Last post on Sep 15, 2010 at 7:55 PM
You are in the Honda S2000
What is this discussion about?
Honda S2000, Convertible
#220 of 615 Re: Discontinued Honda S2000 [zelda3]
May 11, 2005 (11:58 am)
I have also heard that 2005 is the last year for the Honda S2000, but that would not deter me from buying the car at all. Honda dealerships are not going anywhere and the company is likely to support the car with respect to parts and service for the foreseeable future.
However, as a former owner of a 2002 S2000 which I kept for 2.5 years, I would suggest you consider going new rather than slightly used for a couple of reasons. First, proper break-in on an S2000 is extremely important, far more so than you're average Honda Accord with an automatic transmission. Second, the prices of new S2000's have come down considerably. In casual shopping, I have gotten offers as low as invoice to $500 over invoice (I paid $800 under MSRP on a snowy day in November 2001, but many dealerships were still getting $3,000 premiums over list). The price of a brand new 2005 would only be $4,000 to $5,000 more than a used 2004. You will make up a lot of that difference when you go to resell a "one owner" car in 3-4 years vs. a two-owner car that would be one model year older with more miles on it. Also, the tires on the S2000 are nearly $1,000 per set and generally only last about 15,000 to 20,000 miles. The clutch, especially if the car has been abused by the previous owner, will set you back $1,000 -$1,500. By going new, you will also have most, if not all, of your 3-4 years of ownership covered under the factory warranty. I had $0 in repairs or warranty claims in my 2.5 years, but I still liked having the full warranty as insurance.
The S2000 is somewhat frivolous, for sure. But my two young daughters still talk about how much fun it was being picked up from school in the S2000 when I could take off work early. Squeezing both of them in the passenger seat was tough, and the speed never got above about 10 miles per hour, but they couldn't have been any happier in a $200,000 Ferrari. My youngest learned the 1st to 2nd shift at the age of 4 (from the passenger seat, of course).
Go for it. You only live once and the S2000 is about the most financially prudent frivolous sports car out there.
#221 of 615 ..
by kyfdx HOST
May 11, 2005 (12:01 pm)
financially prudent frivolous sports car
Writing this one down... lol.
#222 of 615 Re: .. [kyfdx]
May 12, 2005 (5:38 am)
Life is full of contradictions, and the S2000 wasn't my worst!!
#223 of 615 High performance engine
May 20, 2005 (7:23 pm)
I continue to be amazed at this s2000 engine! I bought a used '01 with 20K mi last fall for my "fun" summer car. Well, I have enjoyed feeling the rush of occasionally driving it above 7500 rpm, love to corner fast and can't get enough of the "top down, wind in the face" feeling. While in VTECH it seems to "drink gas", as I would expect. The original window sticker says 20 city 25 hwy.
So, I decided to check the gas mileage while commuting to work in a metro area with a mix of "stop and go" and highway speed. This tank of gas was meant to get a read on the capability of the engine while not "red lining". I couldn't believe the result. 46mpg; and no that is not down hill coasting.
The engineering built into this drive train is truly amazing !!!
I knew if I labelled this post "S2K competes with hybrids", nobody would read it.
I'd love to hear from others about their gas mileage experience.
May 21, 2005 (5:14 am)
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.
#225 of 615 Re: 46 MPG ?? [habitat1]
by kyfdx HOST
May 21, 2005 (8:29 am)
I'm with habitat1....
Check the math...
#226 of 615 Re: mpg (habitat 1)
May 21, 2005 (8:35 am)
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)
#227 of 615 Re: mpg (habitat 1) [toydriver]
by kyfdx HOST
May 21, 2005 (8:43 am)
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, stop..deal 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
#228 of 615 Re: mpg (habitat 1) [toydriver]
May 21, 2005 (3:02 pm)
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.
#229 of 615 Re: mpg (habitat 1) [habitat1]
by kyfdx HOST
May 22, 2005 (8:12 am)
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)