christian Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 Hi! I am about to buy a car with the northstar engine, but i have a problem chosing between an auroa or a caddy. I would like to hear some suggestions why to buy a caddy and not an auroa. I also wonder if all caddy's after 92 have the northstar engine, and also if the aurora only comes with the northstar engine? What would be a good price for a caddy/aurora (93-97). I would really appreciate if some one could give me some suggestions to think about when to chose between these cars. Thank you Christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Nunnally Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 Cadillac began to use the Northstar 32v DOHC V8 in 1993, but continued to use the 4.9L OHV engine on some cars until mid-decade. I think the Auroras are fine cars, and are often good buys. Some hot-shoes find that they are not as quick as say the STS and are disappointed, but generally they have sufficient power for drivers. Bruce 2023 Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing Follow me on: Twitter Instagram Youtube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 All I can say is I bought my first Cadillac 30 years ago. I haven't driven anything else since. Need I say more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocFey Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 We drove 2 Bonnevilles almost 500,000 miles and decided to go for an STS. Drove some newer ones and didn't want to pay the $ so tried some other cars. Liked the Aurora but cockpit styling was too close for comfort after wide open Bonnevilles. Bought a private party 96 STS and LOVE it. We are glad we bought it instead of the Aurora which has the "baby" Northstar and was quite nice except for leg room. DocFey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonA Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 In 1993, only the Seville Touring Sedan had the 4.6L Northstar engine. 1994 to current, all Sevilles have the 4.6L. The Aurora debuted in 1995 if I recall correctly, and came with a 4.0L version of the Northstar engine. Same great design, but down seriously on power compared to the 4.6L. 250 hp and 260 lb*ft for the 4.0L compared to 275 hp and 300 lb*ft for an SLS and 300 hp and 295 lb*ft for an STS. However, the power and torque curves are shaped similarly to the LD8 engine (the 275 hp version) so driveability is still very good. 0-60 times for STS seems to be in the mid-6 second range. SLS in the upper-6 second range to near 7.0 seconds. Aurora is in the upper-7s to near 8.0 seconds and above. I think after switching cars, you'd notice a big difference in power. Also, in 1996, the Seville got a refreshening of the interior which really blows the Aurora's interior away (in my biased opinion). In 1997, the Seville got some nice upgrades which improved it over the '96 models, including more structural stiffening, a redesigned front A-arm, 1" larger brakes on the front, and aluminum knuckles to shave almost 2 pounds at each wheel. 1998 brought a whole new car. Jason(2001 STS, White Diamond) "When you turn your car on...does it return the favor?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dasher Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 I have driven both and I like the Aurora; but an Aurora is not a Cadillac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike98c Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 Caddys more horsepower but more important, more torque. The A-arm improvements and aluminun knuckles along with the bigger rotors were also incorporated into the 98-99 Auroras. I'd try to drive them back to back and then make your decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjhat Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 Caddy all the way. I have a 97 concours with the 300 h.p. 295 lb. torque northstar and I can honestly say that it is the most powerful car I have owned. The guy I bought it from bought an Aurora, and he thinks the caddy was much faster. Other than engine, their both comparible cars. Just test drive them...you'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my_name_is_adam Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 This may be a little late... I own a '99 STS and a '96 Aurora. I love both cars, but without question, I prefer the STS. The STS has better acceleration, better handling and more safety features. However, whether or not that will make a difference to you really depends on how you like to drive the cars. You'll really only notice the difference in the ride if you like to push the cars to their limits. You've probably already read about all the difference in torque, horspower, etc. If you drive the car hard, once you drive the STS, you can't go back to the Aurora - you'll miss the power and handling. Some of my personal preferences... I like the fact that the Aurora Console will dislay the temperature as well as another item, such as milage, average speed, etc. With the STS, you can only see one item at a time. My STS is limited to a top speed of 140 mph (I've only gone 125 mph) while my Aurora is limited to 109 mph - you'll need to find an Aurora with the "autobahn package" to be able to exceed 109. In the STS, the 6 disk CD changer is located inbetween the front seats. In the Aurora it's located in the trunk. The STS has side air bags and the Aurora doesn't. For some odd reason, in the STS, I drive faster than in the Aurora, but have received fewer speeding tickets... I think it's a matter of perception around here. In my area, you don't see too many 30 year olds driving Cadillacs - really it's the old Italians and Jews (Caddy's are affectionately dubbed "the Jew canoe"). For the money, buying used, I think that they're both great cars... I bought both cars three years old, coming off a lease. In '99 I bought my '96 Aurora for $11,500 ($35K MSRP). In '02 I bought my '99 STS for $18,651 ($51K MSRP). As a % of the original MSRP, the Aurora was a better bargain for me, but I get more satisfaction from the STS. Ironically the '95 Aurora body was supposed to be the new STS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bentham Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 If you're going for speed.., buy a cadillac If you're going for power.., buy a cadillac And.., finally if you're going mainly for looks, buy a cadillac About the only similarity between the two that I've found [my friend has one] is the stereo system. -Eric Eric 93 Cad Seville 100K 95 Chev Blazer 143K [garaged summers] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattd Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 Once again this may be a little late but, I had a 94 STS which I really loved, unfortunately I lost her in an accident. I now have 97 Aurora, which I got really cheap through a friend of mine who is a dealer. Compared to my STS the Aurora seems to be more modern looking in the interior anyways...Even compared to 96-97 STS's...just my opinion. The outside styling is a bit odd, GM fixed the last generation a little, but my 97 looks kind of weird, I kind of like it but I could see that it's not everybody's cup of tea. The power is more then enough in the Aurora, although the STS wins hands down. The overall quality the Caddy is likely the better choice. One thing I'm impressed with is the gas milege...The Aurora is way better on gas...This car uses under 13L per 100 KM compared to something like 16-17L per 100 in my old STS...It really adds up...saving about $40 a month on gas. Sorry don't know what mpg is...we use metric in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.