Omega Owners Forum
Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: Jabe on 05 September 2012, 15:39:31
-
Hey,
I have a question on the 0-60 times of pre/post facelift V6's.
According to official figures, a 2.5 pre-facelift auto does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. The 2.6 facelift (even with 9hp more) puts out the same 0-60 time. (assuming from the extra weight facelift cars have.)
The 3.0 auto (again all according to official figures) puts out an 0-60 time of 9.0 seconds HOWEVER the facelift 3.2 (with 7hp more) does the same time a second quicker @ 8.0 seconds!
Can someone please explain to me how exactly the 3.2 dropped a second of its time? What changed? Better low down power? Different autobox, diffs, what?
-
The 3.2 was going down hill ! ::) ;D ;)
-
The 3.2 was going down hill ! ::) ;D ;)
Haha!! Excellent. :P
-
I have both sat on my driveway - a 1998 3.0l auto (189k on clock), with latest v9 gearbox software, and a 2003 3.2l auto (68k on clock), with latest v8 gearbox software, and latest engine software.
On the standard map, the 3.0l is quicker, and more economical.
Quoted 0-62 figures are often inaccurate, and Vauxhall traditionally were not too aggressive with their claims.
-
Hey,
I have a question on the 0-60 times of pre/post facelift V6's.
According to official figures, a 2.5 pre-facelift auto does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. The 2.6 facelift (even with 9hp more) puts out the same 0-60 time. (assuming from the extra weight facelift cars have.)
The 3.0 auto (again all according to official figures) puts out an 0-60 time of 9.0 seconds HOWEVER the facelift 3.2 (with 7hp more) does the same time a second quicker @ 8.0 seconds!
Can someone please explain to me how exactly the 3.2 dropped a second of its time? What changed? Better low down power? Different autobox, diffs, what?
there extra 20NM that what make 3.2 go faster then 3.0
-
Hey,
I have a question on the 0-60 times of pre/post facelift V6's.
According to official figures, a 2.5 pre-facelift auto does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. The 2.6 facelift (even with 9hp more) puts out the same 0-60 time. (assuming from the extra weight facelift cars have.)
The 3.0 auto (again all according to official figures) puts out an 0-60 time of 9.0 seconds HOWEVER the facelift 3.2 (with 7hp more) does the same time a second quicker @ 8.0 seconds!
Can someone please explain to me how exactly the 3.2 dropped a second of its time? What changed? Better low down power? Different autobox, diffs, what?
As The Boy will confirm, it's because the 3.2 facelift is far superior. ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
In reality, in standard trim, very little between them on acceleration over the first mile and a bit.
-
there extra 20NM that what make 3.2 go faster then 3.0
Lol. 20nm knocks off an entire second?
Behave... ;D
-
As The Boy will confirm, it's because the 3.2 facelift is far superior. ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thats not what he said... Or was he being sarcastic? :)
-
In reality, in standard trim, very little between them on acceleration over the first mile and a bit.
What kind of throttlebody - manifold - ECU setup did the 3.2 have? I know most manufacturers bloat their claims but that would mean they did the same on all the other motors which should leave the gap the same. = 1 second.
-
In reality, in standard trim, very little between them on acceleration over the first mile and a bit.
What kind of throttlebody - manifold - ECU setup did the 3.2 have? I know most manufacturers bloat their claims but that would mean they did the same on all the other motors which should leave the gap the same. = 1 second.
Std.
Traditionally, Vauxhall understated their performance. I guess with the 3.2, they decided something closer to reality.
In standard trim, both are in the region of 8s, with autoboxes and 3.9 diffs.
-
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
-
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
Surely the one thats slightly quicker, noticibly more economical, and a smaller capacity must be the superior one ;)
-
As The Boy will confirm, it's because the 3.2 facelift is far superior. ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thats not what he said... Or was he being sarcastic? :)
It was me being sarcastic, due to TB's love of TBE, the 'Superior Facelift'. :-[
As said, nothing between them. :y
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
;D ;D ;D ;D :y
-
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
Surely the one thats slightly quicker, noticibly more economical, and a smaller capacity must be the superior one ;)
In standard trim, on the road, there is nothing between them, as tested a few times but most memorably (for me) on a trip from Alton to Aldershot for a certain meet where I spent the previous night enjoying that Mr Woods' "Magic Cupboard" and we left a little late :-X ::) That was a F/L Saloon and a M/F/L Saloon ;)
And the F/L is superior... Just admit it :P
-
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
Surely the one thats slightly quicker, noticibly more economical, and a smaller capacity must be the superior one ;)
In standard trim, on the road, there is nothing between them, as tested a few times but most memorably (for me) on a trip from Alton to Aldershot for a certain meet where I spent the previous night enjoying that Mr Woods' "Magic Cupboard" and we left a little late :-X ::) That was a F/L Saloon and a M/F/L Saloon ;)
And the F/L is superior... Just admit it :P
And said mileages of the 2 cars involved? And which was more economical?
We both know, paint finish issues aside, the PFL is far better built, and doesn't look like an Astra.
-
i think racing or maxing/harsh accelerating the omega would be the least interesting thing to do.
stick it in ''D'', sit back and relax
-
i think racing or maxing/harsh accelerating the omega would be the least interesting thing to do.
stick it in ''D'', sit back and relax
+1 Agreed... In till you find yourself with a fart in front then press S and fly ;D
-
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
Surely the one thats slightly quicker, noticibly more economical, and a smaller capacity must be the superior one ;)
In standard trim, on the road, there is nothing between them, as tested a few times but most memorably (for me) on a trip from Alton to Aldershot for a certain meet where I spent the previous night enjoying that Mr Woods' "Magic Cupboard" and we left a little late :-X ::) That was a F/L Saloon and a M/F/L Saloon ;)
And the F/L is superior... Just admit it :P
And said mileages of the 2 cars involved? And which was more economical?
We both know, paint finish issues aside, the PFL is far better built, and doesn't look like an Astra.
165k (ish) on the MFL, mine, and whatever was on Kev's car ;)
As for other things... I will admit that the MFL interior is harder wearing but too "retro" for me and, as you well know, externally the inferior PFL rusts away quicker than you can change the doors :-X ::)
Anyway, sorry to the OP for hijacking the thread with an ongoing discussion... As said, 3.0 is slightly more economical but in real terms there is nothing between them on the road. Pick the best car I s'pose :-\
-
The thread has been ever so informative. Lol. :)
I've seen plenty of facelifted 2000-2001 cars outside of Europe equipped with PFL engines. Are these the MFL models?
-
Iirc there have been some comparisons between one of my old 3.2's, and a certain Groomer admins 3.0 and there was indeed no difference at all. No?
Cough<Except the far inferior 3.0 has been chipped>cough :-X
-
Dunno what the weight differce is but I have a 2.5 GLS with 65k on the clock and an Elite 3.0 with 99k on the clock, both 1999 auto saloons, never timed them but looking at the quoted figures of 9.5 secs and 9.0 secs then that explains why the 2.5 feels nearly quick if not the same 0 - 60 as the 3.0 (mind you that was with a straight thru rear box) ::)
-
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
Surely the one thats slightly quicker, noticibly more economical, and a smaller capacity must be the superior one ;)
I can remember a certain admin,when supporting the Omega over the Senator during the debate,saying that the Sennie was good in its day,but the Omega is a development/update/step forward etc. so therefore had to be better. Logic says the same argument applies to the facelift v m/fl ? ::) :D
Btw,if the m/fl interior is better than the facelift,for me the Senny interior was better still. :)
Theres no denying tbh,that the quality of the facelift interior would be a disgrace in a small malaysian hatchback.In a luxury european saloon its fackin outrageous. ;)
-
The thread has been ever so informative. Lol. :)
I've seen plenty of facelifted 2000-2001 cars outside of Europe equipped with PFL engines. Are these the MFL models?
No such thing as pre-facelift engine. 2,5 and 3,0 were available in PFL, MFL and FL until MY2001 when the 2,6 and 3,2 were introduced. Not sure about four pots and diseasals as Opel and Vauxhall had different policies in them.
-
Are the torque curves significantly different between the 3.0 and 3.2 ?
-
We also have a 3.0 Elite Auto and MV6 3.2 Auto. The MV6 is definately smarter off the mark and more responsive everywhere to the extend that when my wife drives the 3.0 Elite, she askes me 'where's the engine' ::). Steering and handling is more sports saloon on the MV6, luxury limo in the Elite. In fact, MV6 is a completely different driving experience as far as we are concerned. I'm impressed with both cars. Pre-facelift is much better looking of course :y
-
We also have a 3.0 Elite Auto and MV6 3.2 Auto. The MV6 is definately smarter off the mark and more responsive everywhere to the extend that when my wife drives the 3.0 Elite, she askes me 'where's the engine' ::). Steering and handling is more sports saloon on the MV6, luxury limo in the Elite. In fact, MV6 is a completely different driving experience as far as we are concerned. I'm impressed with both cars. Pre-facelift is much better looking of course :y
You are comparing different suspensions set ups there though ;)
-
Iirc there have been some comparisons between one of my old 3.2's, and a certain Groomer admins 3.0 and there was indeed no difference at all. No?
Cough<Except the far inferior 3.0 has been chipped>cough :-X
<cough>And had about 100k more on it<cough>. The poor ol' girl has had a hard life ;D
I suspect the chip, in reality, has just gathered back all the lost GeeGees :-[
-
We also have a 3.0 Elite Auto and MV6 3.2 Auto. The MV6 is definately smarter off the mark and more responsive everywhere to the extend that when my wife drives the 3.0 Elite, she askes me 'where's the engine' ::). Steering and handling is more sports saloon on the MV6, luxury limo in the Elite. In fact, MV6 is a completely different driving experience as far as we are concerned. I'm impressed with both cars. Pre-facelift is much better looking of course :y
The DBW engines do give that initial surge that catches out the those more used to the more linear response of the non DBW.
The Elites have suspension that more tuned to smooth motorway cruising, than being able to change direction. MV6 is an excellent compromise IMHO.
I agree, PFL far prettier, inside and out.
-
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
Surely the one thats slightly quicker, noticibly more economical, and a smaller capacity must be the superior one ;)
Never played Top Trumps then :P
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
Surely the one thats slightly quicker, noticibly more economical, and a smaller capacity must be the superior one ;)
I can remember a certain admin,when supporting the Omega over the Senator during the debate,saying that the Sennie was good in its day,but the Omega is a development/update/step forward etc. so therefore had to be better. Logic says the same argument applies to the facelift v m/fl ? ::) :D
Btw,if the m/fl interior is better than the facelift,for me the Senny interior was better still. :)
Theres no denying tbh,that the quality of the facelift interior would be a disgrace in a small malaysian hatchback.In a luxury european saloon its fackin outrageous. ;)
Fair's fair Albs, at least GM tried to cover the plastic with something, hovever inept an attempt it was ::)
Todays grot boxes are all airfix grey inside with no effort at all showing ::)
Besides you can buy a perfectly good Omega of any age for less than a 10% deposit on an new fwd grot box, and can readily tidy the trims for less time/cash/effort than would be used to hide your face from the shame of driving said grot box :y
-
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
Surely the one thats slightly quicker, noticibly more economical, and a smaller capacity must be the superior one ;)
I can remember a certain admin,when supporting the Omega over the Senator during the debate,saying that the Sennie was good in its day,but the Omega is a development/update/step forward etc. so therefore had to be better. Logic says the same argument applies to the facelift v m/fl ? ::) :D
Btw,if the m/fl interior is better than the facelift,for me the Senny interior was better still. :)
Theres no denying tbh,that the quality of the facelift interior would be a disgrace in a small malaysian hatchback.In a luxury european saloon its fackin outrageous. ;)
Not quite - the 3.2 is just an emmissions strangled version of the 3.0. The V6 is a lighter, more powerful, more compact engine than the S6.
As for interior, yes, FL is appalling. As for PFL v Senator - I guess I was spoilt as my first Omega had sports leather, so to me, both the horrid PFL 'elite type' leather and the Senator leather is just horrible. Dash/console on Senny is just too boxy for me as well, but thats styling, which is always subjective.
Never like the Senator handling - its a bit like the Elite's handling, but with a setting for a firmer ride, which was also too soft. Again, maybe my first Omega spoilt me, being an MV6 model.
In its day, I liked the Senator. I wanted one, but was too young to afford one, or insure it at the time. Before I bought the MV6, I test drove a load of Elites (I needed a big car for a French trip, which was whittled down to Rover 800 and Omega), which I though were quite good, then I test drove my MV6, which I thought was streets ahead of all the Elites I'd driven before. That was the car I bought.
-
The Elites have suspension that more tuned to smooth motorway cruising, than being able to change direction. MV6 is an excellent compromise IMHO.
Oh yes, I've found that one out a couple of times.. :-[ :-[ ;D
-
Soooooooooooooooooo.... About the mid-facelift ;D
Anyone have a pic of a MFL? Just want to see what one looks like inside/out. I'm assuming its just a PFL with minor differences?
-
Soooooooooooooooooo.... About the mid-facelift ;D
Anyone have a pic of a MFL? Just want to see what one looks like inside/out. I'm assuming its just a PFL with minor differences?
MFL below :y
(http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p620/Agemo_Legend/4d40fe37.jpg)
In TB's Favorite colour i may add ;)
-
Hehe :)
Any pics of the inside?
If not, is this what one should look like?
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Barclay03/MV6/DSC01071.jpg)
-
That's the inside of a MV6 manual ;)
-
That's the inside of a MV6 manual ;)
So not related to the mid-facelift? If so do you have any inside pics of a mid-facelift? Just curious... ::)
-
That's the inside of a MV6 manual ;)
With a chavtastic wireless.
Most have a 'wood effect' to centre console, rather than the carbon fibre effect in that pic, and note that only CDX, MV6 and Elite have the Climate Control.
-
That's the inside of a MV6 manual ;)
So not related to the mid-facelift? If so do you have any inside pics of a mid-facelift? Just curious... ::)
You have original PFL (1994-1997)
You have the Mini Facelift (MFL) (1998-1999), which looks just like PFL inside and out (barring minor differences)
You have the full facelift (2000-2003)
Not heard 'mid facelift'
-
Thanks TB.
I really like the look of the MV6. Looks so subtle yet elegant compared to the rest.
What must one do to achieve the same look? :)
-
Sorry what are you lot on about the F/L being an awful interior???? All Omegas inside are covered in cheap looking plastic whatever one you get, but if anything at least the F/L looks more modern.
-
Sorry what are you lot on about the F/L being an awful interior???? All Omegas inside are covered in cheap looking plastic whatever one you get, but if anything at least the F/L looks more modern.
??? ??? ??? cheap looking plastic ............ ??? ??? ??? ??? Mine's covered in leather! ;D ;D
It means that the PFL does NOT have the rubber coating that always scratches off & then looks horrible. ;) ;)
-
i was mainly referring to the fake wood effect :y
-
i was mainly referring to the fake wood effect :y
but both have it, but at least there's no rubber coating in a PFL ;)
-
Sorry what are you lot on about the F/L being an awful interior???? All Omegas inside are covered in cheap looking plastic whatever one you get, but if anything at least the F/L looks more modern.
The FL interior is poor quality, from a finish point of view. The Mini Facelift has the similar coating on some buttons, but fortunately, easy to swap those for the early (1994-1997) hard wearing ones.
-
Sorry what are you lot on about the F/L being an awful interior???? All Omegas inside are covered in cheap looking plastic whatever one you get, but if anything at least the F/L looks more modern.
Not saying anything is wrong with the FL buddy, simply putting it that if I where to choose I'd have the exterior of a facelift but with an interior of a MFL MV6.
Agreed it doesn't look more modern but who's to say that modern cars look nice anyway? :D
-
....
Not saying anything is wrong with the FL buddy, simply putting it that if I where to choose I'd have the exterior of an Astra G but with an interior of a MFL MV6.
........
::) ::)
-
....
Not saying anything is wrong with the FL buddy, simply putting it that if I where to choose I'd have the exterior of an Astra G but with an interior of a MFL MV6.
........
::) ::)
Haha, not the first time I've heard that. :)
-
Sorry what are you lot on about the F/L being an awful interior???? All Omegas inside are covered in cheap looking plastic whatever one you get, but if anything at least the F/L looks more modern.
??? ??? ??? cheap looking plastic ............ ??? ??? ??? ??? Mine's covered in leather! ;D ;D
It means that the PFL does NOT have the rubber coating that always scratches off & then looks horrible. ;) ;)
+ 1, wonder if anyones tried to cover the F/L in leather :-\
-
+ 1, wonder if anyones tried to cover the F/L in leather :-\
You mean a reupholstery? That would be interesting. Nappa Leather. hmmmmmmm :P
-
+ 1, wonder if anyones tried to cover the F/L in leather :-\
You mean a reupholstery? That would be interesting. Nappa Leather. hmmmmmmm :P
expensive and not practical..
-
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
I'm just curious what you meant by this. In what way was it easier?
-
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
I'm just curious what you meant by this. In what way was it easier?
No HT leads
No EGR valve
No secondary air indction
No throttle cable
No idle air control valve :y :y
-
You mean a reupholstery? That would be interesting. Nappa Leather. hmmmmmmm :P
expensive and not practical..
I know it wouldn't be worth it the slightest, but definitely interesting.
-
In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
I'm just curious what you meant by this. In what way was it easier?
No HT leads
No EGR valve
No secondary air indction
No throttle cable
No idle air control valve :y :y
No cruise box/cable.
Far easier to fit an LPG kit.
-
No HT leads
No EGR valve
No secondary air indction
No throttle cable
No idle air control valve :y :y
Petrol cars have EGR valves? ???
Can a single induction setup be retrofitted?
What was used instead of leads? - I don't really see this as a downer.
I prefer throttle cables. My previous cars had dreadful FBW problems.
What replaced the ICV, If anything?
-
....
Petrol cars have EGR valves? ???
They did ..... till the DBW cars came along.
Can a single induction setup be retrofitted?
The standard induction isn't a problem, the secondary air injection was there to placate the tree huggers.
What was used instead of leads? - I don't really see this as a downer.
Coil Packs ie 1 3 5 coil pack & a 2 4 6 coil pack that plug directly to the spark plugs.
I prefer throttle cables. My previous cars had dreadful FBW problems.
Not had a DBW Omega so can't comment.
What replaced the ICV, If anything?
ECU sorts it out. :y
-
Thanks Andy, I appreciate the reply! :y
-
Thanks Andy, I appreciate the reply! :y
:y :y :y :y
-
I prefer the lighter touch of the DBW throttles, cable ones have to be pressed quite a bit in comparison.
Not had any issues with mine (140k 3.2 & 156k 2.2)
-
Not had any issues with mine (140k 3.2 & 156k 2.2)
The Omega DBW throttles do fail, but its not common.