Bring back the Geo Metro!

[hoopitup]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

Even the Golf TDI does 94 MPG, yes 94, and that's not even a hybrid.

Those numbers are severely inflated. Are they using imperial gallons?

If you check the Golf TDI's here on Fuelly, NONE average anywhere close to numbers like that. Most are averaging less than 1/2 of 94.

[Charon]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

Well that makes sense, it's only a good thing that cars are becoming more and more economical and thus reducing emissions in the process. The fuel in the US is of a poor refinement level than the fuel here, it also has over 300% more sulphur too which must affect fuel consumption and emissions too.

Would you care to show some proof for your statements about the relative refinement of fuels in Europe versus the USA? And of course, if those statements are true, it might explain why the fuels in Europe are so much more expensive than the fuels here.

[Charon]

And while you are at it, it would be interesting to know how it is that fuel of "poor refinement level" provides poorer fuel mileage. I can easily counter that with diesel fuels of #1 and #2 grades. #1 is more highly refined, in that more paraffin (wax) is refined out of it to make it flow more freely in cold temperatures. Yet #2 provides more energy per unit volume, and better MPG.

[Draigflag]

Originally Posted by hoopitup

Those numbers are severely inflated. Are they using imperial gallons?

If you check the Golf TDI's here on Fuelly, NONE average anywhere close to numbers like that. Most are averaging less than 1/2 of 94.

They are the official figures which admitadley afe quite hard to acheive. It depends on where you live, how you drive and what kind of driving you do. Im lucky, I do get pretty close, somtimes exceeding the official figures. As mentioned, im pretty sure you guys dont get the 1.6 TDI Bluemotion. And yes, the UK gallon is around 17% larger so take away 17% to get the US figures.

Originally Posted by Charon

Would you care to show some proof for your statements about the relative refinement of fuels in Europe versus the USA? And of course, if those statements are true, it might explain why the fuels in Europe are so much more expensive than the fuels here.

Yes I think that has a large degree of truth to it, generally the more refined the fuel, the more expensive it is. The same reason most Americans change thier oil way too often when the same cars in Europe can do 1000% more miles on one oil change (30,000 miles) is because they use poor quality oil as well.

Originally Posted by Charon

And while you are at it, it would be interesting to know how it is that fuel of "poor refinement level" provides poorer fuel mileage. I can easily counter that with diesel fuels of #1 and #2 grades. #1 is more highly refined, in that more paraffin (wax) is refined out of it to make it flow more freely in cold temperatures. Yet #2 provides more energy per unit volume, and better MPG.

Sorry im not a scientist, I do know that most motoring journalists refer to the fuel in the US as "tar" compared to what we use. A tad tongue in cheek, its not that bad, but if you run an American car on European fuel, you will see the emissions drop and the performance increase.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

The same reason most Americans change thier oil way too often when the same cars in Europe can do 1000% more miles on one oil change (30,000 miles) is because they use poor quality oil as well.

Actually, Americans change their oil way too often because they trust oil salesmen more than car salesmen. Oil propaganda tells them that they need to change it to often and the culture eats it up. Car manufacturers tell them that they can extend their oil change intervals and they assume the manufacturer wants the car to die prematurely so they'll buy another one.

Guess what? Junkyards are full of cars that never suffered a failure that could have been prevented with more frequent oil changes or better oil, even those that were owned by careless people who never change their oil at all.

Even so, I can think of one very good reason why Americans would legitimately need to change their oil more often than Europeans, though still nowhere near as often as is actually done. As I understand, Europeans are largely subject to requirements and taxes that make it extremely expensive and pointless to keep a car through its useful service life, encouraging them to drive newer vehicles. In much of the US we can keep a car for a whole lot longer, so we need our engines to last longer.

Sorry im not a scientist, I do know that most motoring journalists refer to the fuel in the US as "tar" compared to what we use. A tad tongue in cheek, its not that bad, but if you run an American car on European fuel, you will see the emissions drop and the performance increase.

I've found that a strong dose of skepticism helps me extract the truth from the hyperbole and sensationalism that journalists sell. I think that if you look at actual conditions and standards you may find that the gap is not as large as your journalists tell you.

Earlier today, on reading your post saying that US diesel has 300% of the sulfur content that Euro diesel has, I looked it up. I knew that in the past few years, some diesel owners have been griping about the new requirement for ultra low sulfur diesel and it made me question that statement. It looks like there was a game of leapfrog going on, with Euro diesel having lower sulfur than US, then US having lower, and now Euro again. (The whole time, however, there have been specific European countries with stiffer requirements.)

I imagine that other environmentally undesirable components may have seen similar changes to their requirements.

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by Mikesan

The ratings don't mean so much. I measured my 98 Metro over months of driving, and it averages 48.2 MPG combined city/highway, including up and down a 4000 ft mountain daily! The manual tranny of course, the autos simply do not mate well with the L3 engine. I do not believe the Prius gets 50 MPG combined in actual driving, its probably very close to the 48 MPG actual of the manual 1.0L Metro.

I was averaging 58mpg in my 2005 Prius before I sold it, and it had a lower EPA rating than the current one. The average here for the gen3 is around 48mpg, but if you were beating EPA in the Metro, you will beat it in the Prius. Maybe not by such a large margin, because a hybrid does much of the hypermiling for you, but 55mpg should be easy and 60mpg not unexpected.

On to other topics. The European and Japanese tests are unrealistic for the majority of drivers and commutes. Their numbers are higher than the pre-2008 EPA ones.

I don't know which diesel is currently lower in sulfur, but American and European diesel are both ultra low. It would destroy the NOx catalyst new diesel cars need to past emissions if they weren't. The lower sulfur also helps with particulates. Aside, the US will get ULS gasoline in 2017.

The process that removes the sulfur also removes some of the lubricating compounds from the diesel. European blends require they put back in. The problems with VW fuel pumps can likely be traced to this lack in US diesel. European diesel is also a higher cetane, which is kinda like octane but different. Has with higher octane, the higher cetane can allow manufacturers to design and tune the engines for better efficiency and performance.

[Mikesan]

Originally Posted by trollbait

I was averaging 58mpg in my 2005 Prius before I sold it, and it had a lower EPA rating than the current one. The average here for the gen3 is around 48mpg, but if you were beating EPA in the Metro, you will beat it in the Prius. Maybe not by such a large margin, because a hybrid does much of the hypermiling for you, but 55mpg should be easy and 60mpg not unexpected.

I don't know if I would beat the EPA ratings of the Prius if I drove one, but I sure ain't gonna plunk down $25K to try The point of my thread was to illustrate the incredible value the Geo/Chevy Metro has to offer, even by today's technology standards. You can buy an excellent, used, low mileage Metro for under $5K. Even if the Prius might beat it by a few MPG, the Metro is so simple car, its very economical to maintain and repair. Parts are much cheaper than Prius parts! Not to mention its nearly impossible for most home mechanics to do any major work on a Prius. Its so complex you really need to take it to a dealer or pro shop and pay big $$$ for repair and maintenance. It all adds up. So thats why I say the Metro wins in the overall value department, no comparison!

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by Mikesan

I don't know if I would beat the EPA ratings of the Prius if I drove one, but I sure ain't gonna plunk down $25K to try The point of my thread was to illustrate the incredible value the Geo/Chevy Metro has to offer, even by today's technology standards. You can buy an excellent, used, low mileage Metro for under $5K. Even if the Prius might beat it by a few MPG, the Metro is so simple car, its very economical to maintain and repair. Parts are much cheaper than Prius parts! Not to mention its nearly impossible for most home mechanics to do any major work on a Prius. Its so complex you really need to take it to a dealer or pro shop and pay big $$$ for repair and maintenance. It all adds up. So thats why I say the Metro wins in the overall value department, no comparison!

Regular maintenance on the Prius, or any hybrid, doesn't require going to the dealer. Fluids are like any other car. Same with brake work, but the regenerative braking means you might go 100K plus miles on the original front pads. Flushing the brake requires the Toyota diagnostic tool, but some that might be true of some ABS systems. If you drive many miles, the fuel and maintenance savings will quickly cover the hybrid premium.

Cheap cars aren't gone though. The Spark and Versa sedan are around $12,000. The new Mirage is $13,000. Which is what a new metro would cost today. The Spark is close to the Metro's fuel economy, and the Mirage beats it. They do so while being bigger, cleaner, and safer.

Nearly any 13+ year old car, that the owner has the ability to do their own work, will be cheaper to own than a new one. There are plenty of old, used Prii out there to for those that don't want to buy new. They just don't depreciate as fast, so will still cost more.

[Mikesan]

Originally Posted by trollbait

Cheap cars aren't gone though. The Spark and Versa sedan are around $12,000. The new Mirage is $13,000. Which is what a new metro would cost today. The Spark is close to the Metro's fuel economy, and the Mirage beats it. They do so while being bigger, cleaner, and safer.

Thats not true. Going by the data right here on Fuelly, the twelve 1.0L manual Metro's tracked average 43.5 MPG vs. 39.9 MPG for the new Mitsubishi Mirage (2014), which you said is the best of the 3. I don't know how you get the cost of a new Metro being $13k today? I bought my '98 new in '99 for $7200 at a dealer. If GM had kept this model line going, with low cost and efficiency as the primary market, advertised and marketed it aggressively, they may have been able to keep the price down in that same ballpark. Good condition, low mileage, used Metros currently go for well over the Blue book value and are pretty tough to find. People know a winner when they have one in their hands!

[rfruth]

I almost bought a new Metro once upon a time but in 2014 no thanks, there are more safe / practical choices out there (Chevy Spark is the new Metro or is it the Ford Fiesta with the 3 banger ? )