Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[atann]

From what I've read, the 2.6 was a big improvement on the 2.5? Almost on par with the mk1 omega 3.0?

I'd say there was no significant difference between a 2.6 and 2.5. Except that the 2.6 seems to have the most trouble of the lot of them - MAF sensors failing, valve stem seals, etc.

That bodes well then😋

I'd say the 2.6 was huge step back, in fuel consumption terms it's far, far worse than 2.5 for near identical power. As mentioned valve stem seals, GM were penny pinching at the time.

2.5 V6 manual, was probably best combination for the Omega.

How much worse? I'm getting 18mpg urban and 35mpg on a run at 70mph.

[Doctor Gollum]

From what I've read, the 2.6 was a big improvement on the 2.5? Almost on par with the mk1 omega 3.0?

I'd say there was no significant difference between a 2.6 and 2.5. Except that the 2.6 seems to have the most trouble of the lot of them - MAF sensors failing, valve stem seals, etc.

That bodes well then😋

I'd say the 2.6 was huge step back, in fuel consumption terms it's far, far worse than 2.5 for near identical power. As mentioned valve stem seals, GM were penny pinching at the time.

2.5 V6 manual, was probably best combination for the Omega.

What 2.6 have you ever owned/driven?

Or 2.5 for that matter

[biggriffin]

What 2.6 have you ever owned/driven?
[/quote]
Or 2.5 for that matter
[/quote]

I once owned a 2.5, mfl in gay gold for 20 minutes, then put a 3.0L in much better car then