Vauxhall Owners Network Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The day has come, the Mondy has tried to expire on me, so I'm back to a Vaux again :lmao:

Had to get the AA to recover the Mondy yesterday after it broke a spring, so I'm back in the Vaux fold again whilst the Mondy is being repaired - have adducted my old mans Omega. Had seriously forgotten how nice a car they are to drive - depending on the fuel bill after a week of my driving it, I can see me possibly looking for one, despite the fact that I cant justify it in any shape, mean or form....... :lmao:

Any major difference fuel wise between 2.0 and V6, bearing in mind I tend to have quite a heavy right foot? :lmao:
 

·
Cannonball will win with or without you
Joined
·
8,417 Posts
What type of turbo engine has your Mondeo got then ?
Not sure on fuel consumption without knowing that .
 

·
.
Joined
·
22,199 Posts
daddy cav said:
What type of turbo engine has your Mondeo got then ?
At a complete stab in the dark, id say it would be a turbo DIESEL ;)

A V6 engine coupled with a lead right foot will lead to very low MPG i should have thought, but saying that, if its a 2.0 in an Omega your looking at, your going to be working it harder to get it upto speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
daddy cav said:
What type of turbo engine has your Mondeo got then ?
Not sure on fuel consumption without knowing that .
Mondy is irrelevant here m8, its fuel consumption on the Omegas that I'm asking about.

Average, according to the computer, has gone from about 35/36 to sub 29 over the last day. Thats on the 2.0, so I'm guessing that the V6 would be quite a bit less?
 

·
Vxon's car whore
Joined
·
12,318 Posts
tbh, i think the general concensus is that the 2L in an omega is slightly underpowered, bearing in mind it originally was designed for a car half a tonne lighter. Not a bad engine, just not a good one (if that makes sense?)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,294 Posts
my heavy foot in a 2.5 v6 gives me about 23mpg at most around town dont get much more on the motorway unless i keep to about 60mph and then i get 35 mpg, this is a manual petrol
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Non vaux, but comparitive I feel.
My M is a 3.0 litre, averages around 26 mpg. Bloke with a 325 who looked at it said he averages 23. The 328 is supposed to be appalling on fuel.
Back to vaux, went from a 1600 cav to a 2.0, and no drop in mpg.
I don't go in for all this smaller engine better mpg bollocks. Think how effortlessly my 3.0 litre pulls the car along compared to a 2.0 litre. Same as the Omega I reckon.
 

·
member no 88
Joined
·
1,736 Posts
I don't go in for all this smaller engine better mpg bollocks.
i couldn't agree more bud. i have had this discussion with a few folk, if you drive a 1.6 cav your right foot is down more to get the thing to shift,,,,but if you drive a 2.0 cav you dont have to boot it the same to get it to go,,ie you get less mpg in a 1.6 than a 2.0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
CallyT said:
....The 328 is supposed to be appalling on fuel.
.....
You better believe it, i just sold my 2000bmw to help pay for my wedding and gone for a vectra 2.5 v6 -the 328 averaged about 19.8 on a mix if motorway and crappy town traffic. If I get anything under 25 for my veccy 2.5 i will be well chuffed (pick it up friday)!!!

(why am I up at 5.30am? ask my 18month old daughter!!!!!!!!!):grrr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,531 Posts
stuboy said:
morning!!!
Yeah, thanks for that.

Anyway, BTTT. If you can afford the fuel bills the V6 is probably a better option imho. Why? Because let's face it, the 2l Eco:turd lump struggles to maintain any semblance of reliability in a Cav so putting it in a car as big as an Omega is just plain silly and asking for trouble.

Once you've driven a car as big as an Omega (or Granada or big Beemer, Merc etc.) with a decent sized engine you will seriously notice the lack of power if you get one with the lowest sized engine available.
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
That's the other thing with the bigger engine, more engine (valves, pistons, camshafts etc) to share the load, and that load will be comparitively less for the more powerful engine.
Had a V6 cav on 136K that sounded like new. Old dears V6 shogun is on 137K, also sounds sweet. Can't beat a 6 cylinder for noise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Do tend to agree with the smaller engine less mpg train of thought.

Certainly finding the ecotec to be a lot heavier on fuel than the mondy - maybe the mondy aint that bad after all :lmao:
 

·
surfin lobster
Joined
·
1,092 Posts
Pisses me off when I here of the governments possible plans to penalise bigger engined cars in the budget. My 1990 Cavalier auto, only a 2 litre I know, used less fuel than the brand new Corsa 1.2 courtesy cars we had at my last work. No matter how gently you drove them they drank the fuel like crazy.

Even with a few thousand miles on them the economy was shocking & customer always commented their disappointment and performance was nothing to wirte home about either.

Instead of a 2.0 or V6 how about a TD, nice engine for a nice car.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top