2.5L vs. 3.0L
#1
11-06-2006, 01:29 AM
Guest
Posts: n/a
2.5L vs. 3.0L
Hi,
first time posting on this forum, but i am also a member at Audiforums.com and ExplorerX.com
Anyways down to business.
My Dad is looking at getting an AWD/4WD car to replace an Acura Integra (1999 GS coupe),
He also has a 1997 Jaguar Vanden Plas with the 4.0L I6 Engine,
and I own 1997 Ford Explorer Sport 4x4 with some mods.
What I'm trying to find out is which engine/drivetrain in the X-type is more reliable the 2.5 or 3.0.
Our other option is an Audi A4 but my Dad has a preference for the Jag.
Thanx in advance
-Brad
first time posting on this forum, but i am also a member at Audiforums.com and ExplorerX.com
Anyways down to business.
My Dad is looking at getting an AWD/4WD car to replace an Acura Integra (1999 GS coupe),
He also has a 1997 Jaguar Vanden Plas with the 4.0L I6 Engine,
and I own 1997 Ford Explorer Sport 4x4 with some mods.
What I'm trying to find out is which engine/drivetrain in the X-type is more reliable the 2.5 or 3.0.
Our other option is an Audi A4 but my Dad has a preference for the Jag.
Thanx in advance
-Brad
#2
11-06-2006, 07:52 AM
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
Hi and welcome.
First, i might add, the jag AWD is a excellent piece of machinery. had mine for over a year now (05, 3L) and love it.
Second, as for the engine size, it depands on what you want and how much you want to spend. The 2.5 is a bit cheaper and slightly better on gas. Engine is very reliable and i don't recall reading about any serious mechanical failures with either the 2.5 or 3L.
You'll have to decide, i'm sure you won't regret.....no matter what engine you go with.
________
Effects Of Paxil
First, i might add, the jag AWD is a excellent piece of machinery. had mine for over a year now (05, 3L) and love it.
Second, as for the engine size, it depands on what you want and how much you want to spend. The 2.5 is a bit cheaper and slightly better on gas. Engine is very reliable and i don't recall reading about any serious mechanical failures with either the 2.5 or 3L.
You'll have to decide, i'm sure you won't regret.....no matter what engine you go with.
________
Effects Of Paxil
Last edited by racerx82; 05-17-2011 at 07:42 AM.
#5
11-06-2006, 08:42 PM
#6
11-06-2006, 09:52 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
Does anyone know if the X-type is more or less reliable than a 2002-2005 Audi A4 1.8T?
LOL actually that's a hard call. My '02 X-Type has been pretty good to me. Anything that ever busted (nothing major) was covered under warranty, and nothing's gone wrong in a long time with it. Audi's are essentially VW's, which aren't all that reliable either.
Really, I'd go with the X-Type. 3.0L makes more power than that 1.8T I4, plus all jags have AWD, not all Audis have Quattro.
#7
11-06-2006, 10:01 PM
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
Personal preference....which car do you like...you surly don't need one to tell you which car to buy....I went with the looks of a Jag....fantastic front end..Smooth sexy curves, and when I went for a test drive....I knew I had to have it....
________
How to boil
________
How to boil
Last edited by racerx82; 05-17-2011 at 07:42 AM.
Trending Topics
#8
11-06-2006, 10:02 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
Comments on your questions in reverse order:
Audi A4 turbo
Objectively the Audi is a better vehicle, but car buying is a subjective personal decision especially when buying this class of car. The reviews in Consumer Reports suggest better reliability and user satisfaction than the X type but I wonder how much of that difference is real (and not just people complaining about the X type's driveline whine). Personally I think the Audi is anonymous inside and I prefer the Passat. Both VW products suffer from premature suspension failure; the Germans didn't engineer the car for US roads (especially those here in Michigan). Also - do you want a 4 cylinder or a the appeal of a 6. No turbo or any number of balancer shafts can substitute for the smoothness of those extra cylinders.
2.5 or 3.0
The 2.5 has a long history and was first released in 1993 for the European Mondeo at 172 bhp, followed by the Contour/Mystique in 1994 and the Cougar in 1998. The engine was US built. The Jaguar engineers took the base engine and rengineered the combustion chambers, top end and installation items (air intake, exhaust etc) to boost the power to 192 bhp. I've had two 2.5 Mondeos and took them both to over 150,000 miles with no real problems (only melting manifold converters which were fixed under warranty - they're a different design in the Jag). I would thoroughly recommend this engine, but greatly prefer to mate it to a Manual transmission, not the Auto. The fuel economy is also much better than the 3.0 with this combination (but do you buy a Jag for fuel economy?) Sadly the 2.5 was always considered an "entry level" engine, so you cannot get the options or trim packages that you can with the 3.0.
Likewise the 3.0 has a long history of high volume production for Ford in North America and was similarly re-engineered by the Jaguar team in Whitley. The (lower power) Ford applications of the 3.0 were very reliable, and as far as I can tell the Jaguar 3.0 is also a reliable engine. I now have a 3.0 Auto 2004.5MY X type. The character of the 3.0 mated to the Auto is completely different; its more suited to gliding around, with the occasional hard acceleration as necessary. The Auto trans calibration is leisurely, not particularly sporting and this is the character of the vehicle - a pleasant place to calmly enjoy the experience of getting from A to B cosseted by leather, a quality sound system and the knowledge that you are buying into all that Jaguar represents. In truth the Mondeo 2.5 was probably faster, mainly because of the way I could drive it with a manual transmission, but the 3.0 Jag is the better place to sit and enjoy the experience. If you find a 3.0 Manual Jag (I think it only comes with the sport package) - you may be onto a winner. I've never seen one for sale.
Drivetrain
I notice everywhere comments about the drivetrain on the X type. To be honest, the driveline noise from the center bearing and the rear of the vehicle is unacceptable for a car of this price point. Its not absolutely unbearable, but once you've compared vehicles you'll notice the mild whine at 48 - 50 mph and again at 75 mph. The "idle in drive" shake of the steering wheel is also poor, suggesting that the engine mounts and general engine installation can be improved.
Ironically this doen't have to be the case. The original 2003.5MY European Ford Mondeo was engineered with a 4x4 2.0 4 cylinder variant, and so the floorpan and engine bay structure was designed for a 4x4 application. I need to talk to some more of my friends at Jaguar to understand why this has not been fixed properly (probably budget reasons).
I suspect that the "free servicing and warranty" for 4 years / 50,000 miles has led a lot of customers to return their cars for replacement drivelines to try and fix the whine. Of course this would feed through to the Consumer Reports rating. I'd appreciate any comments on this subject.
Conclusion
I've tried to describe the vehicles and their powertrains, and much of what I've stated boils down to what you want out of a car. If you want a ***** out fast vehicle look elsewhere than either the Audi or the Jag - the Mazda 6 2.3 turbo is very quick and nicely finished inside. If you want a sea of dour black trim and competant engineering - an Audi or a BMW will do just fine. If you want utter silence and faultless quality mixed with (too obvious) attempts at eliminating blandness, buy a Lexus. If you want something different, with all its grace, faults and quirks buy a Jaguar - the personality isn't engineered in, it really exists.
Audi A4 turbo
Objectively the Audi is a better vehicle, but car buying is a subjective personal decision especially when buying this class of car. The reviews in Consumer Reports suggest better reliability and user satisfaction than the X type but I wonder how much of that difference is real (and not just people complaining about the X type's driveline whine). Personally I think the Audi is anonymous inside and I prefer the Passat. Both VW products suffer from premature suspension failure; the Germans didn't engineer the car for US roads (especially those here in Michigan). Also - do you want a 4 cylinder or a the appeal of a 6. No turbo or any number of balancer shafts can substitute for the smoothness of those extra cylinders.
2.5 or 3.0
The 2.5 has a long history and was first released in 1993 for the European Mondeo at 172 bhp, followed by the Contour/Mystique in 1994 and the Cougar in 1998. The engine was US built. The Jaguar engineers took the base engine and rengineered the combustion chambers, top end and installation items (air intake, exhaust etc) to boost the power to 192 bhp. I've had two 2.5 Mondeos and took them both to over 150,000 miles with no real problems (only melting manifold converters which were fixed under warranty - they're a different design in the Jag). I would thoroughly recommend this engine, but greatly prefer to mate it to a Manual transmission, not the Auto. The fuel economy is also much better than the 3.0 with this combination (but do you buy a Jag for fuel economy?) Sadly the 2.5 was always considered an "entry level" engine, so you cannot get the options or trim packages that you can with the 3.0.
Likewise the 3.0 has a long history of high volume production for Ford in North America and was similarly re-engineered by the Jaguar team in Whitley. The (lower power) Ford applications of the 3.0 were very reliable, and as far as I can tell the Jaguar 3.0 is also a reliable engine. I now have a 3.0 Auto 2004.5MY X type. The character of the 3.0 mated to the Auto is completely different; its more suited to gliding around, with the occasional hard acceleration as necessary. The Auto trans calibration is leisurely, not particularly sporting and this is the character of the vehicle - a pleasant place to calmly enjoy the experience of getting from A to B cosseted by leather, a quality sound system and the knowledge that you are buying into all that Jaguar represents. In truth the Mondeo 2.5 was probably faster, mainly because of the way I could drive it with a manual transmission, but the 3.0 Jag is the better place to sit and enjoy the experience. If you find a 3.0 Manual Jag (I think it only comes with the sport package) - you may be onto a winner. I've never seen one for sale.
Drivetrain
I notice everywhere comments about the drivetrain on the X type. To be honest, the driveline noise from the center bearing and the rear of the vehicle is unacceptable for a car of this price point. Its not absolutely unbearable, but once you've compared vehicles you'll notice the mild whine at 48 - 50 mph and again at 75 mph. The "idle in drive" shake of the steering wheel is also poor, suggesting that the engine mounts and general engine installation can be improved.
Ironically this doen't have to be the case. The original 2003.5MY European Ford Mondeo was engineered with a 4x4 2.0 4 cylinder variant, and so the floorpan and engine bay structure was designed for a 4x4 application. I need to talk to some more of my friends at Jaguar to understand why this has not been fixed properly (probably budget reasons).
I suspect that the "free servicing and warranty" for 4 years / 50,000 miles has led a lot of customers to return their cars for replacement drivelines to try and fix the whine. Of course this would feed through to the Consumer Reports rating. I'd appreciate any comments on this subject.
Conclusion
I've tried to describe the vehicles and their powertrains, and much of what I've stated boils down to what you want out of a car. If you want a ***** out fast vehicle look elsewhere than either the Audi or the Jag - the Mazda 6 2.3 turbo is very quick and nicely finished inside. If you want a sea of dour black trim and competant engineering - an Audi or a BMW will do just fine. If you want utter silence and faultless quality mixed with (too obvious) attempts at eliminating blandness, buy a Lexus. If you want something different, with all its grace, faults and quirks buy a Jaguar - the personality isn't engineered in, it really exists.
#9
11-06-2006, 10:11 PM
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
Nice...i agree with you except for the power train noise. My 05 is smooth and quiet, except for the nice exhaust tone from the Borlas..and as for the steering wheel shake from idle to drive...I have no idea where you get that from...sounds like you need to take yours in for some service.
And you're correct about the mazda6...fast and definetly blows the doors off the Jag..(my kid got one) Made the mistake of racing him. But, even in second place, the chics digg the jag....
Like you say..you want sexy, prestige, praise....buy a jag...otherwise get the plain jane car that people will say nice job Bob...and never think twice about it...
________
Wendie 99
And you're correct about the mazda6...fast and definetly blows the doors off the Jag..(my kid got one) Made the mistake of racing him. But, even in second place, the chics digg the jag....
Like you say..you want sexy, prestige, praise....buy a jag...otherwise get the plain jane car that people will say nice job Bob...and never think twice about it...
________
Wendie 99
Last edited by racerx82; 05-17-2011 at 07:43 AM.
#10
11-06-2006, 10:38 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
Hi - sorry I didn't explain; "idle in drive" is a simple test done by vehicle development engineers to evaluate the way in which the calibration, the engine installation and the driveline are working together.
In simple terms you want the car sitting at idle to be free of unwanted vibration caused by the slight load placed on the engine by the fact that you're holding the engine back with the brake, you're running A/C, you've got the lights on or the heated seats going or whatever. This load is managed by the engine computer which is trying to provide enough fuel to power these accessories and keep the engine running without the rpm hunting or cycling about a mean. This load also puts a slight bias on the engine mounts which have to absorb the vibration from the engine whilst the installation is very slightly out of balance.
If you sit with the engine in idle put the trans into neutral (N) and touch the top of the steering wheel very gently with a fingertip. Feel the vibration - a Toyota or Honda would have zero vibration (ISO rating 10). All the X types I've driven are about a rating 8.5. Now put the trans in drive (D) but hold the vehicle back with the brakes as if you were at traffic lights. The vibration increases (to about a rating 6). In some X types I've driven adding extra load (i.e A/C, window defrosters, heated seats etc) reduces the rating even more.
For a vehicle of Jaguar's quality I wouldn't expect the rating to drop below 8. Sadly this isn't the case; even a Toyota Corolla is better. I've not driven a 2007 yet - I'll be interested to see what improvements have been made.
Of course if you have a manual trans, "idle in drive" is not so bad - the flywheel mass helps smooth thing out and you're not loading the engine up by sitting in gear at traffic lights all the time.
All of this doesn't change my preference or view of the car - I don't want a Toyota, I want a real drive....
In simple terms you want the car sitting at idle to be free of unwanted vibration caused by the slight load placed on the engine by the fact that you're holding the engine back with the brake, you're running A/C, you've got the lights on or the heated seats going or whatever. This load is managed by the engine computer which is trying to provide enough fuel to power these accessories and keep the engine running without the rpm hunting or cycling about a mean. This load also puts a slight bias on the engine mounts which have to absorb the vibration from the engine whilst the installation is very slightly out of balance.
If you sit with the engine in idle put the trans into neutral (N) and touch the top of the steering wheel very gently with a fingertip. Feel the vibration - a Toyota or Honda would have zero vibration (ISO rating 10). All the X types I've driven are about a rating 8.5. Now put the trans in drive (D) but hold the vehicle back with the brakes as if you were at traffic lights. The vibration increases (to about a rating 6). In some X types I've driven adding extra load (i.e A/C, window defrosters, heated seats etc) reduces the rating even more.
For a vehicle of Jaguar's quality I wouldn't expect the rating to drop below 8. Sadly this isn't the case; even a Toyota Corolla is better. I've not driven a 2007 yet - I'll be interested to see what improvements have been made.
Of course if you have a manual trans, "idle in drive" is not so bad - the flywheel mass helps smooth thing out and you're not loading the engine up by sitting in gear at traffic lights all the time.
All of this doesn't change my preference or view of the car - I don't want a Toyota, I want a real drive....
#11
11-07-2006, 12:39 AM
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
Thanx for the detailed posts.
Since you dont agree with 4 cylinder engines (not sure why other than you beleive 6 Cylinders offer smoother power), how about comparing the 3.0L Audi A4 to either 2.5 or 3.0 Jaguar X-type.
Also the comment about preferring the VW Passat over the Audi A4:
they are not the same size of vehicle,
do not offer the same AWD system (although 4 motion is loosely based off of Quattro but is a more elementary system),
however they do seem to offer the same engines, with the exception of the TDi in the passat and not in the A4 (atleast in North America).h
The VW Passat is built on the Audi A6 platform not A4, the Comparable VW to the Audi A4 is the Jetta.
The Passat is in the same class size as the S-type, A6, BMW 5-Series, MB E-Class, Volvo S60 etc.
All of which are branded "midsize",
The A4, X-type, Jetta, C-Class, 3-Series, Volvo S40 etc. are considered "compact".
So it is not fair to compare the A4 to a Passat.
Since you dont agree with 4 cylinder engines (not sure why other than you beleive 6 Cylinders offer smoother power), how about comparing the 3.0L Audi A4 to either 2.5 or 3.0 Jaguar X-type.
Also the comment about preferring the VW Passat over the Audi A4:
they are not the same size of vehicle,
do not offer the same AWD system (although 4 motion is loosely based off of Quattro but is a more elementary system),
however they do seem to offer the same engines, with the exception of the TDi in the passat and not in the A4 (atleast in North America).h
The VW Passat is built on the Audi A6 platform not A4, the Comparable VW to the Audi A4 is the Jetta.
The Passat is in the same class size as the S-type, A6, BMW 5-Series, MB E-Class, Volvo S60 etc.
All of which are branded "midsize",
The A4, X-type, Jetta, C-Class, 3-Series, Volvo S40 etc. are considered "compact".
So it is not fair to compare the A4 to a Passat.
#12
11-07-2006, 12:41 AM
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
Ah..Wow....ok...if you say so...I personally think my idle to drive to steering wheel or whatever is fine...but thanks for the good info thou...
(Been in the automotive business for over 25 years now, never heard of that) Had to go a try it just for S&G's....thought it was smooth and no signs of any roughness.....I suppose if you want to get picky on it, we can try the Lexus thing...place 24 stacked Champaign glasses on the hood and rev up the engine on a dyno to 75 mph and see if the glasses fall from vibration....
________
Hotwife
(Been in the automotive business for over 25 years now, never heard of that) Had to go a try it just for S&G's....thought it was smooth and no signs of any roughness.....I suppose if you want to get picky on it, we can try the Lexus thing...place 24 stacked Champaign glasses on the hood and rev up the engine on a dyno to 75 mph and see if the glasses fall from vibration....
________
Hotwife
Last edited by racerx82; 05-17-2011 at 07:43 AM.
#15
11-07-2006, 09:44 AM
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
Audi 3.0 liter
I'm just about to fly to Europe to work on the next generation Mercedes C class for 2 weeks. As part of this I'll be evaluating the Audi and the BMW to establish "design baselines". On this trip its the 4 cylinder engine variants, we'll cover the other engines in the new year. If I get the chance to drive an Audi 3.0 then I'll give you some feedback.
4 cylinder engines
I've been engineering them for over 20 years and in general I believe they are the best compromise - there's too much friction in a 6 or 8 cylinder and they tend to make the vehicle nose heavy, 3 cylinder engines are too rough and out of balance. However, in an upmarket car a 6 cylinder is better - the delivery of power, the reduced inherent vibration levels and the sound (or lack of it) appeal. the VW and Volvo 5 cylinder engines were a nice attempt at a compromise - the Volvo 5 cylinder turbo is a hidden gem.
VW Passat - which platform?
I'll check (I'm not a VW expert). Please note that I think of the common engineering underpinnings, not how the vehicle is sold. I thought the VW platform strategy is as follows:
A00 - VW Lupo
A0 - VW Polo
A - Audi A3, VW Golf / Rabbit, VW Jetta / Bora
B - Audi A4, VW Passat, Skoda Octavia
C - Audi A6
D - Audi A8
Its interesting that the Volvo S40 appears in there - this is based off the Ford Focus (C1) platform which is a Golf / A3 competitor.....
Being picky with vehicle vibration
I love the comment, but yes we have to be picky. A Jaguar is a quality vehicle and attracts demanding customers and we must satisfy the most critical of them. Also there is inevitably variation in the way the parts go together when you assemble a car, and we have to engineer to accomodate all the assembly tolerances. With a complex ineraction like driveline to vehicle noise, any one of roughly 1000 components can upset the balance of the noise character. So we have to be picky, we have to evaluate noise interactions and try to engineer manufacturing tolerant solutions (all at low cost of course).
I'm just about to fly to Europe to work on the next generation Mercedes C class for 2 weeks. As part of this I'll be evaluating the Audi and the BMW to establish "design baselines". On this trip its the 4 cylinder engine variants, we'll cover the other engines in the new year. If I get the chance to drive an Audi 3.0 then I'll give you some feedback.
4 cylinder engines
I've been engineering them for over 20 years and in general I believe they are the best compromise - there's too much friction in a 6 or 8 cylinder and they tend to make the vehicle nose heavy, 3 cylinder engines are too rough and out of balance. However, in an upmarket car a 6 cylinder is better - the delivery of power, the reduced inherent vibration levels and the sound (or lack of it) appeal. the VW and Volvo 5 cylinder engines were a nice attempt at a compromise - the Volvo 5 cylinder turbo is a hidden gem.
VW Passat - which platform?
I'll check (I'm not a VW expert). Please note that I think of the common engineering underpinnings, not how the vehicle is sold. I thought the VW platform strategy is as follows:
A00 - VW Lupo
A0 - VW Polo
A - Audi A3, VW Golf / Rabbit, VW Jetta / Bora
B - Audi A4, VW Passat, Skoda Octavia
C - Audi A6
D - Audi A8
Its interesting that the Volvo S40 appears in there - this is based off the Ford Focus (C1) platform which is a Golf / A3 competitor.....
Being picky with vehicle vibration
I love the comment, but yes we have to be picky. A Jaguar is a quality vehicle and attracts demanding customers and we must satisfy the most critical of them. Also there is inevitably variation in the way the parts go together when you assemble a car, and we have to engineer to accomodate all the assembly tolerances. With a complex ineraction like driveline to vehicle noise, any one of roughly 1000 components can upset the balance of the noise character. So we have to be picky, we have to evaluate noise interactions and try to engineer manufacturing tolerant solutions (all at low cost of course).
#16
11-07-2006, 12:35 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
The Audi A3 (atleast the North American Version)
Is built on the A4 platform,
which in turn is borrowed by the VW Jetta, Golf/Rabbit, and GTi.
I am not familiar with the skoda line of vehicles so i cant say as to which platformt hey are built on.
However the Passat is infact built on the A6 Platform (the previous generation platform that is.)
The New A6 is longer and wider.
That is very interesting that you are working on the Mercedes-Benz C-Class.
Do you work for MB specifically?
PLEASE try make sure its not blandly designed on the outside again.
I do not like the suspension in the BMW 3 series it is far too stiff for my taste,
However the suspension is perfect in the A4 (not sure about maintenance/reliablitliy on it tho)
Also the X-type has a beautiful ride,
but i have heard a few things about the stock rims getting bent/cracked on unavoidable pot-holes
is this just a certain rim size that does this or are they all susceptible to this?
Thanx again for your knowledge.
Is built on the A4 platform,
which in turn is borrowed by the VW Jetta, Golf/Rabbit, and GTi.
I am not familiar with the skoda line of vehicles so i cant say as to which platformt hey are built on.
However the Passat is infact built on the A6 Platform (the previous generation platform that is.)
The New A6 is longer and wider.
That is very interesting that you are working on the Mercedes-Benz C-Class.
Do you work for MB specifically?
PLEASE try make sure its not blandly designed on the outside again.
I do not like the suspension in the BMW 3 series it is far too stiff for my taste,
However the suspension is perfect in the A4 (not sure about maintenance/reliablitliy on it tho)
Also the X-type has a beautiful ride,
but i have heard a few things about the stock rims getting bent/cracked on unavoidable pot-holes
is this just a certain rim size that does this or are they all susceptible to this?
Thanx again for your knowledge.
#17
11-07-2006, 11:37 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
I own a 2003 X-type 2.5, Zircon blue. I have driven newer ('05 and '06) 3.0's - a buddy of mine has a new one and I get them as loaners from the dealer while getting routine maintenance done. I have to say, I am always glad to get my '03 back. 2004 brought minor updates to the car and I really feel a bit of a driving difference that I prefer with mine (probably just familiarity, but I swear the steering feels tighter on my car). I also prefer the pre-'04 wood steering wheel, green-colored speedometer, and other minor design features of my '03. Some people claim the 2.5 is drastically underpowered - I can feel the difference but not enough to make me regret my purchase (I keep it in sport mode and still average about 24-25 mpg - and I'm a pretty aggressive driver)! And as for a comment posted that the 2.5 is an entry-level model - that is not true, other than powertrain perhaps. The only reason I bought my 2.5 was because it was the only used X-Type around me at the time that WAS fully loaded - color touch-screen, navigation, heated seats, power everything, etc. I concur that I have had to get used to a few Jaguar "quirks" like a less-than-quiet drivetrain - sometimes louder than the endearing growl, but I have to say that the reliability has been much better than my previous audi or saab - no real problems and maintenance has been covered by the warranty. Also, the compliments and second-glances I get from total strangers and friends alike always make me feel a little priviledged to drive a Jaguar (even if it did cost less than their new Honda Accord)!!!
#18
11-07-2006, 11:44 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
my baby.. 
[IMG]local://upfiles/437/B6A359EF776B465090F00DAA04DDD7A9.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/437/B33D2ECBA4C7487FB64D055018292B7D.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/437/4E150677A7EA40A69F558A57BE541A16.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/437/7166D7F5AA4E49AB9B13C1C136167968.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/437/FE3CC35E87E84253A4199CCF19F25D33.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/437/B6A359EF776B465090F00DAA04DDD7A9.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/437/B33D2ECBA4C7487FB64D055018292B7D.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/437/4E150677A7EA40A69F558A57BE541A16.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/437/7166D7F5AA4E49AB9B13C1C136167968.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/437/FE3CC35E87E84253A4199CCF19F25D33.jpg[/IMG]
#19
11-08-2006, 01:25 AM
Senior Member
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
I've owned both size engines in the X. Had an 03 with the 2.5, and, swapped it for an 06 3.0 in May. I've not heard of or experienced any reliablility problems with either engine. My observations:
The power delivery with the 2.5 is very "gas turbine" like. Fuel economy is about 2 - 4 MPG better than the 3.0. Acceleration with the 2.5 is decent, even with an automatic, and, car does not feel underpowered.
The extra HP and torque of the 3.0 is very noticable, and, the car accelerates much more aggressively. The 3.0 is about a full second faster to 60 than the 2.5. The downside of the 3.0 is its fuel economy penalty. In addition, my 06 has more exhaust and driveline noise than my 03 did - the 03 was dead quiet at interstate speeds.
My 2 cents:
Oldengineer
The power delivery with the 2.5 is very "gas turbine" like. Fuel economy is about 2 - 4 MPG better than the 3.0. Acceleration with the 2.5 is decent, even with an automatic, and, car does not feel underpowered.
The extra HP and torque of the 3.0 is very noticable, and, the car accelerates much more aggressively. The 3.0 is about a full second faster to 60 than the 2.5. The downside of the 3.0 is its fuel economy penalty. In addition, my 06 has more exhaust and driveline noise than my 03 did - the 03 was dead quiet at interstate speeds.
My 2 cents:
Oldengineer
#20
11-11-2006, 10:04 PM
RE: 2.5L vs. 3.0L
And a very good 2 cents that got to the point.....geeez...thanks for answering the question without all the wonderings, BS......and giberish...
you cut right through!
________
How To Make A Soldering Iron Vaporizer
you cut right through!
________
How To Make A Soldering Iron Vaporizer
Last edited by racerx82; 05-17-2011 at 07:47 AM.