if i came across one or do you think for the trouble might as well go for it all and try a northstar?

That depends on the price. The Aurora engine is ~250 hp; about the same as a 3.8 S/C. Bang for the buck would be much lower than the 3.8 S/C, although GeeWiz factor would be much higher. The V8 would probably give slightly better weight distribution, being all aluminum. I suspect that the conversion would be very similar in difficulty to a N* conversion.
The really interesting thing would be to plop an Indy Aurora V8 into a Fiero.
Or perhaps the Aurora variants that Shelby is putting into the Shelby Series 1. He gets 320 hp N/A and 450 HP S/C out of those.

P.S. I just came across this: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/004410.html

It has a link here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=499842467

That is a HELL of a deal! Somebody needs to jump on it!

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 11-18-2000).]

The 4.0l aurora and 4.6l caddy are both northstars and are externally identical. Same for the trannys, they are both 4t80's. So a caddy 4.6 is your best bang for the buck.

will, thatswhat made me wonder about it. he dosen't have the wiring harrness or computer but he's relativly close to me. about 2 hrs. away.

An Aurora is closer to an actual race-motor than the Northstar is. I think it would be schweet.

How so GT? The only difference I know of is bore size. Even the Aurora cams are the same ones used on a base Northstar. The Indy Aurora doesn't use any parts from a stock one. If you can get one cheap enough, it would still be a cool motor. Look for some 300hp N* intake cams for it. (All exhaust cams are the same.)

GT Bastard:

I did some research on the IRL Aurora Engine. It'll set you back close to $80,000. That's not a typo: $80,000. Do you really think any of the parts interchange?
The standard Aurora V8 makes 250 Hp @5600 RPM and 260 ftlbs @4400 RPM. The racing engine makes 700+ HP and spins to 10500 RPM (burning methanol all the way)

A very interesting idea occurred to me...
The part of a Northstar swap that is hard is the electronics; The Cadillac ECM talks to Traction Control, ABS, Climate Control, Instrument Panel, etc.
How does the Aurora computer work? Does the Aurora have all that fancy inter-linked junk? If it doesn't, which is probable, then an Aurora ECM could be used to control a swapped Northstar without much difficulty. I will look into this Monday afternoon.

I read a while back about a guy trying to modify a Zr1 computer to work with his N* swap. I'll have to dig through the archives and see what I can find.

HOW DARE ANY OF YOU DISAGREE WITH GT BASTARD HEHEHEHE
I THOUGHT HE KNEW EVERYTHING
SCHWEEEEEEEEET GT YOUR SO SMART

Check out this link:

http://compositeeti.com/prod02.htm
http://compositeeti.com/
I heard on Speedvision/hotrod TV that Oldsmobile might offer the Aurora with a six speed in the future. That would be cool.

[This message has been edited by Spyder (edited 11-20-2000).]

loafer, i think that's will. and good idea too will. i guess the fewer things to have to weed out the better.

Why does everyone insist on trying to fab up the stockcomputer to work with the Aurora or he N-Star? Why can't a Haltech or an Elecromitve stand alone computer system not be used? Seems to me that it would take alot of the headache out as far as traction control and airbag stuff that is inherant with the stock computers.

Or will a Haltech or Electromotive not work with these kind of engines? Maybe someone knows or could find out by calling them. Just another idea/way to look at the problem I guess

------------------
Shaun-Toledo OH, 85 GT
2.8 With nitrous
Soon to have a 3.2 with nitrous
0-60 in 5.6 seconds
Fiero Performance

Shaun41178:

First, aftermarket ECU's are expensive
Second, OEM electronics represent a much larger R&D commitment and larger range of test conditions. As a rule, OEM electronics are much more sophisticated, capable and versatile than aftermarket software. It is only in programmability that aftermarket software has the advantage. When using an extensively hacked ECM such as LT1, or soon LS1, that advantage goes away.
Third, aftermarket computers must be generic. This lead to adding extra crank and cam position sensors above and beyond stock units. These are almost invariably added in places in which they are susceptible to damage. E.g. the stock N* CPS is in the middle of the crankshaft. An aftermarket unit would have to use a reluctor wheel on the harmonic balancer. Which is safer?
Cadillac Hotrodding and Fabrication (www.chrfab.com) sells Electromotive equipment. Their cam timing wheel is attached to the waterpump drive on the back fo the left cylinder head. This is considerably more vulnerable than the stock unit built into the right cylinder head.
Fourth, the programs of stock unit only need to be tweaked in for optimal performance. Aftermarket systems must be programmed from the ground up for the engine to even idle. I've spoken to a gentleman at school who did this with his custom turboed base model Stealth (Haltech, I think). He said it took him a full day to get the engine to idle.

I think reprogrammed stock electronics that can be replaced, if necessary at stock prices and in all probability perform better in a wider range of conditions than aftermarket electronics are a better choice.

Engine Master Conversions makes a stand alone wiring harness that uses the early computer and they also make a reprogrammed PROM for it.

The Aurora uses all of the same systems the Caddy computer does. Traction control, ABS, Climate Control, Active response,(Olds version of Stabilitrac) All that junk.

-------------------
Just stick a carb on it.

A Northstar with a Holley 780 and FOUR rumpity-rump cams. I can almost picture it.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 11-20-2000).]

Pontiaddict:
What's your source for that information? I was looking through a '96 Aurora shop manual today and only saw references to the torque requested signal from the Traction Control. The signal the manual describes would be easy for an experienced electrical engineer to fake. (Square wave at 90% duty cycle.)

I'd believe the shop manual over anything I'd say. (a Haynes manual on the other hand...) I had (apparently inaccurately) made the assumption that if the motors are the same, and the cars extra systems are the same. Then why would you make two different controllers for it?

Does the manual say who makes the computer? Siemens makes the newer Caddy controller. Maybe the Aurora computer is based on GM architecture.

As for the rest of it. I have been keeping my eye out for Nortstar info in car magazines. Most of what I've said was printed in Car Craft and Hot rod.

There was an article about some guy who put a 2 carbed N* in his '32 Ford roadster that was making about 400hp. He was also making hop up parts for it. If I can find it, I'll give more specifics.

[This message has been edited by Pontiaddict (edited 11-22-2000).]

I don't know enough yet to be certain. The two use the same computer, but but the Olds doesn't have the instrument panel computer like the Caddy. It does have ABS, Traction control, and ECM controlled climate control (I think).
http://www.chrfab.com has a bunch of Northstar stuff, including a picture of a dual carb engine in a street rod.

In case anyone is interested, here are basic technical specs for the Aurora V8: http://www.gmpowertrain.com/pass40PS.htm

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 11-22-2000).]