2.6 Elite vs 3.2 Elite

[jiffle]

I am considering replacing my trusty 1998 2.0 16V Omega(185,000 miles, still going well but starting to act its age a bit, "touching wood whilst I am typing") with a newer Omega.  By preferece I want to go for a 6 cylinder Elite as late a registration as I can find and afford which means either a 2.6 or a 3.2.  I am only interested in auto boxes  My question are:

Given that I can find either and actually do therefore have a choice which engine should I go for.

I assume that they will both have much more power than my 4 pot engine but will also use much more fuel?  My current car has returned an average of 34.5 MPG over the 140,000 that I have driven it.  How much less can I expect and is there a significant difference between the 2.6 and the 3.2.

Is there a noticeable difference in the power between the 2.6 and the 3.2?  

I have not considered either a 2.5 or a 3.0 as I figure they may be too old, didn't the engines get upgraded about 99, and also I believe from what I have read that the 2.6/3.2 engines are easier to work on and more reliable?

I have seen ads for an MV6/Elite, is there such a beast I thought the MV6 had a CD spec?

Thanks in advance of any thoughts anyone may have on the above.

[TheBoy]

2.6/3.2 introduced around 2001, earlier facelifts have 2.5/3.0

Yes, it will use more fuel, but 2.6 is good compromise. 3.2 will have noticably more power, but obviously less mpg.

Facelift MV6 is slightly about CD spec.

[Rock]

I have averaged roughly 28MPG in my 2.6 and it definitely doesn't lack power. (When it works)

[B52]

insurance saving too - ive only ever had 2.5/2.6

[Gwilym]

Facelift MV6 is slightly about CD spec.

As long as you get retail MV6. X Plod MV6 are very poor spec

[theolodian]

Facelift MV6 is slightly about CD spec.

As long as you get retail MV6. X Plod MV6 are very poor spec

Hmmm, a 2.2 Sport and an engine swap maybe?  

[Markjay]

...2.6 is good compromise. 3.2 will have noticably more power...

'noticably'??? Bah, Humbug!

[Admin]

It is a question of how much fuel economy concerns you.

The 3.2 has a LOT more power than the 2.6, but also is a thirstier beast (expect overall average of 22-25mpg with 30+ on runs)
The 2.6 should give you 3-5mpg more.

Me, I'd take the 3.2 elite and waft around in absolute comfort and quiet.

[Markjay]

List of emotive topics:

Oil thread
Super-fuels thread
2.5/2.6 vs 3.0/3.2 thread...

Well I have driven the 2.5, 2.6, and 3.0 (though not the 3.2), they 3.0 is ever so slightly more powerful, and IMO you don't actually feel where all the horses and torque went to, but the 2/5/2.6 are much smoother! Fuel economy was not the issue for me, I just like to hear engines purr...

So there...

[TheBoy]

List of emotive topics:

Oil thread
Super-fuels thread
2.5/2.6 vs 3.0/3.2 thread...

Well I have driven the 2.5, 2.6, and 3.0 (though not the 3.2), they 3.0 is ever so slightly more powerful, and IMO you don't actually feel where all the horses and torque went to, but the 2/5/2.6 are much smoother! Fuel economy was not the issue for me, I just like to hear engines purr...

So there...

having owned a 2.5 and a 3.0 at the same time, 3.0 is noticibly more powerful...

[Bo Bo]

having owned a 2.5 and a 3.0 at the same time, 3.0 is noticibly more powerful...

I have to agree, I test drove a 2.5 & then my 3.0, decision was easy.

[Admin]

Sorry Isaac, you must have driven a duff 3.0

There is a very noticable difference between the 2.5 and the 3.0. Oh and the 3.0 is just as smooth.

[theolodian]

Sorry Isaac, you must have driven a duff 3.0

There is a very noticable difference between the 2.5 and the 3.0. Oh and the 3.0 is just as smooth.

My 3.0 was anemic when I first got it.  After a week of giving it beans it gained at least 30hp.  New plugs and cam cover gaskets took it the rest of the way to a believeable 200+hp, and smoother.

[Del Boy]

Yeah i've had a 2.5 and a 3.0 and as jamie said there is a very noticable difference between the two
but a 3.0 manual will be quicker than a 3.2 auto

[Markjay]

Sorry Isaac, you must have driven a duff 3.0

There is a very noticable difference between the 2.5 and the 3.0. Oh and the 3.0 is just as smooth.

My first omega was a 2.5 97R. It was pulling to the left (but that's another story), and during my discussions with the technicians at Vx they suggested that I drive another car to see if it behaves the same – and off I went with their top techie in the Service Manager's own 3.0 Elite – which had around 25,000 miles on the clock iirc. We went up and down the M1 from Brent Cross to J2, but I was not able to convince them that cars should go straight ahead. This was back in 98.

Later in 2001, when I was looking at replacing the 97R car, I test drove a 3.0L X-Reg Elite (early facelift), silver with black leather (my dream combination), with only 1,000 miles (!). It was a beautiful car, but the asking price was £24,000 which I thought was too high. I ended up buying a 2001Y CDX 2.6 with 6,400 miles for much much less.

On both occasions, the 3.0L cars did NOT feel substantially more powerful (though they were somewhat more torquey), but the 2.5 and 2.6 seem much smoother when accelerating steadily. This is my experience, anyway...