Print

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

[atann]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

[Nick W]

No.

[zirk]

Probably improve more if you turn the Air Con off, rather than using SU.

[Shackeng]

I would hesitate to disagree with Nick, but while I cannot speak as to mpg, my 3.2 seems to like Shell super as opposed to supermarket super, and definitely feels more spritely.

[atann]

I would hesitate to disagree with Nick, but while I cannot speak as to mpg, my 3.2 seems to like Shell super as opposed to supermarket super, and definitely feels more spritely.

I might give it a go, nothing to lose. Essco super?

[Mr.OmegaMan]

I would hesitate to disagree with Nick, but while I cannot speak as to mpg, my 3.2 seems to like Shell super as opposed to supermarket super, and definitely feels more spritely.

+1

MPG average around 25mpg recently, Can't say if that's more or less MPG than you'd get with regular fuel as I've been using Shell for a few years now. But I'd say it runs better overall on Shell V-Power / Nitro or whatever their calling it these days.

[zirk]

I would hesitate to disagree with Nick, but while I cannot speak as to mpg, my 3.2 seems to like Shell super as opposed to supermarket super, and definitely feels more spritely.

I might give it a go, nothing to lose. Essco super?

Certainly wont do any harm, I occasionally put Shell SU in if theres a promotion going on with the Shell Drivers Club Card thingy, sometimes the extra points equals out the extra costs.

Cant honestly say it mase much difference in MPG on any of the Omegas, the little 1.6 Tigra likes it, some Shell SU in that can achieve the magic 50 MPG on a run.

[atann]

I would hesitate to disagree with Nick, but while I cannot speak as to mpg, my 3.2 seems to like Shell super as opposed to supermarket super, and definitely feels more spritely.

I might give it a go, nothing to lose. Essco super?

Certainly wont do any harm, I occasionally put Shell SU in if theres a promotion going on with the Shell Drivers Club Card thingy, sometimes the extra points equals out the extra costs.

 

Cant honestly say it mase much difference in MPG on any of the Omegas, the little 1.6 Tigra likes it, some Shell SU in that can achieve the magic 50 MPG on a run.

[Diamond Black Geezer]

Tesco Ultimatum, or whatever it's called, over the 'brand name' superunleadeds 

I wouldnt be able to justify the extra cost of the BP/Shell stuff, but the Tesco version has come out the same/even a fraction better in tests. I've used it for about a year now. Also a bit cleaner, and you know you're doing good in your engine with every fillup.

[tigers_gonads]

Its mostly a placebo affect imo.

Yes the extra detergents will clean out the injector system so it will run better but once clean, that's it 
As for the higher octane, again, yes it will feel more responsive at first but that will soon be curtailed by the ecu via the knock sensor  

Now if you could have a remap to take advantage of the higher octane then happy days 

Super max type fuel is of greater benefit to tuned forced induction engines were the compression ratio is much higher because it helps stop pre ignition of the fuel mixture 

[Diamond Black Geezer]

I know yonks ago there was a recommended V6 ecu remap people, 'the' one to get. Cant remember the name now.

[biggriffin]

In a 3.2 running std cats (pre's) then shell nitro, every other month(tank full) can help keep the codes away, but I've never really noticed much difference between the posh fuel and std fuel., well not in an omega.

[omega2018]

differing opinions here, do a search... 

easy to test if you do the same stretch of motorway each day and can set and keep a cruise speed.  when i did this with a 2.5 v6 i got about 10% more mpg.  saving on a 2.6 will be less due to the lower compression.

still worth it i think as super is never 10% more than normal and you do get better performance as well as mpg.  that s just my experience though, i'm sure others will be along to tell you god is on their side

[biggriffin]

differing opinions here, do a search... 

easy to test if you do the same stretch of motorway each day and can set and keep a cruise speed.  when i did this with a 2.5 v6 i got about 10% more mpg.  saving on a 2.6 will be less due to the lower compression.

still worth it i think as super is never 10% more than normal and you do get better performance as well as mpg.  that s just my experience though, i'm sure others will be along to tell you GOD is on their side

He use to live in reading, not near slough, But oof doesn't do religious twoodle.

[Mister Rog]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

Not all super unleaded are the same. Some are 97, others are 98, and just a few are 99, however they are all pretty much the same price. I am certain that 99 Super (Tesco Momentum, Shell Vpower) are better. Better response and better MPG providing you do not let you right foot take too much advantage of the improved response  Some "Supers"  are a waste of money. So, less than 98, don't buy it, fill up with standard unleaded.

[frostbite]

I think we should try and make 5 star 101ron, without the lead

[johnnydog]

I'd have 100 octane (or RON - marginal difference, I know, before anyone comments...) or 5 star WITH lead any day, so then my old Triumphs would be very happy!  They don't like this unleaded crap with all the ethernal content in it......

[Diamond Black Geezer]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

Not all super unleaded are the same. Some are 97, others are 98, and just a few are 99, however they are all pretty much the same price. I am certain that 99 Super (Tesco Momentum, Shell Vpower) are better. Better response and better MPG providing you do not let you right foot take too much advantage of the improved response  Some "Supers"  are a waste of money. So, less than 98, don't buy it, fill up with standard unleaded.

never actually realised that there were differences in even superunleadeds. Nice bit of info, ta.  As above, I use Tesco, found to perform the same as the VPower, but a few magic pennies cheaper per litre. 

[baggers]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

Should do thats what it's set up for, but use the 99 rating.
I get better performance and return.  But if your looking for a return then you need to drive with that in mind.

[zirk]

My old Re Top Cosworth used to quite like AVGAS. 

[atann]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

Should do thats what it's set up for, but use the 99 rating.
I get better performance and return.  But if your looking for a return then you need to drive with that in mind.

I do drive very conservatively, I will it a give it a go. Cheers

[GastronomicKleptomaniac]

One of ours gets a bit lumpy if he doesn't get a tank of super every so often. But that's probably because he's done moon miles and the cats are a little... tired...

[atann]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

Should do thats what it's set up for, but use the 99 rating.
I get better performance and return.  But if your looking for a return then you need to drive with that in mind.

Only have Asda, Morrisons and Essco where I live. They are all 97ron I believe. Is it even worth using 97ron?

[Mister Rog]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

Should do thats what it's set up for, but use the 99 rating.
I get better performance and return.  But if your looking for a return then you need to drive with that in mind.

Only have Asda, Morrisons and Essco where I live. They are all 97ron I believe. Is it even worth using 97ron?

It's probably still about 6p per litre more expensive than the standard 95. There will be a small difference, but hardly noticeable and very unlikely to be worth the extra cost. So, in a word . . . . no

[atann]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

Should do thats what it's set up for, but use the 99 rating.
I get better performance and return.  But if your looking for a return then you need to drive with that in mind.

Only have Asda, Morrisons and Essco where I live. They are all 97ron I believe. Is it even worth using 97ron?

It's probably still about 6p per litre more expensive than the standard 95. There will be a small difference, but hardly noticeable and very unlikely to be worth the extra cost. So, in a word . . . . no

I'm meant between 97ron and 99ron?

[Mr Gav]

I only put SU in the Omega a couple of times  when I had it, not worth the extra as there wasn`t any noticeable difference whereas the Zed gets Shell V power every time as it needs 97 ron.

[baggers]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

Should do thats what it's set up for, but use the 99 rating.
I get better performance and return.  But if your looking for a return then you need to drive with that in mind.

Only have Asda, Morrisons and Essco where I live. They are all 97ron I believe. Is it even worth using 97ron?

I don't bother with the 97, it's 99 or stick with the 95 until you find some.

[baggers]

I was on the A46 near Evesham over the weekend and standard unleaded at Texaco was £1.14/ltr    it was quite low so just put £10 in continued up to Tesco at Banbury and filled up with 99 at £1.13/ltr

[Mister Rog]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

Should do thats what it's set up for, but use the 99 rating.
I get better performance and return.  But if your looking for a return then you need to drive with that in mind.

Only have Asda, Morrisons and Essco where I live. They are all 97ron I believe. Is it even worth using 97ron?

I don't bother with the 97, it's 99 or stick with the 95 until you find some.

Same here  99 or standard 95, no 97 or 98

[Shackeng]

My old Re Top Cosworth used to quite like AVGAS. 

My Mk1 Consul ran well on 115/145, but I did add some hydraulic fluid to ease the pain.

[atann]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

Should do thats what it's set up for, but use the 99 rating.
I get better performance and return.  But if your looking for a return then you need to drive with that in mind.

Only have Asda, Morrisons and Essco where I live. They are all 97ron I believe. Is it even worth using 97ron?

I don't bother with the 97, it's 99 or stick with the 95 until you find some.

Same here  99 or standard 95, no 97 or 98

Does Morrisons offer 99ron?

[kev2b4]

I use the Shell posh stuff on my bike ( but is only 3 gallons at en though have a time) ; shell cooking fuel for the car; even though have ASDA nearby, but they don't like my new debit card without the swipe- so I rather go to the local shell garage even though it costs a little more. don't use the posh diesel from shell - use the cheapy one in the van.  But last time was at a fuel depot - with the brand  named and supermarket tankers coming in - they use the same loading bay but the  posh ones have the extra additives.

[johnnydog]

Only have Asda, Morrisons and Essco where I live. They are all 97ron I believe. Is it even worth using 97ron?
[/quote]

Don't know about Asda, but I've never seen 97 RON at any Morrisons, and I visit many different Morrisons fuel stations in connection with work. I've even asked if they are ever likely to get Super Unleaded, as the older fuel stations invariably have 3 fuels per pump, duplicating on one grade, a 'left over' from the days when they also used to have leaded. The answer has always been 'No' or just a gormless look as they try to understand what I've asked......
Are you sure your Morrisons had super? It would me worth mentioning it again if there are others with it!

[X30XE]

Averaging about 24mpg around town, with aircon on. Would a change to super unleaded increase the response from the engine and mpg?

X30XE and Y32SE engines sound much much smoother on Tesco SU99 in my experience.  The X30XE was noticably more spritely as well.

The omega is one of the worst bhp/torque per gallon cars going so if mpg is even remotely an issue just buy another car.  Even if SU made it 10% better (which is laughably optimistic) you'd still only be doing 26.4mpg. Which is still fantastically shit for a slow car. 

[Diamond Black Geezer]

The Turbo Weasel got Asda cheapshit and the discount garage stuff when it was 2/3p cheaper that everyone elses, which appeared randomly on certain days of the week... but Pissy gets Tesco Ultimatum only  gone down 1p/litre, I noticed, too, now 111.9 near me.


Must get some Wynns/Forte injector cleaner, too, she's due. I'd dismantle the engine every weekend and bathe it in honey if I could 

[atann]

The Turbo Weasel got Asda cheapshit and the discount garage stuff when it was 2/3p cheaper that everyone elses, which appeared randomly on certain days of the week... but Pissy gets Tesco Ultimatum only  gone down 1p/litre, I noticed, too, now 111.9 near me.


Must get some Wynns/Forte injector cleaner, too, she's due. I'd dismantle the engine every weekend and bathe it in honey if I could 

Going to give Tesco Ultimate ago, I'll update if I notice any improvement.

[Jukeboxnut]

My old MG Y Type used to run on 50% paraffin quite happily (with a drop of lighter fuel to help starting) when I was an impoverished student back in the early seventies.

[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?

[Doctor Gollum]

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?

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?

Au contraire... 3.2s were perceived to be thirstier, but reality is that for the power delivery,  they aren't.  Also were more expensive...

They seem rarer now because people who own them now don't particularly want to sell them, and those that are looking are getting less fussy about the condition of the cars for sale...

Basically you buy the car you see on merit knowing full well that the cambelt and suspension are likely to need doing in the first few months... If you are going to spend a grand or so that soon, it doesn't really matter if the car is £500 or £1,500, you're buying it because you want that car not for economics

[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?

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?

Au contraire... 3.2s were perceived to be thirstier, but reality is that for the power delivery,  they aren't.  Also were more expensive...

They seem rarer now because people who own them now don't particularly want to sell them, and those that are looking are getting less fussy about the condition of the cars for sale...

Basically you buy the car you see on merit knowing full well that the cambelt and suspension are likely to need doing in the first few months... If you are going to spend a grand or so that soon, it doesn't really matter if the car is £500 or £1,500, you're buying it because you want that car not for economics

Probably explains why and also why the Elite trim is so hard find. Did all the 3.2's come with a boot spoiler? If you had the 2.6, would you notice much difference with the 3.2?

[Diamond Black Geezer]

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. 

[VXL V6]

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.

[VXL V6]

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

3.2 Has leather and Sat Nav as standard.

[Doctor Gollum]

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...

[Nick W]

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...

Interesting, as my manual 525 had to be thrashed to make the sort of progress that the heavier, automatic Omega manages effortlessly. Admittedly it was an M50, so didn't have VANOS, but I've tried those back-to-back and it isn't a massive improvement. The Omega is more economical too, although that is mainly due to sensible gearing.

[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?

[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😋

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.

How much worse? I'm getting 18mpg urban and 35mpg on a run at 70mph.

[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?

Or 2.5 for that matter

[biggriffin]

What 2.6 have you ever owned/driven?
[/quote]
Or 2.5 for that matter
[/quote]

I once owned a 2.5, mfl in gay gold for 20 minutes, then put a 3.0L in much better car then