Print

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

[Webby the Bear]

So the conclusion then is that my omega, for whatever reason, is slower than it should be.

The conclusion is at least one of the following:
The car is shite
The driver is shite
The process used is shite

I'd suggest a 2.5 auto should be nearer to 9s than 9.5s

Far be it from me to cast the first stone but I believe that Mr bear knows where the biscuit tin is.

Lol

[Webby the Bear]

So the conclusion then is that my omega, for whatever reason, is slower than it should be.

The conclusion is at least one of the following:
The car is shite
The driver is shite
The process used is shite

I'd suggest a 2.5 auto should be nearer to 9s than 9.5s

The process. . . As in the methods used to test? And obvious variables?

[Webby the Bear]

Lol I'm not getting a 3.0 or 3.2. I just want my 2.5 to do what it should. Nothing more.

[STEMO]

Lol I'm not getting a 3.0 or 3.2. I just want my 2.5 to do what it should. Nothing more.

Or what it would have done fifteen years ago when it was new.

[Webby the Bear]

Lol I'm not getting a 3.0 or 3.2. I just want my 2.5 to do what it should. Nothing more.

Or what it would have done fifteen years ago when it was new.

That I would have agreed with. But throughout this thread I've discovered that wear in the engine isn't an issue. Compressions bang on. There's little to no carbon build up in modern engines. And the cars running absolutely great. Nice n smooth. Just this apparent lack of power.

So. If the 2.5 should do around 9 secs for a 0-60, where the fek is the problem?

[Andy H]

Lol I'm not getting a 3.0 or 3.2. I just want my 2.5 to do what it should. Nothing more.

Or what it would have done fifteen years ago when it was new.

That I would have agreed with. But throughout this thread I've discovered that wear in the engine isn't an issue. Compressions bang on. There's little to no carbon build up in modern engines. And the cars running absolutely great. Nice n smooth. Just this apparent lack of power.

So. If the 2.5 should do around 9 secs for a 0-60, where the fek is the problem?

In your head?

[Webby the Bear]

Andy, you could well be right! 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I doubt an elderly 2.5 would crack ten seconds with a 'weighty' driver at the helm.

[Webby the Bear]

I doubt an elderly 2.5 would crack ten seconds with a 'weighty' driver at the helm.

True, but I wanted to have a scientific reason for why it wont do it as my extra ''love handles'' shouldn't make that much difference according to the 0-60 calculator on the tinternet.

Who knows. 

[Viral_Jim]

Leaving the engine aside, surely there's 15 years' wear on the Autobox as well. I can't think that the changes will be as quick as the day she rolled off the production line, nor that the torque converter is 100% of its former self?

These could account for (at least some of) your lost pace?

[Webby the Bear]

Thanks Jimmy. You could totally be right. Maybe a culmination of small things 

At the end of the day the car did under 9.5. But that's just with me. I suppose I really need to get out there with a passenger (my 18st plus a smaller passenger  ) and a full tank to see how far off it actually is.

or

contact GM to find out once and for all how the car was tested to be 100% sure. I'm crazy enough to do that! 

[STEMO]

They'd have to phone a friend, someone retired no doubt.

[Webby the Bear]

 

[Webby the Bear]

Thanks Jimmy. You could totally be right. Maybe a culmination of small things 

At the end of the day the car did under 9.5. But that's just with me. I suppose I really need to get out there with a passenger (my 18st plus a smaller passenger  ) and a full tank to see how far off it actually is.

or

contact GM to find out once and for all how the car was tested to be 100% sure. I'm crazy enough to do that! 

A few e mails sent  will let you all know (assuming youre interested like me) if / when I get a response 

[Diamond Black Geezer]

From reading an article a few years back re: how auto makers actually test the 0-60 times, you're basically (in a manual, I grant you) sitting her in 1st, foot on clutch, build the revs to 3500 or something criminal, then lift the left pedal immediately, and away you go. This was tried on an Aston Vantage and after three attempts the diff shredded. The 0-60 in a way is a potential figure your car 'can/may do', really; as opposed to a 'you'll get this figure every day, regular as clockwork' kind of thing.



yup, on of them Vantages, so that's how old the report was. It's brutal, punishing on the mechanicals, and if it took ten attempts and three cars to get that figure, then so be it. Only a few of us on here have two or three spare Omegas to fall back on 


Also dont forget that the standard of rubber, and the road surface will also play a part. If you're not on slicks and on fresh grippy tarmac on a hot day then you may never acheive that magic 9 secs the brochure claims.

Personally I'd be well happy with that figure you've achieved. Boy done good.