Print

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

[Hogi]

Hi All,
I am new to this site and new to Omegas.
I an thinking about buying a 1999 ("T" reg) omega estate with a 2 litre 16 valve engine and would like to know what  fuel consumption I can expect.
Cheers
Hogi

[Andy B]

Hi All,
I am new to this site and new to Omegas.
I an thinking about buying a 1999 ("T" reg) omega estate with a 2 litre 16 valve engine and would like to know what  fuel consumption I can expect.
Cheers
Hogi

I don't & have never owned a 2000 litre, but don't fall into the trap of buying a smaller engined car for better fuel consumption. An Omega is a heavy car & a 2.0 will struggle compared with a V6.
My consumption varies between 21/22mpg around town to 32/33 on a run on the motorway, but if you drive them hard around town don't be surprised if you get high teens mpg  :-? :-? :y

[Osprey]

I used to have a 1993 2.0 Carlton (Omega A) and I would say the consumption was just as pisspoor the same as my current 2.6. 

I used to get 33mpg at best on a run, low 20s around town driving carefully.  There are only a couple of real differences I have noticed.  The 2.0 returns best mileage at 60mph whereas the 2.6 is best at 70 to 80mph, which is useful on motorways.  Also, you can push the mileage right down into the teens on the 2.6 by driving briskly whereas you can't drive the 2.0 briskly at all.
 

[cem_devecioglu]

+1 to whats said above..

omega is a heavy car and its weight and gear ratios mostly detemines fuel consumption..

imo go for a v6  manual.. 

[Abiton]

2.0 manual will be the most economical (Edit: petrol) Omega, if driven with economy in mind.  Not sure if there's any diff between saloon/estate, guess the estate is even heavier, so possibly worse, depending on how the aero differences work out.

It's still disappointing though.  Mass of car is the problem.  Engine size relatively irrelevant, except that the more powerful engines will tend to be used at higher powers, so worse on economy.

Autos worse than manuals.

[duggs]

You WILL be disappointed with a 2.0...

You'll soon love the Omega...but very soon after will wish you had a couple of more cylinders.

Stick with a V6

[dbug]

I don't & have never owned a 2000 litre, but don't fall into the trap of buying a smaller engined car for better fuel consumption. An Omega is a heavy car & a 2.0 will struggle compared with a V6.
My consumption varies between 21/22mpg around town to 32/33 on a run on the motorway, but if you drive them hard around town don't be surprised if you get high teens mpg  :-? :-? :y

2000 Litre - you'll need to tow a tanker to feed a monster that size !!!!

[TheBoy]

It its all motorway, expect mid/high 30s MPG from a 2.0/2.2 manual. Expect almost similar from a 2.5 manual.

[Andy B]

....
2000 Litre - you'll need to tow a tanker to feed a monster that size !!!!

Just testing to see if you were paying attention  ;) ;) ;)

[freecall666]

at petrol price £1.33.9 its £32 for 208miles on mine.

[danzigfan]

Go for 2,5/2,6 I would / will asap (mine 2.0 consumption is from 34mpg min to 15 max in town)

[Captain Slower]

I have a 3.0 MV6 estate (auto)
Most of my driving is motorway and I get anywhere from 34 - 39 mpg and thats with a load onboard. Having said that, I dont ever put the pedal into the carpet whilst accelerating. I've always found the bigger engines give a better return in bigger cars, never had anything smaller than 2.5 L in an estate or saloon. my 2.8 beemer will return 40mpg on the motorway.

[tigers_gonads]

My old 2.5 manual estate used to get 28 mpg with aboot full of cable and tools round town 

About 33 mpg on a run 

The worst I got over a 7 mile run down a B road was 9.4 mpg 

At the end of the day, the omega weighs close to 2 ton so a small engine is going to have to be worked pretty hard to move it along so go for a V6 

All V6 manuals are within 2 or 3 mpg of each other 
Auto's round town are down into the teens  

[Bob G]

Circumstances led to buying a 2.0L and so far i am happy, I must be lucky as I find it very quick off the mark and after my 3.0L Cosworth Scorpio it is nice not to have to watch the fuel gauge.

Each to their own, i am happy with mine. 8-)

[Sehen]

Before my conversion to V6, I ran the 2.0 with auto for 3 months, and with the same speed, same car, in the twists and upphills in northern Norway, the V6 and manual, used 1.0 litres LESS then the 2,0 auto pr/100km. But in the city, it's very close between the 2,0 auto and the V6 manual. But it's more fun with the V6, even the 2,5/2,6 compared to the 2,0.
Enough said