Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please check the Forum Guidelines at the top of the Newbie section

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6  (Read 2303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pedro

  • Guest
2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« on: 19 March 2009, 09:11:30 »
Which is best?
Opinions and experiences, please! :y
Logged

hotel21

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • The Kingdom of Fife
  • Posts: 13021
    • View Profile
2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #1 on: 19 March 2009, 09:14:19 »
[movedhere] Omega General Help [move by] hotel21.
Logged

tunnie

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Surrey
  • Posts: 37625
    • Zafira Tourer & BMW 435i
    • View Profile
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #2 on: 19 March 2009, 09:28:42 »
V6 suits the Omega more than the 4pot, i have a 2.2 manual and love it, very easy to work on, does what i need it to do.

However if i was buying again, i would get a 3.0/3.2
Logged

LJay

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • North Wales
  • Posts: 3203
  • The Acrobatics Queen!
    • 3.2 - MV6 Big Blue!
    • View Profile
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #3 on: 19 March 2009, 09:35:32 »
V6!

Don't mess about with a 2.2 go straight for the V6! I had a facelift 2.2 for a couple of years but regreted not buying a V6 as soon as i drove out of the showroom.
I have been driving a pre facelift 3.0 MV6 (manual) for nearly 12 months now and its much nicer to drive and i get much better economy than i did in the 2.2.
I guess driving style has a bit to do with it, 2.2s ok if you're happy to amble about, V6 if you're not!
Logged
Been there, fallen over it!

cem_devecioglu

  • Guest
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #4 on: 19 March 2009, 09:40:30 »
Definitely V6, if you are not a grandma :y
Logged

mantahatch

  • Guest
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #5 on: 19 March 2009, 09:50:18 »
First Omega I could afford was a 2.0 16V, it was fine for what I wanted it to do. I never found it underpowered like some say, but then again I am not a fast driver.
Fuel consumption between the 2.0 and 2.5 is identical for me, as I do mainly short journeys with max speed of 40mph.

On occasional longer runs I got 35.4mpg from the 2.0 and get about 30.2 from the 2.5. But as I say I only generally do short runs.

If you are a faster driver then go for the v6, if normal driving is your thing then the4 pot is fine.

I only have a v6 as my father gave me his and it was in so much better condition than my 2.0 and I knew of the cars history virtually from new.

Mike
Logged

doog

  • Omega Knight
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Alloa Central Scotland
  • Posts: 1022
    • View Profile
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #6 on: 19 March 2009, 09:52:38 »
if ya wanna go sideways get a v6 :)

Doug
Logged
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for
me at kick boxing

Robmetaxa

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Southampton
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #7 on: 19 March 2009, 10:53:26 »
Drove the face lift 2.2 on a test drive when choosing my Mig, was about to buy it when the salesman got a call saying the previous guy who had taken it out wanted it, so remembering there was a v6 2.6 in the show room asked if I could try that out.................... thank god i did cos it is by far a better car!!
Rob
Logged

tigers_gonads

  • Omega Lord
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Kinston Upon Hull
  • Posts: 8616
  • Driving a Honda CR-V which doesn't smell of pee
    • Honda CR-V
    • View Profile
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #8 on: 19 March 2009, 12:34:11 »
v6 manual for me  :y
tried out a mates 2.2 ltr for a week beforehand and even though the car was nippy, once i tried the v6 i was hooked  :y
smoother, little differance on the fuel  and  lasts alot longer if looked after aswell

Logged

Dusty

  • Omega Knight
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Shropshire
  • Posts: 1302
  • Erotic Romance Author
    • View Profile
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #9 on: 19 March 2009, 13:27:01 »
Tried a 2.0 litre auto before I decided on my 2.6 manual.
Acceleration in the 2.0 auto can best be described as glacial. :'( :'(

Heavy on fuel as well. :-/ :-/

Go for the V6. :-* :-* :-*
Logged

mantahatch

  • Guest
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #10 on: 19 March 2009, 13:48:23 »
Quote
Tried a 2.0 litre auto before I decided on my 2.6 manual.
Acceleration in the 2.0 auto can best be described as glacial. :'( :'(

Heavy on fuel as well. :-/ :-/

Go for the V6. :-* :-* :-*


Well I wonder if my old 2 litre was something special then, as I never had any any issues acceleration wise. ;D

I wonder if all those that had problems with 2litres where driving the 8 valve rather than 16v.

Mike
Logged

tunnie

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Surrey
  • Posts: 37625
    • Zafira Tourer & BMW 435i
    • View Profile
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #11 on: 19 March 2009, 13:53:44 »
the 2.2 is not that slow, it has more torque than the 2.0's and its quite noticable, it still keeps up with the daily flow of traffic, still has decent over taking power, its good up to about 80/90 mph then runs out of puff.

40-80 i find is actually very good considering the size of car and engine.

4 pots are so much easier to work on, cam cover is a doddle, no hassle, can be done in less than an hour. So much more space, if you want to start DIY engine work, start off on the 2.2
« Last Edit: 19 March 2009, 13:54:12 by tunnie »
Logged

pauldmackay

  • Guest
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #12 on: 19 March 2009, 13:59:29 »
Had a 3.0 V6 for 5 years, got 2.2 now.

Performance is better all round with the V6, but I would not disregard the 2.2.  The V6 acceleration is obviously quicker, but I find the 2.2 to be more than adequate too, I usually do motorway driving to and from Spain 3-4 times year and its more than capable and it does not feel underpowered in any way like the 2.0.  

Fuel economy wise I average 30-31 MPG,  not much difference really between any of the Omega engines.  But I seem to remember the 3.0/3.2 being slighty better on fuel than the 2.5/2.6.

It's personal preference,  the 2.2 gives you average car performance and is more than capable, the V6 is giving you sports performance, It can come down to things such as maintance costs, how easy to do repairs, insurance costs etc etc.

Your always better getting the biggest engine you can afford, or the best deal and there's not much difference in pricing.   :y
Logged

stuart30

  • Guest
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #13 on: 19 March 2009, 18:42:18 »
Quote
Which is best?
Opinions and experiences, please! :y


Its really a case of you testing driving both the V6 and the 2.2.

Ive had 2.0/2.2/2.5 and 3.0 and enjoyed them all.

The 2.0"s were manual and i found them plenty quick enough same as the 2.2....ive had two 2.5 both estates and both completely different on power (current 2.5 having much more get up and go) and again manual.

The 3.0 was auto and id serious recommend an auto if you do go with the V6.

Question you need too ask yourself is do you really need or just want a V6...can your afford too run it when prices are well over £1 a liter (i know i couldnt before)...same with the up keep.
Logged

alexandjen

  • Omega Knight
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Sittingbourne, Kent
  • Posts: 1606
  • The Silver Surfer
    • View Profile
Re: 2.2 4 Pot versus V6
« Reply #14 on: 19 March 2009, 19:41:23 »
Quote
V6 suits the Omega more than the 4pot, i have a 2.2 manual and love it, very easy to work on, does what i need it to do.

However if i was buying again, i would get a 3.0/3.2

I'll second that, next one will be a 3.2 elite estate  :y
Logged
Trade club card holder
Code scanner available
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 17 queries.