Print

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

[JamesV6CDX]

I am aware that if I thrash it then the fuel will be sucked up (!)... but can someone with experience of this, advise if I will see a drop in consumption, during everyday careful driving, if I fit 3.0 cams to my 2.5?

Cheers

[Andy B]

I am aware that if I thrash it then the fuel will be sucked up (!)... but can someone with experience of this, advise if I will see a drop in consumption, during everyday careful driving, if I fit 3.0 cams to my 2.5?

Cheers

I don't know the actuall fuel consumption but I know someone who sold his 2.5 V6 shortly after he'd fitted 3.0 cams because of the horendous fuel consumption. He replaced it with a 2.5 diseasal.  

[JamesV6CDX]

I am aware that if I thrash it then the fuel will be sucked up (!)... but can someone with experience of this, advise if I will see a drop in consumption, during everyday careful driving, if I fit 3.0 cams to my 2.5?

Cheers

I don't know the actuall fuel consumption but I know someone who sold his 2.5 V6 shortly after he'd fitted 3.0 cams because of the horendous fuel consumption. He replaced it with a 2.5 diseasal.  

Bleh, I used to drive a 4 litre V8 range rover, it can't be any worse

[ians]

I'm getting c. 25mpg out of my newly acquired 3L auto Elite vs 32mpg from my 2.5 manual estate.   same driver same journeys.   Bigger difference than I expected, but not really sure if its due to the auto or the 3L (or a fault..)

[ffcgary1]

 James, i have noticed that the fuel consumption on a run has fallen by about 3-4 mpg and maybe 6 on town runs so dont worry about that too much.

[Paul M]

I'm getting c. 25mpg out of my newly acquired 3L auto Elite vs 32mpg from my 2.5 manual estate.   same driver same journeys.   Bigger difference than I expected, but not really sure if its due to the auto or the 3L (or a fault..)

Bit of both... my 3.0 manual averages 26 MPG but then I rag the tits off it. I expect a well driven 3.0 manual to be approaching 30 MPG on combined driving.

[JamesV6CDX]

Funny all the replies suggest much lower economy.

My thoughts (IMHO) would be this:

1) The increased cam lift will aid combustion and make the engine more efficient.

2) Having owned both 2.5 and 3.0 Omegas (several of each) I have never really noticed much difference between the 2.5 and 3.0 engines economy wise, but the 3.0 is definately quicker and more responsive at higher cruising speeds..

3) Bearing point two in mind, I'd have thought a 2.5manual with 3.0 cams is the bet mix of performance and economy?

[TheBoy]

2) Having owned both 2.5 and 3.0 Omegas (several of each) I have never really noticed much difference between the 2.5 and 3.0 engines economy wise, but the 3.0 is definately quicker and more responsive at higher cruising speeds..

Autos, should be 24-25 from 3.0, around 30 for 2.5.  Add about 3 mpg for manual

[Big Fra]

Oh, so then 22-24 ish isn't too good then?

[miggy]

2) Having owned both 2.5 and 3.0 Omegas (several of each) I have never really noticed much difference between the 2.5 and 3.0 engines economy wise, but the 3.0 is definately quicker and more responsive at higher cruising speeds..

Autos, should be 24-25 from 3.0, around 30 for 2.5.  Add about 3 mpg for manual

Jamie

What do you reckon to 17 mpg, I have been using the 2.6 for work this week, only 6 mile round trip, in traffic around town, I thought it was due to the short daps and stop, starts.

 :question :question

[TheBoy]

2) Having owned both 2.5 and 3.0 Omegas (several of each) I have never really noticed much difference between the 2.5 and 3.0 engines economy wise, but the 3.0 is definately quicker and more responsive at higher cruising speeds..

Autos, should be 24-25 from 3.0, around 30 for 2.5.  Add about 3 mpg for manual

Jamie

What do you reckon to 17 mpg, I have been using the 2.6 for work this week, only 6 mile round trip, in traffic around town, I thought it was due to the short daps and stop, starts.

 :question :question

That short a journey, 17 sounds about right, esp if auto....  ....my figures were 'average' use (or what I would class as average - a mix of A/B roads, short stretches of dual carriageway).

[miggy]

2) Having owned both 2.5 and 3.0 Omegas (several of each) I have never really noticed much difference between the 2.5 and 3.0 engines economy wise, but the 3.0 is definately quicker and more responsive at higher cruising speeds..

Autos, should be 24-25 from 3.0, around 30 for 2.5.  Add about 3 mpg for manual

Jamie

What do you reckon to 17 mpg, I have been using the 2.6 for work this week, only 6 mile round trip, in traffic around town, I thought it was due to the short daps and stop, starts.

 :question :question

That short a journey, 17 sounds about right, esp if auto....  ....my figures were 'average' use (or what I would class as average - a mix of A/B roads, short stretches of dual carriageway).

Thanks mate