Omega Owners Forum
Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: Hogi on 08 September 2011, 16:25:06
-
Hi All,
I am new to this site and new to Omegas.
I an thinking about buying a 1999 ("T" reg) omega estate with a 2 litre 16 valve engine and would like to know what fuel consumption I can expect.
Cheers
Hogi
-
Hi All,
I am new to this site and new to Omegas.
I an thinking about buying a 1999 ("T" reg) omega estate with a 2 litre 16 valve engine and would like to know what fuel consumption I can expect.
Cheers
Hogi
I don't & have never owned a 2000 litre, but don't fall into the trap of buying a smaller engined car for better fuel consumption. An Omega is a heavy car & a 2.0 will struggle compared with a V6.
My consumption varies between 21/22mpg around town to 32/33 on a run on the motorway, but if you drive them hard around town don't be surprised if you get high teens mpg :-? :-? :y
-
I used to have a 1993 2.0 Carlton (Omega A) and I would say the consumption was just
as pisspoor the same as my current 2.6.
I used to get 33mpg at best on a run, low 20s around town driving carefully. There are only a couple of real differences I have noticed. The 2.0 returns best mileage at 60mph whereas the 2.6 is best at 70 to 80mph, which is useful on motorways. Also, you can push the mileage right down into the teens on the 2.6 by driving briskly whereas you can't drive the 2.0 briskly at all.
:D
-
+1 to whats said above..
omega is a heavy car and its weight and gear ratios mostly detemines fuel consumption..
imo go for a v6 manual..
-
2.0 manual will be the most economical (Edit: petrol) Omega, if driven with economy in mind. Not sure if there's any diff between saloon/estate, guess the estate is even heavier, so possibly worse, depending on how the aero differences work out.
It's still disappointing though. Mass of car is the problem. Engine size relatively irrelevant, except that the more powerful engines will tend to be used at higher powers, so worse on economy.
Autos worse than manuals.
-
You WILL be disappointed with a 2.0...
You'll soon love the Omega...but very soon after will wish you had a couple of more cylinders.
Stick with a V6
-
I don't & have never owned a 2000 litre, but don't fall into the trap of buying a smaller engined car for better fuel consumption. An Omega is a heavy car & a 2.0 will struggle compared with a V6.
My consumption varies between 21/22mpg around town to 32/33 on a run on the motorway, but if you drive them hard around town don't be surprised if you get high teens mpg :-? :-? :y
2000 Litre - you'll need to tow a tanker to feed a monster that size !!!!
-
It its all motorway, expect mid/high 30s MPG from a 2.0/2.2 manual. Expect almost similar from a 2.5 manual.
-
....
2000 Litre - you'll need to tow a tanker to feed a monster that size !!!!
Just testing to see if you were paying attention ;) ;) ;)
-
at petrol price £1.33.9 its £32 for 208miles on mine.
-
Go for 2,5/2,6 I would / will asap (mine 2.0 consumption is from 34mpg min to 15 max in town)
-
I have a 3.0 MV6 estate (auto)
Most of my driving is motorway and I get anywhere from 34 - 39 mpg and thats with a load onboard. Having said that, I dont ever put the pedal into the carpet whilst accelerating. I've always found the bigger engines give a better return in bigger cars, never had anything smaller than 2.5 L in an estate or saloon. my 2.8 beemer will return 40mpg on the motorway.
-
My old 2.5 manual estate used to get 28 mpg with aboot full of cable and tools round town :y
About 33 mpg on a run :y
The worst I got over a 7 mile run down a B road was 9.4 mpg ::) ;D ;D ;D
At the end of the day, the omega weighs close to 2 ton so a small engine is going to have to be worked pretty hard to move it along so go for a V6 ;)
All V6 manuals are within 2 or 3 mpg of each other :y
Auto's round town are down into the teens :(
-
Circumstances led to buying a 2.0L and so far i am happy, I must be lucky as I find it very quick off the mark and after my 3.0L Cosworth Scorpio it is nice not to have to watch the fuel gauge.
Each to their own, i am happy with mine. 8-)
-
Before my conversion to V6, I ran the 2.0 with auto for 3 months, and with the same speed, same car, in the twists and upphills in northern Norway, the V6 and manual, used 1.0 litres LESS then the 2,0 auto pr/100km. But in the city, it's very close between the 2,0 auto and the V6 manual. But it's more fun with the V6, even the 2,5/2,6 compared to the 2,0.
Enough said :y
-
2 litre is IMO the poor mans answer to owning a mig.
At almost 2 ton its asking a lot of a small engine so mpg will suffer badly, more so if there is a poor service history and the resulting wear. I have noticed that for some strange reason they seem to ask more for them on the supposition that a smaller engine will give better mpg...Only a novice would believe that one. A larger engine does the same work as the smaller one but without breaking a sweat or breath.
As always it comes down to how you drive them.
The only good point I can see is that you would gain from the extra working space under the bonnet cos I cannot get a hand down inside mine...and that is pretty poor reason :o
-
Sorry to hijack thread, but after reading this, should I be concerned that my 2.2 auto estate is only getting 25mpg on long runs? Where am I going wrong?
-
2 litre is IMO the poor mans answer to owning a mig.At almost 2 ton its asking a lot of a small engine so mpg will suffer badly, more so if there is a poor service history and the resulting wear. I have noticed that for some strange reason they seem to ask more for them on the supposition that a smaller engine will give better mpg...Only a novice would believe that one. A larger engine does the same work as the smaller one but without breaking a sweat or breath.
As always it comes down to how you drive them.
The only good point I can see is that you would gain from the extra working space under the bonnet cos I cannot get a hand down inside mine...and that is pretty poor reason :o
Maybe, but the OP possibly wouldn't be interested in mpg if cash were no problem? ::)
As for the 'bigger engine's don't have to break a sweat' argument, if you think about it for a while, and look up the consumption figures for any number of cars with all different engine sizes, you'll soon see a pattern emerge...
-
I've found that the most economical is my 3.0 manual
worst are jointly my 2.6 manual and my 3.0 auto
but to reinforce the capacity argument, my 5.7 manual is more economical than any of them.
-
When I first bought my V6, I only averaged 28mpg on a run, but as I got used to it (it was my first auto), I got in the habit of feathering the gas when I'd got up to cruising speed and now I always get over 30mpg on a run. Most recently, I went up to Carlisle and deliberately set out to do an 'economy' run and by keeping the revs to around 2,500 I gor 39mpg! I always keep the computer set on instant fuel consumption so that I can monitor the different figures depending on whether I'm cruising or giving it a bit of welly, which I tend to do when I'm joining a motorway for instance. I prefer getting up to cruising speed quickly rather than steady acceleration. :)
-
I've found that the most economical is my 3.0 manual
worst are jointly my 2.6 manual and my 3.0 auto
but to reinforce the capacity argument, my 5.7 manual is more economical than any of them.
it's the combination of auto and the lower final drive ratios that is the worst I think
-
Figures for the drive-by-wires here: http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168647356
4 pot petrol about 10% better combined than small V6, bigger V6 another couple of % worse.
Anyone got the numbers for the older engines?
-
In the 2.2 Auto - 38.4MPG a couple of weeks ago, over 44 miles, cruise at 75 for about 25 miles and then down to 50 for about 15 miles, through roadworks then 4 miles on b road to the caravan (Static) using the posh Total fuel, best I have ever had over this, regular, run.... :y
I commute into town on, mostly, b roads and tootle round the town for work.........I tend to average around 28 mpg each week...... :y
Don't be put of a 4 pot by the V6 lovers, still capable of a turn of speed and well able to cruise above the maximum legal speed limit..... :D :D
Swmbo drives the 2.0L Auto faster than I drive mine, she takes some keeping up with at times... ::) ::) ::)
-
Figures for the drive-by-wires here: http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168647356
4 pot petrol about 10% better combined than small V6, bigger V6 another couple of % worse.
Anyone got the numbers for the older engines?
although its not a measure, most people use their cars in rush hours, which means crowded start stop traffic.. and averages different than those numbers..
for example my averages (I have no doubt) are at least %20-25 more than someone living in a smaller city.. :-/
especially when the schools are open and autumn comes traffic jams start and I spend nearly an hour to reach home 15 kms far.. >:(
-
so if you drive generally in traffic jams, you wont see big difference imo.. as most of the fuel will be spend waiting and idling..
but if fuel cost is primary concern, even a 2.0 omega will look like a monster compared to those 1.2, 1.4 engined small hatches..
my experience is that omega normally spends 10-12 litre/100 km with my driving style (I drive like I'm escaping from disaster) (unless its minus and snow is on the road) where as my clit 1.6 spends 7 - 7.5 .. but when traffic jams become frequent clit tends to catch miggy ;D
-
Also bear in mind insurance costs, I suspect v6 variants may be a higher group?