Print

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

[Viral_Jim]

Given that another new car in the 944 household seems unlikely, I was wondering about the merits of "upgrading" to a v6. I use the quotes as I genuinely don't know what the merits of the 2 are or if it is, in fact, an upgrade. I'm guessing:

 - V6 will have more torque and work better with the auto box
 - 2.2 will give better fuel consumption (although by how much I don't know).
 - V6 will sound better
 - V6 is a bit faster on paper (10s 0-60 vs 11s), but I'm guessing quite a lot faster in the real world.

No idea which will be more reliable but I've not seen many issues with my 2.2 over the 20k ive had it. Theres a (rare silver) one on autotrader but the main reason I'm interested is its got leather interior - shallow I know but there we are 

[TheBoy]

You'll notice it more in that 30mph+ acceleration, where the extra power really shows.  And at motorway speeds, the 3.0/3.2 are a league above the 2.5/2.6.

Economy wise, very often the 2.2 and 2.5 are surprisingly similar, if using same gearbox.

The 2.6 and 3.2 are noticibly less economical and slightly less powerful in the real world than their 2.5/3.0 equivalent.

The 2.2 is easier to service, and is generally robust. HG tends to fail at around 150k, other than that not much else happens (cam sensors fail, but you should be able to get home). With poor oil servicing, pot 1 wears.

V6 is virtually indestructible short of cambelt failure. Cam cover gaskets expensive. Oil filter in an inconvenient place. Can look daunting to work on as it does fill the engine bay. Crank sensor failure will cause a tow home.

[TheBoy]

Spoke too soon. 2.2's are robust and usually always get you home, unless your name is tunnie 

[Steve B]

You'll notice it more in that 30mph+ acceleration, where the extra power really shows.  And at motorway speeds, the 3.0/3.2 are a league above the 2.5/2.6.

Economy wise, very often the 2.2 and 2.5 are surprisingly similar, if using same gearbox.

The 2.6 and 3.2 are noticibly less economical and slightly less powerful in the real world than their 2.5/3.0 equivalent.

The 2.2 is easier to service, and is generally robust. HG tends to fail at around 150k, other than that not much else happens (cam sensors fail, but you should be able to get home). With poor oil servicing, pot 1 wears.

V6 is virtually indestructible short of cambelt failure. Cam cover gaskets expensive. Oil filter in an inconvenient place. Can look daunting to work on as it does fill the engine bay. Crank sensor failure will cause a tow home.

More like anytime after  80K

[TheBoy]

You'll notice it more in that 30mph+ acceleration, where the extra power really shows.  And at motorway speeds, the 3.0/3.2 are a league above the 2.5/2.6.

Economy wise, very often the 2.2 and 2.5 are surprisingly similar, if using same gearbox.

The 2.6 and 3.2 are noticibly less economical and slightly less powerful in the real world than their 2.5/3.0 equivalent.

The 2.2 is easier to service, and is generally robust. HG tends to fail at around 150k, other than that not much else happens (cam sensors fail, but you should be able to get home). With poor oil servicing, pot 1 wears.

V6 is virtually indestructible short of cambelt failure. Cam cover gaskets expensive. Oil filter in an inconvenient place. Can look daunting to work on as it does fill the engine bay. Crank sensor failure will cause a tow home.

More like anytime after  80K

I think that low would be considered unlucky.  In the same way having a V6 eat a HG is lucky. Shame my 3.0 has done it twice

[Steve B]

You'll notice it more in that 30mph+ acceleration, where the extra power really shows.  And at motorway speeds, the 3.0/3.2 are a league above the 2.5/2.6.

Economy wise, very often the 2.2 and 2.5 are surprisingly similar, if using same gearbox.

The 2.6 and 3.2 are noticibly less economical and slightly less powerful in the real world than their 2.5/3.0 equivalent.

The 2.2 is easier to service, and is generally robust. HG tends to fail at around 150k, other than that not much else happens (cam sensors fail, but you should be able to get home). With poor oil servicing, pot 1 wears.

V6 is virtually indestructible short of cambelt failure. Cam cover gaskets expensive. Oil filter in an inconvenient place. Can look daunting to work on as it does fill the engine bay. Crank sensor failure will cause a tow home.

More like anytime after  80K

I think that low would be considered unlucky.  In the same way having a V6 eat a HG is lucky. Shame my 3.0 has done it twice

The 3.2 Dont 

[Viral_Jim]

Cheers chaps, useful info.

TB: what's the crack with 2.6/3.2 being down on power/economy, I thought they came after the 2.5/3.0? Ok so I know larger capacity = less mpg, but why the power? i wasn't aware of HG failure. I'll do this as a preventative next time I do the cam belt - assuming I keep the car.

[tunnie]

Don't bother with 2.6, if you are going to deal with the V6 issues of DIY work and crappy fuel use. Might as well get all the horses with a 3.2

[Viral_Jim]

I do see your point. It's so nice opening a bonnet and thinking "oh yeah that seems logical" rather crank sensor notwithstanding!

My previous cars included a transverse v6 4x4 saloon. I can do without that carp again. 

[terry paget]

I prefer V6s. They always romp through MOT emission tests, whereas in line 4-pots struggle, with only the one cat, and with the flexi in it by the time I get them the cat is an aftermarket affair. They both suffer crank sensor failures, but the V6 is easy to change while the 4-pot is difficult. V6 has servotronic steering, 4-pot does not.

[05omegav6]

Don't bother with 2.6, if you are going to deal with the V6 issues of DIY work and crappy fuel use. Might as well get all the horses with a 3.2

Not a fair assessment imho... 2.6 has a useful increase in torque over the four pots, if absolute speed/power is not a priority, the 2.6 makes for a damn good cruiser

[zirk]

Although Im a 3.2 fan, if I was to do it all over again, it would be a 3.0 Manual, quickest off the mark, around 7.5 seconds and probably the best on economy of all the V6"s, plus reletivley easier to mod and chip for a tad more power and better mpg.

3.2 only ever came with Auto box, unless ex Police, and the later 2.6, 3.2's had additional Euro tree hugging mods done which made the economy worse.

[05omegav6]

Although Im a 3.2 fan, if I was to do it all over again, it would be a 3.0 Manual, quickest off the mark, around 7.5 seconds and probably the best on economy of all the V6"s, plus reletivley easier to mod and chip for a tad more power and better mpg.

3.2 only ever came with Auto box, unless ex Police, and the later 2.6, 3.2's had additional Euro tree hugging mods done which made the economy worse.

2.6 does at least have a manual option...

[zirk]

Although Im a 3.2 fan, if I was to do it all over again, it would be a 3.0 Manual, quickest off the mark, around 7.5 seconds and probably the best on economy of all the V6"s, plus reletivley easier to mod and chip for a tad more power and better mpg.

3.2 only ever came with Auto box, unless ex Police, and the later 2.6, 3.2's had additional Euro tree hugging mods done which made the economy worse.

2.6 does at least have a manual option...

Yea, this true, but most are Auto,s, especially after2002 for some unknown reason.

[Viral_Jim]

I think in a mig it would always be an auto. TBH the only car I'd go with in a manual given my current situation is a 9-5 aero. And then only for the point & click overtaking ability.

I think for my day to day needs, the 2.2 has power enough. I'm more thinking about whether the overall experience would be better in a v6.