Work by Ron Cobb
The engine is pretty high strung so you’re lucky to get 20-24 mpg. If you drive it hard (and it wants to be driven hard) it’s going to be less. That’s still probably better than the kind of huge muscle car in the picture, though.
The other thing is it’s just not a pleasant car to drive in traffic. It’s a manual transmission car (only ever made in manual) and it’s really easy to stall, among other things, so it’s not fun to drive through rush hour.
Ahh, gotcha. Thats a shame, my dream car is a miata which I’ve always wanted to daily drive, and I tend to think of the s2000 similarly since they’re a lot alike in many respects
Miatas are pretty similar, but modern ones have some nice advantages! It’s rated for 25/35 mpg, for example, and unlike a lot of car makers Mazda’s fuel economy numbers are pretty realistic. A Miata isn’t going to be as painful to drive in traffic, either. Not unless you modify it or something.
…i’m surprised to read that; my elise and MX-5s all get around thirty miles per gallon on the street, it’s only on tracks where fuel economy drops precipitously…
The S2k is just in a weird spot due to the engine being so crazy. The 2005 EPA rating was 17/23 for example. It’s a combination of high revving engine (you seriously drive in the 3-5k rev range in normal traffic), short gear ratios, and more weight than either an MX-5 or Elise. The thing is a legend but it’s far from perfect! Or perhaps, it’s a legend because of the imperfections the engineers gave it.
…the elise’s 2ZZ-GE is nearly as highly-strung as the F20 (splits the difference from the F20C at 8500 RPM) but it’s also 10% less displacement, which may make the most difference in fuel economy compared to pushing 40% more weight in the S2000…
…i wish my mazdas revved so high!..