Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Car Chat => Topic started by: ninjapirate on 01 July 2011, 15:39:45
-
how bloody big are these omega tanks lol!
nearly fell asleep filling it up haha
also, i shoved a tank of v-power in, will it make much differance to this engine? local petrol station is services i normaly end up getting fuel there, so the v-power wasnt any more then that.
-
72 litre iirc.
Ive got a tank of vpower in.....and its going like shit off a shovel :D
-
lol but to be fair you dont have the baby 2.2 4 pots its gunna go pretty well anyway hah.
really want my alfa back now :(
-
lol but to be fair you dont have the baby 2.2 4 pots its gunna go pretty well anyway hah.
really want my alfa back now :(
ahh yes, didnt spot that bit....we used to though.
Our 1st omega was a 2.2 :y
-
i like my 2.2, its never put a foot wrong in 5 years. not the fastest but its so good at blasting along the motorway :)
-
the 2.2 is better then i expected in a heavy car, hence i bought it, but i do like the v6's.
also think i need to get the breather system cleaned out, its a little hesitant sometimes near the higher rpms ::)
-
check the breather pipe that runs from the cam cover to throttle body, often gets blocked. Its cheaper to buy a new pipe, about 90p they cost from a dealer!
Made a significant difference at high revs, clean throttle body out well and a new air filter.
4 pots love fresh oil too, makes a noticeable difference in smoothness. Mine gets fresh oil around every 3 or 4k :y
-
Omega tank is 75l
I'm undecided if I noticed a difference between similar brand 95 and 97/98 fuels. I'm convinced I noticed a slight difference using BPs 102 stuff, but my own tests never backed that up. Placebo or just no impact on standing starts? The 102 stuff used to give me a few more miles from the tank, but not enough to make it all worthwhile.
As I don't use much petrol now, both the Omegas get £30 of whatever Asda have once in a blue moon.
-
the 2.2 is better then i expected in a heavy car, hence i bought it, but i do like the v6's.
also think i need to get the breather system cleaned out, its a little hesitant sometimes near the higher rpms ::)
The 2.2 will cruise fine at motorway speeds. Although I remain unconvinced that, driven the same way, its any more economical than a similar transmission 2.5/2.6
-
im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.
-
im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.
Thats the thing - the 2.2 is underpowered in anything other than a flat surface cruise, so you try so it works that much nearer its limit in other scenarios.
-
2.2 far better when it burns oil and has a big whirly thing bolted onto the manifold. :y ;D
-
this is why im considering swapping for a 2.6, its mainly used for thrashing up and down the m3 from winchester to southampton, full of crap for the boat etc and its the hilly bits lol plus i want to put a silly caravan on the back for random trips.
thinking of looking at this one
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201126393990999/sort/priceasc/usedcars/price-to/1000/model/omega/make/vauxhall/radius/30/postcode/rg252ax/page/1/quicksearch/true?logcode=p
-
The interior looks a little non-standard :-? ;)
Early 2.6 - don't forget to check for smoke on a genuine cold start (valve seals).
-
The interior looks a little non-standard :-? ;)
Early 2.6 - don't forget to check for smoke on a genuine cold start (valve seals).
Off a renault ;D ;D
Oil smoking - put up with it or use as a dealing point
-
72 litre iirc.
Ive got a tank of vpower in.....and its going like shit off a shovel :D
:P.....only up to the posted speed limit; of course! ::)
-
im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.
My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.
-
im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.
My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.
Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol :o
ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane ;D
-
im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.
My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.
Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol :o
ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane ;D
I have a theory, which goes against all the government guidelines, but seems to work...
Watching the Inst. Consumption under gentle and hard acceleration there isn't a huge difference in the figure shown, but under hard acceleration it's for a shorter duration so average consumption shows up as better :-X
That's my excuse anyway ::) :D
-
im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.
My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.
Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol :o
ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane ;D
I have a theory, which goes against all the government guidelines, but seems to work...
Watching the Inst. Consumption under gentle and hard acceleration there isn't a huge difference in the figure shown, but under hard acceleration it's for a shorter duration so average consumption shows up as better :-X
That's my excuse anyway ::) :D
I thought the advanced intrstors (and hypermilers) were now suggesting that you need to get up to speed as soon as possible ;)
Probably explains why I seem to achieve decent MPG compared to many other OOFers...
-
im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.
My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.
Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol :o
ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane ;D
I have a theory, which goes against all the government guidelines, but seems to work...
Watching the Inst. Consumption under gentle and hard acceleration there isn't a huge difference in the figure shown, but under hard acceleration it's for a shorter duration so average consumption shows up as better :-X
That's my excuse anyway ::) :D
I thought the advanced intrstors (and hypermilers) were now suggesting that you need to get up to speed as soon as possible ;)
Probably explains why I seem to achieve decent MPG compared to many other OOFers...
And me ;) Always seem to get decent (for the size/weight) economy ::) Although I have noticed that the 3.2 is slightly less economical than the 3.0
-
I used to easily crack 400 miles from my 2.2 when running on petrol, LPG (74L worth) gets me 370 ish
-
im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.
My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.
Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol :o
ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane ;D
I have a theory, which goes against all the government guidelines, but seems to work...
Watching the Inst. Consumption under gentle and hard acceleration there isn't a huge difference in the figure shown, but under hard acceleration it's for a shorter duration so average consumption shows up as better :-X
That's my excuse anyway ::) :D
I thought the advanced intrstors (and hypermilers) were now suggesting that you need to get up to speed as soon as possible ;)
Probably explains why I seem to achieve decent MPG compared to many other OOFers...
And me ;) Always seem to get decent (for the size/weight) economy ::) Although I have noticed that the 3.2 is slightly less economical than the 3.0
Yes, my 3.2 (at 59k) isn't as economical as my MV6 was at 88k. Hard to tell how it compares to the MV6 currently (176k), I reckon about the same (on LPG, my current averages are 19.48mpg for MV6 and 19.80mpg for Elite, though latter is only over a couple of tanks, and last fill included 30+ miles on petrol)
-
well ive done the same trip in same traffic a few times now, and doing 65-70mph is no more economical then doing 80-90 with some higher blasts, (on my driveway, its a replica of the m3). 31mpg best, 29mpg worse, reseting at exact same place.
-
im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.
My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.
Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol :o
ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane ;D
I've got more aggressive lately, I now drive it at 47mph. ::)
-
im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.
My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.
Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol :o
ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane ;D
I have a theory, which goes against all the government guidelines, but seems to work...
Watching the Inst. Consumption under gentle and hard acceleration there isn't a huge difference in the figure shown, but under hard acceleration it's for a shorter duration so average consumption shows up as better :-X
That's my excuse anyway ::) :D
I thought the advanced intrstors (and hypermilers) were now suggesting that you need to get up to speed as soon as possible ;)
Probably explains why I seem to achieve decent MPG compared to many other OOFers...
And me ;) Always seem to get decent (for the size/weight) economy ::) Although I have noticed that the 3.2 is slightly less economical than the 3.0
probably due to the extra weight of the estate,when I weighed mine on a bridge it was 1870 kg with half a tank of fuel,your's will be a bit more with the lpg installed :D
-
probably due to the extra weight of the estate,when I weighed mine on a bridge it was 1870 kg with half a tank of fuel,your's will be a bit more with the lpg installed :D
Possibly. Although more likely that it's lower mileage with a Full Vauxhall Service History :-X ::) I'm just starting to get on top of it all now... The oil doesn't look like boiled plimsolls for a start ::) ;D
That and the fact that the suspension is quite a bit newer and tighter than my saloon was so I might be having a bit of fun at the moment :-X ::) ;D
-
probably due to the extra weight of the estate,when I weighed mine on a bridge it was 1870 kg with half a tank of fuel,your's will be a bit more with the lpg installed :D
Possibly. Although more likely that it's lower mileage with a Full Vauxhall Service History :-X ::) I'm just starting to get on top of it all now... The oil doesn't look like boiled plimsolls for a start ::) ;D
That and the fact that the suspension is quite a bit newer and tighter than my saloon was so I might be having a bit of fun at the moment :-X ::) ;D
The 3.2 has lower compression than the 3.0 and no EGR. I wouldn't be surprised if that shaved a little off the fuel economy.
-
probably due to the extra weight of the estate,when I weighed mine on a bridge it was 1870 kg with half a tank of fuel,your's will be a bit more with the lpg installed :D
Possibly. Although more likely that it's lower mileage with a Full Vauxhall Service History :-X ::) I'm just starting to get on top of it all now... The oil doesn't look like boiled plimsolls for a start ::) ;D
That and the fact that the suspension is quite a bit newer and tighter than my saloon was so I might be having a bit of fun at the moment :-X ::) ;D
The 3.2 has lower compression than the 3.0 and no EGR. I wouldn't be surprised if that shaved a little off the fuel economy.
To be fair, I knew what to expect and didn't buy it for it's economy ::) ::)
Mind you, running it on petrol did make me cry a little ::) ;D
Still... Back to running around in a nice comfy V6, enjoying the horses, for focus running costs :y :y