Print

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

[feeutfo]

3.2, if your going to get one of these crappy V6 engines might as well get the biggest!

Still not totally converted from the 4-pots yet then Mark

Not really, my trusty 4 pot is much, much smoother at idle from inside cabin. Only way you can tell engine is running is rpm reading.

V6 is considerably louder about town, noticed small vibration from brake pedal when stationary. Engine can be quite lumpy at idle at times, been told this is normal for DBW V6 

Have to jack up car for an oil change, no need on 4 potter. Ohh and yeh, it uses a shit ton of fuel 

However when progress needs to be made, all is forgiven! 

 

First thing I noticed when upgrading to a 3.2 from a 2.5 was the idle was not as smooth, and turning ac on or off makes no odds to the very slight vibration. I don't think I would ever describe a 3.2 as loud, more of symphony. as opposed too the spice girls of the four pot.

[twiglet]

I thought the difference between the factory figures for 3.0 and 3.2 was only 3? 208 for 3.0 and 211 for 3.2?

I think we are comparing the 2.6 and 3.2 engines, not the 3.0 

[2woody]

3.2 quite a bit faster and a whole lot more economical.

( I have both )

[blackviper90210]

3.2 quite a bit faster and a whole lot more economical.

( I have both )

Lend me your 3.2 then, you can't drive both at the same time

[2woody]

and the 3.2 motor's coming out soon, too.

but I'll probably put it in the 2.6

[TheBoy]

I don't think I would ever describe a 3.2 as loud, more of symphony. as opposed too the spice girls of the four pot.

I was thinking more along the lines of The Village People

[Kevin Wood]

It does help that a V6 isn't generally revving its' nads off all the time..

Ok. I lied.

[jonnycool]

3.2 quite a bit faster and a whole lot more economical.

( I have both )

How does that work then? 

I have a 2.6

[geoffr70]

I thought the difference between the factory figures for 3.0 and 3.2 was only 3? 208 for 3.0 and 211 for 3.2?

I think we are comparing the 2.6 and 3.2 engines, not the 3.0 

I know 

[Andy B]

2.6 or 3.2? 

Big is best, bigger is better still! 

[feeutfo]

I don't think I would ever describe a 3.2 as loud, more of symphony. as opposed too the spice girls of the four pot.

I was thinking more along the lines of The Village People

...yes I suspected you might be working along those lines.

[2woody]

3.2 quite a bit faster and a whole lot more economical.

( I have both )

How does that work then? 

I have a 2.6

the gearing of the 2.6 is a lot shorter in an effort to get it to accelerate with 40 less horsepower.

[jonnycool]

3.2 quite a bit faster and a whole lot more economical.

( I have both )

How does that work then? 

I have a 2.6

the gearing of the 2.6 is a lot shorter in an effort to get it to accelerate with 40 less horsepower.

What, top end as well?

[2woody]

no, 2.6 tops out in 5th, 3.2 tops out in 4th

[Martin_1962]

2.6 still goes quite well, but is not very economical.

Not sure if it is gearing or the lower CR, but mist of the 3.x seem to get better consumption than the 2.6s.

The best 2.6s are similar in flat out performance to a 3.0 not in peak condition, but a lot less low end torque.

I have owned a 3.0 and a 2.6, the 3.0 was torquier but flat out the 2.6 is faster on acceleration (3mph on my test road).

HOWEVER

2.6 has 3.0 cams and ported heads, the 3.0 had an LPG ECU clogging the air box.