Omega Owners Forum
Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: calibrated on 09 April 2021, 20:25:12
-
Interested in how it is compared? I would like opinions from people who have driven,tested or raced so personal experience,bought 3.0 van with manual,acceleration is very good,3.7 diff ratio i think,so i am asking myself what would 3.2 do better?
-
2 pedals good .... 3 pedals bad ::) ::) ;)
-
The 3.2 manual from the factory ( all police specials) has the r30 getrag box and the same diff as an auto so overall higher geared than a manual 3.0 with an r28. Also the 3.2 drive by wire throttle is a bit oversensitive v the old cable operated 3.0.
-
The 3.2 manual from the factory ( all police specials) has the r30 getrag box and the same diff as an auto so overall higher geared than a manual 3.0 with an r28. Also the 3.2 drive by wire throttle is a bit oversensitive v the old cable operated 3.0.
Not sure where you got any of that from ;D
All the manual 3.2s I have owned had factory 3.7:1 diffs. Never found the DBW throttle a problem either... And no SAI and EGR to delete either.
The R30 is a higher torque rated version of the R25/28 and is fundamentally interchangeable. I can't comment on the ratios in the R30, but the 3.2 has a higher top end than the 3.0...granted only a couple of mph, but more is better ;)
-
The 3.2 also comes with more emissions stuff, so I don't think the difference is that much. Granted if you fitted the 3.2 with all the 3.0 accessories, it would be better. Although I suspect there will be other challenges.
-
The 3.2 also comes with more emissions stuff, so I don't think the difference is that much. Granted if you fitted the 3.2 with all the 3.0 accessories, it would be better. Although I suspect there will be other challenges.
Like what?
No EGR or SAI for a start ::) two extra cats, but they aren't exactly restrictive. No idle control valve either, that's set by the ecu which can make the idle on the 2.6/3.2 seem lumpy.
All in all that adds up to LESS emissions nonsense, not more ;)
-
R30 is identical to R28 but has shot peened internals, AFAIK
-
The 3.2 also comes with more emissions stuff, so I don't think the difference is that much. Granted if you fitted the 3.2 with all the 3.0 accessories, it would be better. Although I suspect there will be other challenges.
Like what?
No EGR or SAI for a start ::) two extra cats, but they aren't exactly restrictive. No idle control valve either, that's set by the ecu which can make the idle on the 2.6/3.2 seem lumpy.
All in all that adds up to LESS emissions nonsense, not more ;)
The ManiCATS have got to be a form of restriction or they wouldn't work as a Catalyst. There is also the COPs -v- coil pack, granted not much of an issue, but I seem to remember there was other differences in the engine, albeit minor.
-
Both the 2.6 and 3.2 produce more power and torque than the 2.5/3.0 respectively, so that logic doesn't hold any water ;)
-
Both the 2.6 and 3.2 produce more power and torque than the 2.5/3.0 respectively, so that logic doesn't hold any water ;)
In which case I stand corrected. I thought the preference here was the 3.0?
-
Both the 2.6 and 3.2 produce more power and torque than the 2.5/3.0 respectively, so that logic doesn't hold any water ;)
In which case I stand corrected. I thought the preference here was the 3.0?
God alone knows why ;D The 3.2 even has a forged crank.
-
The preference was always 3.2 block on 2.6/late 2.5 ported heads, 3.0 engine management setup, 2.6/3.2 exhaust manifolds, 2.5/3.0 front pipes/cats (with the tops trimmed to fit the later manifolds) plus 3.0 inlet setup.
The 2.6/3.2 suffers due to lower compression and a compromised engine management setup (far to emissions biased which impacted the economy), hence picking the best bits from all to restore the compression ratio and get best all round operation.
-
Both the 2.6 and 3.2 produce more power and torque than the 2.5/3.0 respectively, so that logic doesn't hold any water ;)
In which case I stand corrected. I thought the preference here was the 3.0?
I think that's down more to the connected feel and imo, throttle response :-\
-
The preference was always 3.2 block on 2.6/late 2.5 ported heads, 3.0 engine management setup, 2.6/3.2 exhaust manifolds, 2.5/3.0 front pipes/cats (with the tops trimmed to fit the later manifolds) plus 3.0 inlet setup.
The 2.6/3.2 suffers due to lower compression and a compromised engine management setup (far to emissions biased which impacted the economy), hence picking the best bits from all to restore the compression ratio and get best all round operation.
Thank you. I thought the 2.6/3.2 was hobbled by emissions.
-
Hobbled is hardly fair or accurate. The 3.2 modified as suggested is probably only a handful of BHP/Lbft up on the standard ones.
On road performance is more greatly affected by gearing... A 3.9 diff might get it of the line a couple of tenths faster but at the expense of top end speed/fuel economy/higher engine speed at motorway speeds.
Obviously depends what you are trying to achieve. A Z20LET or V8 conversion would both be productive performance upgrades.
-
Without doubt, the 3.0 is the peach of the Omega engines. The 3.2 is less powerful in reality and a damn sight more thirsty.
The (poorly mapped) DBW throttle of the 3.2 makes it seem more sprightly when pootling about, but thats because it artificially opens the throttle a lot more than expected on pull away. Bury the throttle on either from a standing start, the 3.0l is the one to have. Also, with a mechanical throttle, if you do bury the throttle and dump the clutch, the 3.0 is easier to regain traction, as the DBW needs more guesswork (though consistent, so easy to master)
The 3.2 is hampered by the cost cutting exercises, including the removal of the EGR, which means the compression ratio had to be lowered, and then the cc increased to give similar power. The compression ratio kills it.
The same story goes for 2.5 v 2.6.
I owned both (autos) side by side for several years, and I've driven more Omegas than I care to remember (hundreds) of all engines and boxes.
I have to add, I particularly detest the Omega manual box due to its throw. But for outright performance, 3.0l manual out of the standard options available.
Anyone trying to make out that the 3.2l is better in any regard over the 3.0l hasn't driven many 3,0l ones.
-
Without doubt, the 3.0 is the peach of the Omega engines. The 3.2 is less powerful in reality and a damn sight more thirsty.
The (poorly mapped) DBW throttle of the 3.2 makes it seem more sprightly when pootling about, but thats because it artificially opens the throttle a lot more than expected on pull away. Bury the throttle on either from a standing start, the 3.0l is the one to have. Also, with a mechanical throttle, if you do bury the throttle and dump the clutch, the 3.0 is easier to regain traction, as the DBW needs more guesswork (though consistent, so easy to master)
The 3.2 is hampered by the cost cutting exercises, including the removal of the EGR, which means the compression ratio had to be lowered, and then the cc increased to give similar power. The compression ratio kills it.
The same story goes for 2.5 v 2.6.
I owned both (autos) side by side for several years, and I've driven more Omegas than I care to remember (hundreds) of all engines and boxes.
I have to add, I particularly detest the Omega manual box due to its throw. But for outright performance, 3.0l manual out of the standard options available.
Anyone trying to make out that the 3.2l is better in any regard over the 3.0l is a mong and a retard.
You're getting soft, fixed that for ya.
-
You're getting soft, fixed that for ya.
You're right, on all counts. Thanks :)
-
We'll have to agree to disagree. Although you're right, the manual is quicker than the auto :D
-
Well 3.0 in my wagon goes really well,e46 330ci manual cannot keep up with me,i am going away...weighted at 1680 kg with 30L fuel and spare tire...
On other hand i have Calibra 2.5 v6 DTM Edition and sourced a 3.2 liter Y32SE and have putted in with Calibra C25XE inlet and ancilliaries...Soon i am reshaping the hood and will put up a 3.0/3.2 inlet and get it remapped...the 3.2 engine has 50 000km (32 000 miles)...
(https://i.ibb.co/LpgQyXq/20210403-124925.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GPMsD41)
(https://i.ibb.co/3TSBDpH/20210403-124943.jpg) (https://ibb.co/j83gcyF)
(https://i.ibb.co/B3p5KJq/20210401-190239.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bm0MRVz)
(https://i.ibb.co/DCYPb6J/20210401-155836.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wW7ZLbk)
-
Calibra with a 3.2 :y
I know a couple of people who have done this, It would be nice to do a 4wd version but the transfer boxes are a bit delicate
-
I have also a calibra turbo with 4x4 ...i think everything under 250-270 hp makes no sense with 4x4,had a 3.0 liter calibra before,and a good driver with good tyres can take it of the line with no much problem :)...the system weights at 105kg with fluids,once you are of the line robs power,more consumption,more things to break ,plus rear manifold stands in way of transfer box ,so need precise custom fabrication :)..
At the moment i am also building my turbo calibra to a 500 hp project with upgraded transfer box ,this is where all wheel drive makes sense :)
-
Both the 2.6 and 3.2 produce more power and torque than the 2.5/3.0 respectively, so that logic doesn't hold any water ;)
In which case I stand corrected. I thought the preference here was the 3.0?
God alone knows why ;D The 3.2 even has a forged crank.
Makes you wondered why they bothered, when the stock cranks don't fail.
-
God alone knows why ;D The 3.2 even has a forged crank.
Was it cheaper than a genuine one? ::) (Yes I'm joking)
-
We'll have to agree to disagree.
The 3.2 only makes sense if you change the pistons or the head. It has the potential to be better than the 3.0, but only if you can increase the CR back up to sensible levels (which GM couldn't without fitting an EGR, which is expensive)