Print

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

[tunnie]

Scrapped it quite heavily getting on and off the ferry 

That will teach you for Chavin it up, with silly bumpers 

[TheBoy]

Scrapped it quite heavily getting on and off the ferry 

That will teach you for Chavin it up, with silly bumpers 

It was its midrift. Suspect too much shite in it. Bleedin' wimin!

[Andy A]

Sanding the front bumper down on the Omega ready for some filler and paint.  Only wish I had an irmscher front bumper in Z157.

[05omegav6]

24? From a 4.5 V8. Not bad 

Yeh, the 3.2's really are shite on fuel! 

Bit like people moaning that sky is too expensive that. OF COURSE ITS SHITE on fuel. It's a 3.2 v6 auto in a car weighing nearly 2 ton.

....AND the lazy wingebag owner hasn't bothered his arse to convert it to LPG yet.

Then how come V8s with loads more power, more cubic capacity and couple of extra cylinders. Along with extra weight, do better on fuel.

No, the 3.2s are shit engines, similar power output of the 3.0 yet the 3.0s are far, far better on fuel. Difference to power/mpg is not equal between them.

Two words...

Torque and power-to-weight-ratio

Besides, 3.2 can't be that shit... I have two with a combined mileage of 450k miles, on the original running gear...

[Shackeng]

24? From a 4.5 V8. Not bad 

Yeh, the 3.2's really are shite on fuel! 

Bit like people moaning that sky is too expensive that. OF COURSE ITS SHITE on fuel. It's a 3.2 v6 auto in a car weighing nearly 2 ton.

....AND the lazy wingebag owner hasn't bothered his arse to convert it to LPG yet.

Then how come V8s with loads more power, more cubic capacity and couple of extra cylinders. Along with extra weight, do better on fuel.

No, the 3.2s are shit engines, similar power output of the 3.0 yet the 3.0s are far, far better on fuel. Difference to power/mpg is not equal between them.

Two words...

Torque and power-to-weight-ratio

Besides, 3.2 can't be that shit... I have two with a combined mileage of 450k miles, on the original running gear...

3.0i V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 9.0 secs Top Speed 148 mph
3.2  V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 8.0 secs Top Speed 149 mph

 

[steve6367]

Had a new windscreen fitted - not convinced though - trim is already falling off 

[05omegav6]

24? From a 4.5 V8. Not bad 

Yeh, the 3.2's really are shite on fuel! 

Bit like people moaning that sky is too expensive that. OF COURSE ITS SHITE on fuel. It's a 3.2 v6 auto in a car weighing nearly 2 ton.

....AND the lazy wingebag owner hasn't bothered his arse to convert it to LPG yet.

Then how come V8s with loads more power, more cubic capacity and couple of extra cylinders. Along with extra weight, do better on fuel.

No, the 3.2s are shit engines, similar power output of the 3.0 yet the 3.0s are far, far better on fuel. Difference to power/mpg is not equal between them.

Two words...

Torque and power-to-weight-ratio

Besides, 3.2 can't be that shit... I have two with a combined mileage of 450k miles, on the original running gear...

3.0i V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 9.0 secs Top Speed 148 mph
3.2  V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 8.0 secs Top Speed 149 mph

 

I was thinking of the LS1/2/3 compared to the V6... Alot more torque from alot lower down... Of course fit a 3.45 diff to an Omega and I reckon you wouldn't be far off 40mpg it would be a slug off the line though compared to the standard ratio

You could also point out that the manual 3.2 is a sub 7 second car... But then some smart arse would argue that it wasn't a retail model and therefore doesn't count

[05omegav6]

Had a new windscreen fitted - not convinced though - trim is already falling off 

Get them back to fit it properly then

[MikeDundee]

24? From a 4.5 V8. Not bad 

Yeh, the 3.2's really are shite on fuel! 

Bit like people moaning that sky is too expensive that. OF COURSE ITS SHITE on fuel. It's a 3.2 v6 auto in a car weighing nearly 2 ton.

....AND the lazy wingebag owner hasn't bothered his arse to convert it to LPG yet.

Then how come V8s with loads more power, more cubic capacity and couple of extra cylinders. Along with extra weight, do better on fuel.

No, the 3.2s are shit engines, similar power output of the 3.0 yet the 3.0s are far, far better on fuel. Difference to power/mpg is not equal between them.

Two words...

Torque and power-to-weight-ratio

Besides, 3.2 can't be that shit... I have two with a combined mileage of 450k miles, on the original running gear...

3.0i V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 9.0 secs Top Speed 148 mph
3.2  V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 8.0 secs Top Speed 149 mph

 

I was thinking of the LS1/2/3 compared to the V6... Alot more torque from alot lower down... Of course fit a 3.45 diff to an Omega and I reckon you wouldn't be far off 40mpg it would be a slug off the line though compared to the standard ratio

You could also point out that the manual 3.2 is a sub 7 second car... But then some smart arse would argue that it wasn't a retail model and therefore doesn't count

I would like to point out that the manual 3.2 is a sub second car, and is not a retail model so doesn't count

[steve6367]

Had a new windscreen fitted - not convinced though - trim is already falling off 

Get them back to fit it properly then

That's today's job the ring them, I think the actual screen is ok. Frustrating as I ask them to bring new trim when booked, they said yes they would then didn't!

[05omegav6]

Had a new windscreen fitted - not convinced though - trim is already falling off 

Get them back to fit it properly then

That's today's job the ring them, I think the actual screen is ok. Frustrating as I ask them to bring new trim when booked, they said yes they would then didn't!

Usually means that the screen has been fitted too high in the aperture... that said, the trims can be quite variable depending on the supplier and some are less reusable than others ime

[steve6367]

Had a new windscreen fitted - not convinced though - trim is already falling off 

Get them back to fit it properly then

That's today's job the ring them, I think the actual screen is ok. Frustrating as I ask them to bring new trim when booked, they said yes they would then didn't!

Usually means that the screen has been fitted too high in the aperture... that said, the trims can be quite variable depending on the supplier and some are less reusable than others ime

It's certainly not at a uniform depth in the apature - more recessed drivers side vertical and less so passenger side.

[TheBoy]

3.0i V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 9.0 secs Top Speed 148 mph
3.2  V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 8.0 secs Top Speed 149 mph

GM's figures on 3.0 are particularly conservative.

The 3.0 is quicker and more economical than the 3.2

[The Sheriff]

3.0i V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 9.0 secs Top Speed 148 mph
3.2  V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 8.0 secs Top Speed 149 mph

GM's figures on 3.0 are particularly conservative.

The 3.0 is quicker and more economical than the 3.2

Esp. If it's black 

[chrisgixer]

3.0i V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 9.0 secs Top Speed 148 mph
3.2  V6 24V Elite 4d Auto 0-60 8.0 secs Top Speed 149 mph

GM's figures on 3.0 are particularly conservative.

The 3.0 is quicker and more economical than the 3.2

So how come mine, keeps up with yours which is chipped. No problem at all? As does Kevin's actually iirc