Car and Driver: Hold off on that used Geo Metro purchase
The used car market is responding very favorably to vehicles of ages past that have been able to eke the most miles from a single gallon of gas. The poster-child for the movement seems to be the oft-maligned Geo Metro, which is sometimes changing hands today for a similar dollar amount as it sold for when new in the early '90s. We're not so sure you could pry so many of our own hard-darned dollars from our sweaty palms for a vehicle that old, and Car and Driver is positive that they wouldn't spend it either. In fact, the auto-scribes at the mag have written a three-page article explaining exactly why it isn't a good idea to buy a used Metro to save on your gas bill.
To back up their opinions, past road tests of the Metro were checked and found seriously deficient. For instance, the '92 Metro took 220 feet to stop from 70 mph and 13.1 seconds to reach sixty. Along with that, C&D got just 39 mpg from it in testing. Oh, and ABS brakes and airbags are absent as well. What's more, the Metro's tailpipe emissions are quite a bit worse than the economy cars of today. So, while the Metro will surely return high fuel mileage numbers when driven with a bit of sense, safety, performance and emissions all conform to standards that we set a long time ago. In other words, you could do better with that 7K by purchasing a car just a few years old.
[Source: Car and Driver]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Lad 5:41PM (9/20/2008)
A family member bought one for $300, switched it over to a four cylinder engine and five speed, replaced a fender and some associated pick and pull parts and is on the road for about $1000 including licensing and insurance. No one in my family will buy a new car unless it's an electric drive. We'll wait!
Reply
Jay 7:13PM (9/20/2008)
I personally own a 96 geo Metro and still get 48mpg when I commute between home and Fresno - a 3500 ft elevation 50 mile commute. When purchasing these 3 cyl cars, dont buy the auto version as the mileage sucks (about low 30 mpg) and no AC. When travelling between Fresno and San Francisco (250mi each way) , I can get about 55 mpg if you limit speed below 65 mph. The car is I think only below 80HP so you wont' be racing with it (car can handle 65 very comfortably) . Purchased for $1400 about 2002 with only 40K miles, dual airbags - best value for the money. It's now at 90K miles and only major work I've done is a new timing belt and crankshaft seal.
Just imagine if they improved on this car - like fuel injection, lighter body parts etc. 1997 I think was the last year it was made - a 4 cyl version with more hp but same high mileage. For more info, there is a yahoogroup on this vehicle.
Too bad this vehile is so maligned. THe review they did was for a first generation geo's. If you can get a late generation geo for under $2k in good condition, buy it.
John92LX 7:50PM (9/20/2008)
The Aspire was a better car and still is. It has more power, standard dual air bags, and some had ABS (it was optional). They're pretty reliable as well, and dont burn oil nearly as bad as older Metros. They came standard with a 4cyl and are quicker than 3cyl Metros.
With any car this small, avoid the automatics because they will suck the gas and make the car even slower.
I recently got rid of my '99 Saturn SL. It was a base model with no A/C, no power steering, and a 5-speed manual. I got 38 on my commute and 40 on trips. They burn oil too, and their interior build quality leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. Still better than a Metro.
Reply
Paul Sallmen 10:46PM (9/20/2008)
So what if C&D doesn't recommend the Metro. I think the fact that a 10 year old Metro still has value, shows that there is a dire lack of fuel efficient cars to choose from. I think it also illustrates that there is still a high demand for a simple A to B car, with simple maintenance and cheap repairs. New cars, being so much heavier (with all the crash safety features) and much more complicated gadgetry (with all the computers and sensors) will be far more expense to repair, especially as they age.
Personally, I think in North America, a new class of cars should be created. It would be "Mini car" class that would forego some of the safety features, added weight and gadgets in favour of fuel economy. This would be similar to the European Superminis and Japanese Keijidousha. Some features could be:
Max. weight: 1000 kg
Max. engine: 1.2 L for gas (1.5 L for diesel)
Max. power: 90 hp
Min. fuel economy: 5 L/100 km hwy, 6 L/ 100 km city
Safety features: 1990s standards, airbags recommended, but not required.
Insurance and licencing rates: cheaper (preferably half) but will be up to individual states and provinces to decide.
The Smart car would already exceed this requirement (it meets the requirement of regular cars). This would be a great way to get Japanese Keis or cars like the VW Fox (Lupo) or Renault Twingo to North America. I think this is reasonable. We need smaller cars on the road, not more SUVs. 2 small cars crashing into each other is safer than 2 SUVs crashing into each other. Less mass = less force. Remember Newton's 2nd law: F=ma
Reply
GoRealSlow 4:54AM (9/21/2008)
Jay, I'm shocked you can get that out of a 96. With the redesigned body and OBD-II I was hearing tops of 45 with the 3cyl/5speed.
55 out of a pre-ODB-II 5speed was easy to hit at highway speeds and 40+ in mixed driving, even with a lot of city, was perfectly reasonable.
Just have to remember a Metro has a 4 star front collision rating against a wall. Against a Hummer it's a few negative stars. So, if you're about to be hit by a Hummer, drive into a wall.
*I've put 300,000+ miles on Metros and love them for the civilian jeeps that they are. Simple, easy to maintain, and easy to love if you expect them to perform within their limits.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 10:08AM (9/21/2008)
SUVs frequently have long braking distances and poor 0-60 times, especially in the time frame when the Metro was made. And I didn't see Car & Driver issuing warnings about driving those.
Reply
Perry 9:04AM (9/22/2008)
Then you havent been reading C & D. They hate SUVs and full size pickups when used as basic transporation.
Reply
Avinash machado 7:55AM (9/22/2008)
Geo Metro was an rebadged Suzuki Swift? Why doesn't Suzuki launch the present model Swift in the US for those looking for a economy car?
Reply
paul allen 9:09AM (9/22/2008)
"Why doesn't Suzuki launch the present model Swift in the US for those looking for a economy car?"
Because it wouldn't meet ANY of today's safety or emissions regulations.
You guys are crazy to think this totally-unsafe vehicle compares in any way with a modern car. If finances force you to drive a car like this, ok, but if not, put a little more value on your survival and get something else.
Reply
Spending Less On Car Purchase 9:47AM (9/23/2008)
I just came across your blog and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I have a site and it's about buying a car with little or no credit http://buying-a-car-with-little-or-no-credit.freehostia.com/ so I know what I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!
Reply
Spending Less On Car Purchase 9:48AM (9/23/2008)
I just came across your blog and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I have a site and it's about buying a car with little or no credit http://buying-a-car-with-little-or-no-credit.freehostia.com/ so I know what I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!
Reply
Richard C. Livingston 11:17AM (9/23/2008)
Here here!
I have long thought that weight limits for new passenger vehicles would fix pretty much all of our motoring problems.
Car and truck companies would be forced to let their engineers do what they were trained to do.
Mileage would skyrocket.
Injuries would plummet.
There would be more space on the roads. (Smaller vehicles).
Exotic materials (aluminum, titanium, carbon fiber etc.) would become more commonplace due to mass production and ultimately less expensive.
My rough suggestions.
four seat passenger cars- 1200 lbs empty.
Pickup truck-minivans and suv's- 1400 pounds empty.
Box delivery trucks- 2000-6000 pounds empty.
Tractor trailer-12,000 pounds empty (includes trailer)
As you can see, the playing field between passenger vehicles in accidents would be a lot more level when they hit one another.
There would still be a large discrepancy between pass. cars and commercial trucks, but commercial drivers are trained to a higher standard and so the onus would be on the passenger vehicle drivers to behave themselves....
Reply