2.3 Or 2.8 V6

[baz69]

advantages and disadvantages of both please ,dont want an automatic though, ive heard to many horror stories of autos,

my preferance is 2.8 , i like to have the power there if i need it lol

[NikpV]

whats wrong with an oilburner :D :wub: :lol:

[bigdaddy]

no question of choice get the V6,,,,,mpg are not much better with the 2.3,,,,,,,wish I kept my v6 espace,,,,,,lovely machine

[baz69]

whats wrong with an oilburner :D :wub: :lol:

 

i like power under my right foot, nothing wrong with oilburners either ,

[NikpV]

whats wrong with an oilburner :D :wub: :lol:

 

i like power under my right foot, nothing wrong with oilburners either ,

 

 

fairy nuff ... If I could afford to run it I would like a Vr6 as well :lol: :lol:

[adrianf.]

I had a V6 a few years ago and hated the bloody thing. :wub:

Yes i am a bit lead footed but on average only got 20 mpg and that was a combination of short and long journeys. :lol:

You say about power but i didnt find that. It was too heavy for any sort of performance even with a v6 and how often do you get the chance to use the power of ANY car on todays over crowded roads.

Put an oil burner against it and it wont be that far behind but getting double mpg.

Sorry to upset any V6 owners but thats only my opinion and you probably hate us diesel scinflints anyway :D

[JohnR]

I had a V6 a few years ago and hated the bloody thing. :wub:

Yes i am a bit lead footed but on average only got 20 mpg and that was a combination of short and long journeys. :D

You say about power but i didnt find that. It was too heavy for any sort of performance even with a v6 and how often do you get the chance to use the power of ANY car on todays over crowded roads.

Put an oil burner against it and it wont be that far behind but getting double mpg.

Sorry to upset any V6 owners but thats only my opinion and you probably hate us diesel scinflints anyway :lol:

 

:lol: you tell em! I went up to Bolton to a wedding last week (160 miles each way on the motorway). At a steady 70 (set on cruise) I got 41mpg on the way there with a loaded up motor. On the way back I set it at 78mph and still got 39mpg!!

 

20mpg/40mpg/20mpg/40mpg........Hmmmm.......with the money I'm saving in fuel I'll be able to buy a nice motorbike in 5 years!

:lol:

[Guest cash_point_cyril]

If i had the money to run it, i would have a 2.8, but i don't, so iv got a diesel.

 

Although the 2.3 is nicer at higher speed, the diesel is quick enough, and gives good MPG.

 

--edit--

 

Also, because you want a manual, you can have the more powerful models (130 & 150BHP)

 

CPC

[Guest Cepheus]

2.3 is ford ... 2.8 is VW

 

For the little difference in power, the fuel economy is better with the 2.3 (5mpg different urban and 8mpg motorway driving) I've driven both and although it was slightly noticeable off the mark, once up to speed I couldn't tell the difference. V6 will eat your front tyres too - heavier front end, more chance of spin on setting off.

 

If you want the power only then get the V6 but be prepared to pay for it. The 2.3 is known (by owners and the motoring press) to be the best, most reliable petrol engine put in the Gal. But I am biassed!

 

Edit: You have to remember as well though, that even the V6 Gal isn't fast! It's a 2 tonne bus with the aerodynamic qualities of a house coupled with a higher centre of gravity!

 

2.3 is about 75 bhp per tonne (about the same as a 1998 1.2 Corsa)

2.8 is about 90 bhp per tonne (about the same as a 1996 1.6 Golf)

If you can get any Gal to do 0-60 in under 10 seconds you must be going downhill!! :wub:

[Dally]

I have a 2003 V6 Auto and love it to bits even though it costs a bomb to run. I also regualrly drive my Sisters 2005 model 130 ps diesel galaxy too and love it for the mpg but loathe it for it's lack of refinement and lack of power (and there is a considerable difference).

So what does this say...

 

Horses for courses - don't deal with absolutes!

[Ghia-X]

I have a 2wd and a 4x4 V6 Galaxy aswell as a 2.3 Gal Ghia , and I would have to say without a doubt , the V6 is the one to go for , providing you can live with the marginally worse fuel consumption .

 

All of mine are autos , and whilst my 2.3 is a very nice drive , both my V6s are smoother and more refined in the engine department . I have never found it felt "heavy" and they have always had ample performance . Mine being autos , means they arent as quick off the mark , but hit 4000rpm and they fly . Ive seen an indicated 136 mph on my 2wd V6 and it felt plenty fast .

 

Ive only driven two diesels , both Mk1s and to be honest , they were slugs . Maybe the later 130 and 150 bhp versions are better , but as I personally dont like the Mk2s , then I couldnt comment .

I guess if you want to save on fuel then join the tightwads and buy an oilburner , if you want the best of both worlds then go for the 2.3 16v but if its power and refinement and effortless cruising ability you want , then its the V6 you should be looking at.

 

My advice for what its worth , would be to go for a 98 - 2000 2.8 Ghia X in either Pepper Red or Melina Blue .

[Guest Cepheus]

At a steady 70 (set on cruise) I got 41mpg on the way there with a loaded up motor. On the way back I set it at 78mph and still got 39mpg!!

 

my 2.3 set to 70 gives 36mpg ..... and doesn't give me a headache with all the clattering coming from under the bonnet!! ;)

[greg_68]

Baz, how many miles a week do you do and what sort of journeys are they?

 

If they are short and low mph do not get a V6. The fuel bills from mine were crippling. Averaging 17mpg on a bad week, 20 on a good. You will soon get fed up of putting

[teresa]

wow greg thats what i call throwing money away i put

[greg_68]

Now you can see why I think it is a bad idea if your runs are short and low mph it just drinks the stuff.

 

My average journey is approx 7 miles to work and back and averages about 15-17 mph.

 

That gave me approx 17mpg. Your dead right T that just ain't funny.

 

I too was allured by the V6 but soon realised whata mistaka to maka.

 

If Baz journey's are anything like mine what is the point of a V6.

 

If they were motorway cruising journey's maybe there would be an argument for the V6 otherwise I don't think so.

[adrianf.]

At the end of the day petrol owners like petrol and diesel owners like diesel so its down to the individual.

If someone else was going to pay all my petrol costs then yes i would think about the V6 because it is a great car but having owned both there is no way in the world i would go back to fueling a V6 out of my own pocket.

The best way is to try a couple of oil burners to see what you think.

When i bought mine it was the first diesel Gal i had driven and i thought it went very well.

Even though i was partexing a 3 litre diesel BMW which was much faster than the Gal i soon got used to it and as i said before how often can you use much power nowadays

[Guest gooner52]

2.3 doesnt have the power of the 2.8

 

nor does it give good mpg so cant see the point

 

old age story going back to the mk2 grannys ,not a lot of 2.3 sold then mostly 2.8 and the injection version

 

if i never had a burner i would go for the v6 ;)

[adrianf.]

2.3 doesnt have the power of the 2.8

 

nor does it give good mpg so cant see the point

 

old age story going back to the mk2 grannys ,not a lot of 2.3 sold then mostly 2.8 and the injection version

 

if i never had a burner i would go for the v6 ;)

Aaaaahhhh the Mk 2 Granny.

Remember dad had a 2.8 estate auto with all the chrome bits on. Mmmmm nice

[Guest gooner52]

2.3 doesnt have the power of the 2.8

 

nor does it give good mpg so cant see the point

 

old age story going back to the mk2 grannys ,not a lot of 2.3 sold then mostly 2.8 and the injection version

 

if i never had a burner i would go for the v6 ;)

Aaaaahhhh the Mk 2 Granny.

Remember dad had a 2.8 estate auto with all the chrome bits on. Mmmmm nice

 

 

sounds like the facelift model had about 12 in all loved em

 

even bought one on a r reg that was used in a bank job, :) ;) had the chatsworth seats

[littlenewt2067]

Having owned some fast cars, I was really surprised at the performance of the V6....It is awesome...how come someone said its not that powerful?...I love surprising people when I plant it...it flies...if you can keep the wheels straight that is...(where suitable of course!) :D

 

I went for the V6 cos I had an early midlife crisis...didnt want a diesel..but then I bought a caravan and now wish I had the 150ps version.... :( :lol:

[Andrew T]

Remember when discussing VR6s there was a big step up in power from 174BHP in the MK1 to 204BHP in the MK2 (Autumn '00 on). FWIW Ford claimed 0-60 in 9.9 Secs for the Mk2. The big change was due 4 valve heads in the MK2.

[El Dingo]

The only other thing to add is that auto boxes will always use more fuel than manual. My personal preference would be a Mk2 V6 manual. But SWMBO wanted an auto, and when I bought mine I couldn't find a 2.8 auto. Hence the 2.3, but I have to say it's a sweet engine and I'm happy enough with the performance, and mpg averaging 30 on a long run.

 

Another thing to consider is that if you save thousands by buying an 'unfashionable' petrol, it might work out cheaper over the life of the car, depending on your mileage. All Galaxy prices have dropped a lot recently, but petrol ones have dropped harder.

 

Finally, if you are going to do your own maintenance, the 2.3 has more room in the engine bay! ;)

[Guest gooner52]

you could even put a real engine in el

 

;) ;) :blink: ;)

 

 

only kidding dude

 

2.8 with manual box only way to go ;) ;)

[gregers]

The only other thing to add is that auto boxes will always use more fuel than manual. My personal preference would be a Mk2 V6 manual. But SWMBO wanted an auto, and when I bought mine I couldn't find a 2.8 auto. Hence the 2.3, but I have to say it's a sweet engine and I'm happy enough with the performance, and mpg averaging 30 on a long run.

 

Another thing to consider is that if you save thousands by buying an 'unfashionable' petrol, it might work out cheaper over the life of the car, depending on your mileage. All Galaxy prices have dropped a lot recently, but petrol ones have dropped harder.

 

Finally, if you are going to do your own maintenance, the 2.3 has more room in the engine bay! ;)

 

But SWMBO wanted an auto ;)

WIMP :blink:

[El Dingo]

The only other thing to add is that auto boxes will always use more fuel than manual. My personal preference would be a Mk2 V6 manual. But SWMBO wanted an auto, and when I bought mine I couldn't find a 2.8 auto. Hence the 2.3, but I have to say it's a sweet engine and I'm happy enough with the performance, and mpg averaging 30 on a long run.

 

Another thing to consider is that if you save thousands by buying an 'unfashionable' petrol, it might work out cheaper over the life of the car, depending on your mileage. All Galaxy prices have dropped a lot recently, but petrol ones have dropped harder.

 

Finally, if you are going to do your own maintenance, the 2.3 has more room in the engine bay! ;)

 

But SWMBO wanted an auto :blink:

WIMP ;)

 

Yep. I know which way my cookie is buttered. Um, bread is baked? Er, cluttered nookie? ;)