April 11, 200619 yr 2007 SATURN AURA PRELIMINARY SPECIFICATIONS 2007 SATURN AURA Press Release Overview Models: Saturn Aura XE and XR Body style / driveline: sedan / front-engine, front-wheel drive Construction: body-frame integral EPA vehicle class: midsize car Manufacturing location: Fairfax Assembly Plant, Kansas City, Kan. Key competitors: Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat Engine Type: 3.5L V-6 OHV w/VVT 3.6L V-6 DOHC w/VVT Displacement (cu in / cc): 213 / 3490 217 / 3564 Bore & stroke (in / mm): 3.90 x 2.99 / 99 x 76 3.70 x 3.37 / 94 x 85.6 Block material: cast iron aluminum with cast-in bore liners Cylinder head material: aluminum aluminum Valvetrain: overhead valve; 2 valves per cylinder; variable valve timing DOHC; 4 valves per cylinder; variable valve timing Fuel delivery: sequential fuel injection sequential fuel injection Compression ratio: 9.8:1 10.2:1 Horsepower (hp / kw): 224 / 167 @ 5900 rpm* 252 / 188 @ 6300 rpm* Torque (lb-ft / Nm): 220 / 298 @ 4000 rpm* 251 / 340 @ 3200 rpm* Recommended fuel: 87 octane 87 octane Max. engine rpm (fuel cutoff): 6400 rpm 7000 rpm Emissions controls: dual close-coupled converters; returnless fuel rail; fast-response oxygen sensors dual close-coupled converters; returnless fuel rail, 2 pre- and 2 post- oxygen sensors Estimated fuel economy (city / hwy): 20 / 30 18 / 27 Transmission Manufacturer: GM Powertrain GM Powertrain Type: Hydra-Matic 4T45-E 4-speed automatic transmission Hydra-Matic 6T70 6-speed automatic transmission Gear Ratio (:1) First: 2.96 4.48 Second: 1.62 2.87 Third: 1.00 1.84 Fourth: 0.68 1.41 Fifth: -- 1.00 Sixth: -- 0.74 Reverse: 2.14 2.88 Final drive ratio: 3.05 2.77 Chassis/Suspension Front: MacPherson strut with aluminum L-shaped control arms; direct-acting stabilizer bar Rear: XE: Four-link independent with twin-tube gas shocks; dual-rate mini-block coil springs; direct-acting stabilizer bar. XR: Four-link independent with monotube shocks; dual-rate mini-block coil springs; direct-acting stabilizer bar. Steering type: hydraulic rack-and-pinion Steering ratio: 16.2:1 Steer wheel turns, lock-to-lock: 2.8 Turning circle, curb-to-curb (ft / m): 40.4 / 12.3 Brakes Type 4-wheel disc with 4-channel ABS Rotor diameter (in / mm): front: 11.65 / 296, ventilated rear: 10.63 / 270, solid Wheels/Tires Wheel size and type: 17-in fascia spoke steel with cover (std XE) 17-in chromed cover (opt XE) 17-in cast aluminum (opt XE) 18-in ultra-bright spun cast aluminum (std XR) Tire size and type: P225/50R17 touring blackwall (XE) P225/50R18 touring blackwall (XR) Dimensions Exterior Wheelbase (in / mm): 112.3 / 2852 Overall length (in / mm): 190.0 / 4851 Overall width (in / mm): 70.3 / 1786 Overall height (in / mm): 57.6 / 1464 Track Front (in / mm): 59.9 / 1523 Rear (in / mm): 60.3 / 1533 Curb weight (lb / kg): 3528.5 / 1600.5 (XE) 3647.1 / 1654.3 (XR) Interior Seating capacity (front / rear): 2 / 3 Headroom Front (in /mm): 39.4 / 1000 Rear (in / mm): 37.4 / 950 Legroom Front (in / mm): 42.2 / 1073 Rear (in / mm): 37.6 / 953 Shoulder room Front (in / mm): 55.9 / 1420 Rear (in / mm): 54.0 / 1371 Hip room Front (in / mm): 53.0 / 1345 Rear (in / mm): 52.2 / 1328 Cargo volume (cu ft / L): 15.7 / 444.6 Capacities Fuel tank (gal / L): 16.3 gallons Engine oil (qt / L): 4.0 / 3.8 (XE) 5.5 / 5.2 (XR) Cooling system (qt / L): 9.9 / 9.4 (XE) 9.9 / 9.4 (XR) Max towing capacity (lb / kg): 1000 / 453 *Pending SAE certification. A new voluntary power and torque certification procedure developed by the SAE Engine Test Code committee was approved March 31, 2005. This procedure (J2723) ensures fair, accurate ratings for horsepower and torque by allowing manufacturers to certify their engines through third-party witness testing. GM was the first auto manufacturer to begin using the procedure and expects to use it for all newly rated engines in the future.
April 11, 200619 yr Okay.... so the 4-speed still isn't dead yet... Ugh..the base model gets the old 3.5 with a 4spd. Can't they make the 3.6 w/ the 6spd standard and leave the old stuff for the Malibu??
April 11, 200619 yr Ugh..the base model gets the old 3.5 with a 4spd. Can't they make the 3.6 w/ the 6spd standard and leave the old stuff for the Malibu?? I agree with you on the 4 speed but what is wrong with a 224hp 220lb ft of torque 3.5VVT V6 as the base engine? Its not old, the engine was just introduced in the 06 Impala and the one in the Aura has been tweaked to put out an additional 13hp and 6lbs ft of torque.
April 11, 200619 yr Okay, so some positives: Available 252hp 3.6L engine with 6-speed auto. Standard 17" wheels Standard 224hp engine. Not too bad. Now, let's see some pictures I wonder if this means that the Impala or Malibu/G6 will get a little hp boost for 07?
April 11, 200619 yr 15.7 cubic feet of cargo space, 37.6" of rear legroom...I like! So will many happy families hopefully.
April 11, 200619 yr Well its still based on Epsilon so dimensions can't really change. It is a bit heavy but that would not stop me from buying one over Accord or (UGLY) Camry. Nice 224hp V6 as a base. I think they do need a 2.4L 170 Ecotec in there as well, just to cover all the bases. And a 6 speed manual.
April 11, 200619 yr Yeah...I'm afraid that GM might have made a bit of a mistake by not at least offering a 4-cylinder model. Everyother midsizers at least offers a 4 banger, why not saturn?
April 11, 200619 yr Just checked the wheelbase of the European Vectra: 111.4 in. So 112 is the standard wheelbase for Epsilon and the Malibu sedan is the stubby?
April 11, 200619 yr So when is this car FINALL Y coming into production, like 2020??? Let's see... after RTFM we have... RTFT (last T stands for TITLE).
April 11, 200619 yr The fuel economy seems kinda disappointing, but I'm glad the they were able to stick with the HF3.6L engine, and the six speed auto as well. The exterior is growing on me. Not a "wow" factor, but more of a "thats handsome, I guess" look. I wonder what kind of fuel economy the Ford Fusion will have when it finally receives the corporate 3.5L, because in all honesty most mags are going to compare the Aura with the Fusion.
April 11, 200619 yr The fuel economy seems kinda disappointing, but I'm glad the they were able to stick with the HF3.6L engine, and the six speed auto as well. The exterior is growing on me. Not a "wow" factor, but more of a "thats handsome, I guess" look. I wonder what kind of fuel economy the Ford Fusion will have when it finally receives the corporate 3.5L, because in all honesty most mags are going to compare the Aura with the Fusion. I agree the 18/27mpg is bit of a let down when you figure in the 6 speed auto. Also, 3,647 lb curb weight? Wow. That is more than 100lbs heavier than some new Monte Carlos and Grand Prixs even.
April 11, 200619 yr But they're among the safest cars out there so far. If you think about it, the Malibu is like what Volvo used to be... I'm ugly, but I'm safe.
April 11, 200619 yr Ugh..the base model gets the old 3.5 with a 4spd. Can't they make the 3.6 w/ the 6spd standard and leave the old stuff for the Malibu?? It will be the kiss-of-death for this car in GM's ongoing public-perception battle. They would have been FAR better off with a standard 170hp 2.4L Ecotec with the same 6-speed automatic that the HF V6 gets. And DAMN what's with the curb weights of 3,500 and 3,600 lbs....? Dulls performance, dulls handling, dulls economy. How did these cars get so heavy?
April 11, 200619 yr I agree the 18/27mpg is bit of a let down when you figure in the 6 speed auto. Also, 3,647 lb curb weight? Wow. That is more than 100lbs heavier than some new Monte Carlos and Grand Prixs even. And probably is a main contributor to the 18/27 ratings. The new Camry V6 gets 22/31 with the more-powerful 268hp 3.5L and 6-speed auto.
April 11, 200619 yr too heavy, not wide enough, not frugal enough, but a good powerful combination. the dimensions need to change, and I don't understand what is it that makes modern GM cars so heavy.
April 11, 200619 yr So when is this car FINALL Y coming into production, like 2020??? This year. 2020? Come on man, thats pretty weak. As for the 2.4 Ecotec for the base engine. If the 3.5 gets comparable gas mileage, at comparable price, with 54 more hp and 58 more lbs ft of torque why would a 2.4 be required?
April 11, 200619 yr I agree the 2.4 is needed. First, for better mileage, and more importantly because a lot of Camry and Accord buyers don't care if they have a V6 or an I4 as long as it gets them from point A to point B. A very large percentage of Camry and Accord sales are with I4s, and the Aura should offer one if it wants to compete for those sales.
April 11, 200619 yr I agree the 2.4 is needed. First, for better mileage, and more importantly because a lot of Camry and Accord buyers don't care if they have a V6 or an I4 as long as it gets them from point A to point B. A very large percentage of Camry and Accord sales are with I4s, and the Aura should offer one if it wants to compete for those sales. And Altimas. If this car is truly going after imports it needs to mimick them and that includeds a 4 cly. However, it would need the 6 speed auto and a manual to help the 2.4L overcome the mass of the Aura
April 12, 200619 yr I agree the 2.4 is needed. First, for better mileage, and more importantly because a lot of Camry and Accord buyers don't care if they have a V6 or an I4 as long as it gets them from point A to point B. A very large percentage of Camry and Accord sales are with I4s, and the Aura should offer one if it wants to compete for those sales. I stopped into the local Toyota store a few days ago and walked the Camry inventory. They had probably over 100 new Camrys in stock.....and I'd say that 98% of them were LE 4cyls with wheel covers, cloth interior, automatics, and MSRPs of about $21,200. Other than the wheel covers and cloth, they were loaded with power w/l/m, cruise, CD player, A/C, 5-speed autos. The EPA estimates on those cars was 24city/33hwy. I saw 1 SE V6 model and maybe 4-5 XLE V6 models out of ALL those Camrys. If you wanna chase the leaders, you need to at least be able to match what they are selling in mass....(eg...AURA w/2.4L, 6-speed auto.)
April 12, 200619 yr I stopped into the local Toyota store a few days ago and walked the Camry inventory. They had probably over 100 new Camrys in stock.....and I'd say that 98% of them were LE 4cyls with wheel covers, cloth interior, automatics, and MSRPs of about $21,200. Other than the wheel covers and cloth, they were loaded with power w/l/m, cruise, CD player, A/C, 5-speed autos. The EPA estimates on those cars was 24city/33hwy. I saw 1 SE V6 model and maybe 4-5 XLE V6 models out of ALL those Camrys. If you wanna chase the leaders, you need to at least be able to match what they are selling in mass....(eg...AURA w/2.4L, 6-speed auto.) Part of the problem is GM is not chasing the big boys with the Aura. They are planning to sell "only" about 100k - 75k Auras a year. Squandered opportunity I would say. This could have been a real homerun for them with serious volume. Saturn does not have the perceived baggage that Chevrolet and Pontiac have. At the other end, Saturn does not command the premium attention that say VW does but Saturn is GMs best brand (opportunity) for conquest sales. It does not make sense to me. GM still trying to be all things to all people. Pick a foe and fight them head on. Tyring to fight everyone at once does not work. It reminds me of that time we went down to see the first SLs at the dealer when Saturn was launched. And there was that old guy that asked the Saturn sales consultant, "Can you get one of these with bench seats?" Why they hell "figuretively" did they offer the bench seat option on the Aura this time around?
April 12, 200619 yr Part of the problem is GM is not chasing the big boys with the Aura. They are planning to sell "only" about 100k - 75k Auras a year. Squandered opportunity I would say. This could have been a real homerun for them with serious volume. Saturn does not have the perceived baggage that Chevrolet and Pontiac have. At the other end, Saturn does not command the premium attention that say VW does but Saturn is GMs best brand (opportunity) for conquest sales. It does not make sense to me. GM still trying to be all things to all people. Pick a foe and fight them head on. Tyring to fight everyone at once does not work. It reminds me of that time we went down to see the first SLs at the dealer when Saturn was launched. And there was that old guy that asked the Saturn sales consultant, "Can you get one of these with bench seats?" Why they hell "figuretively" did they offer the bench seat option on the Aura this time around? Saturl will not be able to steal any of VW's clientele. Their target must be the Camrys and Accords of the market. They are lost trying to appeal to VW or other upscale brands; stick to Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Mazda, Nissan.
April 12, 200619 yr Saturl will not be able to steal any of VW's clientele. Their target must be the Camrys and Accords of the market. They are lost trying to appeal to VW or other upscale brands; stick to Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Mazda, Nissan. Someone is getting testy! ha ha Re-read what I wrote. I used the word "say". As in example. Just busting balls.
April 12, 200619 yr Someone is getting testy! ha ha Re-read what I wrote. I used the word "say". As in example. Just busting balls. not testy. i understood what you said. I knew you said say, I was agreeing.
April 13, 200619 yr If the 3500VVT is priced competitively with the Camry and Accord I4's when comparably equiped, you will have major sucess. The Epsilons are a bit heavy, something which I never really understood since the Saab 9-3 weighs in at less than 3200lbs. But dumping that panoramic sunroof would probably save 75lbs if not more. So if you want a lighter car, just start deleting the options, and it should get back down to about 3500lbs.
April 13, 200619 yr Still not wide enough to be competitive. With you there-its just not 1985 anymore-get away from narrow A-Body widths! Jack it up to 72-73 at least!
April 13, 200619 yr not testy. i understood what you said. I knew you said say, I was agreeing. Evok's "busting your balls" and you are saying you are "not testy" (as in testicles...) All this ball-talk is getting me all riled up......
April 14, 200619 yr maybe the wieght is alot of support parts to make it one tough car...along with making it still cheap by not using lightweight expensive materials. the 3.5 upgrades should be across the board, wouldn't it be cheaper too?
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.