Step up from s2000?
- Thread starter 413x
- Start date
Miles per tank is irrelevant without knowing the tank size. Driving sensibly you should be getting high 200's from an s2k without much effort.
I never get this
Mpg isn't too much of a concern for me, it's fun factor, handling and having a nice looking convertible
Cost of insurance and cost of car is
Totally agree, I was just pointing out that the S2K is infact not as bad as he makes out on fuel, by a long shot.
Best I ever managed was a trackday when I went from full to fuel light in under 100 miles
I think the tank size was 5litres different but I could not belive how bad the s2000 was on fuel even when trying to take it really easy for good fuel consumption.
I can get 660 miles to a tank on my 350bhp 335D
I could get just under 400 miles to a tank on my supercharged bmw M3
I could only get 220 miles max to a tank on my s2000
I know how to drive easy which is how I get so much from the two bmw's.
Some of you may not mind to much but it is a true weekly cost the same as insurance etc.
I can get 660 miles to a tank on my 350bhp 335D
I could get just under 400 miles to a tank on my supercharged bmw M3
I could only get 220 miles max to a tank on my s2000
I know how to drive easy which is how I get so much from the two bmw's.
Some of you may not mind to much but it is a true weekly cost the same as insurance etc.
A lot of figures I've seen from various owners round the web would suggest that if anything the s2000 is no worse on fuel than an e46 m3. Surely a SC one would be worse off?
I suppose some engines are just inefficient though. Like my pathetic 1.8 mx5 which averages about 27 with the urban commute to work
and its not like I even have great performance to make up for it.
I suppose some engines are just inefficient though. Like my pathetic 1.8 mx5 which averages about 27 with the urban commute to work
and its not like I even have great performance to make up for it.
Try harder.
Manage 300 miles out of a tank of SUL in the S2000 which includes using some loud pedal on the motorway to make grounds. Could get far more if I was driving to economy standards.
Try harder.
Manage 300 miles out of a tank of SUL in the S2000 which includes using some loud pedal on the motorway to make grounds. Could get far more if I was driving to economy standards.
as I say I know how to get a mpg out of a tank, I am very conscious of fuel yet my s2000 was garbage but manged what most people suggested 200 ish miles per tank.
must have been my car or something in this instance.
Who buys an S2000 to moan about fuel?
It's not exactly the car if you looking at the Mpg figure imo
I worked it out once.. I didn't do that again
Never over 250, never under 200 usually 230 ish
Who compares fuel usage by 'miles per tank', when not only are the tank sizes different (not 5L difference btw, 50L in the S2k and 63L in the BMW) but presumably the car doesn't stop running having drained the tank dry each time you fill up so you're also basing your massively flawed assumptions on either the hilariously inaccurate 'range' display or the equally inaccurate fuel light.
Either way, this discussion is worthy of a double facepalm of massively retarded failing.
Either way, this discussion is worthy of a double facepalm of massively retarded failing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Not that I'd use it as the primary statistic, but I quite like the "miles per tank" comparison. I don't care much about what MPG my car does and how much it's costing me, but I hate filling up. It's a complete waste of my time, and round here all the petrol stations have turned into mini Tescos so people aren't just getting their fuel/fags/lottery, they're getting a trolley and doing a shop at the same time.
Consequently I'd prefer a car with rubbish MPG to have a bigger fuel tank to compensate and keep the range decent - I'd just put up with the high cost to fill the tank on the fewer occasions that I do have to visit the pumps.
Was one of the biggest issues with the E60 M5 IMO - people running a new M5 weren't short of cash but having to go to the pumps every 200miles (or less!) is ridiculous - stick a bigger tank in it (new M5 owners aren't poor and can afford to fill it up) and it would have a longer range.
Consequently I'd prefer a car with rubbish MPG to have a bigger fuel tank to compensate and keep the range decent - I'd just put up with the high cost to fill the tank on the fewer occasions that I do have to visit the pumps.
Was one of the biggest issues with the E60 M5 IMO - people running a new M5 weren't short of cash but having to go to the pumps every 200miles (or less!) is ridiculous - stick a bigger tank in it (new M5 owners aren't poor and can afford to fill it up) and it would have a longer range.
I'm all for bigger tanks. My Golf came with the 62L tank instead of the usual 55L Golf tank because of the bigger engine which is a godsend.
However the point of the above conversation was really around fuel consumption and not how often one has to fill up
However the point of the above conversation was really around fuel consumption and not how often one has to fill up
Interesting read as i've recently been having thoughts of going down to one car (from the S2000 daily & the R32 GTR) but am trying to fight off the urge for some V8 in my life... keep finding myself looking at Monaro VXR's for ~10k...
Do think I'd miss the convertible though as frankly the roofs always down unless its raining very heavily, so keeps pulling me back from looking at cars like the Monaro.
Whenever I look at convertibles I think for under 10k it'd always be the S2000 really, although tempted to try a Z4 3.0 (would say Z4M but couldn't justify the cost to be honest)
Do think I'd miss the convertible though as frankly the roofs always down unless its raining very heavily, so keeps pulling me back from looking at cars like the Monaro.
Whenever I look at convertibles I think for under 10k it'd always be the S2000 really, although tempted to try a Z4 3.0 (would say Z4M but couldn't justify the cost to be honest)