Omega Owners Forum
Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: Hudson on 22 June 2016, 10:17:10
-
I only ask because all the comments i have read up to now tend to say its best to go for the V6, is there something really wrong with this powerplant (if the rest of the car is right etc)
-
My understanding is that the main criticism of the 2.2 is its allegedly a little underpowered for the size and weight of the car. Having said that, my dad has a 2.0 omega automatic and it seems powerful enough. Ok so it doesn't give you the grin factor but for a large motorway muncher it's perfectly adequate
-
Way I see it is, as a family that went from Astras, to Cavaliers up to Omegas, the Powerplants go a bit like this
3.0 / 3.2 the 'big un'
2.5 / 2.6 the 'normal'
2.0 / 2.2 the 'smaller'
But only the same as a 2.0 turbo Astra is the 'big un' the 1.8 the 'normal' and the '1.6' the smaller. (for pedants there are, of course more engine choices found in Astras Vectras etc than Omegas, but most car ranges feature this common pattern - big, medium and small engine, plus diesels, but we don't include the Devil's urine in this thread :D)
The main criticisms are, the 2.2 on paper are more economical, however, in the real world, because you plant your foot that bit more to make up for the slight lack of urge, there's allegedly no real difference in mpg. Omegas are a big old fat lump, so round town whatever you have, you're doing teens to the gallon.
However, so, too, would many a 3.0/3.2 owner claim they'd never own a 2.5/2.6, because of the relative lack of grunt. It's a bit tomato-tamaaarto, really. But I think personally no one should be put off getting a 2.0/2.2.
The mechanical side of 2.2s is - if the head gasket and/or manifold doesn't go, then you're pretty much fine. But they do all seem to go eventually, sadly. However the V6 are all riddled with lots of small niggly issues, which can be a constant pain to keep on top of completely. Though.. I do know of a 2.0 taxi that had 250k on the clock, so....you know, not everything is black and white :)
For me, personally, there's no point in owning a big fat old barge, without a big, fat old engine, so I've the V6 with the lazy old man auto box. I sit, and the car drives herself, as I listen to a choice of 6 CDs with a warmed bum. But that's me, and there's nothing wrong with bombing around in a 2.0 GLS - you've still got the comfy seats and the same waftable ride :)
-
Engine wise my 2.2 manual which is now on 189k has been rock solid, apart from themostat, cambelts and a 1 cam cover since 84k it's not missed a beat.
It's still on it's original head gasket, no issues with exhaust manifold either. It's dead easy to work on, sooooo so so much space around everything compared to the V6.
Only down side is it's down on power compared to the V6.
-
I've a 2.0 gls, it's a nice comfy ride granted it doesn't have all the gadgets that my old 2.5 cdx had, it's still nice
Put it this way the original e39 5er bmw had a 518i, the mig has more power
The Europeans have an e200 w210 same power but better gearbox
-
Aye :)
I mean in a way its the same argument with MV6 / Elite owners - must be 50% on here own Elites, and even the CDX gets snubbed as 'lowly' (when in reality the only thing you'd notice day-to-day is lack of leather seats - but some Elites have velour too)
End of the day your car, your rules. Each has its own charms and quirks. :)
-
Its the same car as its bigger brothers in most respects, just depends if you need to drive really fast all the time or not.
My 2.2 CDX does everything any 'normal' driver would want and I am very happy with it.
27.4mpg over mixed last 5k or so by the way.
:)
-
The engine is ok, doesn't pull in the same way as the 3.2, (or even the 2.6), but revs happily enough. The gearbox lets it down as churns its way through the gears... a manual would be more spritely. That said, the Omega has a very capable chassis, and correctly set up, is a hoot to drive regardless of the engine 8)
Buy the car on condition rather than what's under the bonnet, sort the suspension and leave it in Sport mode if auto. Equally at home pottering around, which the 3.2 doesn't really enjoy ime... you aren't buying an Omega for the fuel economy, so don't worry too much about that... a hard driven 2.2 will still use significantly less fuel than the v6 autos.
-
Its the same car as its bigger brothers in most respects, just depends if you need to drive really fast all the time or not.
My 2.2 CDX does everything any 'normal' driver would want and I am very happy with it.
27.4mpg over mixed last 5k or so by the way.
:)
That milage is quite bad :P my 99' c280 with the later v6 had 28mpg
-
Its the same car as its bigger brothers in most respects, just depends if you need to drive really fast all the time or not.
My 2.2 CDX does everything any 'normal' driver would want and I am very happy with it.
27.4mpg over mixed last 5k or so by the way.
:)
That milage is quite bad :P my 99' c280 with the later v6 had 28mpg
No comparison... the Merc V6 is a much newer design engine, weighs significantly less, has a 5+ speed gearbox and significantly more power ::) :-X
-
I suppose but it still only has 18valves vs the 24 of the mig
-
try 19.4mpg over the last 6 months. All town with maybe 5-10% other longer runs. I support my local oil refinery, by christ, do I!!
-
My Desmond is plenty fast enough to get me a ticket :(. My old 2l PFL was adequate as well. :y
-
I suppose but it still only has 18valves vs the 24 of the mig
Please think before you type :-*
2.2 is a 4 cylinder 16v engine, and Euro 3... The Merc lump is Euro4/5 and geared to be economical. They are respectively the roughest cliff face and the smoothest Camembert in comparison...
-
My Desmond is plenty fast enough to get me a ticket :(. My old 2l PFL was adequate as well. :y
Adequate is a good word for the 2.0 8v, the 16v in either size is better ;) The 2.5/6 is ample and the 3.0/2 is the cherry on top.
-
Aye :)
I mean in a way its the same argument with MV6 / Elite owners - must be 50% on here own Elites, and even the CDX gets snubbed as 'lowly' (when in reality the only thing you'd notice day-to-day is lack of leather seats - but some Elites have velour too)
I was looking at that last week, there isn't much difference between an Elite and a CDX with leather. Some of the differences are hard to see as an improvement; the self-levelling rear suspension(I've towed with it twice in 5 years) and the Bose stereo that almost certainly has a wornout head unit. Others like the memory seats are of very limited use to me as the car is very rarely driven by other drivers. I'd like the heated driver's seat to work, as the other 3 still do but that's a fault with my car.
These are the things I'd actually miss:
did they do a 3.0l CDX? A 2.5 costs the same to own as a 3.0l, but isn't as nice to drive.
the auto-dipping rearview mirror. Cheap and easy to retro-fit so is hardly a problem
Cruise control. Another retro-fit if the car didn't come with it
Sunroof. I use it all year round except on really hot days when the A/C is better.
-
Had both 2.6 just seemed to drive so much nicer than the 2.2 , now got a 4.3 Merc which in a word is superb , my opinion go as big as you can ,😉😉