Print

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

[plym ian]

I get 30-32 on a run and as low as 18 round town but I do drive it hard round town.

did have hg go but really easy to fix as is most things on 2.0 engine. will say look for oil in plug wells as mine has only cause I can't be bothered to change cam gasket

[jonnyboyws6]

Is that manual or auto? Thought I was heavy footed but that's as low as my 3 litre auto estate!!

Also, I found the earlier cars to be very slightly more economical than the face lift.

[TheBoy]

Is that manual or auto? Thought I was heavy footed but that's as low as my 3 litre auto estate!!

Also, I found the earlier cars to be very slightly more economical than the face lift.

Clearly not trying hard enough - a 3.0l auto is not hard to get under 10mpg over 3 or 4 gallons

I agree that the 2.6/3.2 do seem less frugal than the 2.5/3.0

[omega3000]

I have a 98' 2.0 ltr auto with 198.000 mls on the clock, can confirm that 25-30mpg is a ballpark figure,so I would agree that a manual is the way to go

Does it use any oil at that mileage ?

[plym ian]

Is that manual or auto? Thought I was heavy footed but that's as low as my 3 litre auto estate!!

Also, I found the earlier cars to be very slightly more economical than the face lift.

manual but if I'm careful I get about 22-24

[duggs]

I'm puzzled !  Why in blue blazes would anyone want a 2.0 engine in an Omega ?  That's like going to battle in a tank with a lawnmower engine for power !       

Seems it's certainly not to save fuel..well barely !

[tunnie]

I'm puzzled !  Why in blue blazes would anyone want a 2.0 engine in an Omega ?  That's like going to battle in a tank with a lawnmower engine for power !       

Seems it's certainly not to save fuel..well barely !

Simple, having both 3.2 & 2.2, I generally find the V6's a bit crap.

They are not that fast, rubbish on fuel & pig to work on. Cam cover, thermostat, plugs, oil changes everything is just so much easier on the 2.2.

Sits at motorway speeds just as easily, cheaper to insure and in my experience a quieter engine from inside the cabin.

[the alarming man]

2.2 easier to work on and i would say yes a little quiter...but i would say a 2.5/2.6 would be a little better on fuel as the omega is a big car for a 2.0/2.2 to lug around

[omega3000]

2.2 easier to work on and i would say yes a little quiter...but i would say a 2.5/2.6 would be a little better on fuel as the omega is a big car for a 2.0/2.2 to lug around

I thought it would be noisier , mind you the V6 does burble a bit but it never goes over 60 much 

[ted_one]

I've never had a problem with my 2.0ltr keeping up on the motorway,had it for twelve years and it can still pull over the ton without missing a beat, and out of the three Omegas that I have it's the only car I've been done for speeding in....rightly so some of you will say I'm sure

[tigers_gonads]

2.2 easier to work on and i would say yes a little quiter...but i would say a 2.5/2.6 would be a little better on fuel as the omega is a big car for a 2.0/2.2 to lug around

Forget the 2.6
Iirc, they have a lower ratio diff then the 2.5 and use alot more fuel.
My 2.5 manual left the factory with the 3.7 diff.
Imo, a well serviced 2.5 with the optional driver involvment pack will give you the best blend of grunt and fuel economy 

[omega3000]

2.2 easier to work on and i would say yes a little quiter...but i would say a 2.5/2.6 would be a little better on fuel as the omega is a big car for a 2.0/2.2 to lug around

Forget the 2.6
Iirc, they have a lower ratio diff then the 2.5 and use alot more fuel.
My 2.5 manual left the factory with the 3.7 diff.
Imo, a well serviced 2.5 with the optional driver involvment pack will give you the best blend of grunt and fuel economy 

 

[tigers_gonads]

2.2 easier to work on and i would say yes a little quiter...but i would say a 2.5/2.6 would be a little better on fuel as the omega is a big car for a 2.0/2.2 to lug around

Forget the 2.6
Iirc, they have a lower ratio diff then the 2.5 and use alot more fuel.
My 2.5 manual left the factory with the 3.7 diff.
Imo, a well serviced 2.5 with the optional driver involvment pack will give you the best blend of grunt and fuel economy 

 

So was I 

The car now has a 3 ltr lump under the bonnet but with the added extra's i've stuck on it and the lpg kit, its never been really quick off the line BUT its pretty good on fuel / lpg when on a run 

[plym ian]

my 2.0 can beat most of the line at the lights just ask the muppet in the corsa I saw the other day

and it's great on the motorway sit at 90 all day long

[Vamps]

I'm puzzled !  Why in blue blazes would anyone want a 2.0 engine in an Omega ?  That's like going to battle in a tank with a lawnmower engine for power !       

Seems it's certainly not to save fuel..well barely !

Simple, having both 3.2 & 2.2, I generally find the V6's a bit crap.

They are not that fast, rubbish on fuel & pig to work on. Cam cover, thermostat, plugs, oil changes everything is just so much easier on the 2.2.

Sits at motorway speeds just as easily, cheaper to insure and in my experience a quieter engine from inside the cabin.

I hate to have to agree with him, but I do, nothing wrong with a 4 pot for day to day use and still quite capable.....Remember it is around 144 BHP iirc, a 2.9 XR4  remember them, super car's of the 90's is about 110BHP tis all relative, what we thought was fast in our younger days is surpassed by any average everyday car today.....