Print

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

[martin341]

So looking for second opinion. Now as I've had the second miggy for a while i've noticed that the new 2,5v6 manual fuelconsumption is a bit bigger than in the 3,0v6 auto. The difference is biggest when engine is cold. Is it normal or should i check/fix something?

Cheers,
Martin

[zirk]

When you say a bit bigger, do mean worse fuel economy, just checking as we tend to talk about number of miles per gallon (mpg) where as the rest of Euroloand talk about litres per kilometre (litres/100km), which is actually the other way around.

[martin341]

Yes, it uses more fuel than the 3,0 autobox car.
...and i drive them the same way...

[zirk]

Assuming you have checked for fault codes, this times of year I would check working thermostat first for poor fuel consumption.

[martin341]

I'll try to read the COdes tomorrow. Paperclip. And the funny thing is that the thermostat is stuck open on 3,0 and seems to be working normal on 2,5 car

[05omegav6]

Yes, it uses more fuel than the 3,0 autobox car.
...and i drive them the same way...

That be your issue then...

To make the 2.5 go anything like a 3.0 it will always use more fuel as it has less power and, importantly, less torque...

Put the other way, even driven really gently, the 3.0 will use less fuel than the 2.5... simply because it isn't really trying

[zirk]

Swap the MAF's over.

[martin341]

Yes, it uses more fuel than the 3,0 autobox car.
...and i drive them the same way...

That be your issue then...

To make the 2.5 go anything like a 3.0 it will always use more fuel as it has less power and, importantly, less torque...

Put the other way, even driven really gently, the 3.0 will use less fuel than the 2.5... simply because it isn't really trying

I'm thinking the same thing but to be sure I asked you wise men for another opinion. And damn you can feel the power difference, at first i thought the 2,5 had some problems as it felt like my mom's 1,6 astra compared to 3,0

[omega2018]

don't have the 2.5/3.0 manual to hand, sure someone does, but:

Fuel consumption (ap prox . l/100 km) , CO2 em ission (approx. g/k m) , Saloon
Engine  Y 26 S E,  Y 32 S E
Manual/Automatic transmission
14.9/16. 4,  – /16. 8
Urban  8. 3/ 8.6,  – / 8. 9
Extra-urban  10.7/11. 5,  – /11. 8
Combined  257/ 276, – / 284
CO 2


manual (or auto) 2.6 beats a 3.2 for fuel consumption in all categories.

[05omegav6]

Well there's a surprise... the smaller V6 auto uses almost the same amount of fuel as the larger one

[omega2018]

performance figures here

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/vauxhall/omega/saloon-1994/

2.5 manual 0-60 8.2 secs, 3.0 auto 0-60 9 secs.

[dbug]

performance figures here

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/vauxhall/omega/saloon-1994/

2.5 manual 0-60 8.2 secs, 3.0 auto 0-60 9 secs.

Would be sensible to quote like for like figures rather than try to "massage" figures -

2.5 manual 0-60 8.2 secs, 3.0 manual 0-60 8.0 secs
2.5 auto 0-60 9.2 secs, 3.0 auto 0-60 9.0 secs

same source, same models (Elites)
 
 

[omega2018]

performance figures here

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/vauxhall/omega/saloon-1994/

2.5 manual 0-60 8.2 secs, 3.0 auto 0-60 9 secs.

Would be sensible to quote like for like figures rather than try to "massage" figures -

2.5 manual 0-60 8.2 secs, 3.0 manual 0-60 8.0 secs
2.5 auto 0-60 9.2 secs, 3.0 auto 0-60 9.0 secs

same source, same models (Elites)
 
 

op was asking about 3.0 auto compared to 2.5 manual

[Diamond Black Geezer]

OP - have a similar issue myself (though no 3.0 to compare it with, unlike yourself!  )

Out of interest zirk, what will changing the MAF prove? Thought the MAFs weren't ever an issue on 2.5s always seeming bulletproof, only the later V6s for some reason seem to fail?

Check out my 'Stats' thread OP for some more info, if it helps 

[martin341]

...checked for fault codes....

Nothing but 31, so probably will do the stat in near future.