Print

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

[elddis]

Hi!...What are the main points of difference between 3.0 and 3.2 engine?...Is one any better than the other?...Any suggestions?...Cheers,Rew.

[tunnie]

Both have plus points both have negatives, 3.0 is more economical, I like the lighter DBW throttles of 3.2, nothing in it performance wise

[feeutfo]

Suspect you'll get answers according to what people own.

So naturally the 3.2 as far superior. IMO.

There is considerably less gubbins In the 3.2 engine bay though. No EGR,ICV,SAI, to mess about with and maintain. Obd2 compliant with easier pedal trick to read the codes.

[GastronomicKleptomaniac]

3.2 engine bay is a bit tidier, but there's nothing much in it. Look at both and buy the best you can afford

[ted_one]

Sorry,can't agree about performance,my 3.0 ltr engine is in top condition with 3.2 manifolds fitted and gets down the road pretty well,but my 3.2 will leave it in the weeds when given the beans I'm expecting to get my kahoonas chewed on this one but it's based on my own two cars which are both autos and as Tunnie says both models have different attributes, but when the loud pedal is mashed they'll both bring a smile to you're face which ever you choose

[TheBoy]

Having both a 3.0l and a 3.2, my preference, purely on engine, is the 3.0l. Moreso if its an auto, due to more refined ECUs on the 3.0l.

Although this means its an older car.

Not much in it performance wise, although certainly my 3.0l has faster legs than my 3.2. 3.0l returns better mpg.

[i260]

Theorericaly the 3.0 facelift should be the slowest of the bunch as it has the 'disadvantage' of 210ps and the +50kg of the facelift.

However I doubt that many of the 3.2's still have all their additional horses so a duff 3.2 could well be slower than a good 3.0.

See what you can find and get a good 'en.

[duggs]

3.0 OR 3.2......They both sound bloody awesome...especially if you let the horses loose...Never tire of seeing the looks on the faces of the youngsters as the "big old bulky" looking car shoots away from them...Even those in the company BMW's look staggered !

[feeutfo]

3.2 is best. Sorry. Just is.

[omega3000]

3.0 pre/facelift is best ...much better looking too 

[TheBoy]

3.2 is best. Sorry. Just is.

I can't help but think GM had too many compromises to get the emmissions down for the new emmissions standards...

[feeutfo]

3.2 is best. Sorry. Just is.

I can't help but think GM had too many compromises to get the emmissions down for the new emmissions standards...

oh pfaf. Your 3.0 needs a chip to fail to keep up. 

[TheBoy]

3.2 is best. Sorry. Just is.

I can't help but think GM had too many compromises to get the emmissions down for the new emmissions standards...

oh pfaf. Your 3.0 needs a chip to fail to keep up. 

My 3.0l needs a chip to put back in a few ponies that have gone astray in the last 188k .

Although personalities aside, I do genuinely think the 2.5/3.0l are significantly more economical and similar power to the 2.6/3.2. Though without doubt, the 2.6/3.2 is marginally easier to work on, although prone to expensive TB faults.

[Lazydocker]

Having had both a 3.0 and a 3.2 there's very little in it performance wise and I must admit that the 3.0 Saloon was a little better on fuel than the 3.2 Estate

Put them on the road and I didn't find the 3.2 could pull away from the 3.0 dramatically, as has been tested a few times They'll both (if well maintained) keep the majority of motors honest

[zirk]

Having owned both, in my experience not much in it performance wise, although a chipped 3.0 wins hsnds down on better than normal mpg.

My first 3.2 I thought was not as quick off the mark as my older chipped 3.0 MV6.

The only exception to this is my more recent remaped 3.2 manual with some exhaust mods, that is quick.