Print

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

[SparticusMK2]

Once again id like to thank everyone for the warm welcome to you site!  

On the beginners page under V6 Virgin, I asked the question what to look for when buying an Omega V6?
Even though I would still like the answer to that question I have another..........
Looking on eBay I found a rather nice 3.2litre version which has less miles and is newer!

The question is........ What (if any) are the advantages/dis-advantages between an Omega Elite V6 2.5 and 3.2litre?

And more to the point what would you buy?

[ians]

I've got a 3.0 and a 2.5.

The 3.0 is much thirstier in urban type driving (although this may be partly due to it being an auto).  I actually think the 2.5 is a nicely balanced engine for the car.

3.2 (and 2.6) is the later generation which using drive by wire etc - others can comment on its merits/otherwise..

[ffcgary1]

3.0 =208bhp
3.2=218bhp
If you can get the 3.2 in your budget and the insurance is ok and your not too worried about the fuel being used then go for the 3.2. But at the end of the day your the one to make the call.

[Markie]

and the drive by wire part, two dispacks going into each bank of cylinders rather than the hard to change single dispack at the back - its a common failure.

Also no accelerator cable or ignition leads or egr.....

Minimum performance increase from 3.0 to 3.2.

[Andy B]

Big is best. Bigger is better still!!!        

[Paul M]

Main drawback of the 3.2 is that you can't get a manual gearbox unless it's an ex-cop version, so that makes it a non-starter for me. 3.0 manual is quicker anyway, both in acceleration and top speed. No doubt the ex-cop 3.2 manual are a little quicker than the 3.0, but there are no official figures that I can find because it wasn't sold as retail.

[Paul M]

I've got a 3.0 and a 2.5.

The 3.0 is much thirstier in urban type driving (although this may be partly due to it being an auto).

That will be hugely due to it being auto -- the torque converter means it's like driving a manual with the clutch partly disengaged all the time. Those things produce a shed load of heat, which of course is energy from the fuel hence the inefficiency. It becomes less of an issue at a constant speed on the motorway because the torque converter is locked out.

My 3.0 manual gets just over 26 MPG average overall, with a mix of town and motorway, and I drive it quite hard. 30 MPG should be achievable driving like a pussycat

[Andy B]

Main drawback of the 3.2 is that you can't get a manual gearbox unless it's an ex-cop version, so that makes it a non-starter for me. 3.0 manual is quicker anyway, both in acceleration and top speed. No doubt the ex-cop 3.2 manual are a little quicker than the 3.0, but there are no official figures that I can find because it wasn't sold as retail.

or .... (for the majority of us  )


Main advantage of the 3.2 is that you can't get a manual gearbox unless it's an ex-cop version ...............          

[Elite Pete]

I have a 2002 3.2 Elite Auto and a 1999 3.0 Elite manual and IMHO theres no comparison. The 3.2 is quiter has comfier seats and I would rather drive the 3.2 than the 3.0 even though it has covered 172,000 miles it drives like a new car; however, I think the mini facelift looks better externally and internally but thats just my opinion

[Andy B]

.............. however, I think the mini facelift looks better externally and internally but thats just my opinion

Which is why I looked for the newest PRE face lift that I could find.  

[GastronomicKleptomaniac]

 The 2.6 manual is plenty fast for normal driving... the "speed bumps at 50mph" put me off a plodwagon, else I'd have got a 3.2 - oddly, the insurance for 2.6 and 3.2 autos was exactly the same quote...

[TheBoy]

My 3.0 manual gets just over 26 MPG average overall, with a mix of town and motorway, and I drive it quite hard. 30 MPG should be achievable driving like a pussycat

My auto gets 25mpg.  And I'm no pussycat.  So how poor is a modern, well matched, auto?

[Paul M]

The 2.6 manual is plenty fast for normal driving... the "speed bumps at 50mph" put me off a plodwagon, else I'd have got a 3.2 - oddly, the insurance for 2.6 and 3.2 autos was exactly the same quote...

Depending on how mechanically minded you are you could buy a retail 3.2 and treat it to a proper gearbox, consigning the slushy to the skip where it belongs One of the guys on here converted a 3.0 slushy to manual in a weekend, bought all the bits from a scrappy for £100 :O and being that the manual boxes very rarely break you don't have to worry about the age of it.

[Paul M]

My 3.0 manual gets just over 26 MPG average overall, with a mix of town and motorway, and I drive it quite hard. 30 MPG should be achievable driving like a pussycat

My auto gets 25mpg.  And I'm no pussycat.  So how poor is a modern, well matched, auto?

Very The fuel economy is the least of its disadvantages, in fact my fuel economy would probably get proportionately even worse with a slushy as I'd constantly have the gas pedal on the floor rather than just 80% of the time to make up for the power being wasted heating the transmission oil

[Paul M]

BTW I almost done the unthinkable today..... buy a slushomatic

But before you all think I'd gone insane it was a BMW 850Ci I wanted to pilfer some bits off for my 840, I intended to resell it again ASAP before the thing actually did drive me insane (I'd probably drive on the right-hand side of the road thinking I'm back in the US with their lifeless cars). But alas the guy wouldn't drop to the price I wanted to pay so I guess fate saved me