Print

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

[FrenchPaddy]

As above - I have got access to a 3.2  engine for cheap money, in theory, the  bigger CC 'must' be better seeing as the reason the 3.0 is good is because of already big CC
 I realize latter one is the electric throttle, was thinking of keeping using the  3.0 intake, Ideally id like to supercharge one day. maybe even use the 3.0 heads.

From people who have done a 3.2 manual swap.   was it worth the effort?  any pointers

Had a bit of a search but these things are so old now that it seems no one really bothers going too deep anymore on full-on mods.

 

[TheBoy]

The 3.0l is the best of all the Omega engines as standard.  Definitely not worth swapping unless you are going to do a lot of other work.  In fact, I'd be going the other way, junking the 3.2 in favour of the 3.0

The 3.2 has such a rubbish compression ratio, its as flat as a witches tit.  But has more potential for forced induction, though this would need further internal work.

[FrenchPaddy]

 3.2 bore on 3.0 heads and cams should be a nice thing one would think ??
 Providing the fueling was upped to compensate of course.

my 3.0 goes hard but is very peaky. a little more bottom grunt would be welcome. Heavy complex old thing to go faffing at all the same. There is a mint 2003 Dti 2.5 wagon with sunroof up the road from here at 600 euros - injection problem.   Probably have as much fun putting the 530D  motor into that. 

 saw that porsche have a supercharged V6 and was wondering if the ports would match up off the Charger to the MV6 - If it would fit between the V of the  GM engine and somehow get the ports to line up.... Probably dreaming. just buy an M5  it seems :'(

[TheBoy]

Are your multirams working, as all V6 Omegas should have a reasonably flat curve.  Although my old 3.0l was chipped, so still had a noticeable increase above 4000rpm.

Darth Loo-knee put a set of 2.5 heads and the 2.5 engine management on a 2.6 block, and I think did no other mapping.  That went quite well on the couple of occasions I drove it.  Certainly much better than a standard 2.6 ever went (the 2.6 is absolutely the worse of all Omega engines, by some margin)

[Doctor Gollum]

If you swap the electricals over along with the throttle body the 3.2 will drop straight in. Basically it will think it's still a 3.0.

3.2 has a forged crank, but that and a couple of cc is about all the difference 

3.2 manual was my weapon of choice, but I am a.bit weird in that regard.

As with the diffs, you're about a decade late to the party.

[FrenchPaddy]

Lol I feel a decade late.
 I think I need to get something ready done. I love the concept of a big old omega. but it's over unless you got a stash of parts and already had your fun;

[Doctor Gollum]

Or throw an LS1 in it and call it done. Easy 350+bhp...

LS2/3 and you're talking 400+ and any of the above will happily accept a blower and 600+.

Again not cheap but proven.

Also, with that 2.5 diesel, why stop at the 3 litre... for the effort, may as well go with the 3.5

[JamesV6CDX]

You can mess about with all combinations of 3.2 / 3.0 engines, 2.5/2.6 heads, G cams, 3.2 inlets, etc.... yes, it's true you can get some gains from it, but in reality they will all disappoint you.

The Omega is a heavy, boxy car, it will never (certainly by today's standards) win any notable races, and most modern cars of a similar spec will blow it out of the water.

15 years ago it may have had some benefit, but these days unless you're talking serious work, I think these kinds of upgrades to try and get a few horses out of a heavy Omega barge, are basically like pissing in the wind.

The 2.2 is acceptable, and any V6 is a lovely, comfortable smooth cruiser. That's where it ends for me these days. If you want something "quick", then look away from the Omega, unless you have a significant budget for V8 conversion, etc. (And even then, you have to really love it, because there are much more capable cars out there)......

I will always have a huge soft spot for Omegas, but, I would never waste time trying to tune one. If anything, I'd want to keep it standard / original, and focus on what's important, eg, keeping it rust free, etc.

[Nick W]

Replacing a 3.0l with a 3.2 isn't going to do anything to make the car quicker. It's only worth doing if you already have a replacement for a knackered engine.


Tuning the V6 for more power is possible, but is expensive and the gains are small. That's proper tuning like cams, headwork, exhausts and intake manifolds. Fantasy random combinations of the 'best' factory bits aren't going to do anything worthwhile.


LS engines can be fitted, but they're not the cheap option that Americans are used to. And engine swaps are rarely the it just drops in that people claim.


If I wanted a +300hp Omega, I'd start with a four cylinder car and fit the turbo engine from an Astra.


The factory LSDs are intended to get a heavy road car moving in low grip conditions. Consequently they don't lock up much, and are weak/wear out quickly. Plus, they're rare and expensive. If you want one for competition, then you need an aftermarket unit designed for the job.

[zirk]

I would agree wit TB on this, stick with the 3.0 Lump if its a good one, the 3.0's were top end happy at higher Revs, the 3.2's more tourqe'y at low low revs but a lot worse for overall MPG.

 Cheapest Mod for the 3.0's is to Chip it, Courtenay or SuperChip makes it slightly more push able , to go a bit further, a decent Exhaust, and a tiny bit more with Wider Throttle Bodies and 4 x G Cams (Dont lose the standard Opel/Vx Intake Multi Ram Setup though), going down the Turbo / Supercharger route will probably just shag the Engine if pushed to its lmits.

[Doctor Gollum]

3.2 wasn't too bad on fuel with the correct gearbox. 400 miles from a tank was achievable 

Mind you, so was 250 miles

[TheBoy]

3.2 wasn't too bad on fuel with the correct gearbox. 400 miles from a tank was achievable 

Mind you, so was 250 miles

I got more than 500 miles from a tank in my 3.0l auto on more than one occasion if I was a little more careful than normal.  I used to predict approx 330-350 as an average.  It was actually quite challenging to get below 300.  I couldn't get remotely close to that in the 3.2. And the 3.0l was quicker. 

The 3.2 always was and always will be an inferior option, fitted by GM for penny pinching purposes.

[Doctor Gollum]

Never owned a far inferior pre facelift car

[TheBoy]

Never owned a far inferior pre facelift car

The superior 3.0l was fitted to the penny pinched inferior FL.  Its not a FL v MFL v PFL thing

[VXL V6]

3.2 wasn't too bad on fuel with the correct gearbox. 400 miles from a tank was achievable 

Mind you, so was 250 miles

Easily get 420 a tank out of my 3.2's, but then my job entails lots of motorway miles. The 2.6 I had was worse, probably because it had to work harder to achieve the same progress. But just like all cars with a reasonable size engine under the bonnet, MPG goes for a **** as soon as you get off the motorway and into a town.