Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: JezInBrum on 14 October 2007, 05:34:23
-
Hi all.
Not really sure if this is in the right forum so will apologise now if it is'nt. I am growing increasingly disillusioned by the performance of my Omega. its a 1996 3.0 auto Elite saloon.
It has been serviced regular, runs on branded fuel (Total mostly) but I am finding more often than not that 1.9 diesel Passats are more than a match when pulling off & more responsive overall. I know they now have 6 speed manual boxes which means shorter gearing but uses power much better when required.
I would have thought 208bhp was quite impressive when compared to 170 but i see on here the miggy produces 199 lbs of torque compared to the VW's 258. Is this most likely due to the fact it has a turbo or does the autobox hinder performance as greatly as I think, kick down seems more like a volume control rather than an acceleration tool. May just be my driving style as I am not the Stig. ;D
Just raised this as a debate to see if others suffer the same. Also are manuals more responsive to throttle changes?
Thanks in advance
Jez
-
I'm sure Paul M will be along soon to tell you how much he ikes proper/auto ;) boxes. ;D ;D
When you're comparing the various numbers between the Omega & Passat are you also factoring in the weight of each of the cars? An Omega Elite weighs around 1700 kg and so you're not going to keep up in the Traffic Light Grand Prix. If you want a sports car sell your Omega. ::) ::) :y
-
Use sport mode, even a 2.6 will have most other cars with sports mode
-
omega is heavy, got long gear ratios and the engine is factory tuned as least common denominator what it can handle..
racing from the traffic lights , not good idea.. unless engine modded..
if you are insistent on start up racing try second hand impreza sti .Will be cheaper then modding omega
-
Will move to general chat to get a wider response....
However.... As long as timing, fuel, filters, plugs, sparks etc are spot on then the cars are quite sprightly for their 1.7 tonnes weight but cannot compete with some other cars which are lighter, better geared and with greater torque.
Short shifting torquey diesels can and do outstrip potentially 'faster' cars, in both manual and auto versions.
-
Also with a car the weight of the Omega, its the Torque which will play a major roll in regards to acceleration. It's not just about BHP...
-
It's not all about torque either, because the torque at the wheels depends on the gearing. Whilst a TD might generate a higher peak torque it's all over at 4500 RPM whereas the V6 generates pretty much flat torque from 2500 RPM to over 6500. This maybe doesn't make it feel as fast, but to generate the same torque at the wheels over the same range of speeds a diesel car needs to be thrashed relentlessly through several gearchanges whereas an Omega will do it pulling through just a single gear.
So, you might lose the traffic light GP but I always console myself that I've done so effortlessly and with just a light growl from the V6 whereas TD engines are most unpleasant when thrashed. :) That's what an Omega is all about IMHO. I'd have bought a Type-R if I was interested in winning TLGPs at the expense of comfort!
Kevin
-
I think you are all right. Think I may be getting twicthy for a change. Have had this longer than most other cars so suppose i must be content in some ways. Maybe i should consider a manual model when i next change cars. Just found that Passat weighs 1520-1648kgs dependant on model so not greatly lighter. Anyway I knew subject would provole responses so thank you for them
Jez
-
Hi
check this list
http://www.car-videos.net/performance/speed.asp?Speed1=0&Speed2=60
-
by the way do you close traction control ..This will effect..
-
I would add that my MV6 3.0l auto is 0-60 sub 8s. 3 k oil changes, and later autobox software help...
-
Thanks for more recent additions. The software upgrade sonds a more realistic & cheap route.
Where would I be able to get the version installed checked. I normally use a Vaushall independant based in Nuneaton. They have Tech1 there.
-
Thanks for more recent additions. The software upgrade sonds a more realistic & cheap route.
Where would I be able to get the version installed checked. I normally use a Vaushall independant based in Nuneaton. They have Tech1 there.
Sorry, no chance on a 96 car. flashable ecu from 98 on :'(
-
my 3.0 auto is quite quick for the size of the car, i think.
when you switch off traction control and hit the sports mode then try pulling away, mine takes off like a rocket, ok, its not a 0-60 in 3.5 seconds or anything but hey its an omega!!!
it always puts a smile on my face.
and i always tell people... you may be quicker off the lights but keep an eye on your rear view mirror and get ready to move over 8-)
-
I think you are all right. Think I may be getting twicthy for a change. Have had this longer than most other cars so suppose i must be content in some ways. Maybe i should consider a manual model when i next change cars. Just found that Passat weighs 1520-1648kgs dependant on model so not greatly lighter. Anyway I knew subject would provole responses so thank you for them
Jez
:o
How on earth are VW (and everyone else) making their cars so lardy these days?
I wouldn't have believed a Passat weighs as much as a V6 Omega but it's near as makes no difference the same (my MV6 is listed as 1650).
1) It's front wheel drive so no propshaft, diff, simpler rear suspension, smaller gearbox, shorter bonnet
2) It's not quite as big
3) Omega has a V6 with a cast iron block up front. Not sure what the Passat has but the only way the Omega's engine could be heavier is with cast iron heads!
4) Presumably we're talking about a manual box (6 speed, admittedly) instead of an auto.
Gone are the days of the nice, chuckable MK2 golf (and the older passats weren't too bad on that score). You seem to need to buy a Lupo to get a light car these days, and then you get painted metal interior and just look at the engine options. :o
No wonder the old school VW's fly when they get a modern engine transplant!
Kevin
-
Modern diesels have one hell of a punch but in a very short rev range, so you'll always catch up & when you do it's surprising how quickly you do it. Migs are long legged so enjoy the v6 growl & watch out for your licence!!! :y
-
3) Omega has a V6 with a cast iron block up front. Not sure what the Passat has but the only way the Omega's engine could be heavier is with cast iron heads!
well as far as I know, only the honda diesel engines are alloy, so the VW TDI would have a cast iron block too ...
-
2 days ago a 2.5 liter passat tdi ( 2 red "DI") try racing with me ..(not TLGP)
I beat..But the driver was ...
-
1) It's front wheel drive so no propshaft, diff, simpler rear suspension, smaller gearbox, shorter bonnet
Oddly, and unrelated to this thread, but has anyone noticed how most VAG FWD cars have, as expected, transverse engines, yet the FWD A4 has a longitudinal setup?
-
Oddly, and unrelated to this thread, but has anyone noticed how most VAG FWD cars have, as expected, transverse engines, yet the FWD A4 has a longitudinal setup?
No doubt related to the old audi 80/100/Coupe. They had longitudinal FWD. Placed a shedload of weight out way in front of the front wheels, especially with the 5 pot engines :o
Can't recall what they handled like. Badly, I'd imagine.
Kevin
-
1) It's front wheel drive so no propshaft, diff, simpler rear suspension, smaller gearbox, shorter bonnet
Oddly, and unrelated to this thread, but has anyone noticed how most VAG FWD cars have, as expected, transverse engines, yet the FWD A4 has a longitudinal setup?
That's because they're designed for the quattro system. It's easier to keep the engine longitudinal in FWD, than to try and fit a quattro system to a transverse engine. Same reason the 80/90 etc had longitudinal engines.
Incidentally the A3/TT have transverse engines because they're not available with proper quattro -- instead they get the crappy Haldex system.
-
Hi all.
Not really sure if this is in the right forum so will apologise now if it is'nt. I am growing increasingly disillusioned by the performance of my Omega. its a 1996 3.0 auto Elite saloon.
It has been serviced regular, runs on branded fuel (Total mostly) but I am finding more often than not that 1.9 diesel Passats are more than a match when pulling off & more responsive overall. I know they now have 6 speed manual boxes which means shorter gearing but uses power much better when required.
I would have thought 208bhp was quite impressive when compared to 170 but i see on here the miggy produces 199 lbs of torque compared to the VW's 258. Is this most likely due to the fact it has a turbo or does the autobox hinder performance as greatly as I think, kick down seems more like a volume control rather than an acceleration tool. May just be my driving style as I am not the Stig. ;D
Just raised this as a debate to see if others suffer the same. Also are manuals more responsive to throttle changes?
Thanks in advance
Jez
Even in manual form the 3.0 isn't amazingly quick, it's a heavy car as you state. One issue is the gearing being high, the manual is much better in this regard but still not brilliant. A manual with a higher diff ratio (for lower overall gearing) would be ideal, but it means you're revving higher when cruising.
Diesels always produce more torque and at lower revs, which means it's much easier to stay in the power band without shifting down. But ultimately horsepower is what you need for acceleration, as you can lower the gearing and thus reduce the load multiplication on the engine.
You will lose about 1 second on the 0-60 with an auto compared with a manual according to VX figures (which are pretty conservative for all models). The throttle response won't change per-se, but you do get a linear connection with a manual as there's no torque converter with built in slip that has to be taken up before the engine starts driving the wheels (or vice-versa when you lift off).
Oh and diesel blocks tend to be heavy as they have to be stronger to deal with the high pressures caused by the high compression ratio. Modern cars always tend to be heavier than the model they replace, probably a combination of extra safety gubbins and more equipment. Often they grow a little in size too.
-
Oddly, and unrelated to this thread, but has anyone noticed how most VAG FWD cars have, as expected, transverse engines, yet the FWD A4 has a longitudinal setup?
No doubt related to the old audi 80/100/Coupe. They had longitudinal FWD. Placed a shedload of weight out way in front of the front wheels, especially with the 5 pot engines :o
Can't recall what they handled like. Badly, I'd imagine.
Kevin
Strange idea - so much better to lose the front diff and use a prop shaft
-
Strange idea - so much better to lose the front diff and use a prop shaft
My thoughts exactly. They were almost there but... No! >:(
Kevin
-
You will lose about 1 second on the 0-60 with an auto compared with a manual according to VX figures (which are pretty conservative for all models). The throttle response won't change per-se, but you do get a linear connection with a manual as there's no torque converter with built in slip that has to be taken up before the engine starts driving the wheels (or vice-versa when you lift off).
The better software on the later boxes do help no end, and I would say bringing that to below a 1s gap. The longer gearing actually helps at certain points of the 0-60, due to it being lower geared at around 40mph than the manual (in 2nd at that point).
The newer software does reduce the amount of 'slip' on the TC as well.
However, a manual, properly driven should be faster, engines considered identical. For a start, its not easy to quickly launch an auto, as the box will reach stall point at around 2k.
-
You will lose about 1 second on the 0-60 with an auto compared with a manual according to VX figures (which are pretty conservative for all models). The throttle response won't change per-se, but you do get a linear connection with a manual as there's no torque converter with built in slip that has to be taken up before the engine starts driving the wheels (or vice-versa when you lift off).
The better software on the later boxes do help no end, and I would say bringing that to below a 1s gap. The longer gearing actually helps at certain points of the 0-60, due to it being lower geared at around 40mph than the manual (in 2nd at that point).
Yes but over the course of the entire run the manual is almost perfectly geared for 0-60 (at least on the 3.0) as 2nd tops out around 65 MPH. The gap between 1st and 2nd isn't that big so if you shift up around 6400 RPM it stays right in the power band. Only one gear change required. If it were a 0-70 run then there wouldn't be much in it as you'd need another gear change on the manual, about 0.5s when gunning it.
-
You will lose about 1 second on the 0-60 with an auto compared with a manual according to VX figures (which are pretty conservative for all models). The throttle response won't change per-se, but you do get a linear connection with a manual as there's no torque converter with built in slip that has to be taken up before the engine starts driving the wheels (or vice-versa when you lift off).
The better software on the later boxes do help no end, and I would say bringing that to below a 1s gap. The longer gearing actually helps at certain points of the 0-60, due to it being lower geared at around 40mph than the manual (in 2nd at that point).
Yes but over the course of the entire run the manual is almost perfectly geared for 0-60 (at least on the 3.0) as 2nd tops out around 65 MPH. The gap between 1st and 2nd isn't that big so if you shift up around 6400 RPM it stays right in the power band. Only one gear change required. If it were a 0-70 run then there wouldn't be much in it as you'd need another gear change on the manual, about 0.5s when gunning it.
Yes, agreed. I reckon the 20 - 80, the auto may even win. But my point was, with the better software, the auto isn't far behind on a 0-60, with most of the lost ground on initial pull away....
-
Buy a 2.2 like me.......this way you'll never pose a question about why you lost a race in the first place :-/
I know my place in life :-[
-
Buy a 2.2 like me.......this way you'll never pose a question about why you lost a race in the first place :-/
I know my place in life :-[
With the improved power to weight ratio of your Omega due to the spotless engine bay that alone should be worth half a second off your 0 - 60 time ::) :)
-
Buy a 2.2 like me.......this way you'll never pose a question about why you lost a race in the first place :-/
I know my place in life :-[
With the improved power to weight ratio of your Omega due to the spotless engine bay that alone should be worth half a second off your 0 - 60 time ::) :)
The extra slippy exterior helps with the drag co-efficient too :) But it's still slow :-/
-
:-/So is there really much difference between the 2.5/3.0 manuals. I'm still looking forward to an MV6 in a year or two but other than the firmer suspension i'm not sure now. I've looked after the 2.5 & still enjoy every drive(even to work)! Not bothered about top end but would like a little more bottom/mid range grunt. Once it gets going it leads on pretty wellbut other than early 2.0's i've nothing to compare it to.
-
The 0-60 isn't actually that different (probably around .5s, maybe shade more), but the 3.0l just has lots more grunt.
-
So worthwhile when i can afford it then? Will be looking for a 70k ish history etc for around 2 grand.
Private sale obviously.
-
So worthwhile when i can afford it then? Will be looking for a 70k ish history etc for around 2 grand.
Private sale obviously.
Its getting difficult to find ones with (a genuine) 70k...
-
Yeah, will take some finding but will be a long term "keeper" & mine's got plenty left so no rush. :)
-
Buy a 2.2 like me.......this way you'll never pose a question about why you lost a race in the first place :-/
I know my place in life :-[
2.2? You want to try a 1.7 Astra low-blow diseasal!! :o My place would be a few cars behind you! :( :y :y