Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to OOF

Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Down

Author Topic: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?  (Read 631 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

henryd

  • Omega Lord
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • west cornwall
  • Posts: 7922
  • VW Touareg R5 tdi Auto
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #15 on: 04 January 2019, 09:59:32 »

The 2 posts immediately above match my experiences.

And mine  :y
Logged
other rides 
  Focus 1.6 mk2,Pug 306 cabriolet,Merc CLK 2.3 kompressor
  Sterling elite trekker pikey wagon

gazzap

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • colchester essex
  • Posts: 32
    • Omega Estate 2.6 MV6
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #16 on: 04 January 2019, 11:09:17 »

Its okay guys, had a think about it and just gonna stick the 3.2 in, bit more tunable and better gains too , hopefully in the next couple of weeks, will i need the 3.2 ecu and fob ect etc? As I've been told the 2.6 ecu will run it fine :/
Logged

henryd

  • Omega Lord
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • west cornwall
  • Posts: 7922
  • VW Touareg R5 tdi Auto
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #17 on: 04 January 2019, 11:56:58 »

Its okay guys, had a think about it and just gonna stick the 3.2 in, bit more tunable and better gains too , hopefully in the next couple of weeks, will i need the 3.2 ecu and fob ect etc? As I've been told the 2.6 ecu will run it fine :/

If its an auto you'll need the gearbox as well,3.2 will eat the AR25 :'(
Logged
other rides 
  Focus 1.6 mk2,Pug 306 cabriolet,Merc CLK 2.3 kompressor
  Sterling elite trekker pikey wagon

gazzap

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • colchester essex
  • Posts: 32
    • Omega Estate 2.6 MV6
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #18 on: 04 January 2019, 12:15:55 »

Its okay guys, had a think about it and just gonna stick the 3.2 in, bit more tunable and better gains too , hopefully in the next couple of weeks, will i need the 3.2 ecu and fob ect etc? As I've been told the 2.6 ecu will run it fine :/

If its an auto you'll need the gearbox as well,3.2 will eat the AR25 :'(

Nah shes a 2.6 manual wanted to keep the 2.6 gearbox for better gear ratios, so ill need the ecu kit, and that will be it yeah?
Logged

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 97932
  • Millennium Man
    • The missus mad
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #19 on: 04 January 2019, 12:24:12 »

I think the gearbox ratios are the same between all V6s, but the 2.5/2.6 have a low geared diff.
Logged
I don't tolerate bickering, and I'm always grumpy.
And Lizzie Zoom says I'm a heartless bastid...and she's absolutely correct!

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 97932
  • Millennium Man
    • The missus mad
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #20 on: 04 January 2019, 12:28:38 »

I'm 99% certain that the ECU hardware is the same, but there is a config difference.  Whether or not this switches in a different map, I've never bothered to look.

It'll need an authorised Tech2 to change that setting.

I seem to recall the injectors are different as well, so use the injector rail from 3.2.

The 3.2's biggest issue (for NA) is piss poor CR, for emmissions reasons and penny pinching.  You'll probably want to get the CR back up to 3.0 standards if running NA.  If blowing, don't over do the boost. Plus you'll need a custom map.
Logged
I don't tolerate bickering, and I'm always grumpy.
And Lizzie Zoom says I'm a heartless bastid...and she's absolutely correct!

gazzap

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • colchester essex
  • Posts: 32
    • Omega Estate 2.6 MV6
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #21 on: 04 January 2019, 12:40:51 »

I'm 99% certain that the ECU hardware is the same, but there is a config difference.  Whether or not this switches in a different map, I've never bothered to look.

It'll need an authorised Tech2 to change that setting.

I seem to recall the injectors are different as well, so use the injector rail from 3.2.

The 3.2's biggest issue (for NA) is piss poor CR, for emmissions reasons and penny pinching.  You'll probably want to get the CR back up to 3.0 standards if running NA.  If blowing, don't over do the boost. Plus you'll need a custom map.

Well ive just purchased an 3.2 ecu kit just to make sure, only 90 quid, rather be safe than sorry ha, ill stick the 3.0 injectors in as they have a 10cc more spray and then the 2.6/3.2 fuel regulator, as ling as it runs as a standard 3.2, i have a bassline to start from, just reading up on little tricks and tips to increase performance, finding someone to remap is going to be the hardest part :/
Logged

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 97932
  • Millennium Man
    • The missus mad
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #22 on: 04 January 2019, 15:56:59 »

If pissballing around with fuelling on the standard GM map, the trims need to be more or less 0%, as they soon get grumpy if they drift off dramatically.

This is something that a lot of the crap you read on of the internet that shows most people don't know their arse from their elbow. Higher flow injectors, higher pressure FPRs and so on do not help in the slightest if the originals are good enough, all that happens is the ECU has to battle harder to keep everything working right, and every time you clear any codes, the thing will run like a sack of shite.


If you can get more air in (and out - theres another issue though), then increasing fuel flow makes sense, but only if you can keep the trims, long term, around the 0% mark. Try to understand what is going on and why, rather than believe what the bloke down the pub's dogs mums brother says (or what you read on the Internet in this new fangled online world)


Hope that makes sense :)
Logged
I don't tolerate bickering, and I'm always grumpy.
And Lizzie Zoom says I'm a heartless bastid...and she's absolutely correct!

VXL V6

  • Omega Lord
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Solihull
  • Posts: 8816
    • 3x 3.2 V6 Elite Saloons
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #23 on: 04 January 2019, 19:12:24 »

I think the gearbox ratios are the same between all V6s, but the 2.5/2.6 have a low geared diff.
Yes different ratio diff in a 2.6 auto to a 3.2 auto.... That said, I seem to recall Daz's 2.6 MV6 that he bought from Josh with a seized block that was promptly replaced with a 3.0 block and the 2.6 ignition setup was a fantastic sleeper with original 2.6 manual box and diff (I seem to recall the manual diff ratio was different again)...
Logged

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 97932
  • Millennium Man
    • The missus mad
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #24 on: 05 January 2019, 09:49:48 »

I think the gearbox ratios are the same between all V6s, but the 2.5/2.6 have a low geared diff.
Yes different ratio diff in a 2.6 auto to a 3.2 auto.... That said, I seem to recall Daz's 2.6 MV6 that he bought from Josh with a seized block that was promptly replaced with a 3.0 block and the 2.6 ignition setup was a fantastic sleeper with original 2.6 manual box and diff (I seem to recall the manual diff ratio was different again)...
And a hoot to drive.  Unsurprisingly, wasn't hugely different to a 3.0l manual, but the throttle response was different.
Logged
I don't tolerate bickering, and I'm always grumpy.
And Lizzie Zoom says I'm a heartless bastid...and she's absolutely correct!

olm

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • spain
  • Posts: 61
    • 2.6 v6 sport estate
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #25 on: 06 January 2019, 17:08:06 »

If pissballing around with fuelling on the standard GM map, the trims need to be more or less 0%, as they soon get grumpy if they drift off dramatically.

This is something that a lot of the crap you read on of the internet that shows most people don't know their arse from their elbow. Higher flow injectors, higher pressure FPRs and so on do not help in the slightest if the originals are good enough, all that happens is the ECU has to battle harder to keep everything working right, and every time you clear any codes, the thing will run like a sack of shite.


If you can get more air in (and out - theres another issue though), then increasing fuel flow makes sense, but only if you can keep the trims, long term, around the 0% mark. Try to understand what is going on and why, rather than believe what the bloke down the pub's dogs mums brother says (or what you read on the Internet in this new fangled online world)


Hope that makes sense :)

I have a 3.0 block with electronic and fuel system from 2.6, I  have noticed an increase of torque, which was what I was looking for. At the moment it works well but, should I do a ecu remap or is it going well?
Logged

henryd

  • Omega Lord
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • west cornwall
  • Posts: 7922
  • VW Touareg R5 tdi Auto
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #26 on: 06 January 2019, 18:17:41 »

If pissballing around with fuelling on the standard GM map, the trims need to be more or less 0%, as they soon get grumpy if they drift off dramatically.

This is something that a lot of the crap you read on of the internet that shows most people don't know their arse from their elbow. Higher flow injectors, higher pressure FPRs and so on do not help in the slightest if the originals are good enough, all that happens is the ECU has to battle harder to keep everything working right, and every time you clear any codes, the thing will run like a sack of shite.


If you can get more air in (and out - theres another issue though), then increasing fuel flow makes sense, but only if you can keep the trims, long term, around the 0% mark. Try to understand what is going on and why, rather than believe what the bloke down the pub's dogs mums brother says (or what you read on the Internet in this new fangled online world)


Hope that makes sense :)

I have a 3.0 block with electronic and fuel system from 2.6, I  have noticed an increase of torque, which was what I was looking for. At the moment it works well but, should I do a ecu remap or is it going well?

If you are happy with it and it runs well there is no need to change anything
Logged
other rides 
  Focus 1.6 mk2,Pug 306 cabriolet,Merc CLK 2.3 kompressor
  Sterling elite trekker pikey wagon

Doctor Gollum

  • Omega Queen
  • ********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • In a colds and darks puddleses
  • Posts: 11607
  • If you can't eat them, join them...
    • Feetses.
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #27 on: 06 January 2019, 18:58:26 »

The ecu has an element of self adaption for emissions reasons, so if it performs with no issues or eml light then I wouldn't worry about it  ;)
Logged
Onanists always think outside the box.

olm

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • spain
  • Posts: 61
    • 2.6 v6 sport estate
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #28 on: 06 January 2019, 19:26:17 »

Yes, its run perfectly and pass ITV (MOT) with 0,0 of CO emissions, better than modern cars  8) Im happy, but if it can be improved...
Logged

zirk

  • Omega Queen
  • ********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Epping Forest
  • Posts: 11008
  • 3.2 Manual Special Saloon ReMapped and LPG'd and
    • 3.2 Manual Special Estate
    • View Profile
Re: 2.6 , which cams are better for low end?
« Reply #29 on: 07 January 2019, 22:04:19 »

I'm 99% certain that the ECU hardware is the same, but there is a config difference.  Whether or not this switches in a different map, I've never bothered to look.

It'll need an authorised Tech2 to change that setting.

I seem to recall the injectors are different as well, so use the injector rail from 3.2.

The 3.2's biggest issue (for NA) is piss poor CR, for emmissions reasons and penny pinching.  You'll probably want to get the CR back up to 3.0 standards if running NA.  If blowing, don't over do the boost. Plus you'll need a custom map.

Well ive just purchased an 3.2 ecu kit just to make sure, only 90 quid, rather be safe than sorry ha, ill stick the 3.0 injectors in as they have a 10cc more spray and then the 2.6/3.2 fuel regulator, as ling as it runs as a standard 3.2, i have a bassline to start from, just reading up on little tricks and tips to increase performance, finding someone to remap is going to be the hardest part :/
I would get it all running using the original ECU first, then when happy swap out the ECU for your new 3.2 ECU as all 3.2 ECU were set for Autos (Unless Ex Police).

From experience an 3.2 ECU from an Auto will (or should) work in a 3.2 Manual but it does use a different Map. In the Older 3.0/2.5 Auto / Manual Setups there was a Pin on the Main ECU Loom that would be set High/Low for Auto/Manual, I never did get around whether the Loom was similar on the Later 3.2 ECU (poss only the 2.6) but my Chip Man tells me they are configurable within the ECU via a Specialist ReMap or as TB says possibly via Tech 2. So, if need be,  your need to do some Homework on that.

Possible outcomes with a 3.2 Auto ECU in a Manual could be, it will run fine but not quiet be the correct Map, or it may run Rough / not quiet right, or it may just not Start one day as its decided out of the blue it cant see the Auto Box ECU Config.

 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.129 seconds with 22 queries.