Print

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

[laney101]

Currently got a 2.6 manual low milage elite cracking car with g cams on inlet...

Dads got a 3.2 mv6 auto...  On paper the 2.6 manual is not far behind a 3.2 auto however my dads car just goes so much better and done much higher milage...

Reasoon im posting this is i have a chance to fit a 3.2 engine into mine to make a 3.2 manual omega..

In real world not on paper is this actually going to be quicker than a 3.2 auto as auto in first gear is very long over 50mph a manual sod all so your changing gear more plus got to get it of line auto is plant and go ..

What do people feel would actually be quicker

[biggriffin]

Mmmm. Bigger engine, will it go faster? That's a difficult answer.

It will accelerate faster.

[joshwyatt]

I've owned a 2.6 manual, 3.2 auto and a 3.2 factory manual. The 2.6 and 3.2 manual do feel very different. I guess in reality, there's not much between the 2.6 manual and 3.2 auto, but the 3.2 manual does feel far quicker. It also pulls better at higher speeds above 60.

[Kevin Wood]

3.2 manual is lower geared than the auto, so you're not really comparing like with like.

In theory, the auto would probably lose you a bit of performance, but the ratios on the Omega manual boxes are rubbish, IMHO, especially 1st gear, which could do with being a lot taller.

If you don't change the diff on a 2.6 when converting to 3.2, it will be lower geared still.

Driver makes a big difference on a manual, of course. less so an auto.

But.. there is a big difference between the two engines, in my view. More than the difference in capacity might suggest.

[VXL V6]

Can only really comment on Auto's as the only manuals I have had were 2.2 DTi's.

A 2.6 with G cams, AR35 and standard diff (4.22:1) is nowhere even close to a 3.2 with AR35 and standard diff (3.90:1) at any point at all! As Kevin mentions, the 600CC difference between a 2.6 and a 3.2 is far greater in both performance and flexibility than you would ever think!

[Omena]

90% of manual cars doesnt win their automatic cousins.  Me and my friends had measured accelerations with gps.  Manual feels quicker but clutch, sifting etc take time. Even 0.5 seconds miss couple times is big in total time.

Pretty good overall is 1-2s more than factory promises in manual.  Depends clutch / manual harshness too.


Automatic wont do mistakes and you can just press more gas...

[Andy B]

2 pedals good ....... 3 pedals bad   

[Mr Gav]

3 pedals good ....... 2 pedals lazy   

Fixed that for you Andy 

[Andy B]

3 pedals good ....... 2 pedals lazy   

Fixed that for you Andy 

 

[YZ250]

Can only really comment on Auto's as the only manuals I have had were 2.2 DTi's.

A 2.6 with G cams, AR35 and standard diff (4.22:1) is nowhere even close to a 3.2 with AR35 and standard diff (3.90:1) at any point at all! As Kevin mentions, the 600CC difference between a 2.6 and a 3.2 is far greater in both performance and flexibility than you would ever think!

Agreed. 

If the 2.5 auto is similar to the 2.6 auto then the 2.6 is leagues apart from a 3.2. 
Where it was massively, and I mean massively, apparent to me was when I was towing our caravan. Going up long steep hills used to drag the 2.5 back, whereas the same hill with the 3.2 was a breeze.
Having owned both a 2.5 auto and a 3.2 auto I have first hand knowledge that they are worlds apart in pulling power. 

[EMD]

But then how often does the 3.2 have to stop to get more
fuel    

[05omegav6]

But then how often does the 3.2 have to stop to get more
fuel    

Every 65-70 litres, same as any other Omega

Joking aside, the 2.6 auto was a pleasant surprise... having not driven a 2.6 before, I figured it would be like a slightly quicker and torquier 2.2

In fact, it's much better than that... and drives (and goes) like a detuned 3.2... smooth and effortless

Might have summat to do with only having done 83k, and the different diff ratio, but even so...

As for manual auto argument, if you spend your time blasting through the twisties, then fit the manual box, but if your journeys allow for higher average speeds, then get the auto... nothing between them at cruising speed

[terry paget]

I have always believed that fluid flywheel traditional automatic gearboxes, like fitted to Omegas, absorbed 20% more power than manual boxes, making performance and economy inferior  Further, automatics are more troublesome and less reliable than manuals. This thread contradicts this belief. Am I labouring under a delusion?

[Entwood]

Fluid flywheel does absorb energy .... but only when its working and "slipping" once it "locks up" it becomes as efficient as a standard gearbox. "Lock-up" on my omega is around 45 mph under "light footed" driving conditions ... if you concentrate it almost feels like an extra gear change.

As to more trouble ...  mines done 155,000 and so far no problems.... there are many other AR35s out there with the same or more miles  and its never had (and never will need) a clutch change, a master cylinder change, a slave cylinder change etc etc etc   

[Steve B]

Fluid flywheel does absorb energy .... but only when its working and "slipping" once it "locks up" it becomes as efficient as a standard gearbox. "Lock-up" on my omega is around 45 mph under "light footed" driving conditions ... if you concentrate it almost feels like an extra gear change.

As to more trouble ...  mines done 155,000 and so far no problems.... there are many other AR35s out there with the same or more miles  and its never had (and never will need) a clutch change, a master cylinder change, a slave cylinder change etc etc etc   

mine does the same at 45mph light footed...i used to think that was the box going into top gear