Way I see it is, as a family that went from Astras, to Cavaliers up to Omegas, the Powerplants go a bit like this
3.0 / 3.2 the 'big un'
2.5 / 2.6 the 'normal'
2.0 / 2.2 the 'smaller'
But only the same as a 2.0 turbo Astra is the 'big un' the 1.8 the 'normal' and the '1.6' the smaller. (for pedants there are, of course more engine choices found in Astras Vectras etc than Omegas, but most car ranges feature this common pattern - big, medium and small engine, plus diesels, but we don't include the Devil's urine in this thread
)
The main criticisms are, the 2.2
on paper are more economical, however, in the real world, because you plant your foot that bit more to make up for the slight lack of urge, there's allegedly no real difference in mpg. Omegas are a big old fat lump, so round town whatever you have, you're doing teens to the gallon.
However, so, too, would many a 3.0/3.2 owner claim they'd
never own a 2.5/2.6, because of the relative lack of grunt. It's a bit tomato-tamaaarto, really. But I think personally no one should be put off getting a 2.0/2.2.
The mechanical side of 2.2s is - if the head gasket and/or manifold doesn't go, then you're pretty much fine. But they do all seem to go eventually, sadly. However the V6 are all riddled with lots of small niggly issues, which can be a constant pain to keep on top of completely. Though.. I do know of a 2.0 taxi that had 250k on the clock, so....you know, not everything is black and white
For me, personally, there's no point in owning a big fat old barge, without a big, fat old engine, so I've the V6 with the lazy old man auto box. I sit, and the car drives herself, as I listen to a choice of 6 CDs with a warmed bum. But that's me, and there's nothing wrong with bombing around in a 2.0 GLS - you've still got the comfy seats and the same waftable ride
Author
Topic: 2.2 CDX Auto - Why does nobody rate them ? (Read 3767 times)