Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: JamesV6CDX on 08 December 2006, 23:16:39
-
I'm looking out for a new Omega soon, unfortunately I just missed one on eBay,
As per title, I'm looking for thoughts on the differences between 2.5 and 3.0's. Eg fuel consumption, accelleration, top end speed, reliability differences, so on....
-
Autos are a lot slower, i believe as much as 1 second slower than a manual
Not much difference on Fuel Consumption
Vauxhall figures from 2000 sales catalogue based on manual saloon are:
2.5 V6 = Top speed 142mph, 0 - 60 8.5 secs, mpg combined 35.8
3.0 v6 = Top speed 151mph, 0 - 60 8.0 secs, mpg combined 35.8
I think you have a much better chance of finding a manual 2.5 though
-
I think manual vs. Auto makes more difference. The best of both worlds seems to be a 2.5 with 3.0 cams and maybe a chip.
-
So you are saying that there is 10mpg difference between the 2? Surely not...
-
So you are saying that there is 10mpg difference between the 2? Surely not...
No, i mistyped. It is the same and I have now corrected it
-
I think manual vs. Auto makes more difference. The best of both worlds seems to be a 2.5 with 3.0 cams and maybe a chip.
OR - a 3.0 with 2.5 skimmed heads and 3.0 inlet cams ;D
-
Forget 3.0/3.2, the one to have is 2.5 or 2.6 (I had both 2.5 and 2.6). Much more refined and not much slower. :y
-
2.5 more refined than a 3.0? How so mate?
-
2.5 more refined than a 3.0? How so mate?
I test drove two 3.0 Elites, the engine sounded and felt coarse compared to the 2.5. Now everyone here tells me I'm imagining things, but I know what I saw, so there...
-
If I could find a 3.0 or 3.2 MV6 Estate with a manual gearbox, I'd bite your legs off!! My 2.5 V6 is manual and flying through the gearbox close to the red line is awesome. 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
I test drove a 2.5 auto before my 3.0 auto & there was a lot of difference, which I why I have my Elite.......
-
I would go for the bigger engine anytime with manual box. I'm not keen into comparing used cars as the maintenance of each car plays big role. You can get easily a 2.5 being faster than a 3lt and vice versa, again the driving style of each driver is important. I for example hate to use the engine at full load below 2500rpm eventhough you could accelerate without any problem with 5th and 700rpm.
-
Having owned both, I would always pick the 3.0 every single time. It is just so much better as an all round drive, mainly due to the significant extra torque.
However, the 3.0 is also noticably thirstier (well it is the way I tend to drive them!) ;)
The manual box is wonderful, so, if you can find one, the manual MV6 is the way to go. :)
-
I currently own a 2.5 and a 3ltr, the 2.5 is a 2000 the 3ltr is a 99, both have done roughly the same millage and untill i fiddled with the 3ltr both were standard.
The second one i bought was the 3ltr kind of says it all.
Both are late engines so have the refinement tweaks that have been made over the years and in the actual 'smoothness' theres nothng in it.
To 60 theres not a horrendous amount in it, but from 50-70 and above the difference is more noticeable, and flat out its 3ltr all the way, it just keeps pulling.
The 3ltr is better to drive with a bit of agression, but then its the MV6 as opposed to a CDX so always will be.
Driven the same way theres very little difference in mpg, 1 or 2 miles at best, but with 2 or 3 passengers and a few bags the 3ltr feels more comfortable in the motorway speed up slow down situations.
To be honest you pay your money you take your choice but as the prices are almost the same a late 3ltr would be my choice over a late 2.5.
-
3 Ltr mate.... :y
Anything Smaller is for Lawn Mowers! ;D
Take it from me the MV6 is quick, espcially in mid range pull at Motorway speeds....
Manual is better, but Auto box is still pretty good, you just have to "Plan" to overtake.
Cheers
Matt
-
i think as Theo pointed out, manual vs auto is a better discussion really.
Having owned a 2.5 Auto, i was very impressed by the smoothness of the engine. I have driven TB's 3.0 MV6 and that was just as smooth, amazing considering its done 130k..
However i felt my 2.2 manual felt a lot more perkier compared to the 2.5 Auto...
I'll have to agree with Laidback.... 3.0 MV6 manual is by far the best option... and my idea Euro trip car
-
well, my old miggy (1999 'T' reg - so it was after the engine changes) was a 2.5 as they do seem to be more plentiful (along with 2.0's) compared to the 3.0's.
However when I got replaced I went for a 3.0 and am glad I did ... didn't notice any difference in smoothness between the two lumps but the 3.0 is definitely faster (and thirstier) than the 2.5 ... if I get an estate it will be a 3.0 !!
-
All v6 units equally smooth if looked after.
3.0/3.2 is more effortless on power, obviously faster, but uses more fuel.
However, one that has not been looked after will take some work to get it back in tip top condition.
My 136k 3.0 is silky smooth :)
-
I'm looking out for a new Omega soon, unfortunately I just missed one on eBay,
As per title, I'm looking for thoughts on the differences between 2.5 and 3.0's. Eg fuel consumption, accelleration, top end speed, reliability differences, so on....
Sorry i missed the reliability bit, so i have to say from an engineers point of view that the 2.5 will have stronger bottom end and produces less noise, this is the fact, if anyone needs a technical explenation PM and i will give it i'm bored to write at the moment hehehe ;D
-
I don't quite understand this, but if you support me on the 2.5/2.6 then I agree! :y
-
It's gotta be the 3.0, anything less is, well, less. ::)
As regards the Auto, i can personally recommend it on the 3.0 v6. Mines has shown up many a rival, effortlessly. ;) You also don't have to 'plan' to overtake as Matt suggests, not mine anyway, you just accelerate and she goes, quickly. Far better than the 'foot on the clutch, change gear, foot off the clutch and accelerate' pish. Besides as everyone here will surely agree, if you get the Auto you'll know that you have a real gearbox. ;)
-
Must be just mine then... but the Gearbox does need an oil change :y
The advantage of a Manual is you can go straight to the gear you want... wereas the auto steps down a gear, and if you want to really gun it, it steps down another gear, and then another one, if you really want to gun it.
There is a very slight delay in that process... hence the requirement to plan... :D
Plus when the engine is at the red line there is a slight delay in changing up, it's not as instant as the manual, you have to factore that in when you are going to gun it, and overtake. :)
Cheers.
Matt
EDIT: Bearing also in mind, that mine is a 98 Model, so maybe the newer ones have better auto boxes too... :)
-
wereas the auto steps down a gear, and if you want to really gun it, it steps down another gear, and then another one, if you really want to gun it.
There is a very slight delay in that process... hence the requirement to plan...
I think that's just indecision in how much you're pressing the pedal. Just push it right down as far as it'll go. The car will get the correct gear first time. :y
Mine's also doesn't appear to suffer from the changing at the red-line issue. ::)
-
wereas the auto steps down a gear, and if you want to really gun it, it steps down another gear, and then another one, if you really want to gun it.
There is a very slight delay in that process... hence the requirement to plan...
I think that's just indecision in how much you're pressing the pedal. Just push it right down as far as it'll go. The car will get the correct gear first time. :y
Mine's also doesn't appear to suffer from the changing at the red-line issue. ::)
haha indecision.. yeah right... ;D
It goes to the floor, all the way...
I wonder whats wrong with the Auto Box in mine then... it seems to linger around the red line for a second or too before changing up.... :-/
Maybe it's the Oil Change requirement...
Matt
-
Biggest downside of our autos is that the gears are a little long - 50mph in 1st, 85mph in 2nd etc.
If you have a flashable gearbox, I recommend a quick 5 mins on a Tech2 getting new software on the box - made a noticible difference to my 98 MV6.
-
How does one know if it's flashable?
And how do you get the software for it?
Cheers.
Matt
-
How does one know if it's flashable?
And how do you get the software for it?
Cheers.
Matt
Yet to fully prove that its mini facelift (MY 98) onwards, but that seems likely.
Anyone with a Tech2 should have the software (via TIS)
-
wereas the auto steps down a gear, and if you want to really gun it, it steps down another gear, and then another one, if you really want to gun it.
There is a very slight delay in that process... hence the requirement to plan...
I think that's just indecision in how much you're pressing the pedal. Just push it right down as far as it'll go. The car will get the correct gear first time. :y
Mine's also doesn't appear to suffer from the changing at the red-line issue. ::)
If I floor mine at 15-20mph (edit) it seems to stay in 2nd and slowly winds up from 2-3K rpm. Bloody useless when pulling out into traffic. If I accelerate out of a 30 zone into a 60 zone it upshifts to 4th 1-2 secs after I push the pedal down halfway and then struggles to pick up speed without pushing the pedal way down and using a lot of fuel. If you use sport mode it works better, except that it doesn't go into 4th until over 60 and shunts in with a thunk at very light throttle. Other than those things it works pretty well for an Auto.
-
well after driving Mick's 2.6 manual today, I can say that it didn't feel quite as quick as my 3.0 auto - but I didn't notice any difference in smoothness between the two engines. It was nice to have a manual box again, the clutch wasn't very heavy which is good news for me!!
... so now I need to find a 3.0 manual estate, hmmm I think that may take a while unless I opt for an ex-plod ...
-
well after driving Mick's 2.6 manual today, I can say that it didn't feel quite as quick as my 3.0 auto - but I didn't notice any difference in smoothness between the two engines. It was nice to have a manual box again, the clutch wasn't very heavy which is good news for me!!
... so now I need to find a 3.0 manual estate, hmmm I think that may take a while unless I opt for an ex-plod ...
quite as quick? LOL...after all the grub the extra weight in the car obviously affected the result?.....then again might have just been too much hard work for you, using a manual, after being used to the auto? ;D
-
well after driving Mick's 2.6 manual today, I can say that it didn't feel quite as quick as my 3.0 auto - but I didn't notice any difference in smoothness between the two engines. It was nice to have a manual box again, the clutch wasn't very heavy which is good news for me!!
... so now I need to find a 3.0 manual estate, hmmm I think that may take a while unless I opt for an ex-plod ...
quite as quick? LOL...after all the grub the extra weight in the car obviously affected the result?.....then again might have just been too much hard work for you, using a manual, after being used to the auto? ;D
ha yeah the grub might have had an influence!! But I do think the 3.0/3.2's do pull more strongly, especially once past the 4k RPM point ... perhaps we should do some 0-60 runs at the track days next year ;D
I really can't see the point that 2.5/2.6's are smoother than the 3.0/3.2's - what did you think?
-
well after driving Mick's 2.6 manual today, I can say that it didn't feel quite as quick as my 3.0 auto - but I didn't notice any difference in smoothness between the two engines. It was nice to have a manual box again, the clutch wasn't very heavy which is good news for me!!
... so now I need to find a 3.0 manual estate, hmmm I think that may take a while unless I opt for an ex-plod ...
quite as quick? LOL...after all the grub the extra weight in the car obviously affected the result?.....then again might have just been too much hard work for you, using a manual, after being used to the auto? ;D
ha yeah the grub might have had an influence!! But I do think the 3.0/3.2's do pull more strongly, especially once past the 4k RPM point ... perhaps we should do some 0-60 runs at the track days next year ;D
I really can't see the point that 2.5/2.6's are smoother than the 3.0/3.2's - what did you think?
You car was smoother but then it is an automatic :y
-
wereas the auto steps down a gear, and if you want to really gun it, it steps down another gear, and then another one, if you really want to gun it.
There is a very slight delay in that process... hence the requirement to plan...
I think that's just indecision in how much you're pressing the pedal. Just push it right down as far as it'll go. The car will get the correct gear first time. :y
Mine's also doesn't appear to suffer from the changing at the red-line issue. ::)
If I floor mine at 15-20mph (edit) it seems to stay in 2nd and slowly winds up from 2-3K rpm. Bloody useless when pulling out into traffic. If I accelerate out of a 30 zone into a 60 zone it upshifts to 4th 1-2 secs after I push the pedal down halfway and then struggles to pick up speed without pushing the pedal way down and using a lot of fuel. If you use sport mode it works better, except that it doesn't go into 4th until over 60 and shunts in with a thunk at very light throttle. Other than those things it works pretty well for an Auto.
Theolodian, you may find updated gearbox software improves the drivability of it....
-
Biggest downside of our autos is that the gears are a little long - 50mph in 1st, 85mph in 2nd etc.
.
Thats a good thing, you loose time in changing gear manually, so auto changes twice instead of manual 3 times, side by side my money would be on the auto!!
Theres also the option of manually dropping it down the box to pre-empt the kick down.
Unless youre constantly caneing the car theres bugger all difference on an auto or a manual on a car of this size.
Proper performance/ sports car is a differnt matter - Porch or Fezza with an auto box is just gay :)
-
Biggest downside of our autos is that the gears are a little long - 50mph in 1st, 85mph in 2nd etc.
.
Thats a good thing, you loose time in changing gear manually, so auto changes twice instead of manual 3 times, side by side my money would be on the auto!!
Theres also the option of manually dropping it down the box to pre-empt the kick down.
Unless youre constantly caneing the car theres bugger all difference on an auto or a manual on a car of this size.
Proper performance/ sports car is a differnt matter - Porch or Fezza with an auto box is just gay :)
The shorter gears, and the lack of torque converter slip, does make the manual quicker from slow speed, and nippier around town.
-
....
If I floor mine at 15-20mph (edit) it seems to stay in 2nd and slowly winds up from 2-3K rpm. Bloody useless when pulling out into traffic. ......
Mine doesn't :-? Are you sure you're hitting the loud pedal hard enough? b ;)
-
....
If I floor mine at 15-20mph (edit) it seems to stay in 2nd and slowly winds up from 2-3K rpm. Bloody useless when pulling out into traffic. ......
Mine doesn't :-? Are you sure you're hitting the loud pedal hard enough? b ;)
Unless the throttle cable has stretched? Not sure if that would matter.
TB, you said mine should have the updated sw? No time to come down b4 xmas, but v interested in new sw.
-
I've never tried a 3.0 Omega, but for sure my old auto 24v Senator 3.0 was much much quicker then my 2.5 manual omega. - in fact, in my usual "banzai" stretch of road the senator could reach 95, whereas the omega manages 85. (for any police officers reading, this of course is on a particular length of unrestricted German Autobahn!). However, the omega is significantly more fuel efficient, revs 500rpm higher, has better initial turn in (I'm assuming due to the engine being far lighter) and seems more stable at higher speeds, so it seems a lot more fun! . Its swings and roundabouts , as per!
As an aside, wasn't there talk of V8 Omegas being produced for the continent?? Did any of these really exist?? and what about all those lovely Omega-esque Holdens from Oz?? Anybody got one here??
-
I've never tried a 3.0 Omega, but for sure my old auto 24v Senator 3.0 was much much quicker then my 2.5 manual omega. - in fact, in my usual "banzai" stretch of road the senator could reach 95, whereas the omega manages 85. (for any police officers reading, this of course is on a particular length of unrestricted German Autobahn!). However, the omega is significantly more fuel efficient, revs 500rpm higher, has better initial turn in (I'm assuming due to the engine being far lighter) and seems more stable at higher speeds, so it seems a lot more fun! . Its swings and roundabouts , as per!
As an aside, wasn't there talk of V8 Omegas being produced for the continent?? Did any of these really exist?? and what about all those lovely Omega-esque Holdens from Oz?? Anybody got one here??
The v8 was dropped, alledgedly shortly before launch, for Omegas.
-
Between myself and SWMBO, we have..........
1x 3.2 auto MV6 estate ('02' plate)
1x 2.5 auto Elite estate ('V' plate)
I have no reservations in saying that the 3.2 is much much faster and noticeably more responsive than the 2.5.
As far as the smoothness of the engine goes, there's nothing in it, however the elite has a much smoother ride I would imagine due to more sympathetic suspension and I assume has more in the way of sound deadening. (This may go some way to making it 'feel' slower too!!)
The 2.5 does make slightly better MPG, but they don't get driven the same. I would say that if I used the 2.5 I'd probably be able to squeeze a fair bit more out of it than the 3.2. We'll see when I take the 2.5 to Bucks next week!!
-
My test track results
Quite surprising as well
| Sunbeam | 100 |
| Carlton | 90 |
| CD 2.0 Auto | 85 |
| MV6 | 105 |
| CD 2.6 | 105 |
The 1600cc car was under a ton and around 115bhp
-
My test track results
Quite surprising as well
| Sunbeam | 100 |
| Carlton | 90 |
| CD 2.0 Auto | 85 |
| MV6 | 105 |
| CD 2.6 | 105 |
The 1600cc car was under a ton and around 115bhp
With or without the caravan....... ;)
-
I've never tried a 3.0 Omega, but for sure my old auto 24v Senator 3.0 was much much quicker then my 2.5 manual omega. ..........
I test drove an auto 2.5 when I had my 24v Senator .... [size=14]IMHO[/size] It was pathetic by comparison.
However, the omega is significantly more fuel efficient, revs 500rpm higher, has better initial turn in (I'm assuming due to the engine being far lighter) and seems more stable at higher speeds, so it seems a lot more fun! .
My 3.0 Omega is abysmal compared to the Senator. On a run in the Senator if I really really tried I could see approx 30mpg whereas the best I have ever seen in the Omega is 28. I travel around 45 miles round trip (Bury to Wigan mix of town and B roads) and the trip consumption is at 24.2 and counting ... downwards :(
-
So what we're really saying is that Senators are far better than Omegas???Hmmm, the thought had occured to me, but this didn't seem the place to say so! Shame they've all got terminal rust problems really!
-
So what we're really saying is that Senators are far better than Omegas???Hmmm, the thought had occured to me, but this didn't seem the place to say so! Shame they've all got terminal rust problems really!
:o :o :o Hang your head in shame!! ;)
You can't come around here actually saying that Senators were far far better car that the Omega could ever aspire to be!! ;D ;D ;D
-
My test track results
Quite surprising as well
| Sunbeam | 100 |
| Carlton | 90 |
| CD 2.0 Auto | 85 |
| MV6 | 105 |
| CD 2.6 | 105 |
The 1600cc car was under a ton and around 115bhp
With or without the caravan....... ;)
Well with the V6s I have to let off throttle before the end to avoid breaking the limit
-
So what we're really saying is that Senators are far better than Omegas???Hmmm, the thought had occured to me, but this didn't seem the place to say so! Shame they've all got terminal rust problems really!
:o :o :o Hang your head in shame!! ;)
You can't come around here actually saying that Senators were far far better car that the Omega could ever aspire to be!! ;D ;D ;D
Oh, I wouldn't dare! I'll just sit here quietly thinking it instead! One thing is for sure though - a straight 6 makes a much finer sound than a V6!
-
...... I wouldn't dare! I'll just sit here quietly thinking it instead! One thing is for sure though - a straight 6 makes a much finer sound than a V6!
We could always set up a Senator appreciation splinter group, but we'd have to be quiet about it! ::)
-
...... I wouldn't dare! I'll just sit here quietly thinking it instead! One thing is for sure though - a straight 6 makes a much finer sound than a V6!
We could always set up a Senator appreciation splinter group, but we'd have to be quiet about it! ::)
I will join! Looking at one on Wednesday. I am sorely tempted just for a winter hack