Print

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

[mantaray]

As you may know from my other posts, I have a 2.6 Omega with very good body work, but I don't know if I can live with the poor MPG.

I was wondering if it would be possible to change the engine for the 2.5TD engine, which I'm sure can be done, but just how much work would be involved. I have done engine conversions in the past, but never swoped a petrol engine for a deasel.

I have the offer of a complet 2.5Td car with good engine but rotten shell.

Thanks for any advice.

[GrahamT]

If you have a complete car then it will be time consuming more than difficult.

But I've done swaps like this before. It can be a right pain as sometimes it's easier to swap entire looms over for example than it is to modify.

But like I said you're on to the best start by having a complete car to start the conversion.

My opinion would be unless the car with the good body is absolutely mint I wouldn't bother. I'd go out and find a good 2.5td.

[TheBoy]

The 2.5TD with an auto box isn't that economical, particularly town driving.  With town driving you may not see much improvement over the 2.6.

Not use if the cabin loom is the same between 2.6 and 2.5TD...

[mantaray]

OK thanks for the replys.
Back to drawing board.  Think it may be a case of sorting the body work out on my td manual and sticking with that.
May use 2.6 as Donner car.

[Shackeng]

I'll second that TB's comment, my TD is very poor on local driving, probably only about 23, not that I ever check, as I don't care. I love the car.

[GrahamT]

Is the 2.5TD in the omega the same as the one in the Range Rover?

Thanks

[Andy B]

I'll second that TB's comment, my TD is very poor on local driving, probably only about 23, not that I ever check, as I don't care. I love the car.

That is poor mpg. My R Class can do better around town and it's permanent 4x4 weighing 2.2 tonnes 

[TheBoy]

Is the 2.5TD in the omega the same as the one in the Range Rover?

Thanks

In the P38's, yes. Not same as the ones used in L322

[TheBoy]

I'll second that TB's comment, my TD is very poor on local driving, probably only about 23, not that I ever check, as I don't care. I love the car.

That is poor mpg. My R Class can do better around town and it's permanent 4x4 weighing 2.2 tonnes 

TBH, the engine and gearbox are not well matched (understaement of the year!!).  Also, in standard, heavily detuned form, its clearly not running at peak efficiency.

That said, despite is age (first used in Omega 23yrs ago, with only minor changes until 2001 when it was dropped in the UK), its a nice engine to drive. It has a good, flat torque curve, and is effortless to drive.  Having had one, I can see the appeal. But the gearbox is not good against that engine.

[Doctor Gollum]

I wonder if there's summat else wrong with the 2.6?

When was last proper service? Cambelt set up correctly? Multirams all working?

That said, no car is going to be very efficient on a seven mile commute... that's barely enough time for the seat heaters to warm up, let alone the engine...

Double the length of your commute and see if it improves...

[Andy B]

... its a nice engine to drive. It has a good, flat torque curve, and is effortless to drive.  Having had one, I can see the appeal. But the gearbox is not good against that engine.

I've only driven one ... IanD's (organiser of the York meets) mate's .... it was only a mile a two down the road & the 3 pedal box took more than that to get used to 

[mantaray]

Right let put a bit of back ground history on the 2.6.

I purchased a 2.6 V6 Omega back in December, with a suspected oil cooler failure. I drove the car 60 miles back home with no problems.
The oil cooler was removed and pressure tested, and found to be good. As the cooler looked new, I concluded that the cooler had been replaced recently but the cooling system had not been flushed fully, and that was the reason for oil in the water.
The engine was re assembled and cooling system flushed, then the car was taken for a 30 mile test run, once again no problems where found apart from a small water leak.
The water leak seemed to be coming from the passenger side at the back of the engine, so the intake system was removed again as I suspected that a water pipe may have been damaged when moved to gain access to the oil cooler.
Even with the cooling system pressurised, I could not find the leak. As I wished to use the car the following day, I put it all back together and hoped for the best.
The next day all was fine for about 40 mile, then suddenly the EML (engine symbol) light flickered for about 30 seconds and then came on parentally . As I was on a motorway with the caravan on the back, I continued on until the services about another 10 mile then stopped. A quick inspection revealed nothing, so I started the engine again, No EML light. I spent about 10 mins playing with the revs of the engine and still no EML light came on. So off we set again, all was fine for about 10 mile, then on came the light again. As it was not having any effect on the cars running, and we had a caravan park to get to, I continued the journey of about another 100 mile.
The following day on starting the car, the light was off at first, then came on about 10 mile into the journey, and then  remained on. On the return journey home the EML was on, but car seemed to run Ok. Trip comp showed 18MPG for the 300 mile round trip with caravan.
Once home during the following week the car developed a miss fire, so I suspected that the cam cover gaskets were leaking and ordered a new set.  On removing the covers I found that all 6 plug wells were full of oil. Cleaned up the oil and replaced cover gaskets, EML light has now gone off and miss fire gone.
I have been using the car for work over the last week, and trip comp is showing 17MPG, I have also found that it has a water leak, which is probably the HB valve from what has been said on here, and still has an oil leak from somewhere. Oil & water seems to be dripping from back of engine but there is also oil on the front of the sump pan.

Now my dilemma is this:
I have a 1999 2.5TD manual that I have owned for 6 years, it is a great car mechanically, but the doors and rear arches are starting to go. The tip comp show around 38MPG for every day driving and around 22MPG with the caravan on the back.

The 2.6 has very good body work, but does have a few problems other than the MPG. Drivers door does not work on central locking and passenger front window does not work. I do like the more modern look of the 2.6 and the leather interior, but don't know if I can afford the low MPG.

I need  a big car for towing the caravan, but could get a small run a about for everyday use and just use the Omega for pulling the caravan, but then I would be paying for 2 lots of tax ( insurance is not a problem as I have a trade policy.) and the Omega would just be sitting on the drive for most of the time.

So do I spend money on the 2.6 and sort out the problems or do I just keep the 2.5 and run her into the ground.

[Shackeng]

I'll second that TB's comment, my TD is very poor on local driving, probably only about 23, not that I ever check, as I don't care. I love the car.

That is poor mpg. My R Class can do better around town and it's permanent 4x4 weighing 2.2 tonnes 

TBH, the engine and gearbox are not well matched (understaement of the year!!).  Also, in standard, heavily detuned form, its clearly not running at peak efficiency.

That said, despite is age (first used in Omega 23yrs ago, with only minor changes until 2001 when it was dropped in the UK), its a nice engine to drive. It has a good, flat torque curve, and is effortless to drive.  Having had one, I can see the appeal. But the gearbox is not good against that engine.

Quite true, but chipped, and judicious use of 3rd gear and sport mode makes it a very satisfactory driver.

[TheBoy]

I'll second that TB's comment, my TD is very poor on local driving, probably only about 23, not that I ever check, as I don't care. I love the car.

That is poor mpg. My R Class can do better around town and it's permanent 4x4 weighing 2.2 tonnes 

TBH, the engine and gearbox are not well matched (understaement of the year!!).  Also, in standard, heavily detuned form, its clearly not running at peak efficiency.

That said, despite is age (first used in Omega 23yrs ago, with only minor changes until 2001 when it was dropped in the UK), its a nice engine to drive. It has a good, flat torque curve, and is effortless to drive.  Having had one, I can see the appeal. But the gearbox is not good against that engine.

Quite true, but chipped, and judicious use of 3rd gear and sport mode makes it a very satisfactory driver.

Yup, absolutely Shack, I really do miss mine .  But that autobox's unsuitability for the engine does muller urban MPG, often down to sub 20mpg 

[Shackeng]

I'll second that TB's comment, my TD is very poor on local driving, probably only about 23, not that I ever check, as I don't care. I love the car.

That is poor mpg. My R Class can do better around town and it's permanent 4x4 weighing 2.2 tonnes 

TBH, the engine and gearbox are not well matched (understaement of the year!!).  Also, in standard, heavily detuned form, its clearly not running at peak efficiency.

That said, despite is age (first used in Omega 23yrs ago, with only minor changes until 2001 when it was dropped in the UK), its a nice engine to drive. It has a good, flat torque curve, and is effortless to drive.  Having had one, I can see the appeal. But the gearbox is not good against that engine.

Quite true, but chipped, and judicious use of 3rd gear and sport mode makes it a very satisfactory driver.

Yup, absolutely Shack, I really do miss mine .  But that autobox's unsuitability for the engine does muller urban MPG, often down to sub 20mpg 

I've never seen mine that low, and it is usually only driven between 4 -6 miles and then back locally, invariably in third as the country road speed is max 50.  Chipped of course so the computer lies by about 20%, but it is always about 26 plus on the readout, so probably about 23.