Print

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

[Hudson]

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.

[2boxerdogs]

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.

[steve6367]

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

[Hudson]

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.

[05omegav6]

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

[tunnie]

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. 

[Hudson]

Auto good.... manual bad 

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.

[Kevin Wood]

Then get a V6. The auto box kills what performance a 2.2 has - and its' economy, most likely.

[05omegav6]

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...

[terry paget]

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.

[amazonian]

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.

  

[Kevin Wood]

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.

[Hudson]

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

[05omegav6]

Big car, small engine not a good mix, especially with a slushbox

[TheBoy]

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.