Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda S2000



  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    I think you better double check your math on that one.

    My 2002 model, purchased new and perfectly broken in, averaged 22 mpg in mixed driving and got 30-32 mpg with the cruise control set at 75 mph on the highway. I kept a log of every fill-up over 18,000 miles and can state with a high degree of confidence that your calculation of 46 mpg is likely a math error or an incomplete fill up (like half a tank off). Humor me and run the numbers again and on your next 3 fill-ups. If it is getting 46 mpg, I think Honda would buy it back for $50k to do forensic analysis.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 27,613
    I'm with habitat1....

    Check the math...

    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • toydrivertoydriver Posts: 227
    No, the math is correct. 3.174 gallons for 149 miles. Granted, it's only 149 miles but an incredible number, none the less. Believe me, I plan to re-check on the next fill up. Like you, I assumed that the pump didn't completely fill the tank but the indicator light registers completely full and hasn't malfunctioned before. I had been driving cautiously in order to maximize the mpg and rarely exceeded 70 mph, and somtimes with cruise control on, but I was completely shocked.

    I have to say that your log of 30-32 mpg with cruise control at 75 mph is very good too. Think what it might have been with cruise set at 50 mph.

    I'll report back on the next few tank fills. (Honda's repurchase for 50K sounds good) :)
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 27,613
    The math is correct, but that is way too small of a sample to get a good reading..

    The main reason.. The pump can kick off at different times.. due to humidity, air pressure, concrete level, pump pressure, etc..

    If the car takes a half gallon less to fill up on a whole tank of 12 gallons, then the variance is only 4%... but, if it is off a 1/2 gallon on only three gallons, then you are off 17%....

    I woudn't be amazed if you got close to 40 MPG on one single highway run at speeds of around 60 MPH for 2.5 hours... But, I don't equate "constant speed MPG" with "highway mileage". Over an entire tankful, you'll have to speed up, brake, with traffic, etc.. What you get on one "constant speed" trip really isn't relevant..

    I'm sure if I could find a 150 mile stretch of interstate, and kept it at 55 MPH and didn't have to brake... I could achieve close to 33-35 MPG in my CR-V.... But, in reality, the car gets about 26 MPG on the highway...

    So, I'm impressed... but, it really isn't relevant.. when, I'm coasting downhill, I get over 100 MPG ;)


    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    kyfdx is right, the potential variation on a single 3.1 gallon fill-up could be huge. My suggestion is to take 3 consecutive fill ups of 8+ gallons and re-post your average MPG over those three fill -ups. That way, the most you will be off is 3-5%.

    As for what I might have gotten at 50 mph vs. 75, I don't think much more if any. In 6th gear, the car wants to cruise at 70+. If you tried to cruise at 50, the engine would be lugging and the torque for passing or maneuvering through ttraffic would be non-existent. You'd need to downshift constantly, ruining any aerodynamic advantage of the lower speed. I suspect most of today's 6-speeds get maximum fuuel economy with the cruise set at about 70 mph.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 27,613
    I'm not sure about the whole six-speed thing.. Perhaps on certain cars.. And, of course, I don't have the real-world experience you do with an S2000....

    But, most sixth gears that I see have the same exact final-drive ratio as the fifth gear on the previous model car.. IOW, the gears are just closer together, and the sixth gear isn't a "super-overdrive" gear..

    I would rather have an ultra-high sixth gear for just the 70MPH+ cruising you describe... but, in my experience, that isn't the way it works..

    Either way, I'm guessing that the gas mileage is way better at 50 MPH than 70 MPH, no matter how the car is geared or engine tuned..... The biggest drag on fuel mileage is just that... DRAG..

    (who wishes he had an S2000)

    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    The S2000 is hard to compare to relative to it's 6th gear - it runs at about 4,000 rpm at 75 mph.

    However, comparing 75 mph my 1995 Nissan Maxima SE 5-speed with my 2004 Acura TL 6-speed, the former is at about 3,100 rpm in 5th gear and the latter about 2,600 rpm in 6th gear. That's a 20% difference. If I'm not mistaken, the TL's 5th gear is about the same RPM, maybe slightly lower than the Maxima's 5th (top) gear. If I were trying to chugg along at 50 mph in top gear in both cars, the Maxima would seem a little sluggish, but the TL would be a dog, with almost no torque available for modest hills, manuevers, etc. It might indeed get better gas mileage at 50 mph on a perfectly flat highway cruise with no obstacles, but it really would be "lugging" along and would not be how I would ever drive any car.

    For what it's worth, I have 154,000 miles on my Maxima and I rarely shift the car to a higher gear before 3,000 rpm (usually 3,500+ for normal driving). My Nissan service manager (who is a bit of a car fanatic and owns a 1972 BMW M1) is an advocate of shifting higher in the rpm band than lower. My Maxima shows almost no sign of engine wear. He, among other mechanics and engineers I've talked to, claim the worst thing for carbon buildup and general stress on an engine is lugging it at low rpms. So what might be good for maximizing mpg may not necessarily be good or the long term life of the engine. I suspect that, given my TL, he would be cruising in 4th gear or 5th gear at 50 mph, but certainly not 6th.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 27,613
    I'm not sure we can compare two different cars, to see if the sixth gear is higher than what fifth would be...

    But, I agree with your Nissan service manager.. Keeping the engine constantly between 2000 and 3000 rpm is not desirable...

    Also, brisk acceleration up to cruising speed doesn't hurt gas mileage much.. You get up to the most efficient operating speed that much quicker. (a lot more fun, too!).

    I think if I were on the interstate at 50 MPH, I'd be in top gear, no matter what.. I'd just shift, if I needed acceleration..

    Of course, I can't think of too many interstates where I would be cruising at 50...

    It is all academic... until I trade, I'm driving an automatic... :cry:


    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • toydrivertoydriver Posts: 227
    I mentioned that I would re-post after a few more miles.
    After 450miles and 14.35 gallons I have averaged 31.35 mpg. This was in "normal" commuting to and from work and weekend pleasure driving. This is a mixture of stop and go and highway speeds (none above 80mph). I thought this was very good.
    This is in a 2001 S2000 with 24K miles on the odometer, which I bought used. (Had all Honda recommended maintenance done and recorded when I bought it last fall)
    During this test of gas mileage, I have not been driving aggressively. I normally shift between 3,000 and 4,000 rpm. I don't drive below 55mph in 6th gear. I don't "chug" around in higher gear as was suggested as a possible way to increase gas mileage. I had been warned about driving in high gear with low (below 2500rpm) for fear of causing carbon "build up" in the cylinders, that could eventually damage the engine. I have not been driving in VTECH mode (above 6,200rpm) during this 450 miles, because I wanted to check to see what gas mileage I could get with "normal" driving patterns.

    I have a question for those of you with more experience and knowledge of the s2000 drive train. If you plan to drive aggressively in high rpm VTECH, is it best to KEEP the rpm above 6,000 while doing this as opposed to allowing the engine to vary between say 4000 and 8000 rpm (in and out of VTECH). (My understanding is that in VTECH the engine is operating with a more aggressive cam lobe and varying in and out of the different cam lobes could cause excessive engine wear)?? Is this correct???
  • oldsgtoldsgt Posts: 1
    No, the S2000 is not discontinued, although the engine has been enlarged by 200cc's, by stroking, for 2005. I traded my 2002 S2000 for a 2005 S2000. You and your wife will fight over who is going to drive, it is that much fun. If you can find a high mileage used S2000. Also you should be able to find one for around $22K . The car will be less expensive and, believe or not, better cared for. Do take the car to an independent mechanic for a look. I do not think that the car will be a bad investment, but I have also bought Ford stock.
  • vinny1961vinny1961 Posts: 3
    Hi Zelda,

    I had the 2003 S 2000 and when I traded it in for my 2004 Accord I was sick! I really missed the car. Now I just purchased the 2005 S 2000. This may be the last one they will make because Honda will bring back the revamped Prelude next year. Because of the resale value of the S 2000 you are much better off getting a new one. Pick a dealer with the car you really want IN STOCK. You will be able to get a price around $30,000 for the car if you shop and bargain hunt. This will be better for many reasons. First you will be getting the last year of a limited edition 2 dr roadster Honda classic. Second, when you buy a car this cool, you want it to be brand new. Third, the extended warranty Honda offers (7 year bumper to bumper, around $1,500.00) is a must when it comes to repairs. The first time you ever need any major service, it will pay for itself, and it's totally transferable, and refunded by the dealer. Third, the car has changed for 2005 and each year previous had different features. The car is the best in 2005 since it's introduction in 2000. I love this car, and I'm not alone. It's the best sports car for the money hands down. If you ask me, the only other car worth looking at is the Mini Cooper convertible. But that's really apples and oranges. Good luck with your decision!

  • Hi everyone,

    I'm trying to decide on whether to purchase an S2000. However, I'm from Chicago and it will be driven all year round. It will be driven about 30 miles on a daily basis. I'm willing to spend the money on a second set of wheels and tires as well as on the hardtop. Does anyone have any suggestions or put in their two cents? Any owners that do the same thing? How does the car handle, stick to the road with the second set of tires?

  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 27,613
    I don't own an S2000, but my co-worker did.. He loved the car, but said it was the worst commuter he had ever owned...

    Winter tires/wheels will keep you moving on slick stuff.. your only problem will be with ground clearance, if it gets deep.. Anything over 4" and you will be plowing snow with your front spoiler..


    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    I owned a 2002 S2000 for 2.5 years through three winters of Washington DC.

    With any snow on the ground, it sat idle. I'm not sure how it would do with a second set of wheels and snow tires, but I suspect only so-so. It is a light car with RWD. That's good for dry road performance, but not snow. I'd be tempted to go with a second car instead. I had a 1995 Nissan Maxima that I used for the rougher weather and when I needed to take extra passengers.

    As far as the hardtop goes, that's an expensive and unnecessary option. The S2000 has a glass window and defroster, and a decent heater that kept the car reasonably comfortable in cold weather. I only know one person who went with a hardtop and they used it a grand total of about 5 times over 2+ years. It's light, but still a pain in the rear to put on, take off and store.

    So, for my 2 cents, I would save $4,000+ on a second set of wheels and tires and hardtop. Instead, either keep the car you currently have or get a decent shape used Accord or Maxima for use in the worst of the winter. You will still be able to use the S2000 year round in all seasons, as I did. Just not in the snow and ice. And you can further justify the cost of the second car on the savings in depreciation and wear and tear on the S2000.

    P.S. I test drove a 2005 S2000 yesterday and put the odds of me getting one at 50/50. I had traded my 2002 in on a 2004 Acura TL and miss not having a convertible sports car. The good news with the 2005 S2000 is that it is a little less high strung and noisy than the 2002 (engine up to 2.2 liters from 2.0 and redline down to 8,000 from 9,000 rpm). That should make it a little better of a commuter car. I also checked out the new 997 version 911 S convertible at the Porsche dealership. It is truly an exceptional car, but a bit harder to justify at $102,000. The Boxster S at $60,000 is also very nice, but that's still twice the price of an S2000 for not much more in performance. At least the 911 can carry my wife and two kids for short trips.
  • toydrivertoydriver Posts: 227
    I live in Minneapolis, with winter weather similar to Chicago. (OK, maybe a bit colder and longer, but the winter storms, and snow and ice packed pavement is similar as I've lived in both cities). I bought a '01 S2000 last year as a summer roadster and keep it garaged and covered in the winter. What I enjoy most about the car is driving from April to November with the top down at high RPM with as little traffic around as possible. (Sunday afternoon cruises in the country). Frankly, driving with the top up in stop and go traffic is very noisy and confining).

    I've never seen a S2000 being driven in Mpls in the winter months. I have several concerns, most of them safety related. The car is light-weight, rear-drive and high horsepower all of which will guarantee fish-tailing on slick pavement. The low ground clearance will mean taking a "snow-day" from work unless you can follow a snow plow. The car doesn't have Vehicle Skid or Dynamic Stability electronic controls. I'd hate looking at my car if it suffered from winter salt and gravel chips in the paint and windshield that can occur after a few years of winter driving in the upper midwest.

    Best of luck in your decision. The S2000 is truly a great car for the money. The drivetrain is awesome!! :)
  • jlettie1jlettie1 Posts: 9
    I've read several postings that Honda plans to cancel the S2000 after this production year. Phoned Honda and they claim that there is no current plans to cancel the S2000. The cars seem to be selling. If this rumor is correct this would make the third convertible to be cancelled. The other convertibles would be the Ford Thunderbird and the Nissan 350Z. I would like to find out how to substantiate this rumor about the cancellation of S2000.
  • gsolman6gsolman6 Posts: 28
    No the S is not being cancelled for 2006. That information probably came from people trying to predict its demise or salesman who want to foster uncertainty and drive up prices.

    Also ASAIK there is no new Prelude as a post above alluded to.

    As for new vs. used all potential owners should drive both the 2.0 and 2.2 themselves before they make up their mind as some of us prefer the older version not even considering price.
  • krusemarkkrusemark Posts: 3
    I'm curious, what changed in the '05 model year??? :confuse:
  • lovztoflylovztofly Posts: 1
    I must say, I love my S2000, it's a guy magnet!!!
    Wherever I go there's at least one who will use my car as a topic to talk to me. For an "seasoned" hottie, it's great fun...especailly in So Cal where there's no shortage of hot guys. The only problem is when they ask me whats under the hood????? hmmmmm...What is it again? :)
  • kstern01kstern01 Posts: 1
    I bought my new 2005 S2000 two weeks ago. After about 200 miles of driving, when I first start it and it is cold, when I shift into 2nd gear it doesn't want to go in and it either makes a clunking sound or a slight grinding noise. After it warms up, the transmission shifts fine into 2nd gear. I took it back to my dealer who confirmed the issue. They called the Honda tech support line who told them that was a normal characteristic of this car, and until the transmission fluid got warm, it was too thick to coat the gears. I find it unacceptable that that would be a normal characteristic of any new car, especially a new Honda. Has anyone else heard of this issue or have any suggestions for getting Honda to address the real issue here?
Sign In or Register to comment.