Omega Owners Forum

Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: jimmas on 13 August 2008, 20:44:37

Title: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 13 August 2008, 20:44:37
guys I may be changing my 2.2i cdx for a slightly newer 2.0i cd, the reason being mine has got a few miles on it now, still not sure weather to change or not, but my question is will I notice much loss of power, and will my fuel consumption be better or worse.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: TheBoy on 13 August 2008, 20:56:43
Any 2.0 Omega will be older than your 2.2  :-/
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 13 August 2008, 21:01:43
mine currently is a 2000plate on w, the one I am looking at is 2000plate on an x, it's mainly for the milage drop that I am considering.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: TheBoy on 13 August 2008, 21:09:27
Quote
mine currently is a 2000plate on w, the one I am looking at is 2000plate on an x, it's mainly for the milage drop that I am considering.
If yours is a 2.2, its not a 2000 model ;)

ime, the 2.2 seems noticibly torqier, and doesn't feel as 'stretched' as a 2.0
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 13 August 2008, 21:13:04
Hi jamie, what would mine be it's on a w plate, it's baged as a 2.2i and the log book shows 2.2i year 2000, it can't be any newer than a 2000plate. also forgot it is an opel not vauxhall omega.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: TheBoy on 13 August 2008, 21:17:10
Quote
Hi jamie, what would mine be it's on a w plate, it's baged as a 2.2i and the log book shows 2.2i year 2000, it can't be any newer than a 2000plate. also forgot it is an opel not vauxhall omega.
Check VIN, what is number following the 69 (or 35) in middle of VIN?
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 13 August 2008, 21:20:58
shows as Y11xxxxx REG DATE 23-05-2000
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: TheBoy on 13 August 2008, 21:23:45
Quote
shows as Y11xxxxx REG DATE 23-05-2000
Yup, thats a 2000MY.  Wonder if Opel fitted 2.2 earlier, iirc it came in with 2001MY (so midway through 2000)

**Edit - I'm talking rubbish, its the v6 dbw engines that came in at 2001, 2.2 came in in 2000  :-[
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 13 August 2008, 21:27:43
cheers jamie I was starting to panic, somthing was wrong, is the 20i better on fuel than my 2.2i or about the same.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: Proz on 13 August 2008, 21:32:24
Quote
cheers jamie I was starting to panic, somthing was wrong, is the 20i better on fuel than my 2.2i or about the same.

Ive recently changed from a 1997 2.0ltr GLS to a 2002 2.2 CD and would say the 2.2 is a bit faster but fuel wise i havent noticed much of a difference to be honest .... suppose that depends on how you drive it though  ;)
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: TheBoy on 13 August 2008, 21:35:41
Quote
cheers jamie I was starting to panic, somthing was wrong, is the 20i better on fuel than my 2.2i or about the same.
same.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 13 August 2008, 21:58:29
cheers for reply's guys will base decision on mileage differance alone.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: TheBoy on 13 August 2008, 22:01:01
Whatever, the 2.0 will be older, though only by months...
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: Martin_1962 on 14 August 2008, 15:01:49
How much cheaper is the 2.0?  I'd stay with the newer but higher mileage car
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 14 August 2008, 21:36:33
hi the 2.0 is newer than my 2.2i by about 6months, mine is 2000 on w plate the one i'm considering is a 2000 on a x plate. and about 35000 miles less than mine.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: tunnie on 14 August 2008, 21:45:02
Quote
Quote
shows as Y11xxxxx REG DATE 23-05-2000
Yup, thats a 2000MY.  Wonder if Opel fitted 2.2 earlier, iirc it came in with 2001MY (so midway through 2000)

**Edit - I'm talking rubbish, its the v6 dbw engines that came in at 2001, 2.2 came in in 2000  :-[

 ;D ;D

You should know... you slag my 2.2 off enough!

Big fat X on my reg plate  ;)

Driven 2.0 Autos... & 2.2 Autos (mines a manual)

2.2's defo have more low down torque. From what i understand its just a 'stroked' 2.0, but its a quite noticable.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: JamesV6CDX on 15 August 2008, 00:21:29
Quote

2.2's defo have more low down torque. From what i understand its just a 'stroked' 2.0, but its a quite noticable.


Not when you get out of a 3.0  :P  ::)
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 15 August 2008, 10:14:57
twenty past 12 james , what's a matter can't you sleep  :y
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: Martin_1962 on 15 August 2008, 12:18:04
Quote
hi the 2.0 is newer than my 2.2i by about 6months, mine is 2000 on w plate the one i'm considering is a 2000 on a x plate. and about 35000 miles less than mine.


The 2.0 is older - didn't sell because it had been replaced by the 2.2.

Just spent a long time in a field somewhere
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 15 August 2008, 12:32:31
right, thanks for that martin I had not realised that, but in hindsight it makes sense, I guess it is weather the mileage drop is worth the sideways downgrade.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: tunnie on 15 August 2008, 12:45:38
Quote
right, thanks for that martin I had not realised that, but in hindsight it makes sense, I guess it is weather the mileage drop is worth the sideways downgrade.

People get hung up on millage too much.

Mines on 111.5k now, it runs better - smoother, faster, quieter than when i bought it at 84k.

Its how a car is maintained. Replacing it with a car with 30k less miles, does not make it any better IMO.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 15 August 2008, 12:54:16
yes I agree with what your saying tunnie, the car I am considering has 85000 on it with full main dealer history mine has 125000 with full history but not all main dealer, I do approx 600 miles a week currently so my reasonin g was I would be able to pull back to a lesser mileage which would buy me another 12-18 months.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 15 August 2008, 12:58:36
I guess I am just trying to justify changing it, but maybe the general concensus is I should keep it, there is currently nothing wrong with it, and it runs fine, never missis a beat, I thought maybe fuel consumption might be slightly better and mileage may be a buying point.
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: f13platform on 15 August 2008, 13:31:35
Quote
yes I agree with what your saying tunnie, the car I am considering has 85000 on it with full main dealer history mine has 125000 with full history but not all main dealer, I do approx 600 miles a week currently so my reasonin g was I would be able to pull back to a lesser mileage which would buy me another 12-18 months.

people love to hear main dealer history  :o
but i say what dealer did ? if they just changed the oil and oil filter...
i dont care about that history...good garge with orginal parts make better history .(for me)

((600 mile a week )) i would go for  3 liter car
something like E class 320 CDI i ve seen one with 287000 mile
start like new ... run for ever
Title: Re: omega 2.0i
Post by: jimmas on 15 August 2008, 13:42:14
funny you should mention that had a new company c220cdi back in 2001 as I worked for mercs then, blew the engine at 34000, as in top of piston seperated, would agree generally good cars for mileage but not without there problems.