Omega Owners Forum
Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: Hudson on 27 December 2015, 17:56:01
-
Just out of interest should i go down the CDX route and not the Elite route..... is there any real difference (with normal driving) between the 2.2 petrol engine or either of the V6 engines for the CDX in terms of mpg, they are the same in RFL and according to the brochure the mpg is hardly any different, but brochures and real world driving are totally different so is the Omega ok with the small engine in terms of pulling and general driving or should it only really have the V6.
-
We had a 2.6 CDX manual saloon mpg 27 - 33 also had a 2.2 CDX estate auto 16 - 33 mpg . The V6 is definitely smoother and in my opinion a much better car to drive.
-
I have both all Auto and I can get the 2.2 to be more efficient around town if you drive very gently. On a motorway I can get more out of the 2.5 V6 - I suspect as they stay in top gear whereas the 2.2 auto drops down for hills. If I actually use the V6 around town however I can get the MPG very low!
The 2.2 is a simply lovely engine to work on, which is a big bonus, everything on the V6 seems to take lots of disassembly before you can start!
Steve
-
Thanks for that info, there appears to be an equal number of both capacities for sale so i guess its what ever the best condition one with whatever engine. Cheers.
-
2.2 manual will be better on fuel than a 2.6 Auto, however a 2.6 manual would be a reasonable compromise between the two, closely followed by the V6 auto :y
-
Define V6.... Early ones good. Later ones baaaad.
I love my 2.2 to bits, but fact it averages 28mpg and only costs 55p litre to fill up is a big plus.
The 3.2 suits the car far, far better. Can be summed up in one word. Effortless. That said I can also average 27mpg from the 3.2. But that's around £1 litre. So double cost to run.
2.2, when on petrol would average 34. You loose economy thanks to LPG. So it tends to average 28. But it's a manual.
Where the 2.2 is far better is DIY work, it's. sheer pleasure to work on due to the space.
-
Auto good.... manual bad ;D
So what ever engine it will have to be an auto, i hate my manual car at present and want to go back to the ease of an auto.
-
Then get a V6. The auto box kills what performance a 2.2 has - and its' economy, most likely.
-
Then get a V6. The auto box kills what performance a 2.2 has - and its' economy, most likely.
Agreed, a hard driven 3.2 manual will match a gently driven 2.2 auto for economy...
-
Manuals give more mpg than, autos, and early engines - 2.0s and 2.5s - are more efficient than later engines, and give more mpg. As discussed before, early engines have more emission control devices, so can afford higher comression ratios, but cost more to manufacture. I get 30 mpg from my 2.5 manual estate, but only 27 mpg from my 2.2 manual saloon, on the same journeys.
-
My 2003 2.2 auto is in good nick and I dont drive like a lunatic these days, but it is still only showing 26.3mpg.
Mainly runs of 10 miles or so and half of that town driving.
As for general driving, unless your ego needs to be always in front or quicker at the lights, its perfectly at ease in other traffic and will cruise at 80/90 all day long.
:) :)
-
My 2003 2.2 auto is in good nick and I dont drive like a lunatic these days, but it is still only showing 26.3mpg.
Mainly runs of 10 miles or so and half of that town driving.
As for general driving, unless your ego needs to be always in front or quicker at the lights, its perfectly at ease in other traffic and will cruise at 80/90 all day long.
:) :)
That's about what I can get out of my 3.2 auto on petrol under the same conditions.
-
My 2003 2.2 auto is in good nick and I dont drive like a lunatic these days, but it is still only showing 26.3mpg.
Mainly runs of 10 miles or so and half of that town driving.
As for general driving, unless your ego needs to be always in front or quicker at the lights, its perfectly at ease in other traffic and will cruise at 80/90 all day long.
:) :)
That's about what I can get out of my 3.2 auto on petrol under the same conditions.
I must admit that i would of expected more from the smaller engine and that would be about what i would be seeing for the v6
-
Big car, small engine not a good mix, especially with a slushbox :D
-
My 2003 2.2 auto is in good nick and I dont drive like a lunatic these days, but it is still only showing 26.3mpg.
Mainly runs of 10 miles or so and half of that town driving.
As for general driving, unless your ego needs to be always in front or quicker at the lights, its perfectly at ease in other traffic and will cruise at 80/90 all day long.
:) :)
That's about what I can get out of my 3.2 auto on petrol under the same conditions.
I could only get more than 23mpg from my 3.2 (on petrol) if I went on a long, sedate motorway cruise.
-
2.2auto here, 2003 and low(ish) mileage at 67k.
I get 26-28 ATM on mixed runs. My run to work and back (90miles each way) yields 30-33 depending on whether I go between 65 & 80. If I do predominantly town driving it dips to around 22-24.
I will say that the above is with a knackered thermostat. So we shall see what difference that makes.
The big car small engine comment is right. I get only 1-1.5mpg better on the omega than from my 3.0v6 awd X-type. Although I will add I think in every other respect the mig is a far better car.
-
To be fair my quote of 16 mpg from the 2.2 auto estate was when my wife used it for work a round trip of only 6 miles so barely warmed up , they are as people have said a lot easier to work on but disappointing in performance compared to a V6.
-
To be fair my quote of 16 mpg from the 2.2 auto estate was when my wife used it for work a round trip of only 6 miles so barely warmed up , ....
That's what my wife gor from my 3.0 when she used mine for work ...... she has two throttles positions ..... on or off :-X
-
they are as people have said a lot easier to work on .... compared to a V6.
This has definitely been my experience <4hrs to do timing belt, water pump, tensioners and thermostat yesterday with never having done one before shows how straightforward they are.
-
they are as people have said a lot easier to work on .... compared to a V6.
This has definitely been my experience <4hrs to do timing belt, water pump, tensioners and thermostat yesterday with never having done one before shows how straightforward they are.
Sounds about right for a V6 to me, so that would be less than 2hours to do the same jobs on a 2.2?
-
Nah, bout 4hrs for me to do the 2.2. From putting the car in the garage to taking it back out. Bearing in mind I've never done one so don't know how things come apart (ie electrical connectors etc.
Also included lunch and a brew :P.
So um yeah, maybe 2.5hrs actual work. ::)
-
Nah, bout 4hrs for me to do the 2.2. From putting the car in the garage to taking it back out. Bearing in mind I've never done one so don't know how things come apart (ie electrical connectors etc.
Also included lunch and a brew :P .
So um yeah, maybe 2.5hrs actual work. ::)
knowing what and how to dismantle stuff is certainly the key to getting a job done efficiently. I had about 90 minutes in doing my V6 cambelt, although there was a lot of extra time in changing the crank oil seal while I was there. The water pump isn't part of that job, but is only another 3 bolts, so with the necessary cleaning up is another 5 minutes. The V6 thermostat is probably another 90minute job, but some of the cambelt preparatory dismantling is the same. The advice here is to replace the transfer tube, which saves a worthwhile amount of time if you chisel the tube and housing apart from the beginning.
The brew is an essential part of working on lumps of cold metal this time of year ;D
-
Nah, bout 4hrs for me to do the 2.2. From putting the car in the garage to taking it back out. Bearing in mind I've never done one so don't know how things come apart (ie electrical connectors etc.
Also included lunch and a brew :P.
So um yeah, maybe 2.5hrs actual work. ::)
Well done! I found it nerve racking first time, knowing what harm I could do if I messed it up. Now you know it has been done properly, and how to do it next time. I found it tricky on the 2.2 locating the tensioner tail in the right slot.
-
To be fair my quote of 16 mpg from the 2.2 auto estate was when my wife used it for work a round trip of only 6 miles so barely warmed up , ....
That's what my wife gor from my 3.0 when she used mine for work ...... she has two throttles positions ..... on or off :-X
Me no understandy... Are there more than 2 throttle positions? ??? ::)
-
....
Me no understandy... Are there more than 2 throttle positions? ??? ::)
Certianly not in her world ;) ;)
-
To be fair my quote of 16 mpg from the 2.2 auto estate was when my wife used it for work a round trip of only 6 miles so barely warmed up , ....
That's what my wife gor from my 3.0 when she used mine for work ...... she has two throttles positions ..... on or off :-X
Me no understandy... Are there more than 2 throttle positions? ??? ::)
Autoboxes has third one, S ::)
-
Nah, bout 4hrs for me to do the 2.2. From putting the car in the garage to taking it back out. Bearing in mind I've never done one so don't know how things come apart (ie electrical connectors etc.
Also included lunch and a brew :P.
So um yeah, maybe 2.5hrs actual work. ::)
Well done! I found it nerve racking first time, knowing what harm I could do if I messed it up. Now you know it has been done properly, and how to do it next time. I found it tricky on the 2.2 locating the tensioner tail in the right slot.
Cheers. I've never done one by myself before. Although I did assist my dad doing his v8 rs6 :o. Properly difficult bar steward that one. First thing is to slide the whole front of the car forward about 6" on dowels so you can get access to it. Nightmare!