Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Car Chat => Topic started by: Viral_Jim on 09 March 2016, 19:10:04
-
Given that another new car in the 944 household seems unlikely, I was wondering about the merits of "upgrading" to a v6. I use the quotes as I genuinely don't know what the merits of the 2 are or if it is, in fact, an upgrade. I'm guessing:
- V6 will have more torque and work better with the auto box
- 2.2 will give better fuel consumption (although by how much I don't know).
- V6 will sound better
- V6 is a bit faster on paper (10s 0-60 vs 11s), but I'm guessing quite a lot faster in the real world.
No idea which will be more reliable but I've not seen many issues with my 2.2 over the 20k ive had it. Theres a (rare silver) one on autotrader but the main reason I'm interested is its got leather interior - shallow I know but there we are ::)
-
You'll notice it more in that 30mph+ acceleration, where the extra power really shows. And at motorway speeds, the 3.0/3.2 are a league above the 2.5/2.6.
Economy wise, very often the 2.2 and 2.5 are surprisingly similar, if using same gearbox.
The 2.6 and 3.2 are noticibly less economical and slightly less powerful in the real world than their 2.5/3.0 equivalent.
The 2.2 is easier to service, and is generally robust. HG tends to fail at around 150k, other than that not much else happens (cam sensors fail, but you should be able to get home). With poor oil servicing, pot 1 wears.
V6 is virtually indestructible short of cambelt failure. Cam cover gaskets expensive. Oil filter in an inconvenient place. Can look daunting to work on as it does fill the engine bay. Crank sensor failure will cause a tow home.
-
Spoke too soon. 2.2's are robust and usually always get you home, unless your name is tunnie ::)
-
You'll notice it more in that 30mph+ acceleration, where the extra power really shows. And at motorway speeds, the 3.0/3.2 are a league above the 2.5/2.6.
Economy wise, very often the 2.2 and 2.5 are surprisingly similar, if using same gearbox.
The 2.6 and 3.2 are noticibly less economical and slightly less powerful in the real world than their 2.5/3.0 equivalent.
The 2.2 is easier to service, and is generally robust. HG tends to fail at around 150k, other than that not much else happens (cam sensors fail, but you should be able to get home). With poor oil servicing, pot 1 wears.
V6 is virtually indestructible short of cambelt failure. Cam cover gaskets expensive. Oil filter in an inconvenient place. Can look daunting to work on as it does fill the engine bay. Crank sensor failure will cause a tow home.
More like anytime after 80K
-
You'll notice it more in that 30mph+ acceleration, where the extra power really shows. And at motorway speeds, the 3.0/3.2 are a league above the 2.5/2.6.
Economy wise, very often the 2.2 and 2.5 are surprisingly similar, if using same gearbox.
The 2.6 and 3.2 are noticibly less economical and slightly less powerful in the real world than their 2.5/3.0 equivalent.
The 2.2 is easier to service, and is generally robust. HG tends to fail at around 150k, other than that not much else happens (cam sensors fail, but you should be able to get home). With poor oil servicing, pot 1 wears.
V6 is virtually indestructible short of cambelt failure. Cam cover gaskets expensive. Oil filter in an inconvenient place. Can look daunting to work on as it does fill the engine bay. Crank sensor failure will cause a tow home.
More like anytime after 80K
I think that low would be considered unlucky. In the same way having a V6 eat a HG is lucky. Shame my 3.0 has done it twice ;D
-
You'll notice it more in that 30mph+ acceleration, where the extra power really shows. And at motorway speeds, the 3.0/3.2 are a league above the 2.5/2.6.
Economy wise, very often the 2.2 and 2.5 are surprisingly similar, if using same gearbox.
The 2.6 and 3.2 are noticibly less economical and slightly less powerful in the real world than their 2.5/3.0 equivalent.
The 2.2 is easier to service, and is generally robust. HG tends to fail at around 150k, other than that not much else happens (cam sensors fail, but you should be able to get home). With poor oil servicing, pot 1 wears.
V6 is virtually indestructible short of cambelt failure. Cam cover gaskets expensive. Oil filter in an inconvenient place. Can look daunting to work on as it does fill the engine bay. Crank sensor failure will cause a tow home.
More like anytime after 80K
I think that low would be considered unlucky. In the same way having a V6 eat a HG is lucky. Shame my 3.0 has done it twice ;D
The 3.2 Dont :y
-
Cheers chaps, useful info.
TB: what's the crack with 2.6/3.2 being down on power/economy, I thought they came after the 2.5/3.0? Ok so I know larger capacity = less mpg, but why the power? i wasn't aware of HG failure. I'll do this as a preventative next time I do the cam belt - assuming I keep the car.
-
Don't bother with 2.6, if you are going to deal with the V6 issues of DIY work and crappy fuel use. Might as well get all the horses with a 3.2 :y
-
I do see your point. It's so nice opening a bonnet and thinking "oh yeah that seems logical" rather crank sensor notwithstanding!
My previous cars included a transverse v6 4x4 saloon. I can do without that carp again. ;D
-
I prefer V6s. They always romp through MOT emission tests, whereas in line 4-pots struggle, with only the one cat, and with the flexi in it by the time I get them the cat is an aftermarket affair. They both suffer crank sensor failures, but the V6 is easy to change while the 4-pot is difficult. V6 has servotronic steering, 4-pot does not.
-
Don't bother with 2.6, if you are going to deal with the V6 issues of DIY work and crappy fuel use. Might as well get all the horses with a 3.2 :y
Not a fair assessment imho... 2.6 has a useful increase in torque over the four pots, if absolute speed/power is not a priority, the 2.6 makes for a damn good cruiser ;)
-
Although Im a 3.2 fan, if I was to do it all over again, it would be a 3.0 Manual, quickest off the mark, around 7.5 seconds and probably the best on economy of all the V6"s, plus reletivley easier to mod and chip for a tad more power and better mpg.
3.2 only ever came with Auto box, unless ex Police, and the later 2.6, 3.2's had additional Euro tree hugging mods done which made the economy worse.
-
Although Im a 3.2 fan, if I was to do it all over again, it would be a 3.0 Manual, quickest off the mark, around 7.5 seconds and probably the best on economy of all the V6"s, plus reletivley easier to mod and chip for a tad more power and better mpg.
3.2 only ever came with Auto box, unless ex Police, and the later 2.6, 3.2's had additional Euro tree hugging mods done which made the economy worse.
2.6 does at least have a manual option...
-
Although Im a 3.2 fan, if I was to do it all over again, it would be a 3.0 Manual, quickest off the mark, around 7.5 seconds and probably the best on economy of all the V6"s, plus reletivley easier to mod and chip for a tad more power and better mpg.
3.2 only ever came with Auto box, unless ex Police, and the later 2.6, 3.2's had additional Euro tree hugging mods done which made the economy worse.
2.6 does at least have a manual option...
Yea, this true, but most are Auto,s, especially after2002 for some unknown reason. :-\
-
I think in a mig it would always be an auto. TBH the only car I'd go with in a manual given my current situation is a 9-5 aero. And then only for the point & click overtaking ability.
I think for my day to day needs, the 2.2 has power enough. I'm more thinking about whether the overall experience would be better in a v6.
-
Smoother, slightly less thrashy as the revs rise :y
-
I can help you out here, 944.
In terms of ouright power, the 9-5 Aero will kill any Omega up to about 100-120mph, then the V6 (in 3.0/3.2) will easily pull harder to 160MPH.
In day to day driving, the V6 omega is an absolute beauty, no matter what flavour. The seats are not quite as comfortable as the 9-5 but the suspension setup is far more suited to the potholed roads, especially in Elite form. Then there is the noise. The V6 sounds excellent on-song.
Other things, like Audio. The Bose setup in the Mig is very nice, but the HK in the SAAB just clinches it. Neither are 'great' compared to modern standards.
Economy? I've never owned a 4banger Omega, but I get similar MPG from my Aero as I did with my 3.2, and the Aero is now Stg 3, and I like to exercise the horses.
If there were a scenario; 2 identical mileage cars, in beautiful condition - 1 being a 3.2 Omega Saloon with all the toys and the other being a 9-5 Aero Saloon and I had to walk out with one........ I'd have to toss a coin.
No, I'd take the SAAB, purely because of the belt/chain comparison..... Oh, and it stops from high speed more than once.
-
what's the crack with 2.6/3.2 being down on power/economy, I thought they came after the 2.5/3.0? Ok so I know larger capacity = less mpg, but why the power?
lower compression ratio on the 2.6/3.2, sadly.
-
I still maintain the 3.2 is quicker than the 3.0.
Cannot speak for the 2.5/2.6 as although I've driven them, I've never owned one, so unfair to draw a comparison.
I've only owned one 3.2, and 3x 3.0. It's of course possible that I had an exceptionally quick 3.2 (I did buy it from a member on here).... it's also possible i've owned some shocking 3.0's. Who knows?
-
I can help you out here, 944.
In terms of ouright power, the 9-5 Aero will kill any Omega up to about 100-120mph, then the V6 (in 3.0/3.2) will easily pull harder to 160MPH.
In day to day driving, the V6 omega is an absolute beauty, no matter what flavour. The seats are not quite as comfortable as the 9-5 but the suspension setup is far more suited to the potholed roads, especially in Elite form. Then there is the noise. The V6 sounds excellent on-song.
Other things, like Audio. The Bose setup in the Mig is very nice, but the HK in the SAAB just clinches it. Neither are 'great' compared to modern standards.
Economy? I've never owned a 4banger Omega, but I get similar MPG from my Aero as I did with my 3.2, and the Aero is now Stg 3, and I like to exercise the horses.
If there were a scenario; 2 identical mileage cars, in beautiful condition - 1 being a 3.2 Omega Saloon with all the toys and the other being a 9-5 Aero Saloon and I had to walk out with one........ I'd have to toss a coin.
No, I'd take the SAAB, purely because of the belt/chain comparison..... Oh, and it stops from high speed more than once.
Cheers for this, some good info in there :y
Pretty much follows what I thought. I'll keep an eye out for a good mig or Saab I think.
-
The other thing to mention is that, if you're going for an automatic gearbox, the 2.2 doesn't really have enough grunt, in my view. It really is rather sedate unless thrashed because it doesn't have enough torque for the taller ratios in an automatic box. The 2.6 would be a much better bet and probably not much more thirsty in auto. In manual form, the 2.2 is OK.
All things considered, I'd say the 3.2 is probably the most reliable of all.
2.2, 2.5 and 3.0 all have occasional head and exhaust manifold gasket issues, plus the SAI system on the early V6s can cause trouble but is easy to remove. 2.6 and 3.2 never have gasket issues due to multilayer gaskets used. The reason I'd put the 3.2 above the 2.6 is that 2.6s seem sensitive to any degradation in the MAF sensor. Seen plenty of these where the MAF has caused problems. These don't occur with the 3.2 despite all the hardware being the same. I suspect the ECU config is, for some reason, not as tolerant to ageing of the MAF sensor on the 2.6.
-
Thanks Kevin, yes the lack of grunt is the main reason I was thinking of changing, the way it kicks down when I'm on the motorway due to a slight gradient and taked the revs to 4500-5000 rpm can be really annoying.
That, ans I'd like a nicer interior :P
-
Slightly off thread, but I prefer the 2.0s, 2.5s and 3.0s, better engines (higher comression, more power, more efficient), throttle cables rather than drive by wire so less twitchy, and cheaper to tax. My ideal car is a rust free 2000 Omega 3.0 manual; I had one but Catherine wrote it off.
-
Cheers chaps, useful info.
TB: what's the crack with 2.6/3.2 being down on power/economy, I thought they came after the 2.5/3.0? Ok so I know larger capacity = less mpg, but why the power? i wasn't aware of HG failure. I'll do this as a preventative next time I do the cam belt - assuming I keep the car.
Design compromises for cost reasons. This has led to a reduction in the CR which impacts performance.
This makes the (far less compromised) 3.0l the quickest of the bunch in standard form, though arguably the 3.2 may be better for very light forced induction.
Power delivery is completely different between the 2.5/3.0 and the 2.5/3.2 to try to mask its deficiencies.
-
The other thing to mention is that, if you're going for an automatic gearbox, the 2.2 doesn't really have enough grunt, in my view. It really is rather sedate unless thrashed because it doesn't have enough torque for the taller ratios in an automatic box. The 2.6 would be a much better bet and probably not much more thirsty in auto. In manual form, the 2.2 is OK.
All things considered, I'd say the 3.2 is probably the most reliable of all.
2.2, 2.5 and 3.0 all have occasional head and exhaust manifold gasket issues, plus the SAI system on the early V6s can cause trouble but is easy to remove. 2.6 and 3.2 never have gasket issues due to multilayer gaskets used. The reason I'd put the 3.2 above the 2.6 is that 2.6s seem sensitive to any degradation in the MAF sensor. Seen plenty of these where the MAF has caused problems. These don't occur with the 3.2 despite all the hardware being the same. I suspect the ECU config is, for some reason, not as tolerant to ageing of the MAF sensor on the 2.6.
Remember a lot of 2.6's have stem seal issues, which is a bit of a pain to put right :(
-
Remember a lot of 2.6's have stem seal issues, which is a bit of a pain to put right :(
I have one you can practice on if you wish.....
....fixing the rest of the car may prove to be a bit of a challenge though
-
Given that another new car in the 944 household seems unlikely, I was wondering about the merits of "upgrading" to a v6. I use the quotes as I genuinely don't know what the merits of the 2 are or if it is, in fact, an upgrade. I'm guessing:
- V6 will have more torque and work better with the auto box
- 2.2 will give better fuel consumption (although by how much I don't know).
- V6 will sound better
- V6 is a bit faster on paper (10s 0-60 vs 11s), but I'm guessing quite a lot faster in the real world.
No idea which will be more reliable but I've not seen many issues with my 2.2 over the 20k ive had it. Theres a (rare silver) one on autotrader but the main reason I'm interested is its got leather interior - shallow I know but there we are ::)
Depends whether you view what`s under the bonnet as some sort of phallic symbol ::) ;D
-
Remember a lot of 2.6's have stem seal issues, which is a bit of a pain to put right :(
Yes, I thought there was another 2.6 snag but couldn't put my finger on it. :y
-
Depends whether you view what`s under the bonnet as some sort of phallic symbol
Seeing as I bought the 2.2 in the first place. Clearly not ;D
-
Cheers chaps, useful info.
TB: what's the crack with 2.6/3.2 being down on power/economy, I thought they came after the 2.5/3.0? Ok so I know larger capacity = less mpg, but why the power? i wasn't aware of HG failure. I'll do this as a preventative next time I do the cam belt - assuming I keep the car.
I doubt very much that there is much in it between a 3.0 and a 3.2, certainly not enough for one to get past the other on a balls out run. The 3.0 may feel faster due to the different noise levels created by extra 'perforations' ;D but even then you have good and bad in each camp. ;)
-
Had a 2.2 & a 2.6 , several problems with the 2.2 the 2.6 never missed a beat absolutely brilliant car, if I had a double garage I would have kept it when I bought the Merc.