S2000 Talk Discussions related to the S2000, its ownership and enthusiasm for it.

Anyone else wonder why the MPG on the F20C is so low?

Thread Tools
 
Old Aug 10, 2001 | 09:36 AM
  #1  
Iceman's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Default Anyone else wonder why the MPG on the F20C is so low?

20MPG seems pretty low for a LEV Honda engine around town. I was reading some old car mags, and noticed that the 3.2 V6 in the NSX returned about the same milage as our little 2.0 four. My SC'd GSR ran about 30mpg with mixed city/highway and it was a lot less slippery through the wind. I know gearing is a factor, but I'm curious to hear other opinions.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2001 | 09:42 AM
  #2  
joe_s2k's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,821
Likes: 0
From: HouStook TX
Default

During the first 30k miles on my car, I've averaged 24 mpg during spirited(many VTEC's) driving in the city. On the highway, I've had 31 mpg of "not-so-spirited" driving.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2001 | 10:12 AM
  #3  
2x6spds's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 0
From: newport beach
Default

Hi Iceman

I get around 20 mpg from mostly around town driving and some highway. Sometimes a bit less, sometimes more. I think my high was 24 mpg from mostly highway, but that's southern cal highway driving which usually involves at least one shrieking stop from 80 mph because someone has come to a complete stop in the number 1 lane waiting for traffic to clear to their right so they can get to their exit.

Anyway, the F20C may only have 2 liters, but it is a very efficient air pump, and at high rpms probably drives as much air (and sucks a corresponding amount of fuel) as an engine at least twice its size.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2001 | 10:21 AM
  #4  
Iceman's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Default

I have a couple of theories:

1. The ECU retards timing drastically especially during stop and go city driving which hurts milage.

2. ECU runs the engine very rich in the midrange and upper revs. (beyond the 3000rpm smog threshold)

3. 2800lbs is lot to move around with only 2.0 liters.


I'm sure milage will improve once the car is broken in. I'm just not used to going on 275 miles before having to fill up.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2001 | 10:29 AM
  #5  
cdelena's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,210
Likes: 7
From: WA
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Iceman
[B] 1... during stop and go city driving which hurts milage.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2001 | 12:00 PM
  #6  
cmnsnse's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,349
Likes: 5
From: Ocean City
Default

You guys forgot the RWD factor

I get between 24 and 31 mpg depending on how I drive and that seems great to me. Even though the S2000's drivetrain is more effecient than most it still soaks up more power than a FWD.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2001 | 12:08 PM
  #7  
xviper's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 37,305
Likes: 18
Default

I get 27 city and 40 highway. But that's per Canadian gallon. I'm real happy with this. I've never had a hi-perf car able to do anywhere close to this.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2001 | 12:25 PM
  #8  
S2R's Avatar
S2R
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,477
Likes: 0
From: jimisapostwhore
Default

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.php?...ght=gas+mileage

Some people got more, some less. Depending on driving style and conditions.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2001 | 12:26 PM
  #9  
Silver Bullet's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
From: Tracy
Default

I consistently get 24-26 mpg with mixed city and highway driving. My best was just over 30 mpg on a leisurely drive to Monterey.

One thing to keep in mind is that this is a 2.0L 4-cylinder putting out 240 hp! You can't expect that kind of output from an engine that small without using a bit of gas. Making 6th gear a bit taller would give better highway mileage (or add a really tall 7th gear for highway cruising ).
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2001 | 12:34 PM
  #10  
twohoos's Avatar
Member (Premium)
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 4,061
Likes: 363
From: Redondo Beach
Default

I think it does really well, considering the following:
- The main engine design goal is performance, not economy
- Big, fat, grippy tires mean high rolling resistance
- Fairly high weight (2800 lbs)
- RWD is inherently less efficient than FWD
- ECU is known to run richer than necessary

Yet owners still report 18-20 mpg city and around 30 highway when broken in. We rented a Ford Escort recently with a 2L engine that was a major dog (low performance), and experienced only about 30 mpg in (admittedly spirited) highway and back-road driving (which is still not as demanding as stop-and-go city driving).
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:48 PM.