I am currently running a 94 2.0 auto estate, and i've got it into my head that a 2.5 manual wouldn't cost me any more in petrol to run( based on the fact that I do most of my mileage on country roads, where the autobox rarely locks up into top)
Am I wrong? could anybody out there give me their views please?
And why is it that all to 2.5 estates that are for sale are auto's
I really just want V6 power, and I have to be able to justify this to she who gives me my pocket money![size=12][/size] :o

When I was looking for mine I checked the consumption figures, there didn't seem to be a vast difference between any of the various models. I was looking specifically at autos though.
I would think that the consumption would be similar or just slightly worse than 2.0 manual.

Then again it depends how you drive them as well.

Trouble is, its soooo tempting to give the v6 models a good booting  ;D

Can't disagree with you there [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

the wife uses the omega most of the time and whilst she is no fairy and would not say she is a speed freak either - somewhere in the middle. she gets 30mpg and most of her stuff is back and to town 20 mile round trip.

so driven careully a decent return, but as saif above the temptation is there to boot. I drve her last night put a tenner in and did 45 miles on that!

I fi drive carefully (or boring, depends how you look at it) I can limp a tenner out to about 65 miles round town

TheBoy wrote on 20. Jul 2006 at 15:21:

Trouble is, its soooo tempting to give the v6 models a good booting  ;D

Why do you think I want 6 thumping cylinders instead of 4 flailing ones?

Drive it to the edge, and when you reach the edge open the parachute!