Earlier today, Brendan Saur took a look at the second-generation Oldsmobile Aurora. He, as well as many other critics and commentators, took exception to the second-generation’s styling. Personally, I find the car exceptionally handsome and feel the design has aged splendidly. However, even I can concede the design lacked the visual drama of the first generation. As you can see, even cloaked in darkness it looks impressive.
What other car could so confidently pull off such a lengthy front overhang? The 1990s weren’t short of curvaceous, outrageous designs – see the Lincoln Mark VIII and Infiniti J30 – but the Aurora is a stunner without looking as porky as, say, the second-generation Chrysler LH cars. The only elements I dislike are the wheel designs, which have dated badly, and the way the headlights seem to point downwards at the sides. This car was a stunner and it’s a crying shame it couldn’t help save Oldsmobile.
I thought that the original Aurora was a beautiful design. It was dramatic yet elegant, and I really expected Oldsmobile to do well with it, as the first really desirable car I had seen come out of Oldsmobile in a long time. I found the second generation a mishmash of common 90s design themes that lost all of the presence of the original.
There was a time when I was considering looking for an older Gen1 Aurora, but then started researching its durability. The results were that I decided to stay away and view from afar.
Incidentally, in a kind of CC Effect, I saw an original early Aurora on I-65 somewhere in central Kentucky last weekend on my way to Nashville. I was not able to get my camera fired up in time to catch it, but it was in excellent condition. It was the first one of those I have seen on the roads in a long time. 88s/98s are getting thin, but they still soldier on in lower income neighborhoods. That demographic is a good indicator of what is overly troublesome in old age and what is not. Folks who don’t have much money to spend on fixing cars know to avoid certain models.
I owned a 1998 Aurora. The styling was certainly different from previous Oldsmobiles and Buicks. The front end’s elimination of the radiator grill was nice, but I found that my Aurora would run a bit on the warm side in hot weather in city traffic. On the highway it would run normal unless you were in mountainous up hill grades.
Very nice shot! Quite sinister by the night!
I would say, the ’90s is the last great decade for the automotive design in an old way, and many cars have the old elements refined to extreme without new design philosophy like cars nowadays do. Cars like Aurora, Riviera, Mark VIII, New Yorker, Park Avenue still retain the old money touch under almost fresh-new modern language ( unlike Town Car or Fleetwood, old design with touch-ups ). Cars nowadays have any trace of old money touch could be the new Continental ( Rolls Royce in general doesn’t have elegant design because of the belt-lines. Bentley may be, and certain British cars ) , but I would say it’s only as good as the ’95-’02 Continental.
Picture is from wikipedia.
I really liked the style of the first gen Aurora. It seemed smaller than it really was. It was more close coupled inside than it’s brother the Seville. The console and dash were very sporty looking. I would imagine that it would suffer with similar problems with the 4.0 Northstar. The most serious were the oil leaking engine main seals. They could only be renewed by dropping the front subframe and removing the oil pan. Quite an expense. The dealer mechanics advised that it was a good idea to swap out the motor since the amount of work was the same!
I still love the look of these first iteration Aurora and would love to have one even now…but I am leery due to the reputation for not inexpensive problems as they aged….and they are ALL aged now.
Then again I just had head studs installed on the Northstar along with replacing the oil seals (as long as the engine is out of the car anyway) in my Bonneville GXP (guess I’m keeping for awhile longer) and that wasn’t easy or cheap.
But what a damn fine looking car. When this came out and the Aleros and Intrigues I was thinking FINALLY GM is going to have distinctive looking cars for the different divisions. I was in the camp that would rather have seen Buick folded up rather than Olds.
I just rant across a 1996 Aurora in white over tan in my usual u-pull-it with 3200 original miles. Original Michelin Energy tires. The paint flaked off of almost every horizontal surface but the interior is literally as new. Well, what’s left anyway. The whole dash and center console are there, the seats are gone. The key was in the ignition with a stamped aluminum tag that said “96 AURORA.” I wonder what the history is there… I should get the VIN and run a carfax sometime.
The engine and trans are in it. Not sure I would want 20 year old Dexcool and its problems, though.
One of the nice things about living in Mid-Michigan, is that these are still plenty of these running around.
Given that the sister Riviera came with the indestructible 3800, I occasionally wonder how hard that swap would be. Then I take a deep breath and regain my sanity 😉
I think that most car nuts know about the history of the Aurora, but I’ll repeat it here. The first generation flagship Aurora was a replacement for the Toronado and Trofeo (and also the Ninety-Eight) and it shared its platform with the Buick Riviera. Although Aurora sales were decent, Riviera sales (like sales of other 2-door sedans and coupes) declined every year after the redesign in 1995.
Ideas for a replacement Riviera reportedly included 4-door coupes with rear-hinged suicide doors like on the Saturn Ion coupe and Mazda RX-8, as well as a Riviera 4-door sedan (since the low sales of Riviera coupes did not justify their continued manufacture). GM chickened out, afraid to take a risk on a 4-door Riviera and the model was discontinued, as was the Riviera’s platform-mate, the car that was intended to be the 2nd generation Aurora.
Meanwhile, Oldsmobile was working on a lower-priced, more conventional full-sized 4-door sedan to replace the aging LSS and Eight-Eight. The replacement car was going to be called “Antares.” At the last minute, the Antares name was changed to Aurora and it became the new flagship model. A lot of car magazines complained about the proportions of the actual 2nd generation Aurora compared to the original, but it was still a handsome car.
Actually the Aurora and Riviera were on a new platform that was intended to replace all the large FWD cars in GM’s lineup. The 1997 Park Avenue was the third car, which got some refinements. The fourth car was the 1998 Seville, which was a shorter wheelbase. Then the Bonneville and LeSabre came out. The last was the Deville.
It’s a little more complicated than that. The ’95 Riviera and Aurora were built on what GM called the “G-Platform” introduced for the 1995 model year. It became the basis for the subsequent C, K and H platforms.
Although GM still used the G-platform label for the 2nd generation Aurora/Antares I really think it had more in common with the H-platform used for the Buick LeSabre, Pontiac Bonneville, and even the Buick Lucerne than with the G-platform used for the 1st generation Aurora and Riviera.
Below is a listing of the various vehicles and their platforms that were derived from the original G-platform from Wikipedia.
Years Wheelbase Model Platform Name*
1995–1999 113.8 in Buick Riviera GM G platform
1995–1999 113.8 in Oldsmobile Aurora GM G platform
1997-2005 113.8 in Buick Park Avenue GM C platform
1998–2004 112.2 in Cadillac Seville GM K platform
2000–2005 112.2 in Buick LeSabre GM H platform
2000–2005 112.2 in Pontiac Bonneville GM H platform
2001–2003 112.2 in Oldsmobile Aurora GM G platform
2000–2005 115.3 in Cadillac DeVille GM K platform
2006–2011 115.6 in Cadillac DTS GM K platform
2006–2011 115.6 in Buick Lucerne GM H platform
But they are all based on the G platform design.
But there are still quite a few differences between the original G platform and the other platforms which were developed from it.The second generation Aurora/Antares and the second generation platform was a step below the original.
Actually the G platform was developed from the K platform that the 1992 Seville used. The 1992 Seville’s K platform was an early version of the G. The 1994 Deville’s were upgraded to the K platform. The 1995 Aurora/Riviera were the first G platform production models. I will agree that the G platform continues to be refined, but while GM may have continued to use the older body destinations, the bodies are G. The 1998 Seville gets refinements to enhance the car, while Bonneville’s and Lesabre’s are decontented to reduce costs, but the basic body structure is not changed.
One of the best shapes to come out of GM in the 90’s, right up there with the 1992-97 Seville. Far from perfect, but what a looker, outside and in (if you can look past some substandard plastics commingling with the real wood).
Do you think if this car was named Aurora that it wouldn’t have this cult following? It’s a great name but was the car really anything that special?
I always loved the look of these. Kind of reminds me of some of the car illustrations from the early redline hot wheel packaging. The one fault I heard about the 1st gen Aurora soon after it came out was that the rear window distorted the view out the back of the car. Can’t recall exactly why that was… was the rear window really curved? But the shape of this car was certainly unique, not just vs its GM cousins, but vs most everything available at the time. Great photo!