Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please check the Forum Guidelines at the top of the Newbie section

Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel  (Read 4295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tunnie

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Surrey
  • Posts: 37526
    • Zafira Tourer & BMW 435i
    • View Profile
The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« on: 08 June 2015, 21:26:53 »

http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/vauxhall/vxr8/vauxhall-vxr8-2007/4291705



That VXR8 is not far off the average (9th pic) I get from the 3.2.

Might as well get a VXR8. Cost same in fuel  ::)
Logged

Field Marshal Dr. Opti

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Utopia
  • Posts: 31632
  • Speaking sense, not Woke PC crap
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #1 on: 08 June 2015, 21:30:26 »

£12950 for an 8 year old Vauxhall that has been around the world five times. :-\

Sanity starts at £6000. :y



Logged

tunnie

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Surrey
  • Posts: 37526
    • Zafira Tourer & BMW 435i
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #2 on: 08 June 2015, 21:33:53 »

£12950 for an 8 year old Vauxhall that has been around the world five times. :-\

Sanity starts at £6000. :y

Not interested in the price, more the mpg from an engine almost twice the capacity and 2 extra cylinders.

Logged

Kevin Wood

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Alton, Hampshire
  • Posts: 36283
    • Jaguar XE 25t, Westfield
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #3 on: 08 June 2015, 21:43:07 »

Manual gearbox versus the Omega's auto and it's also an advert, so probably BS. ;)

Besides, I would expect you to be getting another 10 MPG from a 3.2, so something's not quite right. ::)
Logged
Tech2 services currently available. See TheBoy's price list: http://theboy.omegaowners.com/

chrisgixer

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Woking ham
  • Posts: 2616
  • Banned
    • Irmscher 3.2 Elite lpg
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #4 on: 08 June 2015, 21:45:07 »

Tunnie thinks a 6.2 is the same on fuel as a 3.2?

Drive everywhere at tick over rpm then maybe. Which is quite possible in a vxr8.


....Oh yes it's A Tunnie talking isn't it ;D


Wonder what speed a vxr8 will do at tick over?
Logged

05omegav6

  • Guest
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #5 on: 08 June 2015, 21:45:40 »

About 50 in top ::)
Logged

chrisgixer

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Woking ham
  • Posts: 2616
  • Banned
    • Irmscher 3.2 Elite lpg
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #6 on: 08 June 2015, 21:47:32 »

About 50 in top ::)

I rekon Tunster would get away the top gear alone. ;)
Logged

tunnie

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Surrey
  • Posts: 37526
    • Zafira Tourer & BMW 435i
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #7 on: 08 June 2015, 21:48:12 »

Tunnie thinks a 6.2 is the same on fuel as a 3.2?

Looking at the LPG conversion threads, on petrol it's not far off. 25 average is do able.

Manual gearbox versus the Omega's auto and it's also an advert, so probably BS. ;)

Besides, I would expect you to be getting another 10 MPG from a 3.2, so something's not quite right. ::)

Also shot the tyres in 14k. Not sure what's gotten into me.  ;D

Logged

Mr.OmegaMan

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Middle of nowhere
  • Posts: 4176
    • 3.2 Elite , CLS500
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #8 on: 09 June 2015, 00:24:54 »

Nice Omega for sale on there also... So happens to be a 3.2  ::) ;D

http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/vauxhall/omega/rare-vauxhall-omega/4244583

240bhp and a claimed 0-62 in 6.5sec Sounds good if true  :y
Logged

Broomies Mate

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Bristol, UK
  • Posts: 3840
    • Stuff!
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #9 on: 09 June 2015, 01:05:23 »

Nice Omega for sale on there also... So happens to be a 3.2  ::) ;D

http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/vauxhall/omega/rare-vauxhall-omega/4244583

240bhp and a claimed 0-62 in 6.5sec Sounds good if true  :y

OOOOHHHHH!  RARE!  I must have!  ;D
Logged
2004 Saab 9-5 Aero Merlot Red Stg1 noobtune
2009 Saab 9-5 Turbo Edition Titan Grey Stg3 noobtune
2017 Vauxhall Vivaro L1H1 125PS Star Silver

Kevin Wood

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Alton, Hampshire
  • Posts: 36283
    • Jaguar XE 25t, Westfield
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #10 on: 09 June 2015, 10:08:07 »

About 50 in top ::)

I rekon Tunster would get away the top gear alone. ;)

I had a ride in one of 2woody's when half the gearbox was u/s and it "didn't appear to be holding it back". :o
Logged
Tech2 services currently available. See TheBoy's price list: http://theboy.omegaowners.com/

Kevin Wood

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Alton, Hampshire
  • Posts: 36283
    • Jaguar XE 25t, Westfield
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #11 on: 09 June 2015, 10:10:07 »

...240bhp and a claimed 0-62 in 6.5sec...

Seller missed the phrase "In my dreams" from the spec., clearly.  ::)

Logged
Tech2 services currently available. See TheBoy's price list: http://theboy.omegaowners.com/

henryd

  • Omega Lord
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • west cornwall
  • Posts: 8764
  • VW Touareg R5 tdi Auto
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #12 on: 09 June 2015, 12:05:48 »

About 50 in top ::)

I rekon Tunster would get away the top gear alone. ;)

I had a ride in one of 2woody's when half the gearbox was u/s and it "didn't appear to be holding it back". :o

Where did he go ,not seen him on for ages :-\
Logged
other rides 
  mk3 Volvo v70 2.0 Diesel ,Citroen C2, Pug 306 cabriolet
  Sterling elite trekker pikey wagon

chrisgixer

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Woking ham
  • Posts: 2616
  • Banned
    • Irmscher 3.2 Elite lpg
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #13 on: 09 June 2015, 14:46:08 »

About 50 in top ::)

I rekon Tunster would get away the top gear alone. ;)

I had a ride in one of 2woody's when half the gearbox was u/s and it "didn't appear to be holding it back". :o
Almost impossible to stall, even just letting the clutch out in 5th. Imagine that and with a throttle as well. ;D

I had a ride in it when it had ALL its gears. JeeZUS! with Firm and compliant ride. Wamo brakes. Makes the omega look pathetic tbh.

But it did hatch a cunning plan. Some time ago now though. :-[

And with a big enough wallet and ls2 heads if you can find them good for any amount of tuning.


....sorry this is a Tunnie thread. Right? :-\
Logged

chrisgixer

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Woking ham
  • Posts: 2616
  • Banned
    • Irmscher 3.2 Elite lpg
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #14 on: 09 June 2015, 14:50:01 »

Obviously depends how it's driven. With a bit of space you can get a stock LSv8 down to single figures quite easily. Try that in an omega. ;D


There really is no point owning a 3.2 if just plodding around or not running lpg, then moaning about fuel bills. If not happy, either gas it or "get off the pot" as they say.
Logged

tigers_gonads

  • Omega Lord
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Kinston Upon Hull
  • Posts: 8592
  • Driving a Honda CR-V which doesn't smell of pee
    • Honda CR-V
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #15 on: 09 June 2015, 14:55:00 »

Tell me about it  ::)
Just been to see a mate / customer who has just traded his 911 GT3 in for a 09 plate Carrera S
Picked it up in jock land and came back at a fair old whack.
Brimmed the tank when he got back to find it had done 27.3 mpg  :o
Logged

Kevin Wood

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Alton, Hampshire
  • Posts: 36283
    • Jaguar XE 25t, Westfield
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #16 on: 09 June 2015, 15:42:31 »

About 50 in top ::)

I rekon Tunster would get away the top gear alone. ;)

I had a ride in one of 2woody's when half the gearbox was u/s and it "didn't appear to be holding it back". :o
Almost impossible to stall, even just letting the clutch out in 5th. Imagine that and with a throttle as well. ;D

I had a ride in it when it had ALL its gears. JeeZUS! with Firm and compliant ride. Wamo brakes. Makes the omega look pathetic tbh.

But it did hatch a cunning plan. Some time ago now though. :-[

And with a big enough wallet and ls2 heads if you can find them good for any amount of tuning.


....sorry this is a Tunnie thread. Right? :-\

Yes, I had a ride in its' home turf in Northumberland. Thought we were going to get intimate with the hedge at times but no... :o Soundtrack to raise the dead too. :D
Logged
Tech2 services currently available. See TheBoy's price list: http://theboy.omegaowners.com/

zirk

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Epping Forest
  • Posts: 11431
  • 3.2 Manual Special Saloon ReMapped and LPG'd and
    • 3.2 Manual Special Estate
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #17 on: 09 June 2015, 18:38:23 »

3.0 Manual is what you need over a 3.2, chip the 3.0, widened Throttle Bodies and a half decent SS Sports Exhaust System and you already up to or well over the 3.2 Power and a lot better MPG, used to get 28 mpg in town on average and 35 mpg on a run on my old MV6, all the 3.2 Ive had cant touch them figures, even a 2.6 Manual will struggle.
« Last Edit: 09 June 2015, 18:40:42 by zirk »
Logged

The Sheriff

  • Guest
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #18 on: 09 June 2015, 18:55:26 »

Or....just buy a car that was built to go fast.
Logged

kev2b4

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Luton, Beds
  • Posts: 249
    • 2.5 CDX ,2.5 tourer
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #19 on: 09 June 2015, 19:13:53 »

Daowoo turboed?
Logged

chrisgixer

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Woking ham
  • Posts: 2616
  • Banned
    • Irmscher 3.2 Elite lpg
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #20 on: 09 June 2015, 20:01:20 »

Just. The smallest word ever used to wipe out an opinion with absolutely no clue behind issue what so ever. Dismissive and shows no understanding. Must be Stmo.

[zooms out] yep, Stmo it is [zooms back in for the rest of my guess the poster game] ;D
Logged

The Sheriff

  • Guest
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #21 on: 09 June 2015, 20:22:40 »

Just. The smallest word ever used to wipe out an opinion with absolutely no clue behind issue what so ever. Dismissive and shows no understanding. Must be Stmo.

[zooms out] yep, Stmo it is [zooms back in for the rest of my guess the poster game] ;D
Just.......fick off then. ;D
Logged

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 105950
  • I Like Lockdown
    • Whatever Starts
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #23 on: 09 June 2015, 20:57:21 »

http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/vauxhall/vxr8/vauxhall-vxr8-2007/4291705



That VXR8 is not far off the average (9th pic) I get from the 3.2.

Might as well get a VXR8. Cost same in fuel  ::)
To quote yourself, £12k is a LOT of fuel ;)

Driven sedately at a constant speed, they can return 25+ mpg.  Given your commute, I think you'd struggle to get 15mpg.
Logged
Grumpy old man

tunnie

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Surrey
  • Posts: 37526
    • Zafira Tourer & BMW 435i
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #24 on: 09 June 2015, 21:03:25 »

Or...just buy something like this:
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201505153489307/sort/atcustom/model/s-type/onesearchad/used/make/jaguar/usedcars/page/4/engine-size-cars/3l_to_3-9l/channel/cars/radius/1500/postcode/s727na?logcode=p

Under £2K and very quick.

I know you are used to 1.4, but a 3.0 V6 in S Type won't be fast ;)

The V8 maybe, but I'd rather have a supercharged XJ :)
Logged

tunnie

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Surrey
  • Posts: 37526
    • Zafira Tourer & BMW 435i
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #25 on: 09 June 2015, 21:05:35 »

http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/vauxhall/vxr8/vauxhall-vxr8-2007/4291705



That VXR8 is not far off the average (9th pic) I get from the 3.2.

Might as well get a VXR8. Cost same in fuel  ::)
To quote yourself, £12k is a LOT of fuel ;)

Driven sedately at a constant speed, they can return 25+ mpg.  Given your commute, I think you'd struggle to get 15mpg.

I reckon low 20's could be done. :)
Logged

Steve B

  • Omega Baron
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Leicestershire
  • Posts: 3638
    • '52' MV6 3.2 Saloon
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #26 on: 09 June 2015, 21:09:52 »

What mpg do these bikes give tunnie ?  Like the one in your pic.. Just wondered  :-\
Logged

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 105950
  • I Like Lockdown
    • Whatever Starts
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #27 on: 09 June 2015, 21:11:46 »

http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/vauxhall/vxr8/vauxhall-vxr8-2007/4291705



That VXR8 is not far off the average (9th pic) I get from the 3.2.

Might as well get a VXR8. Cost same in fuel  ::)
To quote yourself, £12k is a LOT of fuel ;)

Driven sedately at a constant speed, they can return 25+ mpg.  Given your commute, I think you'd struggle to get 15mpg.

I reckon low 20's could be done. :)
I'm the first to admit that the 3.2 is absolutely shocking on economy (and power delivery, but that's not relevant), but if you reckon you can get 20mpg from a 6l V8 on a journey that will never be economical, you'll easily get 25 from the 3.2

I think the official figures for the 6.2 VXR8 is high teens?
Logged
Grumpy old man

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 105950
  • I Like Lockdown
    • Whatever Starts
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #28 on: 09 June 2015, 21:12:16 »

What mpg do these bikes give tunnie ?  Like the one in your pic.. Just wondered  :-\
Should be good for mid 40s if not ragged.
Logged
Grumpy old man

tunnie

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Surrey
  • Posts: 37526
    • Zafira Tourer & BMW 435i
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.2's really are crap on fuel
« Reply #29 on: 09 June 2015, 21:24:07 »

What mpg do these bikes give tunnie ?  Like the one in your pic.. Just wondered  :-\
Should be good for mid 40s if not ragged.

Try mid 50's. :y :y
 
On my commute to London the bike easily averages 54+mpg

The 2.2 does about 28 on gas, 3.2 does about 25 on petrol.

Bike I leave around 9am for work, car, 7am due to traffic and parking. Its good run in the car, M3/M25/Heathrow T5 Jc/Hatton Cross.  25 miles in 45 mins.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 18 queries.