Talk:Oldsmobile Aurora

Oldsmobile Aurora Engine Option
The aurora also came with an option for a 4 litre propane & vinegar 500 hp, 500 ft-lb torque option for around $120,000
 * I do not know where you got this information, but there was no such engine that provided 500 hp and 500 ft-lb of torque for the Aurora. The 4.0 L engine only produced 250 HP and 260 ft-lb of torque. -JohnMcClane 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Aurora/X-Files
I removed the bit about the Aurora being associated with the X-Files Movie: Fight the Future. It was the Intrigue that was featured in the film.

Article errors/speculative comments
There is are many undocumented sources that have been let slide... such as the marque being changed to aurora, and the point of "fiscal trouble found oldsmobile"... what about higher up GM authority knowing what was going to happen. Why put money into a brand you are going to kill? My .02 that I don't want to put time into --Tygone2 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Added Collectibles Section
I added this section. 24.96.69.81 01:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Aurora Predecessor
I think its pretty obvious to those familiar with both the car as well as period Oldsmobile history that, while the Aurora had no direct predecessor, its nearest kin was the Toronado. Saying that the Toronado doesn't qualify simply based on bodystyle would simultaneously disqualify many other vehicles that evolved into other configurations based on the needs of that time. Both the Aurora and Toronado were technologically as well as stylistically advanced for their respective times and were meant to be personal luxury cars as opposed to well-equipped family sedans.

Other evidence includes the fact that Aurora was conceived well before the Ninety-Eight was dropped from the lineup, that both models coexisted for several years, and that Oldsmobile brochures and media acknowledge the Eighty-Eight-based Regency model (1997-1999) was intended to supplant the Ninety-Eight. Not only were those models stylistically similar (conservative, heavy chromed grille) but their demographics were alike - Regency offered bench seats; Aurora did not. Regency was priced similar to the outgoing Ninety-Eight; Aurora was priced several thousand above.

As an owner of this fine automobile, this inaccuracy - as well as the engine being called a 4.0l 'Northstar' - is one of the many small but still irritating misnomers that still exist. If someone else has countering reasoning, I would enjoy hearing it. Thank you. Flybrian 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The 98 was dropped after the fact. The Aurora became the new flagship replacing both, but it originally replaced the Toronado in the line-up.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but we're getting into Original Research territory unless we have a statement from GM claiming the Aurora replaced a certain model, or it obviously replaced a model in the same size/price range.


 * Given the marketing at the time, IMO Aurora was new territory for Oldsmobile and in this case we can leave the Predecessor field blank. Atarivideomusic (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Aurora replaced the Toronado Trofeo in the line-up. GM continued to the Olds 98 and the Aurora at the same time until 1996. The Auora was a midsize like the STS, not a full-size like the 98.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Dual image
The dual image in this case serves to enhance the article overall quality and the readers understanding since there were only two styles made for this particular vehicle.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Project consensus?
Please explain objection to changes, what weasel words, there are no weasel words? All the sources out there list the Aurora as a midsize including the fueleconomy.gov website. The STS is is also a midsize. The Aurora replaced the Toronado Trofeo in the line-up, even though the two cars are not the same. The Olds 98 continued until 1996.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't think a value judgement like "luxury sport sedan" is something that should have some evidence to back it up? You really think expect to concoct some story as to how this car, a large four-door sedan, really replaced a personal luxury coupe? All without a single source? Where are "all the sources out there" listing it as a midsize (something besides the EPA, many articles here diverge from that)? A 114" wheelbase (three inches longer than that of the outgoing Ninety Eight) certainly qualifies as a full-size. Just because the 98 continued on for two more years doesn't mean the Aurora didn't supersede it. The Lumina and FWD Impala were sold concurrently for a couple years, as were the Aerostar and Windstar. --Sable232 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (Restored inadvertently removed sources by the way). You just termed the Toronado a "personal luxury coupe," so are you wanting to call the Aurora a personal luxury sedan? How about the Aurora with touring package edition be termed a "luxury sport sedan?" The government calls it a midsize. Can't find a single other website that calls the Aurora a full-size. The STS is mid-size. Should we contradict other sources that call it a mid-size? Is there a source for what is full-size? The 98 had a much bigger trunk, larger inside? and longer overall? Suggest that we use the EPA fuel economy.gov classifications for mid-size and full-size to be consistent on models in the American market. Concerning features, the Aurora had GM's premium luxury level of feature appointments, so its justifiably called luxury. The changes/editions enhance the article, no sure of your objections.  Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, please post your thoughts in one piece and move on) This isn't about the STS. I don't care about the STS. This page is for the Aurora. Are you actually going to offer sources or just keep dodging the questions? "Personal luxury car" is an accepted car classification, but again, this page isn't about the Toronado. And even if it were, the "personal luxury" part is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Aurora is a 4-door sedan, and no matter how much you wish for it, those two extra doors aren't going to disappear. The Aurora replacing the Toronado is a figment of YOUR imagination and it is YOU who have to prove that it should stand in the article. --Sable232 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are opinion based reviews on webites that say the Aurora replaced the Toronado Trofeo eg., .  But nevertheless, its still  factual to say that GM dropped the Toronado Trofeo and added the Aurora. Whether you want to use the word "replaced" or suggest another way to say that is fine.  It is factual to say that they Aurora is a "luxury sedan," it is equipped with GM's luxury features, the New York Times called it the "Aurora luxury sedan.". Views, eg. Allexpert.com called the Aurora a "luxury sedan". By extension, wouldn't you say that the Aurora touring package edition makes that model a luxury sport sedan? And why not use the EPA classifcations for American models to be consistent so as not to contradict other sources, by that the Aurora is a midsize? The changes / editions are commonly described views of the Aurora and the feature descriptions are supported by GM past descriptions of the Aurora. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's also factual to say that they dropped the Cutlass Calais and added the Aurora. Or that they dropped the 98 and added the Alero. It doesn't mean one "replaced" the other. --Sable232 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)