Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please check the Forum Guidelines at the top of the Newbie section

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?  (Read 4081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

psychnurse

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Leominster, Herefordshire
  • Posts: 2047
  • Whats in the fridge today? Beer and Sausages....UM
    • View Profile
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #15 on: 15 June 2008, 14:12:16 »
couldnt agree more mate  :y :y 20 quid a week savings noticed  :y :y :y which is very welcomed  8-) and such a better drive too, what more could a man ask for  :y
Logged

FRE07962128

  • Guest
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #16 on: 15 June 2008, 15:58:20 »
Quote
2.0 is more economical around town, but 2.5/3.0 on a run will do about 33 ish which is all the 2.0 will give back too.


I agree Dazzler :y I have just completed a round 250 mile trip to Thatcham (Berkshire) and back to Ashford (Kent) using the M20, M26, M25, M4 and A4.  Often travelling at 90-100, and on one long (emptyish) stretch of M20 at 130 mph. I averaged 65 mph for the total journey, and my 2.5 V6 was 'well used' but still returned 32mpg overall.  

I certainly would always go for either a 2.5/6 or 3.0/2 out of choice.  It is affordable  (my 1.6GL Toyota Estate was averaging 25 mpg when on a similar (maximum 120 mph) run. :y
« Last Edit: 15 June 2008, 15:59:51 by FRE07962128 »
Logged

psychnurse

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Leominster, Herefordshire
  • Posts: 2047
  • Whats in the fridge today? Beer and Sausages....UM
    • View Profile
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #17 on: 15 June 2008, 16:01:42 »
You speed deamon Lizzie!! A woman after my own heart! So paranoid about getting caught, but the car just asks to be driven  :y
Logged

FRE07962128

  • Guest
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #18 on: 15 June 2008, 16:13:43 »
Quote
You speed deamon Lizzie!! A woman after my own heart! So paranoid about getting caught, but the car just asks to be driven  :y

I know, that is my problem....always has been! :P :P  Should not really do it but I just love SPEED, and like today I put cruise on for 80 mph, but kept on having idiots just sit in the outside/middle lanes doing 65, and so I get impatient and just put my foot down. I leave them in the dust, and then cannot stop, even using 'sport' mode to full advantage. :) :)  Before I know it I am pushing 130 and don't want to stop excellarating ;D :y, but the fear of being caught (never had a ticket in 37 years, and 1 million miles motoring) is just too great :'(.  I then, sadly have to ease back to 90-100 mph and I 'am walking'! :'( :'(
Logged

psychnurse

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Leominster, Herefordshire
  • Posts: 2047
  • Whats in the fridge today? Beer and Sausages....UM
    • View Profile
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #19 on: 15 June 2008, 16:21:22 »
 :) :) :) :) Something in the mig that just turns ordinary folk into speed animals!!! Gotta just love it  :y :y

Every time I put my foot down on the a49 bypass by us (100-1**) i see a police car coming towards me! Does nothing for my already present paranioa I can tell you!  ;) ;) ;)
Logged

Martin_1962

  • Guest
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #20 on: 15 June 2008, 19:55:45 »
I get low 20s even when driving carefully - very odd
Logged

Vamps

  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Bishop Middleham, Co Durham.
  • Posts: 24708
  • Flying Tonight, so Be Prepared.
    • Mig 2.6CDX and 2.2 Honda
    • View Profile
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #21 on: 15 June 2008, 21:54:37 »
When the last fuel crisis was on, 2001 iirc, I could get near 40mpg out of a 2.0L manual estate, driving very carefully and max 55mph, normally only got mid 20's. It certainly showed how carefull driving can make a big difference. :)
Logged

cem_devecioglu

  • Guest
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #22 on: 15 June 2008, 22:32:33 »
Careful driving really matters.. if you drive in sports style

everywhere consumption can increase up to % 30-40

last year after the vacation tried to follow a new M3  for half an hour ;D

on the highway with flying speeds ,average consumption was nearly 20 liters /100 km  :o ( %300 increase)
« Last Edit: 15 June 2008, 22:36:23 by cem_devecioglu »
Logged

Kevin Wood

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Alton, Hampshire
  • Posts: 36420
    • Jaguar XE 25t, Westfield
    • View Profile
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #23 on: 15 June 2008, 23:03:02 »
Quote
Having said that, I've only ever had auto's and I now have a manual, I'll be interested to see if that's any better..

I reckon an auto could lose you more economy with a smaller engine. It spends more of its' time heavily loaded and on the torque converter where a bigger engine will remain locked up and have enough grunt to pull you along. That's my theory anyway. Be interesting to see what you find.

Kevin
Logged
Tech2 services currently available. See TheBoy's price list: http://theboy.omegaowners.com/

Mr Skrunts

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Skruntie Land.
  • Posts: 25686
  • 3.O Elite Saloon with all the toys,
    • 2003 CD 2.2 Auto
    • View Profile
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #24 on: 15 June 2008, 23:08:09 »
Quote
Quote
2.0 is more economical around town, but 2.5/3.0 on a run will do about 33 ish which is all the 2.0 will give back too.


I agree Dazzler :y I have just completed a round 250 mile trip to Thatcham (Berkshire) and back to Ashford (Kent) using the M20, M26, M25, M4 and A4.  Often travelling at 90-100, and on one long (emptyish) stretch of M20 at 130 mph. I averaged 65 mph for the total journey, and my 2.5 V6 was 'well used' but still returned 32mpg overall.  

I certainly would always go for either a 2.5/6 or 3.0/2 out of choice.  It is affordable  (my 1.6GL Toyota Estate was averaging 25 mpg when on a similar (maximum 120 mph) run. :y

Lizzie ZooooooooooooM, you naughty girl  ;D ;D ;D    
« Last Edit: 15 June 2008, 23:11:53 by skruntie »
Logged
Ask yourself :  " WHY do I believe in what I believe?"

Remember that my opinions expressed here are not representative of the opinions of other members on the OOF Forum.

Vamps

  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Bishop Middleham, Co Durham.
  • Posts: 24708
  • Flying Tonight, so Be Prepared.
    • Mig 2.6CDX and 2.2 Honda
    • View Profile
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #25 on: 15 June 2008, 23:11:42 »
Quote
Quote
Quote
2.0 is more economical around town, but 2.5/3.0 on a run will do about 33 ish which is all the 2.0 will give back too.


I agree Dazzler :y I have just completed a round 250 mile trip to Thatcham (Berkshire) and back to Ashford (Kent) using the M20, M26, M25, M4 and A4.  Often travelling at 90-100, and on one long (emptyish) stretch of M20 at 130 mph. I averaged 65 mph for the total journey, and my 2.5 V6 was 'well used' but still returned 32mpg overall.  

I certainly would always go for either a 2.5/6 or 3.0/2 out of choice.  It is affordable  (my 1.6GL Toyota Estate was averaging 25 mpg when on a similar (maximum 120 mph) run. :y

Lizzie ZooooooooooooM, you naughty girl  ;D ;D ;D

Seems there is another side to her................. :-X
Logged

LJay

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • North Wales
  • Posts: 3203
  • The Acrobatics Queen!
    • 3.2 - MV6 Big Blue!
    • View Profile
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #26 on: 16 June 2008, 00:37:45 »
my 3.0 MV6 manual is more economical than Jimbobs 3.0 auto and they are both considerably more economical than my 2.2 auto!
was definately worth the change!
Logged
Been there, fallen over it!

Mr Skrunts

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Skruntie Land.
  • Posts: 25686
  • 3.O Elite Saloon with all the toys,
    • 2003 CD 2.2 Auto
    • View Profile
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #27 on: 16 June 2008, 13:54:43 »
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
2.0 is more economical around town, but 2.5/3.0 on a run will do about 33 ish which is all the 2.0 will give back too.


I agree Dazzler :y I have just completed a round 250 mile trip to Thatcham (Berkshire) and back to Ashford (Kent) using the M20, M26, M25, M4 and A4.  Often travelling at 90-100, and on one long (emptyish) stretch of M20 at 130 mph. I averaged 65 mph for the total journey, and my 2.5 V6 was 'well used' but still returned 32mpg overall.  

I certainly would always go for either a 2.5/6 or 3.0/2 out of choice.  It is affordable  (my 1.6GL Toyota Estate was averaging 25 mpg when on a similar (maximum 120 mph) run. :y

Lizzie ZooooooooooooM, you naughty girl  ;D ;D ;D

Seems there is another side to her................. :-X


Too right matey, the rumours are true.   ;D ;D ;D
Logged
Ask yourself :  " WHY do I believe in what I believe?"

Remember that my opinions expressed here are not representative of the opinions of other members on the OOF Forum.

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 107073
  • I Like Lockdown
    • Whatever Starts
    • View Profile
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #28 on: 16 June 2008, 14:04:41 »
Quote
Quote
Having said that, I've only ever had auto's and I now have a manual, I'll be interested to see if that's any better..

I reckon an auto could lose you more economy with a smaller engine. It spends more of its' time heavily loaded and on the torque converter where a bigger engine will remain locked up and have enough grunt to pull you along. That's my theory anyway. Be interesting to see what you find.

Kevin
Until you get lockup, autos are always at a disadvantage, and the longer gears add to that.  If an engine is underpowered, you're also (relatively) thrashing the nuts off it all the time...
Logged
Grumpy old man

cem_devecioglu

  • Guest
Re: Is a 2.5 more economical than a 2.0?
« Reply #29 on: 16 June 2008, 14:16:52 »
Quote
Quote
Quote
Having said that, I've only ever had auto's and I now have a manual, I'll be interested to see if that's any better..

I reckon an auto could lose you more economy with a smaller engine. It spends more of its' time heavily loaded and on the torque converter where a bigger engine will remain locked up and have enough grunt to pull you along. That's my theory anyway. Be interesting to see what you find.

Kevin
Until you get lockup, autos are always at a disadvantage, and the longer gears add to that.  If an engine is underpowered, you're also (relatively) thrashing the nuts off it all the time...

Agreed ...small engines for heavy cars must work harder (higher rpms) to produce the same power and loose more energy by the total friction they face..
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Page created in 0.013 seconds with 17 queries.