Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Terbs on 09 October 2012, 21:31:35
-
Hi all
Hope this is the right place as I suppose it could be in any of three :) But I thought its more of a discussion !!! :y
Basically, I have seen an Omega saloon today in Dunstable. Its a 2.2 16 valve CD. Now what I want to know is what mileage do the cambelts want doing, can cruise control be fitted. I have not got a clue about modern engines, but I could not see any camcovers. Battery was a flat as a witches tit, but once pack started it seemed to run fine.
Thing is....when I got back in my Elite estate, it seemed like I was going up in the world a notch. Are the 2.2's as good as the V6 Elite. Would I be disappointed with a 2.2....should I go for an Elite. BTW this is not 'instead of'...its 'aswell as'.
I have got so used to the 'toys' but economics have to come into it. This 2.2 had a few faults...the common top of door card, but that is easily fixed, and a small piece out of a vent. Most impressed that there was no rust I could find..
I don't know what to do....opinions please.
The car is at a place called Bedfordshire Cars....anyone had any dealings ?
Lastly....does anyone know if Josh has anything for sale
Sorry this is drawn out, but if you don't ask, you don't get.!!!!!!!!!!!!! :y
Tony
-
If it's a 4 pot and needs a cambelt... bring it over to Aylesbury (I'm there again in November) - I'll do it for a drink :y
-
to answer other questions..
If it's a 2.2, it will be nasty compared to a V6. There IS no comparison. That said, it's a practical, good engine. So as long as you have a V6 for enjoyment... the 2.2 will make a mighty fine workhorse..
they are also easy to work on, reliable, and cheap parts :y
-
Thanks James :y :y
How do you know if its a 4 pot....sorry for ignorance :-[ :-[ :-[
-
to answer other questions..
If it's a 2.2, it will be nasty compared to a V6. There IS no comparison. That said, it's a practical, good engine. So as long as you have a V6 for enjoyment... the 2.2 will make a mighty fine workhorse..
they are also easy to work on, reliable, and cheap parts :y
:( :( :'( :o
-
well first of all tony my 2.2 is not nasty at all..does the job but i think a 2.6 would be better on fuel as the omega is a big car :y
-
well first of all tony my 2.2 is not nasty at all..does the job but i think a 2.6 would be better on fuel as the omega is a big car :y
My comment about a 2.2 being "nasty" is obviously somewhat of a joke.
In reality though, a 2.2 will not be anywhere near as smooth as a V6, or sound as nice. It does the job, but that's about it. Basic engine, reliable, but won't make you grin and has to work quite hard to get the lump of a car to make good progress.
All 2.0 and 2.2 engines are 4 pots..... (hence they'yre not V6's) :y :y
-
I agree with Alarming man that a V6 will be better on fuel.
The 2.2 just has to work too hard to power the big Omega, in my opinion...
-
to answer other questions..
If it's a 2.2, it will be nasty compared to a V6. There IS no comparison. That said, it's a practical, good engine. So as long as you have a V6 for enjoyment... the 2.2 will make a mighty fine workhorse..
they are also easy to work on, reliable, and cheap parts :y
:( :( :'( :o
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :-X
-
my 2.2 is plenty fast enough to get you into trouble with your mates james but no its not going to sound like a v6 as its not :y
but tony if you are down this way at your cousins you are welcome to have a drive of mine
-
I disagree. I have a 3.2, 2.6 and 2.2. All automatics. I love the 2.2. It idles better, pulls pretty well for the cars weight and on a long run the economy is much much better than my 3.2. But then I have lpg'd the 3.2 due to its drinking habit.
I have no idea about the ability to tow. But to call the 2.2 nasty or grossly underpowered is not at all fair. It just doesnt have the top end of a 3.2.
I am not sure my 3.2 sounds much different from the 2.2. Both have pretty silent exhausts and the engine note is pretty well muted in the cabin.
-
I disagree. I have a 3.2, 2.6 and 2.2. All automatics. I love the 2.2. It idles better, pulls pretty well for the cars weight and on a long run the economy is much much better than my 3.2. But then I have lpg'd the 3.2 due to its drinking habit.
I have no idea about the ability to tow. But to call the 2.2 nasty or grossly underpowered is not at all fair. It just doesnt have the top end of a 3.2.
I am not sure my 3.2 sounds much different from the 2.2. Both have pretty silent exhausts and the engine note is pretty well muted in the cabin.
You make a fair point, D. I'm just unfairly biased against any Omega with 4 cylinders.
Just to re-iterate, as long as you don't expect to win any races.. the 2.2 is a good, reliable car. My posts are purely based on my own personal preference :y
-
Tony...I suppose the best way, is to work out what you'll be using it for?
I've privately run a 2.2 manual, 2.6 manual and 3.2 manual, and sold auto variants of each engine.
If it's a supplemental car, I think the 2.2 would be fine. However, a V6 spoils you somewhat. If you're used to a V6 the 2.2 can feel a touch underpowered.
I enjoyed my 2.2 CDX, but personally feel the V6 is a better option as an all rounder for me.
But what's right for me, may not be for you.
The 2.2 is easier to work on, but the MPG isn't going to be vastly different from a V6.
If you need help picking up a vehicle, or general advice, feel free to PM me.
This morning at an invitation only auction there was an Omega, a 2003 '03' 2.2 CDX auto saloon in black with 75,000 miles. It sold for £375...so there are cheap yet good one's out there.
-
OK fellas.....we all have likes and dislikes.... :y
Right...I think your replies have been really helpful, as gleaning bits from each post is building to a conclusion....
Lets take these facts into consideration........
Firstly.....swmbo will probably use the 2.2 more than me. She is not going to race it, obviously, nor will I come to that.
We are using a P reg Laguna 2.0ltr Estate at the moment as second car. It seems to me that we will get basically the same....with a few extras as to spec.
Secondly....we have to go to Brackley every Monday, (round trip about 100 miles) I assume the consumption would be better than the 2.5 V6 Estate.
Thirdly....engine reliability. My son in law is usually the man who's head goes under the bonnet.....after his las explosion (fitting ABS ECU) of ' Inever want to see this ******* ******* car again' so hopefully, my needing him will be less. :y
The expected milage will be about 3000 to 4000 per year :y
-
Thanks Josh.....
I did think straight off whether you had anything
-
It seems, that your requirements would mean a 2.2 would probably fit the bill perfectly.
The MPG will be better, but by a small margin.
The thing to think about now is what spec to get, the 2.2 came in different trim levels.
GLS - The entry level model, without wanting to offend GLS'sers I would avoid one
CD - Adds front fogs, heated seats, velour trim, trip computer and other small bits
CDX - In addition to CD adds sunroof, cruise, Xenon's, fold flat passenger seat, tape, 4cd and radio, different wheels.
Sport - This is effectively a MV6 model, but with a 2.2 engine. May not be ideal for you, as it has stiffer suspension.
If possible, I'd say go for a CDX :y
-
PM sent Josh :y
-
I did notice one other thing...there was a SAFE sign on the computer. Would I be right in saying this is something to do with the radio as the battery was flat :)
-
I think I would be looking elsewhere, there are loads of 2.2 on the bay and autotrader and some nice looking ones as well..... :y
-
I disagree. I have a 3.2, 2.6 and 2.2. All automatics. I love the 2.2. It idles better, pulls pretty well for the cars weight and on a long run the economy is much much better than my 3.2. But then I have lpg'd the 3.2 due to its drinking habit.
I have no idea about the ability to tow. But to call the 2.2 nasty or grossly underpowered is not at all fair. It just doesnt have the top end of a 3.2.
I am not sure my 3.2 sounds much different from the 2.2. Both have pretty silent exhausts and the engine note is pretty well muted in the cabin.
i agree with you there , had the 2.5 v6 and said never again a v6 . got the 2.2 now find no difference in fact the 2.2 pulls my van better :y :y
-
The one I am looking at is in the Trader.....greeny blue colour
Are we allowed to put a link in
-
I did notice one other thing...there was a SAFE sign on the computer. Would I be right in saying this is something to do with the radio as the battery was flat :)
Yep, radio needs its' code entered as it's lost power. Check the seller has the car pass with the code on it.
If not, it's a bargaining point, I suppose. ;) IIRC they can be ordered from a stealer, at a price.
If the main requirement is something cheaper to run than the 2.5, though, I wouldn't be considering a 2.2. A marginal decrease in fuel consumption in return for a lot less performance and refinement, IMHO. I would also only consider a manual 2.2, as an auto will claw back a few more MPG, probably back to where your V6 is, and they feel pretty lethargic on a 4 pot, all in my humble opinion, of course.
-
Fellas.....I respect all your humble opinions :y
The world would be pretty awful if all was the same.
Obviously, economics play a part, but I suppose, that as long as comptsion is the same or less than the V6, we could live with that.
I have to say, that looking under the bonnet, it seemed half the engine was missing ;D but it looked, as James said, very good to work on.
-
Fellas.....I respect all your humble opinions :y
The world would be pretty awful if all was the same.
Obviously, economics play a part, but I suppose, that as long as consumption is the same or less than the V6, we could live with that.
I have to say, that looking under the bonnet, it seemed half the engine was missing ;D but it looked, as James said, very good to work on.
-
OK, from a purely "living with it" point of view:
4 pot has a different set of snags to the V6 but not a lot to choose between them, IMHO. Cam cover gasket and coil pack issues a bit less prevalent on a 4 pot, perhaps, head gasket failures more common, especially north of 150K or so. HBV the same. No oil cooler issues. Blowing exhaust manifolds and broken studs.. cam sensors break instead of crank sensors.. Yes, it's a bit easier to get to some parts, but we're talking about 20 minutes' dismantling max to get anywhere on a V6 anyway. Both will go on for a good mileage. V6 probably has the edge here. We've seen a few 4 pots die due to wear but precious few V6s. Like I say, little to choose between them really.
Engine aside, the rest of the car is identical, of course.
-
Sorry about double posting.....
Now you see why I am also crap with cars ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I disagree. I have a 3.2, 2.6 and 2.2. All automatics. I love the 2.2. It idles better, pulls pretty well for the cars weight and on a long run the economy is much much better than my 3.2. But then I have lpg'd the 3.2 due to its drinking habit.
I have no idea about the ability to tow. But to call the 2.2 nasty or grossly underpowered is not at all fair. It just doesnt have the top end of a 3.2.
I am not sure my 3.2 sounds much different from the 2.2. Both have pretty silent exhausts and the engine note is pretty well muted in the cabin.
I'd have to question that...
-
i had a look at some cars the other month at the same place,wasnt impressed by the quality of them,and looks like they buy very cheap cars and repair them on site,i walked away from there,i would look for something else and not use this garage :y
-
On past experience I wouldn't buy from a garage at all! >:(
-
Would be an experience having a drive in a 4 pot , guess us v6 owners get a bit spoilt ;D Reading this post i wasnt aware that the 4 pot was nearly as thirsty as the v6 :)
-
EMD.....just shows what you find out :y I would never have thought that ;)
Martin42....thanks mate...heeded :y
Tony
-
Would be an experience having a drive in a 4 pot , guess us v6 owners get a bit spoilt ;D Reading this post i wasnt aware that the 4 pot was nearly as thirsty as the v6 :)
mine is not ;D ;D
-
Pattern fuel gauges are always innaccurate though Ralf. ;D
-
primary factor for a cars consumption is its weight.. and I dont think 2.2 and 2.5 have different weights..
besides if both cars manual 2.5 can easily catch 2.2 with careful driving.. however if consumption was #1 priority
I wouldnt buy a miggy.. :-\ instead I would look for 1.6 jap cars and forget about repairs ;D
-
I've had a 2.2 auto for just over three years now and love it. It has never let me down and is a lovely comfortable car to drive. Previously I owned a 2.5 V6 manual estate which was also lovely but not quite as reliable (although it had done more miles). I seem to remember the fuel consumption was a bit better on the V6 so I guess that comes down to whether you go for manual or auto. Personally I would choose the auto every time as I think it suits the Omega better, but that's down to your personal preference. As has already been said here, there are loads of nice ones out there and they are so cheap to buy it goes a long way towards outweighing the fuel consumption problem. Good luck whatever you decide. :y
-
Not driven a 2.2 but had a test drive in a 2.0 auto a couple of years back. The acceleration could best be described as "glacial".
Needless to say I didn't buy it, and have owned three V6 omegas, which have all proved excellent. :y
-
I wonder if its a comparison :-\ I had a 2.9 granada , then had a 2.0 granada for a few weeks while mine got repaired and found the 2.0 quite under powered especially when overtaking and seemed you had to thrash it all the time to gain any decent speed .
Btw does the 2.2 have a sport mode button :-\
-
yep :y
-
Would be an experience having a drive in a 4 pot , guess us v6 owners get a bit spoilt ;D Reading this post i wasnt aware that the 4 pot was nearly as thirsty as the v6 :)
mine is not ;D ;D
It must drink more when towing the tin tent full of beer ;D
yep :y
Must have a shot in one to compare :y
-
Terbert, not read the full thread, so apologies for duplication, if any.
2.2 will feel underpowered compared to your 2.5. Especially if its an auto. That said, its capable enough, but needs a bit of effort to accelerate at a decent rate. I am trying to be subjective, BTW , clearly the 2.2's acceleration would annoy the hell out of me, to the point I probably wouldn't choose one myself.
Happy to "do" the cambelt for you. Do = might need you to do the heavy stuff (turning engine over).
Engine easy to work on. Suffers the same camcover issues as V6, and same Coil Pack problems as later V6's. Headgasket often fails once it has a few miles under its belt, but easy to do. Occasionally exhaust manifold cracks. The flexi-pipe on the exhaust will fail, most places will try to convince you to buy a new cat (don't!!). It really is a nice easy engine to work on - I suspect you'll take over a few tasks you used to leave to your very friendly mechanic.
As to facelift V prefacelift, that will go on forever. The build quality on facelift interiors is awful. And I'm not just talking about the "soft touch" finish. But the car will be newer than a prefacelift.
-
Although the CDX may have more 'extras'. The sunroof also takes some headroom away. I'm 6'4" and can't cope with the loss of headroom from the sunroof. So....CD for me every time. I drive a 2.2 '03 auto. Find it very capable and in 'sport' mode proves quick enough in any situation
-
Although the CDX may have more 'extras'. The sunroof also takes some headroom away. I'm 6'4" and can't cope with the loss of headroom from the sunroof. So....CD for me every time. I drive a 2.2 '03 auto. Find it very capable and in 'sport' mode proves quick enough in any situation
I have a 52 plate 2.2 CD auto and definitely agree with you dad. :)
-
if we are talking about acceleration, 2.2 suits astras much better..
-
Well fellas........
That was a most constructive thread :y
Its good to hear all your experiences and thoughts. Believe me, I had no idea of all this info. To me Omega was just Omega. Having driven a 2.2 down through France a few years back, I thought it was the bees knees. Now I own a 2.5 Auto Elite Estate, I felt like Lord Muck, as it was even better than the one I drove years ago. :y
The conclusions I have come up with are ..........
There are various differences between the models. Each has its own purpose. Each has various toys. Do you want toys, do you want instant speed, do you want to potter about.
I have decided against the original car I saw (not because of engine size....other factors came into account)
Top range....Its a case of economics as regards to dismissing a 3.2 (had ins quotes etc)
Toys....I like toys, swmbo not bothered, but likes sunroof. She never uses Cruise control. I would miss that function.
Speed....my speed days are long gone, we are the pottering type nowadays (70 on motorways ;) roundabout the limit other roads ;) no high speed take offs)
Comfort...I think all Omegas are comfortable, some possibly more than others. I would not know a hard ride from a soft one.
I am now going to take the decision to go for the best I can get for the money. A 2.5 won't break the bank, a lesser engine size might get used more locally.
I have now taken up Josh's kind offer of assistance on the case, and I'll trust his judgement, as I know he will do his best for me. I am awaiting in anticipation :y :y
-
I used to have a 2.2(cd) and now have a 2.5(elite).
Petrol wise there is nothing in it.
I preferred the cloth seats on the 2.2 and if it is for SWMBO i would go with that one as acceleration etc. is not an issue.
Good luck in your search Tony :y