Print

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

[Doctor Gollum]

Would bring it over on Sunday, but it's the trolley what needs fettling

[X30XE]

If you had the 2.6, would you notice much difference with the 3.2?

It's a big difference, even if you put G cams in a 2.6 it's still a long way off the performance of a 3.2.

My 525 actually feels as fast as the 3.2 auto estate... And it's only got 192 horses...

That's quite possibly because the gearbox in the BM does something very novel for an autobox, in as much as it actually transmits power from the engine to the drive wheels rather than just heating up fluid ineffectively in the AR35 

[atann]

Depends what you want... as far as I'm aware there was no specification difference between a 2.6 and a 3.2 Elite etc. If you get a TD, then you lose traction control, but that's it

As I say, what's your criteria? If you want a nice, smooth, V6 engine up front which makes a nice engine note, and a very nice engine note close to the redline, then it doesn't matter 2.6 or 3.0. They will do this the same. A 3.0 with clogged breathers/badly plumbed in vac tubes will produce the same power as a well-serviced 2.5.

However, if your criteria is the above, plus bragging rights and be faster than everyone else in the car park, then.... pick another car other than an Omega! 1.6 ton car with 25 year old engine isn't going to cut it. As has been said in other threads, even a well sorted Omega isn't what you call 'fast' today. Exhibit A...Girl at work is getting her new A1, it's the S1 - 236bhp, 0-60 5.8...that's Lotus Carlton territory...in a ruddy Audi A1!!! And she'll do mpg any Omega can only dream of.

I don't feel in any way short changed because there's other Omegas out there with more displacement, of course there's 'bigger fish' ... and there's far, far bigger fish than even an Omega 3.2 MV6 manual. If you own a 1994 2.0 8v GLS, or a 3.2 Elite manual with brand new LSD, so long as you like what you have that's what matters. I'm not knocking the 3.2 owners here, I'm simply saying it depends what you want from your car and why, that's all. 

Certainly not for bragging rights, I'm 36. I was just interested in the difference between the two. Having owned a 3.0 16v Carlton and a 3.0 24v Senator in the past. But then had 4.0 Jags and a 4.0 v8 Lexus LS400, followed by a CDTI Rover 75, so it is difficult to remember the difference in speed between them all

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

In relation to this thread, is the much real world difference between the auto 2.6 and auto 3.2 in terms of fuel economy and power delivery? As there seems to be no 3.2's for sale anywhere. Were they less reliable?

I had a 2.5 v6 for several years and recently changed to a 3.2 elite. The difference between the two is pretty significant. After coming from a 24v Senator to a 2.5 v6, I have always believed the smaller v6,s to be an underpowered engine for the weight of the car.
The 3.0/ 3.2 versions are much better, and roughly on a par with the 24v straight six.
I still think the Senator and its engine were better than any Omega though. 

[atann]

In relation to this thread, is the much real world difference between the auto 2.6 and auto 3.2 in terms of fuel economy and power delivery? As there seems to be no 3.2's for sale anywhere. Were they less reliable?

I had a 2.5 v6 for several years and recently changed to a 3.2 elite. The difference between the two is pretty significant. After coming from a 24v Senator to a 2.5 v6, I have always believed the smaller v6,s to be an underpowered engine for the weight of the car.
The 3.0/ 3.2 versions are much better, and roughly on a par with the 24v straight six.
I still think the Senator and its engine were better than any Omega though. 

Agreed on the Senator engine, one of the best ever. To be honest, I only paid £400 for the car and most of my driving is urban, so I'll live with it. Not planning to keep it more than a year. Looking for a suitable Jaguar S-Type 3.0 six speed auto in the future.

[atann]

In relation to this thread, is the much real world difference between the auto 2.6 and auto 3.2 in terms of fuel economy and power delivery? As there seems to be no 3.2's for sale anywhere. Were they less reliable?

I had a 2.5 v6 for several years and recently changed to a 3.2 elite. The difference between the two is pretty significant. After coming from a 24v Senator to a 2.5 v6, I have always believed the smaller v6,s to be an underpowered engine for the weight of the car.
The 3.0/ 3.2 versions are much better, and roughly on a par with the 24v straight six.
I still think the Senator and its engine were better than any Omega though. 

From what I've read, the 2.6 was a big improvement on the 2.5? Almost on par with the mk1 omega 3.0?

[atann]

What about putting 3.2 cams into the 2.6 for improvement performance from what I've read. I don't know much about engines, what does that involve?

[biggriffin]

What about putting 3.2 cams into the 2.6 for improvement performance from what I've read. I don't know much about engines, what does that involve?

Recommend mod just fit the G-cams.,to inlets.

[Nick W]

What about putting 3.2 cams into the 2.6 for improvement performance from what I've read. I don't know much about engines, what does that involve?

It's quite involved, and requires access to a 3.2 for the bits to create a bastard combination that is a bit better than a 2.6, but not as good as a 3.2

[Kevin Wood]

From what I've read, the 2.6 was a big improvement on the 2.5? Almost on par with the mk1 omega 3.0?

I'd say there was no significant difference between a 2.6 and 2.5. Except that the 2.6 seems to have the most trouble of the lot of them - MAF sensors failing, valve stem seals, etc.

[Rioja2.5V6]

My 2.5 manual does feel more responsive on super unleaded but as for mpg then I really do not bother. It is a weekend car and fuel economy is not the number one reason for driving it.

[atann]

From what I've read, the 2.6 was a big improvement on the 2.5? Almost on par with the mk1 omega 3.0?

I'd say there was no significant difference between a 2.6 and 2.5. Except that the 2.6 seems to have the most trouble of the lot of them - MAF sensors failing, valve stem seals, etc.

That bodes well then😋

[tunnie]

From what I've read, the 2.6 was a big improvement on the 2.5? Almost on par with the mk1 omega 3.0?

I'd say there was no significant difference between a 2.6 and 2.5. Except that the 2.6 seems to have the most trouble of the lot of them - MAF sensors failing, valve stem seals, etc.

That bodes well then😋

I'd say the 2.6 was huge step back, in fuel consumption terms it's far, far worse than 2.5 for near identical power. As mentioned valve stem seals, GM were penny pinching at the time.

2.5 V6 manual, was probably best combination for the Omega.

[Kevin Wood]

From what I've read, the 2.6 was a big improvement on the 2.5? Almost on par with the mk1 omega 3.0?

I'd say there was no significant difference between a 2.6 and 2.5. Except that the 2.6 seems to have the most trouble of the lot of them - MAF sensors failing, valve stem seals, etc.

That bodes well then😋

It depends on the date of manufacture, really. Around 2001, I believe, there was a batch of dodgy valve stem seals that were used on the 2.6 engine and they didn't seem to find their way onto the 3.2s of that period. Most engines with these may well have done enough miles to have exhibited the problem and been fixed by now. Haven't seen one on here for a few years.

The MAF sensor is identical to that used on the 3.2, but something about the way the 2.6 is mapped makes it much more sensitive to ageing of the sensor, meaning we see more problems on the 2.6.

In all other respects, it's an identical engine, save for different bore and stroke, and sodium filled exhaust valves on the 3.2.

[Doctor Gollum]

From what I've read, the 2.6 was a big improvement on the 2.5? Almost on par with the mk1 omega 3.0?

I'd say there was no significant difference between a 2.6 and 2.5. Except that the 2.6 seems to have the most trouble of the lot of them - MAF sensors failing, valve stem seals, etc.

That bodes well then😋

I'd say the 2.6 was huge step back, in fuel consumption terms it's far, far worse than 2.5 for near identical power. As mentioned valve stem seals, GM were penny pinching at the time.

2.5 V6 manual, was probably best combination for the Omega.

What 2.6 have you ever owned/driven?