Print

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

[cd 2.2]

Right I'm asking this question as everyone keeps on telling me that the 2.2 petrol omega is pedestrian at best and fairly underpowered (even people I know who have 1.8 Astra's  )! My car has nearly 117k on the clock now and has had just about every breakable part replaced in the top end and coolant system.
The sprint to 70 mph is really surprising, I mean this thing can keep up, or even outpace allot of the hot hatches 

I don't mind this of course and if you drive the car without the sports button pressed it's very mild mannered. For an example, my dad owns an identical car with the same 2.2 petrol engine and his feels like it couldn't pull a stick out of a pig's *** and can't even keep up  !

I'm left confused as this car is allot more powerful than I ever expected (experiencing my dad's 2.2 for so long) and the only thing that I noticed during the head rebuild was, when the head came back from the engineers (16 thousands of an inch removed), it looked like they opened out the inlet ports a little and gave them a bit of a polish ... Surely that can't make that much difference ... Can it?

It all makes me think twice about buying a 3.2 as a second car if they really are that much faster 

[Mr.OmegaMan]

All the Omega's shift rather well IMO none that I've tried/owned I'd call slow by any means (although not tried a diesel) ... The 2.2 petrol is what, Around 144bhp when new with a 0-60 time of around 10.5 seconds and a top speed of around 135mph ?.. I wonder how many of the ponies have escaped the Omega's EcoTech engines after say 100k - 200k be interesting to know the figures from several Omegas with verious engines 2.0/2.2/2.5/2.6/3.0/3.2 etc.

Saying that, It's hard to know what's considered fast these days, Everyone's definition of "fast" varies, That's how I feel anyway... Anything that does 0-60 MPH under 9 seconds I'd consider "fast", Specially for a car of this class/size/weight... Anything capable of 0-60 MPH under 6 seconds I'd consider very fast.. Dream world anything under 3 seconds insanely fast ( and unaffordable to mere mortals) 

At the end of the day it all comes down to how the car has been maintained through its life I'd say.

[TheBoy]

I'm guessing you haven't tried a "proper" Omega .

[tunnie]

I'd defend the 2.2 to hell and back, cracking engines for the Omega, reliable, smooth, dead easy to work on.

But on the 0-70 dash? Hummm, the hot hatches could not have been trying, only place to get others with the 2.2 is on the brakes.

[cd 2.2]

I'd defend the 2.2 to hell and back, cracking engines for the Omega, reliable, smooth, dead easy to work on.

But on the 0-70 dash? Hummm, the hot hatches could not have been trying, only place to get others with the 2.2 is on the brakes.

I disagree, I owned not so very long ago, A Citroen Saxo 1.4 Furio .... In that car was fitted a mad engine (that was fast) .. It comprised of a VTS gearbox and bottom end and the big valve black top head from a 1.6 VTR! This thing had a stainless straight through exhaust and a 4-2-1 manifold with de-cat and was bloody fast for a saxo (134 + on the sat nav). This car was pulling 125 BHP at the wheels but when you consider it only weighed in at <890 KG (at the local breakers with full tank of fuel), it didn't have allot of weight to shift .... The Omega "feels" faster on the 0-70 mph sprint

And no I haven't tried a "proper" omega ... Still want a 3.2 though, not to replace but to keep company my 2.2 

[tunnie]

I'd defend the 2.2 to hell and back, cracking engines for the Omega, reliable, smooth, dead easy to work on.

But on the 0-70 dash? Hummm, the hot hatches could not have been trying, only place to get others with the 2.2 is on the brakes.

I disagree, I owned not so very long ago, A Citroen Saxo 1.4 Furio .... In that car was fitted a mad engine (that was fast) .. It comprised of a VTS gearbox and bottom end and the big valve black top head from a 1.6 VTR! This thing had a stainless straight through exhaust and a 4-2-1 manifold with de-cat and was bloody fast for a saxo (134 + on the sat nav). This car was pulling 125 BHP at the wheels but when you consider it only weighed in at <890 KG (at the local breakers with full tank of fuel), it didn't have allot of weight to shift .... The Omega "feels" faster on the 0-70 mph sprint

And no I haven't tried a "proper" omega ... Still want a 3.2 though, not to replace but to keep company my 2.2 

That's not a 'hot hatch' 

I own a 2.2 manual and a 3.2 auto, the 3.2 is vastly quicker than the 2.2. The 3.2 does with ease what the 2.2 can do at a real struggle.

The 2.2 is average, but it's never, ever going to win any races   

[TheBoy]

The 2.2, ESP in manual form isnt too bad, just the car is so heavy, making it a bit underpowered.

It's more than adequate, if you're not in a hurry.

[GastronomicKleptomaniac]

The thing I find with my V6 is that it's effortless. All cars have a cruising speed where they just settle down*, my old Merc was about 55-60mph, my Omegas tend to settle about 110...

 But then I get into the staff car at work, a diesel Fiesta, and I end up bending the bulkhead trying to get anything other than "Mrs Miggins strolling to the post office" pace out of it...

*my old Skoda, I never found a happy cruising speed, it just wanted to go faster. All the time. Regardless of traffic, po-po, or prevailing weather conditions. Loved it. Miss it.

[cd 2.2]

did a couple of crude timed runs to 60 mph today ... every run was between 10.5 and 10.9 for 0 - 60 mph ! It does feel very much faster though, maybe it's with it being a bigger car than I'm used to?

And since when has a Saxo pulling 125 Bhp and capable of 130 mph not been a hot hatch I ask??? It may have been a 1.4 furio (in it's original form) and on paper, it was.
But that's certainly not what was in it as I did mention 


I think I want a play in a 3.2 now 

[05omegav6]

The bigger v6s will be pulling a ton by the time you've got your desmond out of second especially with a proper gearbox

[aaronjb]

And since when has a Saxo pulling 125 Bhp and capable of 130 mph not been a hot hatch I ask???

Since the 1990s? I think some people (these days) would think of Golf R32s (250hp), Focus RS (300hp) or ST (225hp) and similar when you say "hot hatch" thanks to shows like Top Gear, not the hot hatches of old, which are what I think of when you say hot hatch - Saxo VTS, R5 GTT etc .. but then I'm old and Tunnie isn't

[05omegav6]

  

For all it's faults, a desmond probably puts out twice as much torque as a misaligned Saxo, which together with rwd, means it actually  pulls away when you put your foot down, rather than producing a noisy cloud of tyre smoke

[Steve B]

But when it comes to doing your cam belt and pump, The job will be done on the desmond before the v6 man gets the cam covers off. 

[tunnie]

But when it comes to doing your cam belt and pump, The job will be done on the desmond before the v6 man gets the cam covers off.

Using the wrong V6 man then 

[05omegav6]

In a Topgear stylee race, change the belt and drive fifty miles, the v6 would arrive first