Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bionic]

2 litre is IMO the poor mans answer to owning a mig.
At almost 2 ton its asking a lot of a small engine so mpg will suffer badly, more so if there is a poor service history and the resulting wear. I have noticed that for some strange reason they seem to ask more for them on the supposition that a smaller engine will give better mpg...Only a novice would believe that one. A larger engine does the same work as the smaller one but without breaking a sweat or breath.
As always it comes down to how you drive them.
The only good point I can see is that you would gain from the extra working space under the bonnet cos I cannot get a hand down inside mine...and that is pretty poor reason

[philsteward]

Sorry to hijack thread, but after reading this, should I be concerned that my 2.2 auto estate is only getting 25mpg on long runs?  Where am I going wrong?

[Abiton]

2 litre is IMO the poor mans answer to owning a mig.At almost 2 ton its asking a lot of a small engine so mpg will suffer badly, more so if there is a poor service history and the resulting wear. I have noticed that for some strange reason they seem to ask more for them on the supposition that a smaller engine will give better mpg...Only a novice would believe that one. A larger engine does the same work as the smaller one but without breaking a sweat or breath.
As always it comes down to how you drive them.
The only good point I can see is that you would gain from the extra working space under the bonnet cos I cannot get a hand down inside mine...and that is pretty poor reason

Maybe, but the OP possibly wouldn't be interested in mpg if cash were no problem? 

As for the 'bigger engine's don't have to break a sweat' argument, if you think about it for a while, and look up the consumption figures for any number of cars with all different engine sizes, you'll soon see a pattern emerge...

[2woody]

I've found that the most economical is my 3.0 manual
worst are jointly my 2.6 manual and my 3.0 auto

but to reinforce the capacity argument, my 5.7 manual is more economical than any of them.

[robbie j]

When I first bought my V6, I only averaged 28mpg on a run, but as I got used to it (it was my first auto), I got in the habit of feathering the gas when I'd got up to cruising speed and now I always get over 30mpg on a run.  Most recently, I went up to Carlisle and deliberately set out to do an 'economy' run and by keeping the revs to around 2,500 I gor 39mpg!  I always keep the computer set on instant fuel consumption so that I can monitor the different figures depending on whether I'm cruising or giving it a bit of welly, which I tend to do when I'm joining a motorway for instance.  I prefer getting up to cruising speed quickly rather than steady acceleration.

[2woody]

I've found that the most economical is my 3.0 manual
worst are jointly my 2.6 manual and my 3.0 auto

but to reinforce the capacity argument, my 5.7 manual is more economical than any of them.

it's the combination of auto and the lower final drive ratios that is the worst I think

[Abiton]

Figures for the drive-by-wires here: http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168647356

4 pot petrol about 10% better combined than small V6, bigger V6 another couple of % worse.

Anyone got the numbers for the older engines?

[Vamps]

In the 2.2 Auto - 38.4MPG a couple of weeks ago, over 44 miles, cruise at 75 for about 25 miles and then down to 50 for about 15 miles, through roadworks then 4 miles on b road to the caravan (Static) using the posh Total fuel, best I have ever had over this, regular, run....

I commute into town on, mostly, b roads and tootle round the town for work.........I tend to average around 28 mpg each week......

Don't be put of a 4 pot by the V6 lovers, still capable of a turn of speed and well able to cruise above the maximum legal speed limit.....

Swmbo drives the 2.0L Auto faster than I drive mine, she takes some keeping up with at times...

[cem_devecioglu]

Figures for the drive-by-wires here: http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168647356

4 pot petrol about 10% better combined than small V6, bigger V6 another couple of % worse.

Anyone got the numbers for the older engines?

although its not a measure, most people use their cars in rush hours, which means crowded start stop traffic.. and averages different than those numbers..

for example my averages (I have no doubt) are at least %20-25 more than someone living in a smaller city.. :-/

especially when the schools are open and autumn comes traffic jams start and I spend nearly an hour to reach home 15 kms far..

[cem_devecioglu]

so if you drive  generally in traffic jams, you wont see big difference imo.. as most of the fuel will be spend waiting and idling..

but if fuel cost is primary concern, even a 2.0 omega will look like a monster compared to those 1.2, 1.4 engined small hatches..

my experience is that omega normally spends 10-12 litre/100 km with my driving style (I drive like I'm escaping from disaster) (unless its minus and snow is on the road) where as my clit 1.6 spends 7 - 7.5 .. but when traffic jams become frequent clit tends to catch miggy

[TheBoy]

Also bear in mind insurance costs, I suspect v6 variants may be a higher group?