.
My big problem with these cars are the interiors: The first gen. has squared wood treatments, a curvy dash, and passenger vents in the DOORS? This isn’t a narrow car, folks…
I owned a 1998 Aurora. The interior had less shoulder room than my 1995 Riviera. Either this was by design to make the car seem smaller or the coke bottle shape did this. I really liked the dash design, but the interior plastics had a rough surface that did not look like anything but plastic. The Riviera’s door plastics were the same. The dash on the Riviera had a fine grain finish that was good.
I appreciate your input, but these are wider than a 1995 Ford Explorer (and less than half an inch smaller than you Riviera). If it felt small, it’s because of shit engineering choices, flat out…
Then we have the second generation, although “better” (when you compare to a Bonneville, anyway), seems to have ADHD regarding the HVAC:
Low brow luxury at it’s finest, in my eyes…
I moved on to a 2002 Seville. I never looked at the second gen Aurora seriously, so can’t comment on the interior. The one thing I did not like much was the front overhang on these cars, which tended to drag on pavement anytime the streets were not flat.
You know, after a brief memory jog about how well regarded and successful Lexus was around this time (after the necessary GM clinics had to have been done circa 1992 to “make” a competitor), these cars are even more laughable. Euro styled was the only thing they seemed to have taken as a legitimate consumer desire (threat)…
You couldn’t be more wrong about the “extra head” seat belts on these GM G-bodies. These are, by far and away, the best seat belts ever installed on a car, for this simple reason: no matter how the seat is adjusted, the shoulder belt is always in exactly the right spot. As a taller driver, I have found that in many small sedans I have the seat so far back that my shoulder is behind the B-pillar, so the belt would be “floating” out ahead of me. Not the best situation in the event of a crash. Whether you are 4’6″ or 6’6″, the G-body belt will always be just right.
The reason GM axed these was cost. In order to mount the belts on the seat, GM had to make the seat structure granite-strong. You can tell the fronts seats in the Aurora, LeSabre, or other G-bodies is significantly stouter than any other car. They are also built in reverse- normally, the seat bottom is bolted to the car floor and the seat back is bolted to the seat bottom. On the G’s, the seat BACK is bolted to the floor and the seat bottom is bolted to the seat back.
A very comfortable and safe design, especially considering the G’s frame-crusher-breaking unibody, but yeah, expensive and heavy.
I’ll never understand the hate for the second generation Aurora. To be fair, I still like both, and this is easily one of GM’s best cars of the 1990s, but the second generation is just plain better. The author implies that it’s bland, but the front end of the previous generation was pointier and even more bland! And the “magnificent” full-width taillight of the earlier models? – very little of it actually lights up while applying brakes or signaling, ruining the illusion, so what did they actually lose by what amounts to nothing more than changing the color of the trunk?
Also, as the author points out, the second-generation has the same (or better) interior dimensions despite having shorter length and lighter weight, so it’s a technically better product too.
The second generation might not be as iconic, (mainly due to the fact that its design was shared with the horrendous Alero and Intrigue) but don’t discount its general attractiveness and style.
This Buick is sleeker than any annoying Audi .
And if this big mobile were using a Mercedes emblem in the grill , the Aurora could be mostly appreciated in Europe as well .
My 2001 Aurora, sadly, has a death sentence. I planned on driving it forever, as it is the finest, quietest, most comfortable car I’ve ever owned, It meets all those guidelines in any car I’ve ever driven. And that number would be in the hundreds. Unfortunately, on the rear sub-frame, there is some rot around where the driver’s side rear shock attaches to it. They say “anything can be fixed”, but try telling that to the inspection mechanic! This is Pennsylvania, the state which used to have safety inspection requirements every 6 months! Just yesterday, I took it on a 600 mile round-trip. I was pressed for time, so it was a get there, do what I have to do, and get back trip, without time for smelling the roses. I’m 63 years old, and spent over 10 hours on the road, and had to stop for a break to stretch out a little, ZERO times. This part is actually a bit scary; If I have my windows rolled up, and the stereo playing at a normal level, I can’t even hear my own horn blow. When an 18-wheeler is next to me on the interstate, I experience the same noise level that I would if I was next to a Tesla. After only a month-and-half of owning it, I was stopped at a stop sign, and rear-ended by a ’95 Chevy Suburban doing 40, and by the driver;s admission, he had hit the gas instead of the brake. I didn’t even feel it!, I just heard the crash. So I admit it… THAT I DID hear! Came to find out that the Aurora carries a 5-star rear end crash rating, and despite the cowling and the trunk lid being totaled, the frame was completely undamaged. This crash could have been deadly, as I could have been pushed into a heavy stream of cross-traffic. This experience is forever embedded in my mind, every time I get behind the wheel of any car. I’m currently searching for my next Gen 2 Aurora, because I couldn’t see myself happy with anything else, after having owned this masterpiece. So for anyone who wants to naysay this car, I give the following challenge: Drive/own one!
Karen, I don’t know if you’ll ever see this, and I’m assuming it’s too late, but this is a hilariously close post to my own heart. The rear subframe commonly rusts in that spot. I live in PA, but my mom, who still (as of mid-2022) owns her 2001 Aurora 4.0, encountered the same rust holes you mention. Around 2018 or 2019, we had her subframe replaced with a used one purchased through LKQ from a southern car. Zero rust. The shop who works on her car got the part, applied undercoating to prevent future failure, and installed it. The part cost was around $300 and the installation was something like 2.5 hours, including dropping the exhaust and rear trailing arms, plus an alignment for good measure (although to be honest, I pushed for that even though the rear alignment adjustments have nothing to do with the subframe). So the total cost was less than $500 for this replacement. The issue you may run into is dropping the exhaust, which like most GMs is one huge welded piece including the cat, midpipe, y-pipe and both mufflers. On mom’s, due to their placement diagonal to the rear wheels in the spray pattern, her mufflers had been cut free and replaced a couple of years before, so the exhaust wasn’t an issue. If the exhaust is original in the rust belt, the exhaust can cause subframe replacement to cost considerably more.
Hope all is well.
I, too, was sorry to see Olds shut down. I drove a ’83 2 door Cutlass Supreme for 12 years with minimal issues. Only gave up when the A/C went bust and no F-12 freon available. I bought a Camry the year before the Intrigue came on the market. If the Cutlass had lasted another year, I would have renewed my allegiance to the Olds family.
Since then, have not found much in the GM stable that I wanted. Way too many recalls (key cylinder), failed designs (Aztec), poor marketing (Pontiac, Olds, SAAB, etc) and awful management (revolving door of Cadillac Presidents). And now, their EVs are catching fire.
My memory is too long, so I think I’ll look elsewhere. GM is not on my radar scope.
Seem to remember “Aurora’s” having numerous issues with the transmissions.Could be wrong; the update in 2000-01 looked like a Dodge Stratus.Imagine some may have been used car buys for careful shoppers.
The V6 uses the somewhat troublesome 4T65E, which has been known to fail even on W Bodies with the much less powerful 3100 pushrod engine. It isn’t exactly Nissan CVT or Honda V6 failure prone, but it isn’t one of GM’s best. They can be flaky over 100k miles.
The 4.0 came with the 4T80E which isn’t prone to classic failure at all, and has a long life even paired with more powerful Northstar 4.6 versions. I have seen a handful of 4T80Es have internal shift valve control failure, which results in loss of (IIRC) 3rd gear and a check engine light, but otherwise no driveability concerns. It, unfortunately, is a $25 part which is buried inside the transmission, requiring powertrain removal and partial transmission disassembly, so it is extremely expensive to remedy.
If nothing else, the Aurora V8 owned the Infiniti V8 in the first and second generation Indy Racing League cars (1997-99, 2000-02). 2001 was the last year the Aurora V8 ran in the IRL. It dominated the Indianapolis 500, powering every winning car from 1997 through 2001. It was replaced by a race specific Chevrolet V8 for 2002.
So that’s something, even if the street car didn’t light the world on fire.
I believe they continued using the Aurora-based 4.0 Northstar block, but rebranded the entire racing program to Cadillac and Northstar, specifically coinciding with the launch of the V trim level on the CTS, STS and XLR. Chevrolet branding may have come later, I lost track.
For the IRL Chevrolet developed two new engines:
https://us.motorsport.com/indycar/news/irl-chevy-unveils-indy-v8/1931435/
“Since the announcement in June that Chevrolet would compete in the IRL series, GM Racing has focused on the new Chevy Indy V8 engine for the 2002 season,” said Joe Negri, GM Racing IRL/Road Racing Group manager. “This engine is not a rebadged version of the IRL Aurora V8; it is a major upgrade within the framework of the IRL rules. Our dyno tests have already shown a significant improvement in performance.”
“GM RACING TO DEVELOP TWO NEW IRL ENGINES FOR 2002 AND 2003
GM Racing lead engine designer Roger Allen and his colleagues will develop two new Indy car engines in the next two years – the second-generation Chevy Indy V8 for 2002, and an all-new, purpose-built Chevrolet Indy V8 for 2003. Allen was responsible for the design of key components for championship-winning Chevrolet engines in NASCAR, NHRA drag racing, road racing, as well as the Oldsmobile IRL program.
“The new Chevy Indy V8 is a significant departure from the Oldsmobile IRL Aurora V8,” said Allen. “GM Racing has applied what we have learned to build a more powerful and more refined engine package. We have designed the new Chevy Indy V8’s components to reduce friction and to improve efficiency. We have developed new cylinder heads that increase airflow and produce more horsepower. We have improved the valvetrain system to enhance reliability at sustained high rpm.”
My guess is Chevrolet took the heart of the Aurora V8 and redesigned and rebuilt it enough that there wasn’t much left that could be called Aurora anymore. Makes sense if you’re developing a clean sheet engine for the next season.
You are correct that the Northstar block was the heart of Cadillac’s ill fated endurance racing effort and relied heavily on the work done for the IRL engines.
Sorry, but the Aurora wasn’t fresh enough. What would have turned heads would have been creating a two door luxury SUV that looked like a coupe. We didn’t want a car from Oldsmobile. We wanted modern transportation from Oldsmobile, and the Aurora wasn’t modern – it was just another sedan among sedans.
FWD? Screw that. 4WD was necessary. GM thought an Oldsmobile was cos-play, which it was during its Cutlass era. If you look at what the competition was doing, it was creating Navigators, Aviators, Escalades, and Oldsmobile needed more than a Bravado – it needed the Aurora to be a hot Land Rover coupe.
I kind of remember reading about them when they came out, but my clearest memory is when C+D entered one in the 24 Hours of Lemons. Irreverent and funny as they were in those days they actually did finish, but endured some hostility.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15390949/beaters-rule-the-24-hours-of-lemons-feature/
That was an awesome article. Prior to that, they ran a 2nd gen 4.0 in the One Lap of America, in 2000 or 2001 when the car was still a marketable proposition.
At least they found some Oldsmobile badges in the parts bin to stick on the last model.
But where was the Oldsmobile rocket symbol? That scripted A or R or whatever it was looked more like a doctor’s initials on a prescription – scrawled thoughtlessly on a piece of paper almost as an afterthought.
I remember people getting the Alero and the Aurora confused, sometimes thinking they were the same car.
It’s as hard to imagine the General without the Olds brand as it is to imagine Chrysler without a Plymouth. Both companies axed the ones with the old rocket looking symbols.
I wonder brand what the not-so-big three will axe next. Chrysler? Dodge? GMC?
Stellantis may pull off a couple of models under each name since they have unified dealerships, but there will still be a contraction of models. I certainly don’t see GMC going anywhere…the platform is already provided by Chevy, and for the minimal price of pressing new fenders, grilles and badges, they reap in huge GMC money.
At this point, GM is mainly truck products, and some cars. Tehy are pushing EV’s to get CAFE credits, so they can build more trucks. “They shoulda this and that…”, who cares now? If one wants an Olds, just get a vintage one. If GM kept all their “storied” brands, today, they’d be trying to sell 5 different SUV lines with “brand images”, just like the J cars.
Aurora was a huge flop, since it didn’t save a brand, nor bring in new buyers from imports. Looks alone don’t cut it. Many 1st gens went to BHPH lots in early 00’s and were junked quickly. 2nd gen? Just a rebadged Bonneville/LeSabre, which were fading away also.