Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please play nicely.  No one wants to listen/read a keyboard warriors rants....

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All   Go Down

Author Topic: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto  (Read 8818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 107023
  • I Like Lockdown
    • Whatever Starts
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #30 on: 07 September 2012, 12:06:28 »

In real terms there is nothing between them on the road ;) The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior :y
Surely the one thats slightly quicker, noticibly more economical, and a smaller capacity must be the superior one ;)

I can remember a certain admin,when supporting the Omega over the Senator during the debate,saying that the Sennie was good in its day,but the Omega is a development/update/step forward etc. so therefore had to be better. Logic says the same argument applies to the facelift v m/fl ?  ::) :D
Btw,if the m/fl interior is better than the facelift,for me the Senny interior was better still. :)
Theres no denying tbh,that the quality of the facelift interior would be a disgrace in a small malaysian hatchback.In a luxury european saloon its fackin outrageous. ;)
Not quite - the 3.2 is just an emmissions strangled version of the 3.0. The V6 is a lighter, more powerful, more compact engine than the S6.

As for interior, yes, FL is appalling. As for PFL v Senator - I guess I was spoilt as my first Omega had sports leather, so to me, both the horrid PFL 'elite type' leather and the Senator leather is just horrible. Dash/console on Senny is just too boxy for me as well, but thats styling, which is always subjective.

Never like the Senator handling - its a bit like the Elite's handling, but with a setting for a firmer ride, which was also too soft. Again, maybe my first Omega spoilt me, being an MV6 model.

In its day, I liked the Senator. I wanted one, but was too young to afford one, or insure it at the time. Before I bought the MV6, I test drove a load of Elites (I needed a big car for a French trip, which was whittled down to Rover 800 and Omega), which I though were quite good, then I test drove my MV6, which I thought was streets ahead of all the Elites I'd driven before. That was the car I bought.
Logged
Grumpy old man

aaronjb

  • Guest
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #31 on: 07 September 2012, 13:56:24 »

The Elites have suspension that more tuned to smooth motorway cruising, than being able to change direction. MV6 is an excellent compromise IMHO.

Oh yes, I've found that one out a couple of times..  :-[ :-[ ;D
Logged

Jabe

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • London
  • Posts: 114
    • 1997 2.5 Tourer
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #32 on: 07 September 2012, 17:24:44 »

Soooooooooooooooooo.... About the mid-facelift  ;D

Anyone have a pic of a MFL? Just want to see what one looks like inside/out. I'm assuming its just a PFL with minor differences?


Logged

OmegaAnglesey

  • Guest
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #33 on: 07 September 2012, 17:33:54 »

Soooooooooooooooooo.... About the mid-facelift  ;D

Anyone have a pic of a MFL? Just want to see what one looks like inside/out. I'm assuming its just a PFL with minor differences?
MFL below  :y

In TB's Favorite colour i may add ;)
« Last Edit: 07 September 2012, 17:37:44 by OmegaMan2.2 »
Logged

Jabe

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • London
  • Posts: 114
    • 1997 2.5 Tourer
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #34 on: 07 September 2012, 17:43:19 »

Hehe  :)

Any pics of the inside?

If not, is this what one should look like?

Logged

Lazydocker

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Woodbridge, Suffolk
  • Posts: 18848
  • Constantly Bullied by a certain Admin
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #35 on: 07 September 2012, 17:44:58 »

That's the inside of a MV6 manual ;)
Logged
Whatever it is... I didn't do it

Jabe

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • London
  • Posts: 114
    • 1997 2.5 Tourer
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #36 on: 07 September 2012, 17:57:41 »

That's the inside of a MV6 manual ;)

So not related to the mid-facelift? If so do you have any inside pics of a mid-facelift? Just curious...  ::)
Logged

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 107023
  • I Like Lockdown
    • Whatever Starts
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #37 on: 07 September 2012, 17:58:26 »

That's the inside of a MV6 manual ;)
With a chavtastic wireless.


Most have a 'wood effect' to centre console, rather than the carbon fibre effect in that pic, and note that only CDX, MV6 and Elite have the Climate Control.
Logged
Grumpy old man

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 107023
  • I Like Lockdown
    • Whatever Starts
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #38 on: 07 September 2012, 18:00:05 »

That's the inside of a MV6 manual ;)

So not related to the mid-facelift? If so do you have any inside pics of a mid-facelift? Just curious...  ::)
You have original PFL (1994-1997)
You have the Mini Facelift (MFL) (1998-1999), which looks just like PFL inside and out (barring minor differences)
You have the full facelift (2000-2003)

Not heard 'mid facelift'
Logged
Grumpy old man

Jabe

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • London
  • Posts: 114
    • 1997 2.5 Tourer
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #39 on: 07 September 2012, 18:08:50 »

Thanks TB.

I really like the look of the MV6. Looks so subtle yet elegant compared to the rest.

What must one do to achieve the same look?  :)

Logged

Webby the Bear

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Northampton
  • Posts: 12729
    • 2000 (W Reg.) 2.5 V6 CD
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #40 on: 07 September 2012, 18:11:44 »

Sorry what are you lot on about the F/L being an awful interior???? All Omegas inside are covered in cheap looking plastic whatever one you get, but if anything at least the F/L looks more modern.
Logged
RIP Paul Lovejoy

Andy B

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Bury Lancs
  • Posts: 39777
    • ML350 TDM SmartRoadster
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #41 on: 07 September 2012, 18:14:53 »

Sorry what are you lot on about the F/L being an awful interior???? All Omegas inside are covered in cheap looking plastic whatever one you get, but if anything at least the F/L looks more modern.

 ??? ??? ??? cheap looking plastic ............  ??? ??? ??? ??? Mine's covered in leather!  ;D ;D
It means that the PFL does NOT have the rubber coating that always scratches off & then looks horrible.  ;) ;)
Logged

Webby the Bear

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Northampton
  • Posts: 12729
    • 2000 (W Reg.) 2.5 V6 CD
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #42 on: 07 September 2012, 18:16:08 »

i was mainly referring to the fake wood effect  :y
Logged
RIP Paul Lovejoy

Andy B

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Bury Lancs
  • Posts: 39777
    • ML350 TDM SmartRoadster
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #43 on: 07 September 2012, 18:18:15 »

i was mainly referring to the fake wood effect  :y

but both have it, but at least there's no rubber coating in a PFL  ;)
Logged

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 107023
  • I Like Lockdown
    • Whatever Starts
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #44 on: 07 September 2012, 18:22:06 »

Sorry what are you lot on about the F/L being an awful interior???? All Omegas inside are covered in cheap looking plastic whatever one you get, but if anything at least the F/L looks more modern.
The FL interior is poor quality, from a finish point of view. The Mini Facelift has the similar coating on some buttons, but fortunately, easy to swap those for the early (1994-1997) hard wearing ones.
Logged
Grumpy old man
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 17 queries.