Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: jackherer on 30 June 2008, 10:17:29
-
I bought a '98 Omega 2.5 V6 manual estate a couple of months ago as a workhorse. Initially with normal mixed driving I was getting anywhere from 28-35mpg but I regularly drive from Chelmsford, Essex to Ipswich, Suffolk on the A12 in the early hours when I am in no hurry so I started experimenting with driving to save fuel for obvious reasons.
My results have been getting progressively better and last night I managed a new personal best of 46.3mpg which I am very pleased with, high 44s was the best I'd managed up til now.
Unfortunately the sort of driving required to achieve this level of economy is just not possible most of the time, it requires an empty road and a lot of concentration and patience. It goes to show whats possible though. Has anyone else managed economy like this from a 2.5 V6 Omega?
-
Thats very good i know what you mean about keeping the MPG up as as soon as you have to slow down or speed up it gets killed.
The best that i have ever have was 42 mpg from my one which is a 3.2 That was with a Very very light foot and at 65mpg.
Well done :y
-
cheers :)
Theres more to it than just a light foot though IMO and constant speed is worse than you would expect! If the road starts to climb I let it slow me down, and if I'm descending a hill I will let the car accelerate. Just to make it clear I don't drive like this if there is any other traffic near me ;)
-
I set off for the Lakes meet on Friday afternoon with a full (minus about 30 miles). The fuel light came on as I turned into my street! :'(
Computer says 20.4mpg ....... I was towing a caravan though. ;)
-
cheers :)
Theres more to it than just a light foot though IMO and constant speed is worse than you would expect! If the road starts to climb I let it slow me down, and if I'm descending a hill I will let the car accelerate. Just to make it clear I don't drive like this if there is any other traffic near me ;)
Good point, that makes a big diff but it is nice to know how good the GM V6,s can be on fuel in the right condisions and with the right type of driving for better MPG.
-
32mpg average for the trip to the lakes fully loaded......one tank for the whole trip.
Traveling to work and back (new location) I get 38mpg average
-
I pretty much average 32mpg in my 2.5 estate...25mpg in town (which I dont think is bad) and about 25mpg towing another car (which again I reckon is pretty good lol)
-
i get about 28 on a run......but then i don't sit around
if i'm on LPG i'm down to 18-20mpg
-
I'm just about holding 22-23mpg on LPG in a 2.5V6 Auto which I figure is not bad going....pence per mile that must be the equivalent of 40mpg on petrol.
-
As posted on another thread showed 39.1 mpg on the MID, on the way up to the lakes with cruise set at 67 MPH,as said before it's town driving that really "nails" the V6 fuel economy
-
As posted on another thread showed 39.1 mpg on the MID, on the way up to the lakes with cruise set at 67 MPH,as said before it's town driving that really "nails" the V6 fuel economy
i drive backward and forwards across town all week and average 18.8mpg at the moment :D
-
Some interesting results there, just shows what is possible with a V6. :y
-
Omega fuel consumption has been done to death on this forum . But for the record the best i ever managed in the 2.6 manual was 32.6 driven gently. So well done that man. :y
-
Have had a 2.0 estate Omega inthe past.{auto}.I think these are the least economical of all. About 25 MPG on a run.
Its the old problem ,too much weight plus too little power leads to too many gear changes and big throttle openings. :-?
-
interestingly i've found that there are apparently 2 "plateaux" for fuel economy on the v6 3.0, this applies equally to my sintra and miggy, one at around 65-70, and another at about 92
it seems that just after 3k rpm, when the dual ram opens, it's more fuel efficient than at say 2750 rpm...
meaning one gets better econmy with cruise at 92 , than at 85.
weird innit?
(all testing done somewhere sensible ;) )
recently..... did Oxford to Louth in 2 hours 40min, average mpg for trip 32.6mpg laden to the roof line with tools and materials for an acoustics installation job...
-
Yup, the 2.0 autos are silly on fuel but it's to be expected. My best was 35.2 on way home from last years lakes, 80/90 & the odd squirt here & there as you do. Not going nuts but not trying hard either. Most of my mileage is short journeys & whilst i mostly potter about i do enjoy 2nd to 3rd (up to 90 & back). Hav'nt checked ave. mpg for ages, just gone out & checked now........
Shows 23.6....2.5 manual. (not bad for a biggun, & the car!!!!!!) :D
-
A 2.0 Auto is only silly on fuel if you try and make it go quickly...which it won't!
I get 30mpg daily (31mpg is the best on a long run...) and did wonder (previous thread) if a 2.5 Auto would be more economical. Sadly, 25% of my mileage is town driving; the rest 50-70mph stuff so I guess not in my case!
Strangely, this car seems to do 30mpg, no matter what driving i do - town, commute, long runs...OK, i've got 28mpg once when the old engine was on its last legs (water usage was 1 litre every 6 miles).
Anyone do a similar commute (35 miles each way, 25% of that through towns) in a 2.5?
-
interestingly i've found that there are apparently 2 "plateaux" for fuel economy on the v6 3.0, this applies equally to my sintra and miggy, one at around 65-70, and another at about 92
Yes I can definitely believe that, one of the biggest issues with economy with petrol engines is pumping losses due to a mainly closed throttle, this is one of the reasons diesels are good for economy. Pumping losses will peak during part throttle full load conditions so sometimes it is more economical to change down a gear and open the throttle almost totally, enough to reduce pumping losses but not enough to activate the ECUs full throttle enrichment (the equivalent to an old carbs accelerator pump) which after a bit of practice becomes second nature.
I suspect there is a further plateaux lower down though, 65-70 seems quite fast to me for economical driving ;D (I can't believe I just said that, my other car is a modified trackday 205 GTI that I never drive slowly or economically so this is all new to me!)
meaning one gets better econmy with cruise at 92 , than at 85.
You can get MUCH better fuel economy without using cruise control, its better than normal driving if you aren't thinking of economy but its far from efficient. The main issue is it will accellerate up hills then back off on the way down which is the opposite of what I would do.
-
A 2.0 Auto is only silly on fuel if you try and make it go quickly...which it won't!
I get 30mpg daily (31mpg is the best on a long run...) and did wonder (previous thread) if a 2.5 Auto would be more economical. Sadly, 25% of my mileage is town driving; the rest 50-70mph stuff so I guess not in my case!
Strangely, this car seems to do 30mpg, no matter what driving i do - town, commute, long runs...OK, i've got 28mpg once when the old engine was on its last legs (water usage was 1 litre every 6 miles).
Anyone do a similar commute (35 miles each way, 25% of that through towns) in a 2.5?
To be fair the only 2.0 autos i drove were as taxis when the first were nearly new & i was,nt paying for the car or fuel so could'nt expect much really. ::)
-
I've just got back home after driving as frugally as I possibly could without being pulled over for going too slowly and erratically and I couldn't believe my eyes when I switched to the average mpg and it said 51.1!
Never again though, it was hard work, and I don't think there is anything more to find now...
-
I did a short run down the M5 60-70 and got 34.8 mpg , around town and school run about 20 mpg now but before the summer 18.9 mpg ??