Double Your Gas Mileage 2X
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,063
Likes: 4
From: Durango, Colorado
Guys, there is a real problem in trying to develop "alternate fuels" or "blends" that will get AS GOOD mileage as using gasoline. For example, you all know what E85 is (15% gasoline, 85% ethanol). Some cars will run on it. Our s2ks WILL NOT (you'll ruin your fuel lines, and a few other things). Problem with E85 and just about every other alternate fuel that has been tried for internal combustion engines is poor mileage, compared with gasoline. In a car that WILL burn E85, expect a decrease in mileage of 20% or more. The ONLY additive I would ever consider using would be Seafoam --- and only for a very limited purpose. If, for example, I got called up by the military and had to store my car a year or more, I'd put some Seafoam in the tank and run a bit through before blocking her up. This would prevent the gasoline from forming a varnish and probably clogging injectors and the like. But when I returned (assuming I did), I'd immediately drain the tank and fill it with nothing but premium unleaded gasoline.
Some of you have been reporting much lower mpgs than has been my experience. Lot's of factors come into play here, so it's hard to generalize. But I get 22 to 24 mpg in suburban driving -- hampered by a lot of short trips. On the highway, I get 28 mpg or better. Once, I got 30 --- at 120 mph! I don't track so I don't count the mileage I'd get doing so, but I don't "granny drive" either. In fact, I find that the more I "lug around" at low rpm, the worse the mileage gets. Some owners may have more congestion, hills, etc, so may do worse. That's understandable. But reports of 12 to 17 mpg indicate something mechanical is wrong. I'm not an expert tech, and can't figure out such things with certainty on the forums. But some things that come to mind are gasoline leaks, extra dirty air filters, a malfunctioning ECU that runs the car too rich, and probably a numbr of othr possibilities as well. But, bottom line, an owner who drives with even a little bit of sanity should not be getting gas mileage of 12 to 17 mph.
Some of you have been reporting much lower mpgs than has been my experience. Lot's of factors come into play here, so it's hard to generalize. But I get 22 to 24 mpg in suburban driving -- hampered by a lot of short trips. On the highway, I get 28 mpg or better. Once, I got 30 --- at 120 mph! I don't track so I don't count the mileage I'd get doing so, but I don't "granny drive" either. In fact, I find that the more I "lug around" at low rpm, the worse the mileage gets. Some owners may have more congestion, hills, etc, so may do worse. That's understandable. But reports of 12 to 17 mpg indicate something mechanical is wrong. I'm not an expert tech, and can't figure out such things with certainty on the forums. But some things that come to mind are gasoline leaks, extra dirty air filters, a malfunctioning ECU that runs the car too rich, and probably a numbr of othr possibilities as well. But, bottom line, an owner who drives with even a little bit of sanity should not be getting gas mileage of 12 to 17 mph.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,466
Likes: 0
From: WV Pan Handle
Speaking of Ethanol, did you know that the production and distilation process uses more energy than you actually get from burning the alcohol.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html
On mileage, I get about 22mpg in daily traffic. I believe though that the S2000 engine is more efficient at higher RPMs (>3500). It would be worth experimenting with running a gas tank without using 6th gear. Common sense says that this should give you worse mileage, but I think we'd find out different.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html
On mileage, I get about 22mpg in daily traffic. I believe though that the S2000 engine is more efficient at higher RPMs (>3500). It would be worth experimenting with running a gas tank without using 6th gear. Common sense says that this should give you worse mileage, but I think we'd find out different.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,063
Likes: 4
From: Durango, Colorado
The fact that the s2k's engine is more efficient at higher rpms has been proven at least by my own experience and experimentation. Personally, I've been happy with my s2k's mpg for the past six years, as there is no other car I could have purchased that would have delivered as high a range of mpgs --- and still have performed anything close to the s2k.
Again, if I were getting 12 to 17 mpg under any circumstances, I'd have some professional diagnosis done -- because something is clearly wrong with such a car.
Again, if I were getting 12 to 17 mpg under any circumstances, I'd have some professional diagnosis done -- because something is clearly wrong with such a car.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 2
From: Dry Branch
Originally Posted by dolebludger,May 7 2007, 06:00 PM
Guys, there is a real problem in trying to develop "alternate fuels" or "blends" that will get AS GOOD mileage as using gasoline. For example, you all know what E85 is (15% gasoline, 85% ethanol). Some cars will run on it. Our s2ks WILL NOT (you'll ruin your fuel lines, and a few other things). Problem with E85 and just about every other alternate fuel that has been tried for internal combustion engines is poor mileage, compared with gasoline. In a car that WILL burn E85, expect a decrease in mileage of 20% or more. The ONLY additive I would ever consider using would be Seafoam --- and only for a very limited purpose. If, for example, I got called up by the military and had to store my car a year or more, I'd put some Seafoam in the tank and run a bit through before blocking her up. This would prevent the gasoline from forming a varnish and probably clogging injectors and the like. But when I returned (assuming I did), I'd immediately drain the tank and fill it with nothing but premium unleaded gasoline.
Some of you have been reporting much lower mpgs than has been my experience. Lot's of factors come into play here, so it's hard to generalize. But I get 22 to 24 mpg in suburban driving -- hampered by a lot of short trips. On the highway, I get 28 mpg or better. Once, I got 30 --- at 120 mph! I don't track so I don't count the mileage I'd get doing so, but I don't "granny drive" either. In fact, I find that the more I "lug around" at low rpm, the worse the mileage gets. Some owners may have more congestion, hills, etc, so may do worse. That's understandable. But reports of 12 to 17 mpg indicate something mechanical is wrong. I'm not an expert tech, and can't figure out such things with certainty on the forums. But some things that come to mind are gasoline leaks, extra dirty air filters, a malfunctioning ECU that runs the car too rich, and probably a numbr of othr possibilities as well. But, bottom line, an owner who drives with even a little bit of sanity should not be getting gas mileage of 12 to 17 mph.
Some of you have been reporting much lower mpgs than has been my experience. Lot's of factors come into play here, so it's hard to generalize. But I get 22 to 24 mpg in suburban driving -- hampered by a lot of short trips. On the highway, I get 28 mpg or better. Once, I got 30 --- at 120 mph! I don't track so I don't count the mileage I'd get doing so, but I don't "granny drive" either. In fact, I find that the more I "lug around" at low rpm, the worse the mileage gets. Some owners may have more congestion, hills, etc, so may do worse. That's understandable. But reports of 12 to 17 mpg indicate something mechanical is wrong. I'm not an expert tech, and can't figure out such things with certainty on the forums. But some things that come to mind are gasoline leaks, extra dirty air filters, a malfunctioning ECU that runs the car too rich, and probably a numbr of othr possibilities as well. But, bottom line, an owner who drives with even a little bit of sanity should not be getting gas mileage of 12 to 17 mph.
Our XJ40 would deliver a consistent 33-34 MPG at a steady 100 MPH.I don't track it closely, but I think I get about the same mileage you're getting, in normal driving. Somewhere around 23-24 MPG. Before the FI I'd get up to 27 MPG every now and then, but the average was still closer to 24-25. Given the way I drive the car sometimes I actually think that's very good.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 2
From: Dry Branch
Originally Posted by dolebludger,May 7 2007, 06:56 PM
The fact that the s2k's engine is more efficient at higher rpms has been proven at least by my own experience and experimentation. Personally, I've been happy with my s2k's mpg for the past six years, as there is no other car I could have purchased that would have delivered as high a range of mpgs --- and still have performed anything close to the s2k.
Again, if I were getting 12 to 17 mpg under any circumstances, I'd have some professional diagnosis done -- because something is clearly wrong with such a car.
Again, if I were getting 12 to 17 mpg under any circumstances, I'd have some professional diagnosis done -- because something is clearly wrong with such a car.
When it comes to smiles per gallon, the S2000 gets excellent gas smileage.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 2
From: Dry Branch
Originally Posted by JackS,May 7 2007, 09:36 PM
At 60mi per gallon, you wouldn't be paying your fair share to the oil companies. They would use you as an example and prices would go up for everybody. 
