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 
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 ?

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.