Omega Owners Forum
Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: joshwyatt on 13 July 2010, 17:28:48
-
As I understand it, 3.0 cams fit in a 2.5 and give it an extra 15 bhp or so. Would this then be possible with the 2.6 and 3.2 cams? Is it the same sort of power increase. I'm purchasing a 2.6 Elite manual tomorrow, and comtemplated the idea of having 3.2 cams fitted. It also raised another question, the 2.6 has the R25 gearbox (I think) and the 3.2 manual has the R28. If the standard 2.6 is 179bhp, and you then give it an extra 15bhp bringing it to 194bhp would this cause any problems for the gearbox? 3.2 is 211bhp, so still a fair bit more.
-
Yes they will fit.... BHP not really important for the box its torque, R25 rated at 250, so it can handle the power. Makes them bit more 'peaky' in terms of power i have heard.
Fairly straight forward job too :y
-
The manual box is quite robust anyway - likes of Omegatoy have put chipped tractor torque through the R25 for a few years....
-
Thanks Tunnie and TB. I think the hardest part will be finding 3.2 cams, as not many 3.2 engine's are stripped for parts. I'll just have to think of someone with a 3.2 so I can steal the bits I need ::)
-
i got told that the 3 ltr cams have a bit sharper profile the the 3.2's ??
anybody confirm this ??
-
I think Mr Imber is running 3.0 cams in his 2.6....
-
Yes I am and it is near 3.0 performance.
Mike Dundee is as well.
I also have a 3.0 inlet divider and heads ported to match
-
Yes I am and it is near 3.0 performance.
Mike Dundee is as well.
I also have a 3.0 inlet divider and heads ported to match
Thats a bold claim... :-?
-
Yes I am and it is near 3.0 performance.
Mike Dundee is as well.
I also have a 3.0 inlet divider and heads ported to match
Thats a bold claim... :-?
I used to have a 3.0 and main difference was torque
-
Yes I am and it is near 3.0 performance.
Mike Dundee is as well.
I also have a 3.0 inlet divider and heads ported to match
Thats a bold claim... :-?
I used to have a 3.0 and main difference was torque
Hmmm, I still maintain that eithe rthe 3.0l you are comparing with is/was a dog, or you have the worlds fastest 2.6...
-
3.0 was a lot torquier but full revs not much in it.
2.5 167
2.6 178
2.6 (3.0 cams) @195 for Mikes
3.0 208
Not a huge difference