Omega Owners Forum
Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: Shackeng on 27 February 2011, 17:44:33
-
I have seen some comments about mfl being better than facelift models. I am interested in tapping the wealth of OOF knowledge, particularly regarding reliability of Elite 3.0l or 3.2l models, best model years, etc., as I am fairly sure that I will be looking for one soon as a spare car. Any comments, good or bad welcome.:y
-
Suprised not to see a list of oofers posting thier paticular model is best, as thats what they have and suits thier needs. Each to thier own as they say.
TB and i have been digging each other all weekend weather face lift or pre is best.
Personally i find the 3.2 far easier to work on, with far less gubbins in the engine bay. But there are some more expensive components to fail, such as coil pacs, and dbw throttle. Luckily the latter is fairly reliable, but if it does fail.....(go to a breakers :y)
Thing is the order of production dictates the 3.2 will be more available with lower miles. No amount of opinion can change that.
-
Come on guy's they're all good, but each with there own querks, pros and cons.
Mines a 2.0 5spd manual facelift saloon itself, not too many problems, but i guess V6's and autos (or both) can get pricey when things go wrong???
Lots of choices out there though so good luck.
-
Some people prefer the mini facelift interior, some people prefer the facelift.
Some people prefer the prefacelift exterior and vice versa.
Its personal preference really,but as Chris says - if you want a newer, low mileage example, then your looking for a facelift.
Model specific problems - Iirc there seems to be a bit of a problem with 1999 v6 (3.0 ?) head gaskets sometimes. And iirc 2001 v6 (2.6?) engines had inferior quality valve stem oil seals which can give trouble.
-
I sold my 1996 2.5CDX for a 2003 2.6CDX. I still believe the early car was built to a much higher standard than the later ones.
-
Model specific problems - Iirc there seems to be a bit of a problem with 1999 v6 (3.0 ?) head gaskets sometimes. And iirc 2001 v6 (2.6?) engines had inferior quality valve stem oil seals which can give trouble.
Yep, these are the significant things we have seen. Apart from that, I'd say there's probably not much to choose between them in terms of reliability, other than that a 3.2 will be newer anyway.
If you're considering LPG conversion, there is more space in a 3.2's engine bay.
Kevin
-
Performance wise, there's nothing worth shouting about between a 3.0 and a 3.2 ::)
Personally, I'm quite keen on the Facelift... But I'm also keen on the mini-f/l. And the build on the older ones does seem slightly better :-/
TBH, I'd make the decision based on condition and service history
-
I have had a 1996 pre-facelift 3.0 Elite Auto (3 years old), a 2000 facelift 2.5 CDX Auto, and now a facelift 3.0 Elite Auto, and I must say the latest car is the best yet! :y
However all of them were great cars and I wish I could have kept the first two, and my Senny, along with the current model!! :D :D ;) ;)
-
Suprised not to see a list of oofers posting thier paticular model is best, as thats what they have and suits thier needs. Each to thier own as they say.
TB and i have been digging each other all weekend weather face lift or pre is best.
Personally i find the 3.2 far easier to work on, with far less gubbins in the engine bay. But there are some more expensive components to fail, such as coil pacs, and dbw throttle. Luckily the latter is fairly reliable, but if it does fail.....(go to a breakers :y)
Thing is the order of production dictates the 3.2 will be more available with lower miles. No amount of opinion can change that.
Exactly Chris - plus 'horses for courses' and all that ......
Our previous TD turned into a nightmare, and I simply wasn't prepared to throw any more 'hard-earned' at it, especially as I'd already sold our beautiful '99 2.0 Auto.
>:(
However, the latest TD has to be the best car that we've ever owned - and importantly, Mrs Sethsmate loves it too!
:y
I was extremely lucky to find such a clean, well-maintained example with all the receipts/history.
"Hen's teeth" etc springs to mind here!
:D
-
Styling aside, there is little to chose between all the different V6 models from a performance/reliability viewpoint. The extra cc of the 2.6 and 3.2 is easily offset by the lower compression ratio.
GayBoyGixer makes a valid point about the 2.6/3.2 more likely to be lower miles, but then they are more likely to have been subjected to the daft 20k service interval. 3.2 obviously isn't available with a manual box in retail form.
Bodywork, obviously the FL is newer, so should be in better condition, but also seems to be better protected against rust.
Mechanically, virtuall identical, so nothing to chose there.
Styling is purely personal. The back of a facelift has grown on me (but it does need that lip spoiler), but the front hasn't. The interior layout, I remain on the fence, but the interior finish is awful on the FL.
-
Also, so many have been abused, that a well cared for older one will be a far better car than a FSH new one. Esp if that FSH is Vauxhall stamped :-X
-
For me, 3.2 has...
The pedal trick. Far more comprehensive trouble codes, and better diagnosis, esp. on missfires, it will tell you which cylinder for example.
No SAI, EGR, IACV, HT leads, or cruise box/throttle cables in the way.
Coil pacs easier to access
All of which i prefer, cost of coil pac x2 aside.
Only problem i find with omegas and the forum is i have to put up with suxual harasment from a certain admin. I keep telling him its not going to happen, but he wont listen. Bloody groomer. ;D
-
Oh, and head and exhaust manifold gaskits have been uprated over pre fl, so another two less headaches to worry about hopefully.
-
Oh, and head and exhaust manifold gaskits have been uprated over pre fl, so another two less headaches to worry about hopefully.
Indeed :y
-
Only problem i find with omegas and the forum is i have to put up with suxual harasment from a certain admin. I keep telling him its not going to happen, but he wont listen. Bloody groomer. ;D
You love it though... :-X :-X :-X :D :D :D
-
Dont you start. :-? :-*
-
OK, the impression I get is that, despite slightly poorer build quality, the later models, particularly 3.2's, have some improved design features, (head gaskets etc.), and lend themselves to LPG. What about the tax/omissions issue? Is it pre 2001 for lower tax? :y
-
OK, the impression I get is that, despite slightly poorer build quality, the later models, particularly 3.2's, have some improved design features, (head gaskets etc.), and lend themselves to LPG. What about the tax/omissions issue? Is it pre 2001 for lower tax? :y
Emissions based RFL applies to all vehicles post 2001... So all DBW models ;) However, the mega bands (currently) only apply to post 2006 cars :y I suppose that could change but a trip to the ECHR would probably sort that out :D :D
-
Pre 2001 Omegas are £205 a year
2001 - 2006 ( :) ) are band K - £245 a year
Those are V6 ... the cars missing 2 cylinders might be less .. depends on the CO2 figure
LPG gets you £10 a year off .. :)
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012524