Omega Owners Forum - 3.0 elite vs bmw 320

omegav6cd

Ex Member

Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320
Reply #15 - 16. Aug 2006 at 15:28

The fact that the low end of the modern diesels is gutless is due to emissions and black smoke control maninly, it has nothing to do with the compression ratio which is always relatively high especially on the new engines. The top end is usually rated at 4000rpm and then it gets governed as the rotating masses are heavy and the tortional vibration can cause problems.
Again to get the most out of it you need to adapt your driving style as you cannot expect any performance if you keep driving it petrol style.

Back to top

IP Logged

tunnie

Over Active Poster

Offline

Posts: 22520
London, W3
Gender: male

Drives: 2.2 CD (LPG'd) & BMW R1200 GS

Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320
Reply #16 - 16. Aug 2006 at 17:25

what gets up my nose is Diesel is more expensive at the pump (usually)

Diesel is cheaper to refine, thats why it used to be cheap. Now most garages i see its almost 4 pence more at the pump & this almost cancels out any of the extra MPG you get.

With modern diesels being very powerful but not as economical as they used to be, I think the benifits are not as great anymore. - Also take into account that diesel engines are generally more expensive than the petrol version it makes it even worse!!

Think i will be sticking with petrol for some time to come..

Back to top

Do you break V6's as often as TheBoy? Then you need tunnie's towing services, recovery costs are just the humiliation of being towed by 2/3's of an engine

IP Logged

Liam Intermediate Member Offline Posts: 252 Da Ghetto, Kempston Rural, UK Gender: Drives: 98 3.0 elite, green paint, cream cow	Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320 Reply #17 - 16. Aug 2006 at 22:33 Have thought this for a while. Yay - diesel engines as powerful as petrol engines! Great! Only, if you use the performance they nearly cost as much to run, are more expensive to buy in the first place, more expensive to insure, have a turbo to go wrong, and your car sounds like a van. Brilliant!
Back to top	IP Logged

Paul M

Omega Knight

Offline

Posts: 1689
Edinburgh
Gender: male

Drives: BMW 840Ci, Yamaha R1

Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320
Reply #18 - 16. Aug 2006 at 23:38

My dad has a 330Ci and it would obliterate my Omega. Both are manuals, but the BMW has a more torquey engine so doesn't need 4500 RPM to get going, lower gearing so it gets the revs up quicker (I hate the gearing on the Omega, way too high for the engine characteristics!), lighter car, and most importantly about 235 BHP. It feels much quicker too, I've always thought the Omega feels a bit sluggish for a 3.0.

Saying that my 840 would eat both of them... 315BHP and 330lb/ft torque through a 6-speed box so it's pulling hard as soon as you launch even though the power peaks at 6000 RPM. The Omega needs that 6-speed way more than the gutsy 4.4 V8 in the 840 does!

I think an Omega elite would struggle against a 320i petrol too (especially if the Omega is automatic and the BMW is manual, as most 320s are). They're surprisingly powerful for a 2.0, and lower specs are a bit lighter too.

Back to top

IP Logged

omegav6cd Ex Member	Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320 Reply #19 - 17. Aug 2006 at 10:14 I don't agree in you last coment as i have raced and won against BMW 318 turbo, 320, 523, and always won in my 2.5. BMW small engines are rubish in my opinion and if you over do it they throw rods eat tappets etc.
Back to top	IP Logged

vectrolosys

Junior Member

Offline

Posts: 130
Bristol, UK
Gender: male

Drives: 88 XJ40 3.6 96 2.0CD

Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320
Reply #20 - 17. Aug 2006 at 16:39

Marks DTM Calib wrote on 16. Aug 2006 at 14:48:

bobdent wrote on 16. Aug 2006 at 12:30:

Elite Pete wrote on 16. Aug 2006 at 10:46:

I was sat at traffic lights on Sunday on my was to Greenock when a BMW pulled along side. Knowing I had a 250 mile plus drive I thought I would be a good boy and take it easy but the BMW driver kept edging forward more and more which wound me up. So lights go to green and were off foot to the floor and the BMW is still with me. No problem wait till the revese rise and the old girl gets into her stride bye bye BMW. Nope instant licence losing speed and ive only gained 20ft anyway next lights and onto the M6. The BMW is going south look at the rear of the beemer and bugger me its a diesel Shocked

. Is there something wrong with my car Smiley

Problem is that todays modern diesel engines are getting more powerful, particularly with their advanced turbo's. With my limited knowledge I assume this means they get much more low end torque whereby the Omega's V6 needs to be wound up much higher in the rev range before the power really kicks in. I got to admit though, it's a trifle embarassing being seen off by a smaller engined oil burner Embarrassed

- no offence to you guys with Omega TD's Wink

It doesn't help the low down torque as the compression ratio is lowered to allow the higher boost to be run (hence the feeling of nothin, then loads and then nothing again) producing a very peeky engine.

It's also very hard to do a proper, sustained burnout in one, apparently. I borrowed a work 320d this morning, turned DSC very very off (hold for 10 secs), then raised the revs and dumped the clutch on a wet bit of road near where I live, not really any drama unfortunately, plus the LSD kept things in check when I tried to powerslide it

. It is definately a quick car, but give me a nice petrol engine with a wide spread of power across the rev range, not all power in one lump like the 320d.

James

Back to top

My developing site!

www.xj40owner.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

My previous site

www.build-quality.co.uk

IP Logged

Paul M

Omega Knight

Offline

Posts: 1689
Edinburgh
Gender: male

Drives: BMW 840Ci, Yamaha R1

Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320
Reply #21 - 17. Aug 2006 at 20:22

omegaV6CD wrote on 17. Aug 2006 at 10:14:

I don't agree in you last coment as i have raced and won against BMW 318 turbo, 320, 523, and always won in my 2.5. BMW small engines are rubish in my opinion and if you over do it they throw rods eat tappets etc.

First I'd like to ask where you saw the 318 turbo... cos BMW didn't make one. The 318ti is not a turbo!

Second, the last model 320i is actually a 2.2 inline 6 producing 170 BHP. That's (slightly) more than a 2.5 V6 Omega, in a lighter car. The 0-62 is quoted around 8 seconds, again quicker than the Omega 2.5 in manual form, and a lot quicker in auto.

So if you actually did race these cars and won, then either the other guy wasn't trying or his driving was crap. Cos on paper the 320i is quicker than both the 2.5 Omega, regardless of gearbox, and also quicker than the 3.0 auto Omega.

As per my profile, I have a 3.0 manual Omega MV6 which is the quickest standard model available. And it's not fast by any means. Certainly quicker than "average" cars, but there are a lot of recent cars including diesels pushing 170+ BHP in a much lighter package. It's a big car that happens to handle quite well, but it's definitely underpowered if you want to actually race other cars.

Back to top

IP Logged

omegav6cd

Ex Member

Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320
Reply #22 - 17. Aug 2006 at 21:36

Paul M wrote on 17. Aug 2006 at 20:22:

omegaV6CD wrote on 17. Aug 2006 at 10:14:

I don't agree in you last coment as i have raced and won against BMW 318 turbo, 320, 523, and always won in my 2.5. BMW small engines are rubish in my opinion and if you over do it they throw rods eat tappets etc.

First I'd like to ask where you saw the 318 turbo... cos BMW didn't make one. The 318ti is not a turbo!

Second, the last model 320i is actually a 2.2 inline 6 producing 170 BHP. That's (slightly) more than a 2.5 V6 Omega, in a lighter car. The 0-62 is quoted around 8 seconds, again quicker than the Omega 2.5 in manual form, and a lot quicker in auto.

So if you actually did race these cars and won, then either the other guy wasn't trying or his driving was crap. Cos on paper the 320i is quicker than both the 2.5 Omega, regardless of gearbox, and also quicker than the 3.0 auto Omega.

As per my profile, I have a 3.0 manual Omega MV6 which is the quickest standard model available. And it's not fast by any means. Certainly quicker than "average" cars, but there are a lot of recent cars including diesels pushing 170+ BHP in a much lighter package. It's a big car that happens to handle quite well, but it's definitely underpowered if you want to actually race other cars.

Hi Paul,
The 318 turbo was a modded car, it is a very common modification in Greece. The 320 i raced against was a 1995 model i think they call it E36 and it makes 150 bhp. The 523 was a 2000model. It was a set race between all of them from traffic lights and for 2000meters. I think that you are probably spoiled with the immense V8 power and you find everything else underpowered Grin

.

Back to top

IP Logged

omegav6cd

Ex Member

Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320
Reply #23 - 17. Aug 2006 at 21:45

vectrolosys wrote on 17. Aug 2006 at 16:39:

Marks DTM Calib wrote on 16. Aug 2006 at 14:48:

bobdent wrote on 16. Aug 2006 at 12:30:

Elite Pete wrote on 16. Aug 2006 at 10:46:

I was sat at traffic lights on Sunday on my was to Greenock when a BMW pulled along side. Knowing I had a 250 mile plus drive I thought I would be a good boy and take it easy but the BMW driver kept edging forward more and more which wound me up. So lights go to green and were off foot to the floor and the BMW is still with me. No problem wait till the revese rise and the old girl gets into her stride bye bye BMW. Nope instant licence losing speed and ive only gained 20ft anyway next lights and onto the M6. The BMW is going south look at the rear of the beemer and bugger me its a diesel Shocked

. Is there something wrong with my car Smiley

Problem is that todays modern diesel engines are getting more powerful, particularly with their advanced turbo's. With my limited knowledge I assume this means they get much more low end torque whereby the Omega's V6 needs to be wound up much higher in the rev range before the power really kicks in. I got to admit though, it's a trifle embarassing being seen off by a smaller engined oil burner Embarrassed

- no offence to you guys with Omega TD's Wink

It doesn't help the low down torque as the compression ratio is lowered to allow the higher boost to be run (hence the feeling of nothin, then loads and then nothing again) producing a very peeky engine.

It's also very hard to do a proper, sustained burnout in one, apparently. I borrowed a work 320d this morning, turned DSC very very off (hold for 10 secs), then raised the revs and dumped the clutch on a wet bit of road near where I live, not really any drama unfortunately, plus the LSD kept things in check when I tried to powerslide it

. It is definately a quick car, but give me a nice petrol engine with a wide spread of power across the rev range, not all power in one lump like the 320d.

James

This is quiet annoying really on diesels as you cannot burn rubber. I have had a few attempts with hire cars, it was so funny. I have to say though that the best diesel i have driven is the 156 JtD 2.4.

Back to top

IP Logged

DmcL Junior Member Offline I fart in your general direction! Posts: 67 N.I. Gender: Drives: 97 2.5 V6 CD	Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320 Reply #24 - 18. Aug 2006 at 13:32 if you think a 320d is bad how about getting owned by your old E36 318i with slipping clutch and old type M40 8v lump. in my defence the mega isnt running 100% tho
Back to top	Roll on the era of the Green Machine IP Logged

Paul M

Omega Knight

Offline

Posts: 1689
Edinburgh
Gender: male

Drives: BMW 840Ci, Yamaha R1

Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320
Reply #25 - 19. Aug 2006 at 14:19

omegaV6CD wrote on 17. Aug 2006 at 21:36:

Paul M wrote on 17. Aug 2006 at 20:22:

omegaV6CD wrote on 17. Aug 2006 at 10:14:

I don't agree in you last coment as i have raced and won against BMW 318 turbo, 320, 523, and always won in my 2.5. BMW small engines are rubish in my opinion and if you over do it they throw rods eat tappets etc.

First I'd like to ask where you saw the 318 turbo... cos BMW didn't make one. The 318ti is not a turbo!

Second, the last model 320i is actually a 2.2 inline 6 producing 170 BHP. That's (slightly) more than a 2.5 V6 Omega, in a lighter car. The 0-62 is quoted around 8 seconds, again quicker than the Omega 2.5 in manual form, and a lot quicker in auto.

So if you actually did race these cars and won, then either the other guy wasn't trying or his driving was crap. Cos on paper the 320i is quicker than both the 2.5 Omega, regardless of gearbox, and also quicker than the 3.0 auto Omega.

As per my profile, I have a 3.0 manual Omega MV6 which is the quickest standard model available. And it's not fast by any means. Certainly quicker than "average" cars, but there are a lot of recent cars including diesels pushing 170+ BHP in a much lighter package. It's a big car that happens to handle quite well, but it's definitely underpowered if you want to actually race other cars.

Hi Paul,
The 318 turbo was a modded car, it is a very common modification in Greece. The 320 i raced against was a 1995 model i think they call it E36 and it makes 150 bhp. The 523 was a 2000model. It was a set race between all of them from traffic lights and for 2000meters. I think that you are probably spoiled with the immense V8 power and you find everything else underpowered Grin

.

Fair enough if it was an E36, that is the 3-series that should be forgotten! I'm sure it's a decent drive, but it's just bland, bland, bland. The E30 has much more character, and the E46 is a far better all-rounder. I wouldn't have a 5-series any less than a 528/530, they're big cars like the Omega so need a bit more power. Had a 540i with the 6-speed gearbox about a year ago, nice motor but just a little too refined - you couldn't even hear the glorious V8!

I can't say much for the modifying skills of the guys turbocharging a 318 if they can't make it quicker than a 2.5 Omega! You should easily be able to get 200 BHP out of that with the right mods, even running conservative boost. Although to be honest I don't see the point, just buy a 330 rather than throwing money turboing an engine that wasn't designed for it!

I wouldn't say even the 4.4 V8 in the 840 has immense power - it certainly doesn't feel all that fast, which is partly due to the power delivery being so smooth. There's a bit of a surge at 4000 RPM, but it's very torquey throughout the rev range (unlike the gutless V6 in the Omega). I had an Impreza WRX STi a few years back, and although it was putting out slightly less power than the 840 (~300 BHP) it was certainly quicker due to the fact it weighs slightly less than a few bags of crisps Cheesy

. The power delivery made it feel very quick too, nothing below 2000 RPM, gets better towards 3000 RPM, then above that whoosh the boost comes in and suddenly it surges forward. Great fun to drive, and loads of grip through corners thanks to the AWD, but the 840Ci is a far better car and much less common too. Basically I realised that all-out performance can seldom be used on the road, hence went for a car that's a better overall package, even if it's slightly slower. Oh and you can't beat the sound of a V8 on song Cool

Back to top

IP Logged

Darryl Flynn Junior Member Offline She who must be obeyed's motor ! Posts: 99 Durham City Gender:	Re: 3.0 elite vs bmw 320 Reply #26 - 19. Aug 2006 at 20:43 The 320 D is also VERY easy to chip and the results, as on most modern Turbo Diesel are usually dramatic, particularly a hefty increase in Torque.
Back to top	Darryl IP Logged

This is the old site. Please use the new site.

This is the old site. Please use the new site.

www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php.

This is the old site. Please use the new site.

	Welcome, Guest. Please Login