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.
lester on September 23, 2008 at 07:58 AM
Theregoesmydrivingrecord, i have a couple mid 1996 geos and yes the front ends do break out.
However that can be corrected with a suspension mod made by fellow geo/suzuki swift/pontiac fly/chevy metro tuners.
The use of a lower front strut bar that ties the 2 supension mounts with the mounts of the roll bar under the floor pan, will eliminate the flexing of the lower front control arms for about $ 150.00 for the steel version or slightly higher for the aluminum one.
Also with the addition of a top strut bar mounted to the top 2 front struts you will have a car that corners like its on rails.
One could also go farther with the addition of a rear strut bar also with the sacrifice of a little bit of storage space.
Try this site http://www.teamswift.net/ for the best web on the planet about these cars.
The earlier late 80's early 90's 3 cyl geos also came with souped up turbochargers and hotrodded double overhead 1.3 litre cam motors for even more kick in the pants fun, albeit with less fuel economy but bigger grin appeal.
One could also go more extreme in the fuel saving route try this site for more ideas http://www.metrompg.com/
djkenny on September 25, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I have an 87 turbo Chevrolet Sprint. Bought this car with 107k in 1992 and it now has 189k.
Fast. 45 mpg highway. 35 mpg+ on the street. $20 tires.
Love this car.
killerMPG on September 30, 2008 at 07:51 PM
lester,
Yeah, those front ends do break out a bit, but I still like mine. I know a guy who also bought one but he didn't realize the automatic was so slow. He hates the performance but it still gets good mileage.
I am thinking about converting mine to a 108 volt electric system. I hear they get about 65mph tops on some, and depending on the driving conditions and all like 30-60miles range. Only works for around a smaller city of course, but neat idea. Nice EV electric vehicle. Could be powered by solar or windmill or wave power or tidal or geothermal or a bunch of other sources. Anyways, I digress, but it's a good candidate for a city EV.
killerMPG on September 30, 2008 at 07:56 PM
And good point djkenny. In 1988 I drove a gf's 1986 sprint - long before anyone would know WTF you were talking about if you used the letters 'gf' together to mean girlfriend. Not to mention WTF meaning....Weight Transfer Factor... but that's another topic.
I found the sprint to be cool to drive just because it had such good visibility and was a simple car. It wasn't a sportscar or anything but it was an example of how easy it was to cary 1-4 passengers anywhere.
What's your curb weight? 3cyl? Turbo hmm.. I'm guessing about 70-80hp and 1600lbs.
Dave on October 02, 2008 at 02:52 PM
Right on with the comment about reasonably safe and mindlessly safe. Your best defense against an auto accident is your driving habits and skills. As a firefighter I've cut people out of more than a few cars and I've noticed a few things. 1.Trucks have no crumple zone in the rear so those of you riding around in pickups thinking your so much safer than anyone else will have a rude awakening if you are ever rear ended by a vehicle your size or larger. 2.Smaller cars do quite well in most crashes. The front and rear sacrifices itself for you very well in most anything 1990 and newer for sure. Most crashes with serious injuries I've seen had more to do with one or usually both parties doing something they shouldn't have been or just not paying enough attention to what they should be. If you want safer driving conditions on the roadways, ban and enforce cell phone use while driving and proper lane management (fast to the left slow to the right). That would go much further making driving more safe than all the crash requirements we have. That being said I would be perfectly happy if the powers that be make exceptions and let the gas sippers from yesteryear be produced again or something like it that didn't have to weigh 1000 pounds more than it has to. The metro had even more untapped potential as the 3 cyl was never fully fuel injected even though the heads have places to tap out injectors. They just never took it to that level. I have 2 metros and I can't say enough good things about them. Fun to drive, almost never break, easy to work on when they do. Suzuki made an outstanding product. And as far as the LUSTING for cars go, Check out the specs on the SUZUKI SWIFT GTI which is the same basic car as the metro but built for speed. Dollar for dollar one of the fastest cars on the road ever. Posted the same numbers as the porshe 911 in 1989 for gobs less cash. The Metro is not only a faithful servant that can save you money. With the right parts and a good mechanic it can also be one hell of a sleeper. There's nothing more precious than the look on the face of a driver in a big fancy sports car that just got smoked by a geo metro with a gti motor hiding under the hood.
That Car Guy on October 26, 2008 at 10:02 AM
I like the idea behind this car. It's fuel efficient, the tires are about as far out to the corners as they can be, and it's inexpensive. Cars like this might make a perfect alternative for in-city travel, campus life, and other tight-place situations. Seems these tiny cars were also offered in 4-door and wagon styles and, at one time, convertibles. Too bad the factory didn't make them a bit more entertaining.
Cracky on December 04, 2008 at 01:31 PM
I have a GEO Metro LS-that is four door, with the 1.3L and dreaded 3-speed auto. It is a major POS, but if you're able to swallow your pride (as I apparently am), you will be more than pleased with the fuel economy and reliablility of the Metro. I have 145K miles on mine-with no major parts replaced (partially because I'm too cheap to fix the power-steering that quit working a year ago).
Sure, co-workers laughed at me four years ago when I started driving it to work, but I got the last laugh as they spent $100 to fill their tanks with gas and I only spent $30. Now they all want to buy it from me! Best part is: I got the car for free:)
Six Foot2.5 on January 08, 2009 at 08:11 PM
Yes I am 6'2.5 to be exact. The only new car I have ever owned was a 1988 Subaru Justy. Loved it. Currently, the wifes car is a 2002 Toyota Corrolla, OK so you spell it. I hate it. I bang my knees every time I get into it. Of course, my car is a truck. It needs to be rebuilt. About three months ago I stumbled on a 94 metro. It sounded like crap, ran worse, so I bought it. 800 bucks. The wife has complained about how much $$ I have spent fixing little things like exhaust pipes and a steering wheel covers. I even replaced the rotted speakers and dicovered the original equiptment radio works great. I have a friend who is a great mechanic. He checked out everything. The only problems he found were water in the gas tank, water in the oil pan and that someone tried to fix the alternator!! Why it ran at all is beyond me. The alternator guy returned my alt. to me in pieces in a box. In the morning I am going to pick up a a dirty old replacement I found in a dead metro, $45.00. Before I was informed of the water problem I logged 56 mpg. Since most of the obvious problems have been fixed I am now getting 42 mpg. Hey, don't ask. I am having fun with this thing. I drive it to work, to fish, and to buy stuff,,, like speakers.
charade on January 15, 2009 at 11:47 PM
I have a 96 metro LSi, and I love it! This car is slow, sure, but it's so easy to drive. I don't usually get better than 28 city, 39 hwy, which is still better than most cars out there. Although small and fairly plain, I think they've got alot of personality. Oh, and according to the stats I looked up, they have 75 horsepower, at least...the 4 cylinders do. Yeah, you won't get anywhere fast, but you'll get there on a helluva lot less money.
Also, repair is usually fairly cheap. The most I've ever spent on my car was around 400 dollars, not bad, considering the potential thousands I save on gas.
But to be honest, I just love my car. It's cute, it's peppy, it's an amusing unidentifiable shade of blue/purple, I can park it anywhere, I can fit anywhere, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.
james on March 29, 2009 at 06:05 PM
Go to geometroforum.com /go to pictures and check out my 89 geo gasser tell me what you think.believe me you will never see another one like it.
treje on March 31, 2009 at 11:16 PM
I owned a 1993 metro 3 cyl I bought new. I can attest that it most definitely has more cargo room than a Prius- the battery in the Prius makes the cargo area very shallow. I use my cars to haul equipment for my job & a Prius can't cut it! I drove this car about 140,000 and it died because I let the oil get too low for a long time. It was one of the most reliable cars I ever owned.
Love your site- keep giving the hatchback the luv it deserves!
Check out the Ford Fiesta- they're going to bring it back to the US!
Jeremy on November 29, 2009 at 07:23 PM
Hi I have 3 Geo metro's and I love each one of them they are the best car on gas! thanks to the suzuki moter that GM put in there!
I just hope that suzuki will make that car here some day because all the geos are getting old and we need to keep them going!
somaie on December 28, 2009 at 01:51 AM
Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Pigtails on August 26, 2010 at 10:01 AM
I drive a Geo Metro and it fits 5 people. I was amazed the other day while putting groceries in my car that the smart vehicle owner parked next to me was trying to force his purchases in the smart car and they would not fit, while I had no problem putting my bags in my Geo. That just goes to prove the design was right, apart from the fact that a large person can fit inside well because there is no needless accessories to get in the way of your arms or head.
Heather on April 25, 2012 at 01:50 AM
I have a 95 Geo Metro LSI 5 speed stick. I've had it for over 12 years now and I am never giving her up. At 155,000 miles now I just replaced the original clutch. When the engine finally goes I totally plan on converting her to electric and drive her for another twenty years. What can I say I just LOVE this car!!! :D