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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trending Topics
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.php?...ght=gas+mileage
Some people got more, some less. Depending on driving style and conditions.
Some people got more, some less. Depending on driving style and conditions.
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
).
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
).
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).
- 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).








