Detroit News: Like the Chevy Beat? Consider a used Geo Metro first
Last year, General Motors trotted out a few new microcar concepts, and the Chevy Beat appears to be the winning design in many peoples eyes. We'd love to see the car make it into production ourselves, considering that there is a distinct lack of mini-mobiles currently fighting for your hard-earned dollar, with the exception of the Smart. But, as The Detroit News points out, the idea behind the Beat is far from new, as the old Geo Metro clearly shows. The writer claims that the Metro can get a combined 40 miles per gallon or so and can reach highway speeds when required. We agree, and a used Metro can be found for just a few thousand bucks. The difference, as we see it, is that the Metro has very little inherent style, while cars like the Beat and Smart models have loads. Buyers are often enticed by the style of the vehicle first and enamored with the economy afterwards.
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
bigbenaugust 10:07PM (1/26/2008)
While I appreciate the sentiment that there is nothing new under the sun, I highly doubt that there are any used Geo Metros in a shape worth buying vs. a brand new car.
Reply
Dad 11:31PM (1/26/2008)
"The difference, as we see it, is that the Metro has very little inherent style"
A Metro crashes poorly. There is no point in saving a little fuel if in an accident your are seriously injured. Get the BEAT and forget the Metro.
Reply
Domenick 11:47PM (1/26/2008)
I saw a little Metro convertible the other day. I was thinking that would make a good electric car conversion. For the city, anyway.
Reply
ug 12:57AM (1/27/2008)
Don't get too excited about these in the US.
This is all you need to know about the triplets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVbeIEnvYug
Reply
Matthew 5:34PM (1/27/2008)
I would strongly advise all of you restrict your comments on the Chevy/Geo Metro safety to the first generation. 1995-2001 Metro's was the first car in the world to meet and exceed 1997 safety standards and got a 5 star rating driver and 4 star passenger. I am on my second 1995 Metro, as my 1997 Metro Hatchback was rear ended by a drunk driver at over 100 km/h, and I was stopped at an intersection. I LIVED, thanks to the "super steel safety cell". Go ahead, look it up! So some of you need to check your facts. Very few vehicles will ever be as price concious, as safe and fuel efficient.
Reply
almost Dr. G.. 6:52AM (1/28/2008)
my parents would always taunt me that they were going to buy me a geo metro as my first car. now im looking to get a yaris/civic hybrid/aveo when i finish med school. how times change huh?
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 7:58AM (1/28/2008)
"1995-2001 Metro's was the first car in the world to meet and exceed 1997 safety standards"
Well, that's great if you're in 1995. But we're currently in 2008. Safety engineering has progressed significantly in those 13 years. I like Geo's but have you seen the shape most Metros ar in? I was looking last year for a 1.0L manual model for a project, and every one I found was more of a project than I cared for. I would've had to spend many times the purchase price on just getting it sound--forget the fun stuff at the heart of the project.
Folks don't want to buy a ten year old car with 100k miles. Simple fact. If you show them a cheap new alternative, they will go for that.
Reply
calebe 9:02AM (1/28/2008)
If you can find a Metro with low miles yeah that is a great buy . ten year old cars most likely have well over a hundred thousand miles on them. While the Metro/Swift were good cars, most of the people that bought them did nothing but put gas in them. Most that i see are pretty beat up.
Reply
Derek 12:37PM (1/28/2008)
Even if the clock is over 100K, a typical modern car should be able to get past 200K with only minimal maintenance. So, if you consider that the car is halfway through its life, it is still a steal compared to a new car unless you are shopping in India...
Reply
Patrick 1:34PM (3/30/2008)
My two cents: I have a 1995 Metro with 166k miles on it. I paid $1600 for it 23k miles ago and the body and engine are in excellent shape. I'll let others argue about the saftey - I feel justified for feeling safe in mine. I would however argue one point. While "engineering has progressed significantly in those 13 years", so have motives. For all the technological and engineering advancement why is it that my 13 year old car regularly gets between 44 and 50 MPG while this range is out of reach for the new crop of ultra-compact cars? The 1986 Honda CR-X that I used to own 10 years ago regularly got in the same range and I preferred the ride. (I use the Palm software Odometron to analyze mileage: For the 23,000 miles I have owned the Metro my averaged cost per mile is under 7 cents.)
Why shell out for a cramped SMART or the like when I can get better performance for 1/10th the price??? If it's a beater, pay to have it restored and you'll have a recycled car with better performance for half the price to purchase, a better cost to own and drive, and a fraction of the impact on the environment.
Reply