Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: cd 2.2 on 11 March 2014, 04:58:46
-
Right I'm asking this question as everyone keeps on telling me that the 2.2 petrol omega is pedestrian at best and fairly underpowered (even people I know who have 1.8 Astra's ::) )! My car has nearly 117k on the clock now and has had just about every breakable part replaced in the top end and coolant system.
The sprint to 70 mph is really surprising, I mean this thing can keep up, or even outpace allot of the hot hatches :o
I don't mind this of course and if you drive the car without the sports button pressed it's very mild mannered. For an example, my dad owns an identical car with the same 2.2 petrol engine and his feels like it couldn't pull a stick out of a pig's *** and can't even keep up ??? ??? ???!
I'm left confused as this car is allot more powerful than I ever expected (experiencing my dad's 2.2 for so long) and the only thing that I noticed during the head rebuild was, when the head came back from the engineers (16 thousands of an inch removed), it looked like they opened out the inlet ports a little and gave them a bit of a polish ... Surely that can't make that much difference ... Can it?
It all makes me think twice about buying a 3.2 as a second car if they really are that much faster :o
-
All the Omega's shift rather well IMO none that I've tried/owned I'd call slow by any means (although not tried a diesel) ... The 2.2 petrol is what, Around 144bhp when new with a 0-60 time of around 10.5 seconds and a top speed of around 135mph ?.. I wonder how many of the ponies have escaped the Omega's EcoTech engines after say 100k - 200k be interesting to know the figures from several Omegas with verious engines 2.0/2.2/2.5/2.6/3.0/3.2 etc.
Saying that, It's hard to know what's considered fast these days, Everyone's definition of "fast" varies, That's how I feel anyway... Anything that does 0-60 MPH under 9 seconds I'd consider "fast", Specially for a car of this class/size/weight... Anything capable of 0-60 MPH under 6 seconds I'd consider very fast.. Dream world anything under 3 seconds insanely fast ( and unaffordable to mere mortals) ;D
At the end of the day it all comes down to how the car has been maintained through its life I'd say.
-
I'm guessing you haven't tried a "proper" Omega :P.
-
I'd defend the 2.2 to hell and back, cracking engines for the Omega, reliable, smooth, dead easy to work on.
But on the 0-70 dash? Hummm, the hot hatches could not have been trying, only place to get others with the 2.2 is on the brakes.
-
I'd defend the 2.2 to hell and back, cracking engines for the Omega, reliable, smooth, dead easy to work on.
But on the 0-70 dash? Hummm, the hot hatches could not have been trying, only place to get others with the 2.2 is on the brakes.
I disagree, I owned not so very long ago, A Citroen Saxo 1.4 Furio .... In that car was fitted a mad engine (that was fast) .. It comprised of a VTS gearbox and bottom end and the big valve black top head from a 1.6 VTR! This thing had a stainless straight through exhaust and a 4-2-1 manifold with de-cat and was bloody fast for a saxo (134 + on the sat nav). This car was pulling 125 BHP at the wheels but when you consider it only weighed in at <890 KG (at the local breakers with full tank of fuel), it didn't have allot of weight to shift .... The Omega "feels" faster on the 0-70 mph sprint
And no I haven't tried a "proper" omega ... Still want a 3.2 though, not to replace but to keep company my 2.2 :y
-
I'd defend the 2.2 to hell and back, cracking engines for the Omega, reliable, smooth, dead easy to work on.
But on the 0-70 dash? Hummm, the hot hatches could not have been trying, only place to get others with the 2.2 is on the brakes.
I disagree, I owned not so very long ago, A Citroen Saxo 1.4 Furio .... In that car was fitted a mad engine (that was fast) .. It comprised of a VTS gearbox and bottom end and the big valve black top head from a 1.6 VTR! This thing had a stainless straight through exhaust and a 4-2-1 manifold with de-cat and was bloody fast for a saxo (134 + on the sat nav). This car was pulling 125 BHP at the wheels but when you consider it only weighed in at <890 KG (at the local breakers with full tank of fuel), it didn't have allot of weight to shift .... The Omega "feels" faster on the 0-70 mph sprint
And no I haven't tried a "proper" omega ... Still want a 3.2 though, not to replace but to keep company my 2.2 :y
That's not a 'hot hatch' ;D
I own a 2.2 manual and a 3.2 auto, the 3.2 is vastly quicker than the 2.2. The 3.2 does with ease what the 2.2 can do at a real struggle.
The 2.2 is average, but it's never, ever going to win any races ;D
-
The 2.2, ESP in manual form isnt too bad, just the car is so heavy, making it a bit underpowered.
It's more than adequate, if you're not in a hurry.
-
The thing I find with my V6 is that it's effortless. All cars have a cruising speed where they just settle down*, my old Merc was about 55-60mph, my Omegas tend to settle about 110... ;)
But then I get into the staff car at work, a diesel Fiesta, and I end up bending the bulkhead trying to get anything other than "Mrs Miggins strolling to the post office" pace out of it...
*my old Skoda, I never found a happy cruising speed, it just wanted to go faster. All the time. Regardless of traffic, po-po, or prevailing weather conditions. Loved it. Miss it.
-
did a couple of crude timed runs to 60 mph today ... every run was between 10.5 and 10.9 for 0 - 60 mph ! It does feel very much faster though, maybe it's with it being a bigger car than I'm used to?
And since when has a Saxo pulling 125 Bhp and capable of 130 mph not been a hot hatch I ask??? It may have been a 1.4 furio (in it's original form) and on paper, it was.
But that's certainly not what was in it as I did mention :-X
I think I want a play in a 3.2 now ;D
-
The bigger v6s will be pulling a ton by the time you've got your desmond out of second ;D especially with a proper gearbox :-X
-
And since when has a Saxo pulling 125 Bhp and capable of 130 mph not been a hot hatch I ask???
Since the 1990s? ;) I think some people (these days) would think of Golf R32s (250hp), Focus RS (300hp) or ST (225hp) and similar when you say "hot hatch" thanks to shows like Top Gear, not the hot hatches of old, which are what I think of when you say hot hatch - Saxo VTS, R5 GTT etc .. but then I'm old and Tunnie isn't ;D ;D
-
;D ;D
For all it's faults, a desmond probably puts out twice as much torque as a misaligned Saxo, which together with rwd, means it actually pulls away when you put your foot down, rather than producing a noisy cloud of tyre smoke ::)
-
But when it comes to doing your cam belt and pump, The job will be done on the desmond before the v6 man gets the cam covers off. :y
-
But when it comes to doing your cam belt and pump, The job will be done on the desmond before the v6 man gets the cam covers off. :y
Using the wrong V6 man then :o
-
In a Topgear stylee race, change the belt and drive fifty miles, the v6 would arrive first :y
-
But when it comes to doing your cam belt and pump, The job will be done on the desmond before the v6 man gets the cam covers off. :y
Using the wrong V6 man then :o
You know what i mean tunnie
-
But when it comes to doing your cam belt and pump, The job will be done on the desmond before the v6 man gets the cam covers off. :y
About 10-20 minutes in it I find so not much.
Water pump can be a pain on the desmond.
-
In a Topgear stylee race, change the belt and drive fifty miles, the v6 would arrive first :y
No way
-
In a Topgear stylee race, change the belt and drive fifty miles, the v6 would arrive first :y
No way
Over to our Correspondent not in Nottingham...
-
Just upgraded from my Desmond of four exceeeelent years and got myself a 2.6 WOW!! Thought the 2.2 was plenty quick enough but the 2.6 blows it away happy happy. :y :y
-
Just upgraded from my Desmond of four exceeeelent years and got myself a 2.6 WOW!! Thought the 2.2 was plenty quick enough but the 2.6 blows it away happy happy. :y :y
Yes, we did the same, V6 sure feels quick........ :y :y Would not rule out another 2.2 in the future though..... :D :D
-
My 2.6 auto has broken 8 seconds 0-60 running on Shell super petrol after an ECU reset.
:( :'(
It was bloody fast on the way back from Newent as well.
-
My 2.2 has just 41.5k miles, so probably not too many horses have galloped off into the sunset. Is she fast ??? naw not really.
She quite happlily cruises for mile after mile & in some comfort. So I`m quite happy to take the hit from HM GOV. :y
I used to think my 600 Fazer was quick. but now I`ve ridden a 1000 fazer I want one. :P
Swmbo`s Audi with a 7 speed flappy paddle gearbox is quite quick. but a bit too girly for my liking ::)
-
I think my overall thought of the 2.2 I have is this ... I love the comfort and the use of "plenty" of power when it's needed in round town settings (although it would be nice if she drank less fuel)! Above all the car really excels on the motorway, If I keep to an indicated 60mph (actually closer to 56mph) she returns almost 50mpg :o
I will most likely have my fun with this car until I have obtained my first years NCB on my insurance and then retire her to the garage for some pampering and limited miles ... That is, "IF" I can find a good enough 3.2 V6 automatic that isn't an ex funeral car for the right money.
The plan then would be to enjoy owning 2 Omega's as I really do prefer these over the Lexus LS400 and the Bmw 5 series. I drove my dad's Lexus for about 6 months after I passed my driving test while I got sorted with my own car, I owned an E34 Bmw 518i (oh god how slow) for a couple of months about a year ago and I prefer the Omega :)
-
A 2.2 Omega is not 'fast' in any sense of the word
I used to think the V6's were fairly quick and, to be fair, they can hold their own with most average day to day cars at the top end of motorway speeds, but compared to the the similar weight car with slightly smaller V6 I now own (still own and use a 3.2 Omega so direct comparison) even the V6's aren't that quick.
2.2 would be pedestrian in comparison!
Of course its all relative as pretty much any Vxl is slow compared to a 400bhp TVR Tuscan - that was (is) a brutally quick car!
-
My 2.6 auto has broken 8 seconds 0-60 running on Shell super petrol after an ECU reset.
:( :'(
It was bloody fast on the way back from Newent as well.
... not having a bloody great ironing board in the back would help more.
You should try a 3.2 and stop fiddling around with toys Martin.
-
My 2.6 auto has broken 8 seconds 0-60 running on Shell super petrol after an ECU reset.
:( :'(
It was bloody fast on the way back from Newent as well.
... not having a bloody great ironing board in the back would help more.
You should try a 3.2 and stop fiddling around with toys Martin.
Was is the operative word £2500 to repair was too much.
-
My 2.6 auto has broken 8 seconds 0-60 running on Shell super petrol after an ECU reset.
:( :'(
It was bloody fast on the way back from Newent as well.
... not having a bloody great ironing board in the back would help more.
You should try a 3.2 and stop fiddling around with toys Martin.
Saucer of milk for Mr Gixer ;D ;D ;D
-
My 2.6 auto has broken 8 seconds 0-60 running on Shell super petrol after an ECU reset.
:( :'(
It was bloody fast on the way back from Newent as well.
... not having a bloody great ironing board in the back would help more.
You should try a 3.2 and stop fiddling around with toys Martin.
Saucer of milk for Mr Gixer ;D ;D ;D
3.2 is a toy as well, being honest. ;)
-
My 2.6 auto has broken 8 seconds 0-60 running on Shell super petrol after an ECU reset.
:( :'(
It was bloody fast on the way back from Newent as well.
... not having a bloody great ironing board in the back would help more.
You should try a 3.2 and stop fiddling around with toys Martin.
Saucer of milk for Mr Gixer ;D ;D ;D
3.2 is a toy as well, being honest. ;)
Just teasing ;D ;D ;D
How's your little project coming on ?
-
Slowly. Need to confirm the crack will work.
Looking into brakes.