Omega Owners Forum
Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: lesask on 31 October 2015, 18:17:20
-
Hi, I'm used to it but my 2.6 saloon does around 17-18 mpg around town and I can get about 30 mpg on a motorway run. The car is well serviced and maintained. Clearly its a very heavy car and an auto. Does people thank that this is about right?
-
Yup :y
-
Thanks mate
-
Can depend a fair bit on how it's driven of course.Never had a 2.6 myself but going on my 3.0 then I'd say it's there or there abouts.
-
To get reasonable urbqn mpg you need a very light right foot and the anticipation of a gazelle... Unless you drive around at night, you'll be constantly stopping and starting which cripples the economy...
-
yes thats right, once i got caught in very heavy traffic and it went as low as 15mpg but normally stop start standard driving about 17-18. im glad you very knowledgeable people say thats about right. ta very much.
-
Hi, I'm used to it but my 2.6 saloon does around 17-18 mpg around town and I can get about 30 mpg on a motorway run. The car is well serviced and maintained. Clearly its a very heavy car and an auto. Does people thank that this is about right?
You might as well swap it for a 3.2, more oomph and the same mpg. :y
-
Get about 27 mpg urban and latest motorway run 36 mpg but I have a manual 2.5 V6. Auto box not as good as manual.
-
..... Auto box not as good as manual.
You missed ...... IMHO ...... out! ::) ::) ::)
But we all know that 2 pedals good ...... 3 pedal bad ;)
-
Have to admit, I'm liking my 3.2 more and more. It's soooo much nicer on the commute thanks to autoness and bags of torque.
Now if there was a way to make it cheaper to run :P :-X
-
On and 3.2 averages about 25 mixed roads, 2.2 does about 27 mixed roads. Difference is 2.2 takes stuff that only costs 55p a litre.
-
Why are the PFLs more economic than FLs? My two 2.5 petrol manual estates average 29mpg on my mixture of local and Frday M4 runs, whereas the 2.6 manual saloon can only manage 26mpg. I have read it before on this forum that PFLs are more economic. Why?
-
Why are the PFLs more economic than FLs? My two 2.5 petrol manual estates average 29mpg on my mixture of local and Frday M4 runs, whereas the 2.6 manual saloon can only manage 26mpg. I have read it before on this forum that PFLs are more economic. Why?
Direct throttle control...
Older models have a cabled throttle... The ecu reacts to throttle inputs at the throttle position sensor, which in turn is physically connected to your right foot.
Later cars,.your right foot tells the ecu what you would like the throttle to do. The ecu then decides if it will let you or not...
-
From what I've read on here the 2.6/3.2's don't seem to be as economical as the 2.5/3.0's for some reason although obviously they're of slightly larger capacity but would this alone account for the difference?Other than that is there any weight difference between pfl/mfl and fl cars?
-
I believe it is the emissions control system which add to the consumption. See VW diesel trick for amplification. :y
-
Facelifts are a smidgen heavier... And actually have less emission strangulation... Just the ecu and cats... No sai or EGR. They are also a touch more powerful/torquier than the equivalent 2.0 16v/2.5/3.0...
-
I did not know FLs were heavier. Not much, surely? Not 10%. I appreciate they are less lumbered with emission devices, that should be in their favour. They seem a bit less frisky. I blame that on the electronic throttle. My right foot tells it to go, but the ECU is able to overrule me if it feels like it. The cruise feels different. When I engage cruise on a PFL there is a surge of power; on the FL nothing happens for a while.
-
The compression ratio is iirc, higher on the 2.6 / 3.2 then the 2.5 / 3.0.
Combined with the pre cats and associated ecu software, this screws up the mpg big style.
My first and favourite omega was a pfl 2.5cd saloon with a manual box.
Best handling omega i've ever had and averaged 28 mpg (mixed) with my right foot :y :D
Current steed is a face lift 3.2 Mv6 estate with a shitty auto box.
On lpg, I get no more then 19 mpg (mixed) and its down to 15 mpg around town :'(
-
I do no town work in my 2.6 at all , it is used for my commute to work on excellent A roads it returns around 28 - 30 mpg , on a good run I have achieved 34mpg .Next Saturday I collect my replacement for it Mercedes E430 auto I hope to get 18 - 25 mpg from that V8 4.3 litre , will be very sorry to see the Omega go but have always wanted a V8, & this one ticks all the boxes for me www.mtsv.co.uk
-
The compression ratio is iirc, higher on the 2.6 / 3.2 then the 2.5 / 3.0.
Bingo. This is the penalty for removing the sai and egr systems. You have to reduce the compression ratio and this impacts economy slightly.
-
Now you have muddled me. TG says compression ratio is higher on facelifts. Kevin says it is lower because of losing the EGR and SAI.
Anyway EGR and SAI only kick in on cold starting, so are not of concern to Uk emission tests.
-
Having stupidly taken the hilift keys home from work this evening ::) I have had cause to return to work... Partly due to the weather conditions, and partly traffic, I have just done 23 miles rather sedately. Pay no attention to average mpg as that's about 20.1 :-X range was showing as 112 miles... Now back at the airport, it's saying 138 miles. I intend, via the cinema to return home with the same range remaining.
The trick seems to be light throttle, use top unless you're almost stopping at junctions, in which case third is fine, and stop as infrequently as possible. The other approach, which seems to work well is to onky use the clutch for pulling away, then as the revs hit 2K, lift off, out of gear without the clutch and as the revs drop to 1.5K, simply snick it into the next gear until you hit top, which will be about 41/2 mph. Changing down, simply lift off, out of gear, blip the throttle and as the revs drop back to approx 500RPM higher it should slot into the next gear down just so... :y
-
I'm going to buy a car with a big 3.2 V6 in it. Then I'm going to moan about MPG and drive like granny whilst not using the clutch. break OFF! ;D
-
around town my 3.0 V6 will average anything from 30mpg with a very light right foot on a Sunday morning when everyone else is still in bed to 23/24 if I take everyone on at the Traffic Light Grande Prix .......
mpg is all in the right foot ;) ;)
-
I'm going to buy a car with a big 3.2 V6 in it. Then I'm going to moan about MPG and drive like granny whilst not using the clutch. break OFF! ;D
No moaning here :P if I were to moan itwould be at averaging 20.1 mpg on the mid and using £75 worth of unleaded every week, in which case I would fit lpg and the be pissed off at it only managing 17 mpg ::)
Point is you don't need to rag a car that will pull from 1000RPM in top. Unless you like the noise it makes above 4K... In which case you really don't care about the economy... ;D
-
The noise oh yes the V6 noise ummmmm ::)
-
I'm going to buy a car with a big 3.2 V6 in it. Then I'm going to moan about MPG and drive like granny whilst not using the clutch. break OFF! ;D
No moaning here :P if I were to moan itwould be at averaging 20.1 mpg on the mid and using £75 worth of unleaded every week, in which case I would fit lpg and the be pissed off at it only managing 17 mpg ::)
Point is you don't need to rag a car that will pull from 1000RPM in top. Unless you like the noise it makes above 4K... In which case you really don't care about the economy... ;D
Nail-Head.
General consensus on here is that the 2.2 will achieve the same sort of economy as the 3.0. Reasoning being you just don't drive them the same.
A steady 30-70 pull on a motorway slip-road in a V6 is inseparable to a full-on WOT blast in a 2.2.
Also, the V6 is quite a reasonably economical engine at idle.... so city-centre traffic is not too much different.
The economy issue is when you have a very heavy right foot, and several points on your license. The V6 gets into naughty territory very easily.
-
Now you have muddled me. TG says compression ratio is higher on facelifts. Kevin says it is lower because of losing the EGR and SAI.
Anyway EGR and SAI only kick in on cold starting, so are not of concern to Uk emission tests.
Apologies. Hadn't spotted that TG had got it @rse-about-face when I agreed with his post. :-[
EGR is not used only on starting but most of the time, in fact. It is used to reduce burn temperatures and hence NOx emissions, and also slightly increases fuel efficiency on a petrol car. Lowering the compression is a cheaper way of reducing NOx, but at the expense of power (hence the increase in capacity to 2.6/3.2) and fuel efficiency.
-
Well, a self imposed limit of 2k on return trip, sat in top, over 21 miles, including two long, significant hills and several roundabouts sees my range end up at 119 miles.
It was 112 when I left home 46 miles earlier... and shows an average of 31.4mpg... it can be doner, but as said it might not be the most enthralling of journeys ::)
-
What's economy? If I was worried about it I wouldn't drive an Omega like I'd stolen it almost all the time!!!
Basically I currently get around 200 miles to £40 of LPG, mostly fast A roads with lots of roundabouts and a bit of town but have recently seen nearly 300 miles (283 rings a bell) from the same tank on a long run :y
But I just fill it up when it needs fuel ;)
-
On and 3.2 averages about 25 mixed roads, 2.2 does about 27 mixed roads. Difference is 2.2 takes stuff that only costs 55p a litre.
Cluck me :o
You're not enjoying it enough!
-
Why are the PFLs more economic than FLs? My two 2.5 petrol manual estates average 29mpg on my mixture of local and Frday M4 runs, whereas the 2.6 manual saloon can only manage 26mpg. I have read it before on this forum that PFLs are more economic. Why?
Its not PFL v FL, but rather 2.5/3.0 v 2.6/3.2.
The newer engines are more compromised to reduce manufacturing costs, the major compromise being the lower CR on the newer engines to avoid the need for an EGR, as Kevin Wood has explained.
This is also the primary reason that the 2.6/3.2 lack the outright performance of the smaller 2.5/3.0 despite the larger capacity.
On the upside, it does make them better for blowing... ...but you'll still destroy the bottom end quickly.
-
Thanks gentlemen. That was most enlightening. Now I know why the earlier 2.0s, 2.5s and 3.0s seem superior in power and economy to the later, simpler 2.2s, 2.6s and 3.2s. I know that while the SAI system only functions on cold start up, the EGR system works more often. I wonder what effect blanking the EGR valve has - presumably dirtier emissions.
-
Not directly related to PFL v FL or 2.5 v 2.6, but some Omegas attract £230pa road tax and others £290pa, depending on date of registration. This creates an 'ideal' used Omega to seek out on e-bay, a 2000 3.0 CDX manual saloon, rust free of course. I recall such a car advertised some while ago, woffle said these 3.0s are reckonned to be the best Omegas, and I did not believe it. I used to have one, and Catherine wrecked it.
-
You're close, the best Omega is a PFL 2.5V6 CDX is the best Omega to have, in black. With a massive dent on the front wing and door, and a loose sill trim. In black. And the driver's door card in the hallway. In black.
-
You're close, the best Omega is a PFL 2.5V6 CDX is the best Omega to have, in black. With a massive dent on the front wing and door, and a loose sill trim. In black. And the driver's door card in the hallway. In black.
But what's the chance of finding one of them? ::)
Or is this a veiled sale thread :D :D :D
-
hahaha. Nooo, never selling her. Just that finding another wouldn't be easy :)
It is said when a Scottish distillery replaced their many hundreds-year old copper stills, they got a copppersmith to actually dent them in the same same place as the old ones, for fear that without, the taste would be altered.
I apply the same logic to my my car :y
-
You're close, the best Omega is a PFL 2.5V6 CDX is the best Omega to have, in black. With a massive dent on the front wing and door, and a loose sill trim. In black. And the driver's door card in the hallway. In black.
You're both wrong. Start with an Elite (for the better cabin looms) and rip out the shitty suspension ;)
-
Oh, and LPG it, so it costs 3 parts of sod all to run ;D
-
You're close, the best Omega is a PFL 2.5V6 CDX is the best Omega to have, in black. With a massive dent on the front wing and door, and a loose sill trim. In black. And the driver's door card in the hallway. In black.
You're both wrong. Start with an Elite (for the better cabin looms) and rip out the shitty suspension ;)
Oh, and LPG it, so it costs 3 parts of sod all to run ;D
Sounds a bit like a very Rusty Bullet. But we all know you can't be talking about that :-X ::)
-
I can't believe how good my present 2.6 auto saloon is on fuel although not being heavy footed does help a lot ::) Decent servicing must add up to something after all :)
-
38.8mpg average at constant 60mph, 2.6 manual
-
I got 400 miles from each of my last two tanks of fuel. That's brimmed to showing about 20miles of range.
Probably 3/4 motorway and the rest is mostly town mileage.
It's a 3.0ll auto estate.
-
Annoys me that I do so much town driving, and most of the journeys end just as the temp gauge hits 90, so my 22.4mpg (as it is now...ah well! ::)) is not what the engine's capable of. Just under 40 on a long motorway run. :)
Still, my first week of owning the car I averages 19.9mpg... :o My right foot adjusted very quickly after that!
-
I got 400 miles from each of my last two tanks of fuel. That's brimmed to showing about 20miles of range.
Probably 3/4 motorway and the rest is mostly town mileage.
It's a 3.0ll auto estate.
I've managed 500miles from a tank in the 3.0, but that was on French Autoroutes most of the way.