Bring back the Geo Metro!

[Mikesan]

Last model year was 2001. This basic, cheap, easy to maintain, reliable little car gets close to 50 mpg, "pre-hybrid" style. Why did GM cancel it? With gas near $4 bucks/gal they are not looking too smart. Yes, the Prius gets about the same mileage, but its a $25K car, vs $8K for a Metro. And many people have got "shafted" on the maintenance and repairs of that complex hybrid. Sometimes a simple old "low tech" solution is just the better way!

[hoopitup]

Originally Posted by Mikesan

Why did GM cancel it?

Suzuki quit making them.
The Spark is the closest thing to the GEO Metro they offer now.

Not sure if the Metro would have enough power for many with it's tiny 3 cylinder engine. Americans in general are very torque hungry.

[trollbait]

The current Prius gets 50mpg combined. That beats the Metro's, with 1L 3cylinder with 5spd manual, pre-2008 ratings. Adjusted for current testing methodology, that the Prius was tested under, that Metro does worse at 37mpg combined. The 42mpg highway means someone willing to drive for economy might beat the Prius there, but the majority of Americans don't drive a manual. The automatic in the Metro was a 3 speed that only got 26city/31hwy/28combined.

Then the Prius is a bigger, better performing, and safer car. The Metro does cost less, but adjusted for inflation, it would cost $10.6k before being updated for current regulations. Plus the features now considered standard and it will cost around the same as the Spark.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....14857&id=14859

The Metro, CRF HF, Civic VX, etc. would return great fuel economy for those willing to drive a manual. Modern versions would do even better if they stay true to their roots, but only a minority of buyers in a car segment with tight margins would even look at them.

[theholycow]

I feel same way about the older basic cars that got great fuel economy by being small and efficient. However, it's not realistic.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were losing money on the Metro by 2001 but kept it for CAFE until it didn't matter because all the consumers were buying SUVs. In the meantime hybrids have become popular and profitable and take care of the CAFE need.

As mentioned above, today's dollars are different, and newer standards (in the form of regulatory requirements as well as what the market will buy) mean you can't make the car as basic as it used to be. So you get Fiats, Minis, and Smarts. They cost more and their fuel economy is less.

Then there's this issue: New car buyers don't care about gas price anywhere near as much. Used car buyers, especially the ones who are very concerned with fuel prices, don't pay the manufacturers.

[Draigflag]

50 MPG? Thats pretty poor by todays standards, google "top 10 most economical cars in the UK" and you'll realise that 50 MPG is almost half of what todays European efficeint technology offers. Even the Golf TDI does 94 MPG, yes 94, and that's not even a hybrid. With economy like that, its hard to see why anyone would opt for a hybrid, when they actually offer less MPG's than thier diesel rivals.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

50 MPG? Thats pretty poor by todays standards, google "top 10 most economical cars in the UK" and you'll realise that 50 MPG is almost half of what todays European efficeint technology offers. Even the Golf TDI does 94 MPG, yes 94, and that's not even a hybrid.

Apparently that's a different Golf TDI than what's available in the US.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....33820&id=34639
That, or the tests differ THAT much.

With economy like that, its hard to see why anyone would opt for a hybrid, when they actually offer less MPG's than thier diesel rivals.

In the US, diesels suffer severely from market acceptance issues (for a whole bunch of reasons that you may already know). Anyway, fuel economy comparison is not favorable for diesels, at least in the case of the VW Golf TDI vs. Toyota Prius C.

[Mikesan]

Originally Posted by trollbait

The current Prius gets 50mpg combined. That beats the Metro's, with 1L 3cylinder with 5spd manual, pre-2008 ratings. Adjusted for current testing methodology, that the Prius was tested under, that Metro does worse at 37mpg combined. The 42mpg highway means someone willing to drive for economy might beat the Prius there, but the majority of Americans don't drive a manual. The automatic in the Metro was a 3 speed that only got 26city/31hwy/28combined.

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.

[Draigflag]

Originally Posted by theholycow

Apparently that's a different Golf TDI than what's available in the US.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....33820&id=34639
That, or the tests differ THAT much.



In the US, diesels suffer severely from market acceptance issues (for a whole bunch of reasons that you may already know). Anyway, fuel economy comparison is not favorable for diesels, at least in the case of the VW Golf TDI vs. Toyota Prius C.

Yea pretty sure you only get the basic 2.0 tdi, the one that does 94 MPG is a 1.6 TDI with 105 bhp and lots of clever mapping to get the MPG so high! Yea I think Americans are quite old fashioned in thier attitude towards diesels, they still think they are these dirty noisy polluting monsters. In fact the opposite applies, they are smooth, quiet offer amzing performance and some of the most economical ones have carbon emissions over three times lower than most US cars.

[Charon]

The thing to remember on these "carbon emissions" is very simple. The amount of carbon emitted is a DIRECT FUNCTION of the amount of carbon in the fuel, and the amount of fuel burned. In fact, diesel fuel has a slightly higher percentage of carbon by weight than does gasoline (petrol). The lower amount of carbon emitted is directly related to the lesser amount of fuel burned. No emission control devices in current use can reduce the carbon (actually, carbon dioxide). The only way to reduce those emissions is to burn less fuel.

[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.