Car Respect--Geo Metro
I'm not actually going to write a Car Lust for a Geo Metro, simply because it doesn't generate lust for me. I have a lot of respect for the Metro, but as we can see in other walks of life, respect does not always equal lust. My respect for the Metro is a purely intellectual response; the only real emotion the Metro prompts in me is a slight tinge of ennui.
(Note that this isn't really true of the Metro's predecessor, the Chevy Sprint--its turbocharged variant will be appearing in this space someday as a bona fide Car Lust.)
Yet the Metro, in its own way, was as superlative as any Porsche, as extreme a performer in its sphere as any Ferrari. Its forte? Providing maximum fuel economy and usefulness for the minimum price. Within that context, the Metro was the ne plus ultra.
There has been a lot of conversation lately about alternative-fuel cars, hybrids, electric cars, hydrogen-fueled cars, Smart cars, and the like--all very cool developments, all interesting additions to the automotive world. Then fellow Amazon blogger Rich Sloan blogged about his friend's Smart fortwo--and subsequently got roasted in the comments for saying that his friend's fuel costs were $0 after 142 miles.
All of this really puts into context just how amazing the Geo Metro was--or, possibly, that we just haven't made much progress on fuel economy in the last decade. I like both the Smart and the Prius--there's something gadgety about them that appeals to me--but if your goal is just to have a useful gas-sipping car, it would be hard to do better than a Geo Metro.
| Geo Metro | Smart fortwo | Toyota Prius | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Displacement (L) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 |
| Cylinders | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Engine Configuration | Inline | Inline | Inline |
| EPA City (MPG) | 46 | 33 (40)* | 48 |
| EPA Highway (MPG) | 49 | 41 (45)* | 45 |
| Horsepower | 55 | 70 | 76 (143)** |
| 0-60 (seconds) | 12.7 | 14.4 | 9.7 |
| Cargo Volume (cu. ft.) | 29.1 | 12.0 | 14.4 |
| Front Headroom (cu. ft.) | 37.8 | 39.7 | 39.1 |
| Front Legroom (cu. ft.) | 42.4 | 41.2 | 41.9 |
| Weight (lb.) | 1,650 | 1,808 | 2,932 |
| Price | $875 | $11,590 | $21,100 |
* The parenthetical fuel economy numbers are from 2007; the non-parenthetical fuel economy numbers are the 2008 numbers.
** The parenthetical horsepower for the Prius is the combination of the gasoline engine and the electric motor.
The Smart specs came from the Smart website, the Toyota specs came from the Toyota website, and the Metro specs came from this site. The 0-60 times are from a variety of sources, and the Metro price was based on the cheapest Metro I could find in my metro (ha!) area. There is one oddity in the numbers above--I think Toyota is dramatically underrating the Prius' cargo space, perhaps by only quoting it with the rear seats up. There's no way a Metro has more than twice the Prius' cargo volume.
Nevertheless, as a well-rounded urban warrior, the old Metro aquits itself pretty well against today's flashiest high-mileage stars. The Metro can do everything the Smart can do, but more quickly and more efficiently--if less stylishly. The Metro is smaller and slower than a Prius, but not by a lot--and it matches the Prius' mileague. Considering the fact that hybrids tend to under-perform their EPA rankings, the Metro may actually be more efficient.
Some--I'm looking at you here, Mochi Mochi--would argue that a Honda CRX HF was even more impressive, since it combined otherworldly fuel economy numbers with most of the driving fun of the rest of the CRX line, and they'd be right. Used CRX HFs are somewhat rare, though--my point with the Metro is that extraordinary fuel mileage is easy to find and doesn't require a fancy new car.
Thanks to Flickr user mikeg626 (based on his handle, possibly a Mazda fan?)--these are images of his old Metro.
--Chris H.
Anthony Cagle on April 22, 2008 at 09:43 AM
"my point with the Metro is that extraordinary fuel mileage is easy to find and doesn't require a fancy new car."
Indeed. My Spousal Unit's 1996 Civic HX gets her around 40-45 mpg. High-mileage cars are no real secret; you sacrifice performance and/or size. Current hybrids sacrifice less performance, but do so at a non-economically-defensible price. It's been pretty well demonstrated, I think, that the Prius sells so well largely because of the image it projects, not because of any real performance/economic rationale.
It's neither difficult nor expensive to find a fuel-efficient, practical, and economical car.
Big Chris on April 22, 2008 at 09:44 AM
If you feature a Yugo, I might stick a pen in my eyes. Deep.
Big Chris
Chris Hafner on April 22, 2008 at 09:46 AM
Well, I roasted the Yugo ...
http://www.carlustblog.com/2007/12/car-disgust--yu.html
Steaming Pile on April 22, 2008 at 09:49 AM
I drove a CRX HF back in the day, and almost bought one, but the biggest problem is that it's a two-seater, which severely limits its utility (hauling the kids in the rear hatch area will get you a ticket and a visit from CPS). The Metro is better in this regard unless you NEVER have back-seat passengers, even if it was made by Suzuki.
There are about two dozen Metros on sale right now at eBay. Most are later models without the three-banger. One is a three-banger with an automatic, which probably makes it accelerate from 0-60 in about two weeks. The catch with that one isn't the automatic, though. It's the parts car that you have to haul away for the seller as a condition of the sale. That's pure New Jersey balls.
I'd get one in decent condition if such a thing existed and I didn't have to get on a plane to pick it up. It proves that automakers are poor-mouthing when they say they can't comply with 35 MPG CAFE, even if they get everything they sell that's larger than a Honda Civic designated as a light truck (an all-too-common legal method of cheating) by the EPA. Yes they can; they just won't. 40 MPG Smart cars, indeed!
Rob the SVX guy on April 22, 2008 at 09:52 AM
Meh. If I wanted MPG I'd get a used civic and do this, only make it look good:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/27/aerocivics-mods-combine-great-aerodynamic-and-a-um-stunning-l/
Once I get a garage and I'm out of school, expect great things. :P
Spanno on April 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM
It's hard to be pretentious in a Geo Metro.
Anthony Cagle on April 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM
"It proves that automakers are poor-mouthing when they say they can't comply with 35 MPG CAFE"
One has to sell them (at a profit, to boot), not just produce them.
Chris Hafner on April 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Spanno: "It's hard to be pretentious in a Geo Metro."
Yeah, there is that downside.
:-)
Oatworm on April 22, 2008 at 11:03 AM
What's truly amazing is how many of those econoboxes were out there back in the early '90s. I mean, you had the Geo Metro, the Ford Festiva, the Subaru Justy (4WD!)... heck, even the Hyundai Excel was trying to get into the mix in those days. The part that kills me, though, is the 3-speed autos they put into them back then... *shudder*
Steaming Pile on April 22, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I tell you what, @Anthony Cagle, if somebody was selling >45MPG boxes like that right now with $4 gas expected by Memorial Day, he'd have no problem whatsoever moving them off the lot at a tidy markup above MSRP. They might be made in Korea, or China, or Mexico, or Brazil, but if they roll off the lot under their own power, there is money to be made. They can be made quite efficiently if the proper incentive (or boot in the ass, take your pick) is provided. It's not that automakers can't make money selling them. It's that they don't WANT to. They'd rather convince you that the latest "why bother" crossover SUV is the wave of the future and all that. And you're partially right that it's all about MONEY. To some people, patriotism is for customers (buy American), not manufacturers (or importers).
Mochi Mochi on April 22, 2008 at 01:46 PM
I am so transparent. The CRX HF and Civics were my first thoughts. The transmission on these cars was really an important feature. I think they changed the engine tuning too - but don't quote me on that. Narrow hard compound tires were also important.
So my next suggestion is the 88 Civic DX I used to have, or the 87Civic Si I was attached too. Hah! How many civics does this guy have?! The 88 DX was capable of getting over 55mpg on the highway. Careful driving and tires built for economy were key.
Speaking of the CRX, its slippery profile ended up incorporated into the InSight. I drove an InSight for about a week and I loved it. The crazy thing about this car was that it was so incredibly space efficient. Even though it was a 2 seater, the available space was completely maximized - and optimized for most drivers. There was a special cargo well under the hatch. A sort of false bottom, that was like a camping cooler. It was perfect for containing a week's worth of groceries for 1-2 people. I would love to have that feature in the trunk of my Si.
While the idea of a 2 seater seems to be less utilitarian than a 4 seater, I'm not sure it is. I use the back seat of my car for a variety of things, and enjoy the fold down back seat when I need to move stuff. But in all the time I have had the car I've rarely had it full of people. Rarely more than 2. So while I make use of the space, I could do with something smaller.
I paid $4 per gallon this past weekend. I was half way between LA and SF. It hurt to pay it. I kept thinking about how we get used to these higher prices. There was a time when $2/gal seemed incredibly expensive. Now $3 is cheap!!! What the Pho! There will be a time when $4 seems cheap too.
That got me thinking about how much I love driving and what the right vehicle is for the future. I found myself thinking about 1000lb machines with 800cc engines. I started thinking about getting a super-kart for the track to get that sensation of total performance. But in the end the solution is readily at hand. Little econo cars from the 80s and 90s. Amazing isn't it? we have had the answer all along! The only problem is salt and abuse.
Havana is full of American auto relics from the 50's. They keep them rolling, mod them, remanufacture and cannibalize parts. With our heavy consumerist culture its hard to imagine that kind of conservation taking place. But perhaps there's a business niche for remanufacturing these humble econo-workhorses into new future vehicles.
There are so many costs associated with the automobile and each one has an environmental (and economic side effect). I consider my Civic Si to be pretty much the maximum of performance and consumption that I am willing to pay for.
Our discussions here on Carlust have completely changed my mind about the future. A few months ago (december to be exact) I was thinking my next car would be brand new. Now? No way! I'm setting a budget - not unlike our current $5k challenge - and when I find just the right car, then I make my move. Its fun to think that there is a world of wonderful old cars out there. I could have 5 or 10 of them for the price of a Mini-Cooper! What joy!!
The Geo is completely worthy of respect. Maybe it is not the most exciting ride in the world but it gets great marks for doing exactly what it was designed to do, and doing it very well. I love the comparison chart. It really shows how far we were and how little we have progressed.
buy old cars!
Cookie the Dog's Owner on April 22, 2008 at 02:09 PM
It seems like if you put some stickier tires on it and maybe did some suspension tuning, you could turn it into what amounts to a four-seat CRX. Trading a couple or three MPG for better driving dynamics seems like a fair proposition to me.
Anthony Cagle on April 22, 2008 at 03:29 PM
"It's not that automakers can't make money selling them. It's that they don't WANT to"
Huh? Why wouldn't they want to make money? What an odd thing for a business to do.
Oatworm on April 22, 2008 at 04:08 PM
The idea behind the whole "They don't want to build small cars!" routine is that there's more money in larger vehicles - as long as that's the only thing they feed us, we'll have to buy them, right?
Well, no - we have the Honda Fit, the Prius, the Smart ForTwo and the rest of its kind to keep us company. The reason we don't see small cars here is that, well, nobody is buying them. Many people in this country either want or need a vehicle big enough to haul a family and a week's worth of supplies in, and that consideration outweighs gas mileage. That said, as gas gets more expensive, just as it did in the '70s and '80s, we're going to see gas mileage become increasingly important. How do people think we got the Metro in the first place? Would we have cared about it if gas was $0.50/gallon or thereabouts?
Detroit, unfortunately, takes the brunt of this change in taste because, unlike the imports, they don't have quite as steady of a supply of small cars they can just drag in from other countries. That's better now than it used to be, in part due to some aggressive acquisition policies on the part of their corporate offices, but they're still rather exposed compared to some of the competition.
Rob the SVX guy on April 22, 2008 at 04:20 PM
They want to make a LOT of money. Sure, they could just sell little crap like this, but they wouldn't make much since the thing would be so cheap. They'd prefer to sell you something like an escalade...something that doesn't cost much to make, with a bunch of leather and sound deadening shoved into it. This way they can charge $55,000+ on a vehicle that cost them less than $25,000 to make. That's a $30,000 profit for each vehicle. For something like a metro, the cost to produce it would be much closer to what they would sell for.
I really think the people bitching about the situation of no small cars should really just go buy a used late 80s to early 90s honda. I own two, an 89 Prelude 5spd with 4ws, and an 89 accord 5spd. Both can easily get 30mpg, more if you drive them gently, both are fun to drive, reliable, and well put together. This summer, I'm going to be converting my accord to EFI for more power, and more MPG. I'll also be redoing a lot of it, so I can drive it another few decades. Seriously. If you like small cars, go get an old honda or something. Even if it needs new struts ($250) springs ($200), balljoints and bushings ($400), new exhaust ($200) and a new paintjob ($3000), you're still going to have a really really nice car for under $6,000 that gets 30mpg, is reliable, and fun to drive.
hunter in CLT on April 22, 2008 at 11:46 PM
I think some of you guys are a little (ok more than a little, actually) off-base. The notion of recreating small cars like the Metro, CRX, et. al. in 2008 has a few major problems.
First, it would be literally impossible to build a car that complies with modern safety regs and have it weigh far south of a ton, as the old cars did. Those old models would perform miserably in today's stringent crash tests. That alone puts a cap on the level of fuel efficiency that's possible with conventional (and cheap) technology. Consider the Toyota Yaris hatchback: this car is as small as you are going to get, but it weighs a minimum of 2300 pounds. It needs crumple zones and side impact beams and airbags. It tries its best, using a tiny 1.5L, but "only" manages 34/40. The Hyundai Accent hatch is about the same size and weight as the Yaris (being pretty much a clone thereof), but Hyundai works less potent magic to achieve a middling 32/35.
In order to do better we'd have to go even one class smaller, but even then, the smart fortwo somehow does no better on mileage than the Yaris. Although to be fair, it is saddled with a power-sucking auto.
No, we cannot recycle the late 80s/early 90s recipe. We can make cars as small and light as we dare and put small, efficient engines in them; but they just aren't going to be replicas of the Metro or Civic VX.
As for mass adoption. The most frequent response I get from people when they find out I like teeny tiny light gas-sipping cars is that teeny tiny light cars would get flattened in an accident. I probably wouldn't be exaggerating much if I said every single non-enthusiast I have ever talked to about small cars had this reaction immediately. Now, the Honda Fit is extremely safe, and the smart fortwo is for all intents a race-spec roll cage on wheels. But most people don't realize this because it's counter-intuitive.
And then of course many people need, or think they need, or think they might someday need, more space than a small car offers. Again, a Honda Fit actually has a heck of a lot of space inside, but they don't realize this because it's a small car.
For all the bitching and moaning we do (by "we" I mean not "me," but "those of us who are spoiled, whiny children") about the price of gasoline, it is clearly still affordable. People don't like paying the current prices, but they still drive, they still buy gas, and they still aren't trading their 25mpg midsize cars and 20mpg crossovers for subcompacts, much less begging for change at intersections. The gullible, the guilty, and the hypocritical eco-freaks buy Priuses to facilitate their smug emissions; for everyone else, it's simply not worth it to them to have a "car too small to carry anything" that "isn't safe in an accident" in exchange for saving a few bucks a week at the pump. (Of course, some of them are probably also betting on the demagoguing politicians who claim they can magically reduce the price of gasoline by investigating and punishing Big Oil, or whatever.)
There clearly is a market for small cars that sip gas. Otherwise we would not be seeing the introduction of all these B-cars like the Fit, Yaris, Versa, and Fiesta into the U.S. market. However, the market is and will continue to be limited until gasoline is far pricier than it is, in line with the European experience.
David Drucker on April 23, 2008 at 06:01 AM
How could you feature the Metro without mentioning that it can be had as a convertible. I wouldn't take the hardtop version if it came free in a box of Cracker Jack, but if a rust-free ragtop showed up at my door, it'd be as welcome as free beer.
Mochi Mochi on April 23, 2008 at 11:27 AM
The European model of gas pricing is largely based on taxation - as opposed to corporate profits. The tax structure is in place to encourage conservation and finance alternate methods of transportation that are ultimately more beneficial to societies as a whole. What we are currently experiencing is a situation where gas pricing is higher than it has ever been and profits for big oil are huge. But there is no real benefit to the average consumer, and the middle class and poor are the hardest hit.
The result of the current economic situation is that gas and diesel prices, and agricultural subsidies which benefit the production of corn, are driving up prices across the board. The food industry has responded by selling smaller qualities at the "same" price... read increased prices masked by reduced portion size or cheaper ingredients. Not really a great formula even though we need to lose some weight.
I'm not complaining about this, I'm noting a trend. Simultaneously auto manufacturers have huge incentives to build larger vehicles. The profit margin on a large vehicle IS much higher than a small car. This works counter to the needs of our economy and society. We need to be more fuel independent. Larger higher consumption cars don't help this effort. It is possible to create incentives for conservation. But right now we have legislated incentives for Hummers... yes you can get a huge tax break for driving a Hummer - it was part of an agricultural bill passed by congress. It is possible to create incentives for fuel efficient vehicles, as much as it is possible to create an incentive to drive a hummer.
Crash standards for older cars do not compare with current vehicles. But honestly there are other places in the world where you can buy a small efficient car and be pretty safe - its called Europe. The reason we have the crash standards we currently have is that Americans have refused to wear seat belts, and government has been largely unwilling to enforce seatbelt use as a law. So we have cars that are constructed around passive safety. I think side air bags are probably a great safety benefit since head trauma caused by side impact is really much more damaging than frontal impact (our skulls are less protected from side impact than they are from frontal or rear impact). But that said a proper set of active restraints in a vehicle is still a proven, effective, and light safety system.
The Fit, Yaris, and Versa are all great examples of efficient, small, and highly utilitarian new vehicles. Can they be lighter and smaller and more efficient? yes of course they can. And if we had a fleet of more efficient vehicles, we'd be a lot more fuel independent.
It really becomes a case of what we are willing to do, or what kind of direct incentives and penalties there are to encourage behavior. The Auto industry complained in the 1960s about seat belts being required in their design. They complained about CAFE standards. The industry as a whole has spent decades complaining about what it can't do. That's the industry, not the designers and engineers talking.
I have a background in design and engineering. I know for a fact that most designers and engineers would welcome the opportunity to take on the challenge of making a safe fuel efficient car that is fun to drive. No matter what anyone says, it's possible to do it, and it would be a lot of fun to work on that project. It can even be done at a reasonable price. There is a corporate and governmental lack of imagination that constrains this situation - not an actual lack of possibility. there's also a problem with people who are overly concerned about status... yeah I'm really worried that I don't have enough social status because I drive an old car... really bums me out, hhe said with sarcasm dripping from every pore.
In the mean time, I'll keep running old cars. Fuel efficient, safe, and fun to drive. Since I'm interested in these things I'll mod them to make them better and more fun. I have more car lust for old cars now, than at any point in my life.
By the way, has anyone noticed the huge safety problem that almost ALL new vehicles on the market have? You can't see out of most of our current crash safe vehicles. Since when did visibility stop being a safety issue? The 91 prelude (and other hondas of the time) had 326 degrees of visibility. You wont see that kind of view today - even from a mini-cooper.
Buy and run old cars, its fun, and its patriotic :)
OldCarGuy on April 23, 2008 at 12:39 PM
“Buy and run old cars, its fun, and its patriotic :)”
Agreed! And it’s easy on the environment, since the production of automobiles contributes to pollution and uses energy.
I wonder if I can find the guy that bought my old MR-2 . . .
Rob the SVX guy on April 23, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Now you guys are starting to talk some sense. I love this place. :)
Steaming Pile on April 23, 2008 at 01:15 PM
@Mochi - best post ever! I make the same observation about visibility. So does Consumer Reports - they complain about it all the time, and have even been known to downrate otherwise great cars (like the current Honda Civic) because of it. My Scion xA probably doesn't come close to 327 degrees of visibility, even with the rear headrests removed. I have these really thick pillars in my car, and I'm wondering why I would need that much armor, anyway. Note to Toyota - lower the center of gravity by reducing weight at the top of the vehicle, and I'll worry less about flipping over and being crushed, thanks.
It's funny how I can drive the smallest car Toyota made in 2005, and the damn thing weighs 2300 pounds. I wonder what the Japanese spec car (Toyota Ist) weighs. The standard engine everywhere else but the USA is 1300cc. Here it's the 1500cc Echo engine that's an 'upgrade' everywhere else. Would I drive an xA with 80-something HP to gain 3-5 MPG? Sure I would, especially if it were cheaper.
Rob the SVX guy on April 23, 2008 at 01:36 PM
Steaming Pile: Look at civic wagons from the 80s. Same body style and utility of your xA, better mpg, better visibility. Plus nice ones with rims look so freakin cool:
http://www.hondashowoff.com/profile_images/full/4368_1098478772.jpg
hunter in CLT on April 23, 2008 at 03:03 PM
"By the way, has anyone noticed the huge safety problem that almost ALL new vehicles on the market have? You can't see out of most of our current crash safe vehicles."
I've noticed this but tended to just chalk it up to being short (I'm 5'3"). Mainly I don't like the looks of high beltlines, but this is a good point as well. I first noticed this when I test drove a then-new '04 Tiburon... if I thought that was bad enough, then I tried an RX-8. Can't see a damn thing out of that car (nor out of the new MX-5). No sir, I don't like it.
Mochi Mochi on April 23, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Gentlemen, I need your advice... please see my situation under the $5k challenge...
http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/04/5000-challenge.html#comment-111981676
Robert Taft on April 24, 2008 at 04:34 AM
Mochi Mochi's comments about passive safety in newer cars makes absolute sense. I drive a 2000 Civic hatchback and am frequently needled about driving a "deathtrap". I just don't buy that logic. Sure, if I were in a collision with a larger vehicle, I might get the short end of the stick, but guess what? I do everything in my power to avoid potential danger when driving in traffic. Whatever my car lacks in "passive" safety I make up for with "active" safety. In other words I am very aware of my surroundings and current traffic situations. It's almost a game for me: try to anticipate as many potential dangers as I can at any given moment and be ready to react to all of them. I bet most experienced motorcyclists play the same game.
I guess my point is that the most important safety feature in any car is, and will always be, the six inches between the ears of the driver.
By the way, I love this blog and the great comments it generates.