Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to OOF

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All   Go Down

Author Topic: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto  (Read 8814 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #45 on: 07 September 2012, 18:24:21 »

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.

Not saying anything is wrong with the FL buddy, simply putting it that if I where to choose I'd have the exterior of a facelift but with an interior of a MFL MV6.

Agreed it doesn't look more modern but who's to say that modern cars look nice anyway? :D
Logged

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 #46 on: 07 September 2012, 18:44:18 »

....

Not saying anything is wrong with the FL buddy, simply putting it that if I where to choose I'd have the exterior of an Astra G but with an interior of a MFL MV6.

........
  ::) ::)
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 #47 on: 07 September 2012, 19:01:46 »

....

Not saying anything is wrong with the FL buddy, simply putting it that if I where to choose I'd have the exterior of an Astra G but with an interior of a MFL MV6.

........
  ::) ::)

Haha, not the first time I've heard that. :)
Logged

omega3000

  • Guest
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #48 on: 07 September 2012, 19:30:32 »

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.  ;) ;)

+ 1, wonder if anyones tried to cover the F/L in leather  :-\
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 #49 on: 07 September 2012, 22:13:44 »

+ 1, wonder if anyones tried to cover the F/L in leather  :-\

You mean a reupholstery? That would be interesting. Nappa Leather. hmmmmmmm  :P
Logged

cem_devecioglu

  • Guest
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #50 on: 07 September 2012, 22:40:24 »

+ 1, wonder if anyones tried to cover the F/L in leather  :-\

You mean a reupholstery? That would be interesting. Nappa Leather. hmmmmmmm  :P

expensive and not practical..
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 #51 on: 07 September 2012, 22:43:22 »

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

I'm just curious what you meant by this. In what way was it easier?
Logged

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 #52 on: 07 September 2012, 22:45:22 »

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

I'm just curious what you meant by this. In what way was it easier?

No HT leads
No EGR valve
No secondary air indction
No throttle cable
No idle air control valve  :y :y
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 #53 on: 07 September 2012, 22:46:07 »

You mean a reupholstery? That would be interesting. Nappa Leather. hmmmmmmm  :P

expensive and not practical..

I know it wouldn't be worth it the slightest, but definitely interesting.

Logged

feeutfo

  • Guest
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #54 on: 07 September 2012, 22:50:10 »

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

I'm just curious what you meant by this. In what way was it easier?

No HT leads
No EGR valve
No secondary air indction
No throttle cable
No idle air control valve  :y :y
No cruise box/cable.


Far easier to fit an LPG kit.
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 #55 on: 07 September 2012, 22:54:41 »

No HT leads
No EGR valve
No secondary air indction
No throttle cable
No idle air control valve  :y :y

Petrol cars have EGR valves?  ???

Can a single induction setup be retrofitted?

What was used instead of leads? - I don't really see this as a downer.

I prefer throttle cables. My previous cars had dreadful FBW problems.

What replaced the ICV, If anything?
Logged

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 #56 on: 07 September 2012, 23:11:33 »

....
Petrol cars have EGR valves?  ???
They did ..... till the DBW cars came along.

Can a single induction setup be retrofitted?
The standard induction isn't a problem, the secondary air injection was there to placate the tree huggers.

What was used instead of leads? - I don't really see this as a downer.
Coil Packs ie 1 3 5 coil pack & a 2 4 6 coil pack that plug directly to the spark plugs.

I prefer throttle cables. My previous cars had dreadful FBW problems.
Not had a DBW Omega so can't comment.

What replaced the ICV, If anything?
ECU sorts it out.  :y
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 #57 on: 07 September 2012, 23:16:22 »

Thanks Andy, I appreciate the reply!  :y
Logged

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 #58 on: 07 September 2012, 23:24:49 »

Thanks Andy, I appreciate the reply!  :y

 :y :y :y :y
Logged

tunnie

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Surrey
  • Posts: 37573
    • Zafira Tourer & BMW 435i
    • View Profile
Re: 3.0 Auto Vs 3.2 Auto
« Reply #59 on: 07 September 2012, 23:31:38 »

I prefer the lighter touch of the DBW throttles, cable ones have to be pressed quite a bit in comparison.

Not had any issues with mine (140k 3.2 & 156k 2.2)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.013 seconds with 17 queries.