Print

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

[Big_Mart]

HI THERE CAN ALL YOU OMEGA DRIVERS GIVE ME YOUR OPINION`S ON WHAT IS THE BEST V6 FOR RELIABILITY,PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMY BECAUSE ALL THE "OFFICIAL" FIGURES ARE NEVER A REFLECTION ON REALITY SO IN YOUR REPLYS CAN YOU ALSO GIVE YOUR MPG CHEERS.

[Kevin Wood]

The 2.5 / 2.6 is reckoned to be the best balance of performance and economy. If you're going to be doing a lot of urban / town driving a manual will be significantly more economical and quicker and the auto gearboxes can give trouble. Other than that reliability probably isn't significantly different across the range. The engines are practically identical apart from bore, stroke and cams being different.

The 2.6 and 3.2 models do away with the EGR and air injection systems which can be problematic and also the plug leads are eliminated by the coil-per-plug ignition system but they have a drive by wire throttle which, if problems occur, can be expensive to fix. On balance not a lot to choose between them.

Then again, the official fuel consumption figures are only a couple of MPG different between 2.5/2.6 and 3.0/3.2 which is why I went for the latter, which has a good bit more power.

I get about 27-28 MPG on my commute to work (single carriageway B roads with a little urban). It'll do 30 MPG on a run at fast motorway cruising speeds and if you stick to 70 I have seen up to 35 MPG. This is from a 3.2 MV6 auto.

Kevin

[Big_Mart]

CHEERS FOR THE REPLY MATE VERY USEFULL.ITS STRANGE COS I DRIVE A VECTRA 2.0 SRI AT THE MO AND YOU GET BETTER MPG THAN ME!!!!!!!!!!!!! I GET 24.9 AT THE MO AND I DO 3 MILES URBAN 5 MILES DUAL CARRAGE WAY THEN 3 MILES URBAN (TRAFFIC).

[Markjay]

The 2.5 / 2.6 is reckoned to be the best balance of performance and economy. If you're going to be doing a lot of urban / town driving a manual will be significantly more economical and quicker and the auto gearboxes can give trouble. Other than that reliability probably isn't significantly different across the range. The engines are practically identical apart from bore, stroke and cams being different.

The 2.6 and 3.2 models do away with the EGR and air injection systems which can be problematic and also the plug leads are eliminated by the coil-per-plug ignition system but they have a drive by wire throttle which, if problems occur, can be expensive to fix. On balance not a lot to choose between them.

Then again, the official fuel consumption figures are only a couple of MPG different between 2.5/2.6 and 3.0/3.2 which is why I went for the latter, which has a good bit more power.

I get about 27-28 MPG on my commute to work (single carriageway B roads with a little urban). It'll do 30 MPG on a run at fast motorway cruising speeds and if you stick to 70 I have seen up to 35 MPG. This is from a 3.2 MV6 auto.

Kevin

Yep, 2.5/2.6  

Don't listen to them MV6 racers talking about 3.0/3.2L  

On another note, the 2.5 and 2.6 are very similar in terms of real-life performance in spite of what the official figures claim, and this is also true for the 3.0 and 3.2, but the reason that the 2.6&3.2 are preferable to the 2.5&3.0 is mainly due to better engine setup, i.e. the new engines have no ICV, EGR, DIS, TPS, etc and as such are much easier to work on and also potentially more reliable ans there are less mechanical parts. You also get a newer (flashable) ECU and this can't be a bad thing.... but other than that you will not feel much difference driving the two engines. I know, I had both...

[Kevin Wood]

CHEERS FOR THE REPLY MATE VERY USEFULL.ITS STRANGE COS I DRIVE A VECTRA 2.0 SRI AT THE MO AND YOU GET BETTER MPG THAN ME!!!!!!!!!!!!! I GET 24.9 AT THE MO AND I DO 3 MILES URBAN 5 MILES DUAL CARRAGE WAY THEN 3 MILES URBAN (TRAFFIC).

Well, my commute is 20 miles each way, so you're doing a greater proportion of your driving on a cold engine. My driving style is a bit Jekyll and Hyde too. I'm either pootling along being as efficient as possible or (occasionally) caning it!

Kevin

[dbug]

CHEERS FOR THE REPLY MATE VERY USEFULL.ITS STRANGE COS I DRIVE A VECTRA 2.0 SRI AT THE MO AND YOU GET BETTER MPG THAN ME!!!!!!!!!!!!! I GET 24.9 AT THE MO AND I DO 3 MILES URBAN 5 MILES DUAL CARRAGE WAY THEN 3 MILES URBAN (TRAFFIC).

Stop SHOUTING please

[GastronomicKleptomaniac]

 The 2.6 is plenty fast, I see about 22-23mpg, but that's a lot of town driving, and plenty of "enthusiastic" B-roads... Had it up to 33mpg on a motorway run.

[Paulus]

I have seen 40mpg from my 3.0...that was at 60mph for 80 miles.

[shyboy]

CHEERS FOR THE REPLY MATE VERY USEFULL.ITS STRANGE COS I DRIVE A VECTRA 2.0 SRI AT THE MO AND YOU GET BETTER MPG THAN ME!!!!!!!!!!!!! I GET 24.9 AT THE MO AND I DO 3 MILES URBAN 5 MILES DUAL CARRAGE WAY THEN 3 MILES URBAN (TRAFFIC).

Stop SHOUTING please

[/highlight]

   Amazing how CAPITALS can seem so 'agressive'.
I've recently acquired a 2.6 and am pleasantly surprised at the MPG I get. Better than my 2.0 most of the time. Mind you, I do tend to tootle about at my age.

[Danny]

CHEERS FOR THE REPLY MATE VERY USEFULL.ITS STRANGE COS I DRIVE A VECTRA 2.0 SRI AT THE MO AND YOU GET BETTER MPG THAN ME!!!!!!!!!!!!! I GET 24.9 AT THE MO AND I DO 3 MILES URBAN 5 MILES DUAL CARRAGE WAY THEN 3 MILES URBAN (TRAFFIC).

Stop SHOUTING please

[/highlight]

   Amazing how CAPITALS can seem so 'agressive'.
I've recently acquired a 2.6 and am pleasantly surprised at the MPG I get. Better than my 2.0 most of the time. Mind you, I do tend to tootle about at my age.

heard much the same about the 2.0 being less economical than the V6s, i desperately need a V6 but i worry i wont do it much good since i do a hell of a lot of short journeys in a week, in the region of 15 a week at less than half a mile!

[Kevin Wood]

heard much the same about the 2.0 being less economical than the V6s, i desperately need a V6 but i worry i wont do it much good since i do a hell of a lot of short journeys in a week, in the region of 15 a week at less than half a mile!

The one thing I've noticed is that lots of short journeys really clobber the fuel consumption on a V6.  

Kevin

[Danny]

heard much the same about the 2.0 being less economical than the V6s, i desperately need a V6 but i worry i wont do it much good since i do a hell of a lot of short journeys in a week, in the region of 15 a week at less than half a mile!

The one thing I've noticed is that lots of short journeys really clobber the fuel consumption on a V6.  

Kevin

same on my 2.0

when i sell mine and find an elite, i'm seriously considering getting a £200 piece of 1.0 crap to use for work, thinking my fuel costs and insurance costs might drop a hell of alot if i only do 3000 miles a year in the omega!!

[zirk]

On the MV6 I drive (3.0 Manual Estate, Chipped) I average 28 Mpg mostly driving around in London, on a nice run or Motorway up to 36 Mpg, even stuck in heavy traffic for a few hours never seen it drop below 22 Mpg.

I tend to drive ‘all or nothing’ depending what mode I’m in and do tend to use the Cruise Control a lot (takes a while to get used to it and to drive it safely).

I think if you’re doing a lot of town and urban driving then it’s definitely got to be the Manual for good Mpg as in my experience Auto’s really don’t lock up much below 50 Mph? (Despite that aching left foot in heavy traffic).

Chris.

[mantahatch]

heard much the same about the 2.0 being less economical than the V6s, i desperately need a V6 but i worry i wont do it much good since i do a hell of a lot of short journeys in a week, in the region of 15 a week at less than half a mile!

The one thing I've noticed is that lots of short journeys really clobber the fuel consumption on a V6.  

Kevin

Could not agree more. I do 6 miles to work and 6 miles home again, my old 2.0 did 21.mpg on trip meter thingy, my 2.5 is doing about 20.1 on trip thingy.
On a good run (not very often) I got up to 35mpg out of the 2.0 and about 30mpg out of the 2.5.
Virtually all my driving is on 30mph roads to from work and a lot of stop start traffic.
Can't comment on the 3.6/3.0/3.2 as never even driven one.

HTH

Mike

[ians]

heard much the same about the 2.0 being less economical than the V6s, i desperately need a V6 but i worry i wont do it much good since i do a hell of a lot of short journeys in a week, in the region of 15 a week at less than half a mile!

The one thing I've noticed is that lots of short journeys really clobber the fuel consumption on a V6.  

Kevin

Could not agree more. I do 6 miles to work and 6 miles home again, my old 2.0 did 21.mpg on trip meter thingy, my 2.5 is doing about 20.1 on trip thingy.
On a good run (not very often) I got up to 35mpg out of the 2.0 and about 30mpg out of the 2.5.
Virtually all my driving is on 30mph roads to from work and a lot of stop start traffic.
Can't comment on the 3.6/3.0/3.2 as never even driven one.

HTH

Mike

I get the impression that manuals are much more economical than auto on stop start driving.

I'd be interested to know if the software update on the auto box improves economy (as well as smoother running )