Print

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

[JamesV6CDX]

When I got my first Omega (a 1994 2.5 CD manual) I thought the wheel bearings were noisy but the noise was actually caused by the inner rear brake pads rusting solid in the calipers and the inner faces of the brake discs becoming rusty and pitted due to lack of use.

The MOT tester found/fixed the problem by standing on the brake pedal on the roller brake test. There were two bangs, a cloud of rusty dust and he was then able to give me a pass for the brake test

I haven't had a chance to get the rear wheels off to check yet but it feels the same to me (plus I had a near brown trouser moment this morning approaching a T junction)

That would be a result

Although, if there were an issue with the brakes, I would be very disappointed given the fact it went straight through it's MOT

[Doctor Gollum]

Brakes pass an MoT provided they are balanced side to side/front to back and have a minimum efficiency...

[TheBoy]

Brakes pass an MoT provided they are balanced side to side/front to back and have a minimum efficiency...

Even my handbrake passed first time this year

[EMD]

Today I fitted the original MID to the replacement instrument cluster and then drove it to work (20 miles each way).

I like it, I like it a lot. It feels solid and goes well. I won't mind sorting out a few 'cosmetic' issues because the underlying car seems to be a good one.

I am undecided about the suspected wheel bearing noise There were a couple of stretches of road where I could get some speed up and the noise of the exhaust struck me as louder than anything else. Lifting off the throttle at speed seemed to eliminate the noise  so I will wait and see on that one.

The year before i bought my 2.6 the advisory was rear wheel bearing .. I had my doubts and had it checked at sereks , turned out to be the diff  So dont rule that out 

[Andy H]

When I got my first Omega (a 1994 2.5 CD manual) I thought the wheel bearings were noisy but the noise was actually caused by the inner rear brake pads rusting solid in the calipers and the inner faces of the brake discs becoming rusty and pitted due to lack of use.

The MOT tester found/fixed the problem by standing on the brake pedal on the roller brake test. There were two bangs, a cloud of rusty dust and he was then able to give me a pass for the brake test

I haven't had a chance to get the rear wheels off to check yet but it feels the same to me (plus I had a near brown trouser moment this morning approaching a T junction)

That would be a result

Although, if there were an issue with the brakes, I would be very disappointed given the fact it went straight through it's MOT

Something I saw in Mister Rogs advert set me thinking

'03 MV6 3.2 Auto Est
« on: 26 September 2016, 17:08:14 »
'03 MV6 3.2 Auto Est   NOT Silver !

I bought this car in 2013 at around 75k Miles. I had a HPI check done at the time, I believe the mileage to be correct, at some stage in the past it had a personal plate. Since I got it I've had it maintained well as I need a reliable car and do occasional very long trips. Initiall work was done by an independent, then with a VX dealer, then with an independent again, so history is a bit mixed and certainly not complete. I don't do my own work, so everything was done by a garage.

First, The bad !
I'm in Carmarthen, Wales. So not easy to get to and a long way for most "just to have a look". So I'm going to be brutally honest.
At present it is now SORN
The engine management light comes on and engine misses. This has only happened since I had new coil packs fitted and a new cam sensor. Stupidly I had these done before a big trip to France, but I ended up buying a new car for the trip. I now have a Volvo so the MV6 is simply surplus to requirements. If I didn't have the Volvo I would absolutely spend some cash and get it sorted. I like it.
Some superficial body damage. Scrapes with parking bollards, just paintwork not deep.
Rear bumper, some damage.
MOT till 20th October
The bits around the windscreen (technical term!) aren't fitting properly
Radio/CD player occasionally refuses to accept the CD holder, and the radio doesn't remember stations and doesn't autotune.
A rear wheel is buckled. On the front it was a problem but not on the back.


The Good
It's a great colour, NOT rare Silver ! and scrubs up very well
I still have the original intact cam sensor. I replaced it as I wanted to avoid failure on a big trip
Some recent service/repair receipts
INCLUDES 5 spare wheels with tyres. Reasonable condition, tyres are some good and some not so good
I have a spare CCR 2006, but no idea if it works ok. I actually have 2, but one has some CDs stuck inside so I'll be smashing it up
The tyres on the car are excellent. Not cheapos. Bridgestone Potenza all round.
Due to clunky changes I had the auto box oil changed a couple of years ago. All fine since
No visible rust that I can see, not even the usual on the hatch door near the wiper
Quite a few CCR2006 CD cassettes from various other Omegas I've had
Cam belt and tensioners done at 100k by local Vx dealer. I'll need to see if I can find reciept.


The rules say that there has to be a price, so I'll say £400, but all offers considered.

The car is not really driveable at present, probably something simple.

If there are any questions or whatever PM me and I'll provide email address and/or phone number, also reg No if you want to do some checks. I'm happy to take more pics of anything.

I am NOT prepared to sell parts, it's all or nothing.

I still haven't had the wheels off to check the brakes but when I do I think I will swap the wheels from my Elite to see if it makes a difference.

[Andy H]

Twice now the EML has come on immediately after starting the car.

Both times Scanmyopel showed the code as something like "Mass air flow low input". (I didn't write it down because I had turned logging on in Scanmyopel but I can't find a way to read the log files ).

The battery struggles a bit to turn the engine over so I may have killed the battery by letting it go flat over christmas. When I checked the battery voltage ,with engine running, a few days ago I was getting 12.5 volts so I also need to check out the alternator.

3 questions
Are the 2003 MAFs prone to failure?
Is it likely that a dip in voltage would bring up a MAF code?
Is the MAF in my 2003 2.6 the same as the MAF in my 2003 3.2?

[TheBoy]

Are the 2003 MAFs prone to failure?

Very much so - but get live data on it first before condemming it

Is it likely that a dip in voltage would bring up a MAF code?

I wouldn't really expect that without other errors

Is the MAF in my 2003 2.6 the same as the MAF in my 2003 3.2?

I believe so

[Kevin Wood]

Is the MAF in my 2003 2.6 the same as the MAF in my 2003 3.2?

I believe so

Yes, but the 3.2 is tolerant of an ageing MAF sensor long after a 2.6 has stopped running on it, IME.

Worth a swap, but I wouldn't say it would necessarily be 100% conclusive.

[Andy H]

Is the MAF in my 2003 2.6 the same as the MAF in my 2003 3.2?

I believe so

Yes, but the 3.2 is tolerant of an ageing MAF sensor long after a 2.6 has stopped running on it, IME.

Worth a swap, but I wouldn't say it would necessarily be 100% conclusive.

Intriguing.
It still runs well but the fuel consumption is shocking.  I have done 80 miles in the last 48 hours and the average fuel consumption is reading 18mpg. It appears to be more economical when the EML light is on (but I might have imagined that bit). Performance doesn't feel different to me when the EML is on.

I can read live readings with my code reader but I don't know if that will help me much beyond checking mass flow at idle. Long term trims were both -1 when I looked.

[Mister Rog]

.
It still runs well but the fuel consumption is shocking.  I have done 80 miles in the last 48 hours and the average fuel consumption is reading 18mpg. It appears to be more economical when the EML light is on (but I might have imagined that bit). Performance doesn't feel different to me when the EML is on.

Blimey. Wearing lead boots or something. I never had that, even on short runs

 

[JamesV6CDX]

.
It still runs well but the fuel consumption is shocking.  I have done 80 miles in the last 48 hours and the average fuel consumption is reading 18mpg. It appears to be more economical when the EML light is on (but I might have imagined that bit). Performance doesn't feel different to me when the EML is on.

Blimey. Wearing lead boots or something. I never had that, even on short runs

I too never had an issue with consumption. I got a good 30mpg driving home from you. And from bucks to Cornwall also in the 30s.

Calculated using volume and miles rather than computer.

I also never saw an EML in the 500 or so miles I covered 

[TheBoy]

MAF idle readings would be useful - recalculated to kg/hr. Once off warm up cycle, you should be looking around 13-14kg/hr on a 3.2

18mpg sounds perfectly normal for a 3.2, unless on a long cruise.

[JamesV6CDX]

18mpg sounds perfectly normal for a 3.2, unless on a long cruise.

Really! even between here and marlow (50, 40 and 30 limit roads) I was achieving 27mph from this car. Admittedly only if very gentle. If I opened her up, about 21mpg

[tunnie]

MAF idle readings would be useful - recalculated to kg/hr. Once off warm up cycle, you should be looking around 13-14kg/hr on a 3.2

18mpg sounds perfectly normal for a 3.2, unless on a long cruise.

But on gas?

Fixed multi-ram and fairly standard crappy run to work saw 22mpg from my 3.2 today. 

[TheBoy]

MAF idle readings would be useful - recalculated to kg/hr. Once off warm up cycle, you should be looking around 13-14kg/hr on a 3.2

18mpg sounds perfectly normal for a 3.2, unless on a long cruise.

But on gas?

Fixed multi-ram and fairly standard crappy run to work saw 22mpg from my 3.2 today. 

I never get to drive it now, so no idea what it'd do on gas, I'm going from when I used to use it, and on petrol.  Mrs TB gets around 20mpg on gas, but she only drives a little bit quicker than you most of the time...  ...it all goes wrong, to quote her, "when self-abusers in VWs get in her way".  It used to be "self-abusers in BMWs with small dicks", but over the last couple of years, its definitely VW drivers that knacker her economy


But we know the 3.2 is around 15-20% less economical than the 3.0, so 18 seems to be in right sort of ballpark to me, with the 3.0 being around 22/23mpg on petrol when not on a nice steady cruise.