Omega Owners Forum

Chat Area => General Car Chat => Topic started by: Steve B on 05 July 2014, 13:03:25

Title: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Steve B on 05 July 2014, 13:03:25
Yes ive got one.  ;D ;D ;D

I keep looking at 2.6 and 3.2 omega,s (upgrade) and then when i look in the FAQ section on here i see that cars like the 2.6 is only 1 sec faster on the 0-60 mph And overall in performance there does not seem a lot between them.

I read the troubles some of you have with the v6 and cambelt fitting,Then i look at the 2.2 which is so easy to maintain and work on.

So my question is:- What is it that makes members on here see the v6 omegas so superior to the 4 pot 2.2  :y

Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Sp4rkst4rt3r on 05 July 2014, 13:28:58
So my question is:- What is it that makes members on here see the v6 omegas so superior to the 4 pot 2.2  :y

They are obviously 'Compensating' for something  ;D ::) :P :y
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Ever Ready on 05 July 2014, 15:27:42
I also have a 2.2  but secretly covet a 3.2 ;D ;D
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: steve6367 on 05 July 2014, 15:32:27
I have both and think they are both nice to drive - the 2.5 does a lot less gear changing which is nice and pulls better without working  so hard.

Steve
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Ever Ready on 05 July 2014, 15:35:33
Gears you say?  I leave all that to my auto box, far more refined in a gentleman's express ;D ;D
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Steve B on 05 July 2014, 15:49:43
I have both and think they are both nice to drive - the 2.5 does a lot less gear changing which is nice and pulls better without working  so hard.

Steve
The 2.2 pulls ok but all that changes when you start to pile the passengers in.
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: steve6367 on 05 July 2014, 15:56:53
Gears you say?  I leave all that to my auto box, far more refined in a gentleman's express ;D ;D

Both of mine are auto, but the 2.2 is up and down it a lot more!
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: tunnie on 05 July 2014, 16:17:34
Effortless power. I adore my 2.2, but the 3.2 is a different animal. Just power away, no worries over taking. Join motorways into lane 3 and 90+ just effortless.

Fekers to work on, 2.2 is a joy to work on.
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: RobG on 05 July 2014, 16:25:26
Quote
What is it that makes members on here see the v6 omegas so superior to the 4 pot 2.2
Insularity and immaturity :)
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Steve B on 05 July 2014, 16:28:39
Quote
What is it that makes members on here see the v6 omegas so superior to the 4 pot 2.2
Insularity and immaturity :)
You went v6 once did you not Rob.

Remember seeing a post where i think you said "that there is not room to fart under the bonnet"  :-\
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Ever Ready on 05 July 2014, 16:35:52
I have both and think they are both nice to drive - the 2.5 does a lot less gear changing which is nice and pulls better without working  so hard.

Steve
The 2.2 pulls ok but all that changes when you start to pile the passengers in.
Luckily for me I am usually the only person in it,  perversely when we go out with Junior, the three of us pile into a 107 Pug :y :y
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: 05omegav6 on 05 July 2014, 17:17:21
Quote
What is it that makes members on here see the v6 omegas so superior to the 4 pot 2.2
Insularity and immaturity :)
That and the 3.2 puts out twice the torque ;D
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Steve B on 05 July 2014, 17:27:21
Quote
What is it that makes members on here see the v6 omegas so superior to the 4 pot 2.2
Insularity and immaturity :)
That and the 3.2 puts out twice the torque ;D
What are the figures Al  :-\

And that of the 2.6  :y
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: 05omegav6 on 05 July 2014, 18:45:10
Right... as of 2003:

2.2 16v 144ps/151lbft
2.2 dti 120ps/206lbft
2.6 24v 179ps/177lbft
3.2 24v 217ps/214lbft

So okay, not quite twice the torque, but enough to notice :y
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Steve B on 05 July 2014, 18:55:08
Right... as of 2003:

2.2 16v 144ps/151lbft
2.2 dti 120ps/206lbft
2.6 24v 179ps/177lbft
3.2 24v 217ps/214lbft

So okay, not quite twice the torque, but enough to notice :y
Thanks Al  :y  I see the 0-60 figures are 8.2 & 8 sec for the 2.6 and 3.2. Not much in it is there.
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: 05omegav6 on 05 July 2014, 19:07:26
Right... as of 2003:

2.2 16v 144ps/151lbft saloon 9.5/10.5; estate 10/11.5
2.2 dti 120ps/206lbft  saloon 11.5/-; estate 12.0/-
2.6 24v 179ps/177lbft saloon 8.5/9.5; estate 9/10
3.2 24v 217ps/214lbft saloon -/8; estate -/8.5

So okay, not quite twice the torque, but enough to notice :y
0-60 times added, saloon man/auto; estate man/auto..

So on paper a 2.6 manual saloon is as quick as a 3.2 auto estate... but a 3.2 manual is sub 7 seconds...

Which is nice :y
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Steve B on 05 July 2014, 20:56:39
This is what ive been looking at. Ive finished looking now  :y No thanks....

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181457226018?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2648
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: 05omegav6 on 05 July 2014, 21:01:41
There's alot doesn't add up about that... Even at that price :-\
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: 4x4 on 05 July 2014, 21:02:10
Why the hell would any1 use a yellow colour for the writing in the description  >:(
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Steve B on 05 July 2014, 21:04:21
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70807181/tyre.jpg)
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Steve B on 05 July 2014, 21:09:43
I think they are fair in saying.. you win then when you see it, if you dont like what you see you can walk away
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: plym ian on 05 July 2014, 21:22:07
Does he actually want to sell any cars :)
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: RobG on 05 July 2014, 22:01:00
Seller is well known on the bay for using numerous usernames "Sterling Cars" comes to mind as one, Rumours of schill bidding were rife a few years back not to mention that cars advertised were not actually at the sellers premises but a couple of hundred miles away
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: bertie1.8vectra on 05 July 2014, 22:31:39
I had  the 2.oltr 8v and ive had a 2.5 cdx saloon and now a 2.2 cd estate.... I think I'm  working my way through the range...... ::)
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Steve B on 05 July 2014, 22:36:06
Seller is well known on the bay for using numerous usernames "Sterling Cars" comes to mind as one, Rumours of schill bidding were rife a few years back not to mention that cars advertised were not actually at the sellers premises but a couple of hundred miles away
He does that a lot rob on his more pricey cars. Its not hard to find at all  :y
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: steve6367 on 06 July 2014, 01:02:03
Right... as of 2003:

2.2 16v 144ps/151lbft saloon 9.5/10.5; estate 10/11.5
2.2 dti 120ps/206lbft  saloon 11.5/-; estate 12.0/-
2.6 24v 179ps/177lbft saloon 8.5/9.5; estate 9/10
3.2 24v 217ps/214lbft saloon -/8; estate -/8.5

So okay, not quite twice the torque, but enough to notice :y
0-60 times added, saloon man/auto; estate man/auto..

So on paper a 2.6 manual saloon is as quick as a 3.2 auto estate... but a 3.2 manual is sub 7 seconds...

Which is nice :y

Where does the 2.5 fit in numbers wise?
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: 05omegav6 on 06 July 2014, 03:56:19
Don't have the brochure figures for them, but guess at the following:

2.5 24v 170ps/175lbft saloon 9/10; estate 9.5/11
3.0 24v 210ps/285lbft saloon 7.5/8.5; estate 8/9

 :y
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: TheBoy on 06 July 2014, 09:24:38
0-60 times aren't really the story (and generally rubbish as well), its the way the power is delivered.

For example, the lower gearing on the 2.5 make 2.5 and 3.0 not dramatically different 0-60 time, but drive both, and its clear the bigger engine is far more effortless to accelerate, and cruise better at higher speeds. Also, it will pull from 50-70 far better than the smaller engine.

The Omega is a big, heavy car to be pulled by a 2.2 petrol. It cruises OK, but getting it to cruise speed (esp in Auto format) needs a bit of effort. The upside is slightly better economy, and more space to work on the engine, hopefully (from an OOF point of view) giving more confidence to the owner to try more DIY work on it, and dramatically reducing servicing/repair costs.
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: 05omegav6 on 06 July 2014, 10:17:09
0-60 times aren't really the story (and generally rubbish as well), its the way the power is delivered.

For example, the lower gearing on the 2.5 make 2.5 and 3.0 not dramatically different 0-60 time, but drive both, and its clear the bigger engine is far more effortless to accelerate, and cruise better at higher speeds. Also, it will pull from 50-70 far better than the smaller engine.

The Omega is a big, heavy car to be pulled by a 2.2 petrol. It cruises OK, but getting it to cruise speed (esp in Auto format) needs a bit of effort. The upside is slightly better economy, and more space to work on the engine, hopefully (from an OOF point of view) giving more confidence to the owner to try more DIY work on it, and dramatically reducing servicing/repair costs.
Does rather assume that you haven't nodded off on the way to cruising speed ;D
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: TheBoy on 06 July 2014, 10:24:04
0-60 times aren't really the story (and generally rubbish as well), its the way the power is delivered.

For example, the lower gearing on the 2.5 make 2.5 and 3.0 not dramatically different 0-60 time, but drive both, and its clear the bigger engine is far more effortless to accelerate, and cruise better at higher speeds. Also, it will pull from 50-70 far better than the smaller engine.

The Omega is a big, heavy car to be pulled by a 2.2 petrol. It cruises OK, but getting it to cruise speed (esp in Auto format) needs a bit of effort. The upside is slightly better economy, and more space to work on the engine, hopefully (from an OOF point of view) giving more confidence to the owner to try more DIY work on it, and dramatically reducing servicing/repair costs.
Does rather assume that you haven't nodded off on the way to cruising speed ;D
Impossible, it takes too much concentration to get it to ramming speed :P
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: TheBoy on 06 July 2014, 10:27:48
0-60 times aren't really the story (and generally rubbish as well), its the way the power is delivered.

For example, the lower gearing on the 2.5 make 2.5 and 3.0 not dramatically different 0-60 time, but drive both, and its clear the bigger engine is far more effortless to accelerate, and cruise better at higher speeds. Also, it will pull from 50-70 far better than the smaller engine.

The Omega is a big, heavy car to be pulled by a 2.2 petrol. It cruises OK, but getting it to cruise speed (esp in Auto format) needs a bit of effort. The upside is slightly better economy, and more space to work on the engine, hopefully (from an OOF point of view) giving more confidence to the owner to try more DIY work on it, and dramatically reducing servicing/repair costs.
Does rather assume that you haven't nodded off on the way to cruising speed ;D
Slower cars have advantages, it teaches you to get the best out of it.

A VW Toerag fancied his chances after I overtook him on the brakes into a corner, which miffed him off (he shouldn't have been going so friggin slow then), and whilst he was all over me on the straights, he was left for dust in the bends.

That, m'lord, is the reason the Zaffy's range is bum squeakingly tight.
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: omegod on 06 July 2014, 12:24:03
Had a 2.0, 2.2,2.6 and a 3.0 I must say the 3.0 was the daddy and espescially on LPG. 2.2 was " adequate" but very thirsty on the juice for the measly power and I dare say worse that the 2.6.
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Steve B on 06 July 2014, 13:32:13
Had a 2.0, 2.2,2.6 and a 3.0 I must say the 3.0 was the daddy and espescially on LPG. 2.2 was " adequate" but very thirsty on the juice for the measly power and I dare say worse that the 2.6.
Its the small engine pulling the big car around town . There ok on a motorway run.
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: 05omegav6 on 06 July 2014, 14:13:30
Not a new phenomenon though... My Granada Cosworth was about 5mpg more economical that the 2.0 auto it replaced...
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: Steve B on 13 July 2014, 16:57:56
There's alot doesn't add up about that... Even at that price :-\
Well it went for £590

And then its back again  ;D ;D ;D

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/02-VAUXHALL-OMEGA-2-6-ELITE-V6-24V-LOW-MILES-TOP-SPRC-FABULOUS-HISTORY-A-C-/181463889976?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item2a40173838
Title: Re: The 2.2 omega
Post by: plym ian on 13 July 2014, 18:39:53
There's alot doesn't add up about that... Even at that price :-\
Well it went for £590

And then its back again  ;D ;D ;D

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/02-VAUXHALL-OMEGA-2-6-ELITE-V6-24V-LOW-MILES-TOP-SPRC-FABULOUS-HISTORY-A-C-/181463889976?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item2a40173838
Probably one of his mates bidding it up :y