Vauxhall Vectra B V6 - any good?

[SD1992]

I am on the hunt for a new car, and I have rcently become aware of the fact that the old Vectra V6s are very cheap to buy and insure.

I would buy an SRI if that makes an difference, but as the title says - are they an good? Has anyone got experience of one? Or am I being really stupid, and should I go back to looking at older BMW's?

Thanks for any help!

[davepoth]

Well, it's a Vectra which isn't great, but it has a V6, which is always a plus. If you want to go for the Griffin, look at the Omega from the same age, which has the right wheels driven.

[paoloh]

Try and get the 2.6 V6.

Has less power than the 2.5 but feels so much more powerful.

I've driven loads of them and I have to say, I quite like them.

[SD1992]

Does the SRI spec make any difference at all to the ride or handeling?

Thanks for the replies!

[swansea v6]

I bought one in december to replace my mark 1 mx-5 (new child on way...) it really isnt a drivers car but aslong as you know that before you buy, then it is a decent car. v6 is lovely engine, except for the annoying flat spot and is currently returning 30mpg, not bad for a 2.5v6

Just make sure the belt schedules are strictly adhered to!!!!! They have to be changed at 40000 miles, cost around £300....


Oh yea it is a 1998 sri, genuine 80000 miles and only cost £600, flew its MOT with only advisory being a loud exhaust a lot of car for the cash.....

Edited by swansea v6 on Friday 11th March 17:32

[IROC-Z]

paoloh said:

Try and get the 2.6 V6.

Has less power than the 2.5 but feels so much more powerful.

More torque from the 2.6 IIRC!

Avoid pre 99 cars if you can and go for the facelift 99-02 models. The early cars suffered from patchy reliability and handling, something the Vectra hasn't really ever got over in terms of reputation. They never really lived up to the success of the Cavalier and were somewhat overshadowed by the Mondeo.

I had a 2.5 GSi for about a year and it was great. Looking back it probably didn't feel as quick as the 192bhp dictated unless you were hammering it, it had a very heavy feel to it. It also hard a spine shattering ride but I would expect the SRi to be more forgiving.

I would recommend you take a look at similar aged Mondeo V6s too.

[cerb4.5lee]

Mate had a sri v6 & he loved it,i also drove it a few times & i have nothing but praise for the engine really smooth & rev hungry.

I prefered the engine to the two mondeo v6s i had.If you stretch to the vectra gsi with a bit more bhp you will be loving it.

Think the sri just gave you a few more goodies like traffic master & mild bodykit but i am no expert.

[RobM77]

swansea v6 said:

v6 is lovely engine, except for the annoying flat spot and is currently returning 30mpg, not bad for a 2.5v6

Not until you realise a 3.0 litre BMW straight six will get over 40mpg on a run and average around 35mpg, and produce 265bhp; all in a similar sized car. Mind you, you do get what you pay for and Vauxhalls depreciate very quickly indeed, making a newer one more affordable than the BMW, which is stuck with this pukesome "premium" image.

[IROC-Z]

RobM77 said:

Not until you realise a 3.0 litre BMW straight six will get over 40mpg on a run and average around 35mpg, and produce 265bhp; all in a similar sized car. Mind you, you do get what you pay for and Vauxhalls depreciate very quickly indeed, making a newer one more affordable than the BMW, which is stuck with this pukesome "premium" image.

[Pedantic Nerd Mode]

Only the current E90 BMW 330i produces something near to 265bhp, hardly a fair comparison for a Vectra B!

The Vectra will also easily achieve 40mpg on a run, but will average 30mpg without really trying. I used to consistently average 31mpg even though I was prone to booting it now and again.

[/Pedantic Nerd Mode]

Agree with you comments on depreciation though, makes the Vectra cracking value for money.

[SD1992]

Does it really drive that badly? I would like a car that is fun to drive. How would and older E39 523i compare?

[Sooty]

I love Vauxhalls ...



... and I'd be spending my money on a Mondeo ST instead.

[RobM77]

IROC-Z said:

RobM77 said:

Not until you realise a 3.0 litre BMW straight six will get over 40mpg on a run and average around 35mpg, and produce 265bhp; all in a similar sized car. Mind you, you do get what you pay for and Vauxhalls depreciate very quickly indeed, making a newer one more affordable than the BMW, which is stuck with this pukesome "premium" image.

[Pedantic Nerd Mode]

Only the current E90 BMW 330i produces something near to 265bhp, hardly a fair comparison for a Vectra B!

The Vectra will also easily achieve 40mpg on a run, but will average 30mpg without really trying. I used to consistently average 31mpg even though I was prone to booting it now and again.

[/Pedantic Nerd Mode]

Agree with you comments on depreciation though, makes the Vectra cracking value for money.

He did say "a 2.5 V6". 30mpg is not great for a 2.5 litre engine. If you want to make a contempary comparison, the 325i of that era was also pulling better mpg and power.

[RobM77]

SD1992 said:

Does it really drive that badly? I would like a car that is fun to drive. How would and older E39 523i compare?

A 5 series will obviously be bigger and heavier, a 3 series is a better comparison. Both will drive far better than a Vectra. So yes, the Vectra has never really driven that well. Some fairly dodgy suspension design mates to a cheap as chips engineering effort is my summary to be brutally honest. You can get much better from other manufacturers - Nissan Primera GT, Honda Accord TR, BMW 3 series (RWD so better balanced for starters), Merc C Class or the often mentioned Mondeo ST220. To most people's tastes (disclaimer!) they're all a far better drive than any Vectra ever was - by quite a big margin. Even a bog standard 406 HDi will drive far better than a Vectra (I did a back to back comparison once). And yes, I have driven a lot of Vectras!! I spent about four years of my life getting a different hire car every week, and around a third of them were Vectras. The mk1 was truly awful, and the mk2 a big improvement, I will admit that. I wouldn't spend my own money on one though, unless I wasn't interested in cars and it was a good condition car going for a great price.

[swansea v6]

I also had a 325i coupe and that was returning 25-28mpg over the same kind of journeys I do now, yes it was a quality, smooth engine, although it definitely loses out on the sound stakes.....

[IROC-Z]

RobM77 said:

He did say "a 2.5 V6". 30mpg is not great for a 2.5 litre engine. If you want to make a contempary comparison, the 325i of that era was also pulling better mpg and power.

Fair enough, I agree.

[RobM77]

swansea v6 said:

I also had a 325i coupe and that was returning 25-28mpg over the same kind of journeys I do now, yes it was a quality, smooth engine, although it definitely loses out on the sound stakes.....

That's not my experience, but every situation is individual.

Personally though, I'd always take a car with the distributed layout of engine->gearbox>diff/drive to one with everything lumped at front, and that's before we get into the damping and suspension design and setup (re: the notorious issues with the mk1 Vectra front suspension geo change!) but I guess that's just my taste. A 3 series has the same basic layout as an MX5, TVR, Aston or anything like that (and for the same reasons), whereas a Vectra is designed to be build en mass cheaply to be sold to company car fleets as pool cars. All in my opinion of course - I do respect yours too

[rb5230]

RobM77 said:

You can get much better from other manufacturers - Nissan Primera GT, Honda Accord TR, BMW 3 series (RWD so better balanced for starters), Merc C Class or the often mentioned Mondeo ST220.

Are you really comparing a £1000 vectra to cars worth several multiples of that?

Of course a £5k 2004 3.0v6 mondeo st220 is better than a £1000 1999 cavalier sri 2.5

And ditto an accord type-r.

But yes i would rather an e36 with a similar engine size for a similar price (but rwd is not all it takes to make a better car)

[JohnnyRims]

RobM77 said:

He did say "a 2.5 V6". 30mpg is not great for a 2.5 litre engine. If you want to make a contempary comparison, the 325i of that era was also pulling better mpg and power.

It's reasonable for the era? The Ford 2.5 V6 is pretty similar on mpg, and the 2.8 straight 6 I had in a W202 (ok so it was a generation 'older' than these engines) used to get low 20s everywhere. The 2.4 V6s found in Audi's of a similar vintage are similarly poor on power and economy, and Alfa's 2.5 V6 is also very thirsty. The Vauxhall isn't bad, the BMW is just good.

[Sooty]

rb5230 said:

Of course a £5k 2004 3.0v6 mondeo st220 is better than a £1000 1999 cavalier sri 2.5

It's not - but we're comparing it to a Vectra

[swansea v6]

RobM77 said:

That's not my experience, but every situation is individual.

Personally though, I'd always take a car with the distributed layout of engine->gearbox>diff/drive to one with everything lumped at front, and that's before we get into the damping and suspension design and setup (re: the notorious issues with the mk1 Vectra front suspension geo change!) but I guess that's just my taste. A 3 series has the same basic layout as an MX5, TVR, Aston or anything like that (and for the same reasons), whereas a Vectra is designed to be build en mass cheaply to be sold to company car fleets as pool cars. All in my opinion of course - I do respect yours too

I would have rather gone back to a bmw, 325/328i sport but for the price I paid for the vectra it was no contest, I understand its a compromise but at the moment it satisfies my needs. Plus I am saving for my cerbera........