Metros vs. Yarii gaslog comparo: -4.2% below & +5.1% above EPA respectively

[MetroMPG]

Thanks to the new garage search feature, I looked up the number of Metro variants here at GS. Of those with gaslogs, 9 are garden variety Geos (not counting Coyote's XFi) .

Out of curiosity, and to gather evidence for my theory that these cars have unusually optimistic EPA ratings, I calculated the average lifetime FE for the group: 44.056 mpg (US)

= 4.2% below EPA on average

(And note: that's comparing to the lowest - i.e. most attainable - EPA combined rating for these cars from 1990-1998. It was actually 46, 47 & 48 in various years.)

And how do the 9 non-XFi Metro drivers compare to the 25 non-XFi drivers (1.0L 5-speed owners) who have entered their FE info at fueleconomy.gov?

Their average: 42.7125 mpg (US)

= 7.2% below EPA (46)

---

The Metro Experience
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 49.64 MPG(US)

1994 Geo Metro HB
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 48.81

Firefly #1 (retired)
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 46.89

another Green Machine
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 43.36

The Geo!
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 45.77

Firefly #2 Blackfly
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 57.9 MPG(US)

Angry Hornet
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 39.98

The Green Clam (SOLD)
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 39.27

Ladybird
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 41.52 MPG(US)

[MetroMPG]

Compare to the Yarii crowd, for example. (See also the now out of date thread How are the Yarii doing?)

I found 6 of those cars in the garage that are 5-speeds (identified by their EPA figures - we really need a transmission field in the garage, Matt!).

Group average lifetime FE = 38.885 mpg (US)

= 5.1% above EPA combined (37)

[Silveredwings]

I would second the transmission field request. Anyone of 'influence?' Do we have a quorum?

I think the EPA are as confusing as they are misleading. It's too bad really. But it sure proves that expectations can be premeditated resentments.

[MetroMPG]

Premeditated resentments. Like it.

And yes, I think 2 counts as a quorum!

Continuing the comparo: 14 5-speed Yarii owners have entered their FE data at fueleconomy.gov.

They get an average of 36.4 mpg (US).

= 1.6% below EPA

I know this comparison doesn't prove my theory (about the Metro's relatively difficult to achieve EPA figures relative to other cars), but it's evidence.

[Matt Timion]

Will be happy to add the transmission field sometime soon. House guests this weekend make it rather difficult to do much of anything.

[Silveredwings]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

...I know this comparison doesn't prove my theory (about the Metro's relatively difficult to achieve EPA figures relative to other cars), but it's evidence.

If anyone could just know this through experience and yet be conscientious about stating that as fact, I'd think it would be you Darin. Kudos to you for your standards.

Still...a word picture comes to mind about a bunch of people sitting around a room talking, but nobody wants to come right out and mention that there's a live elephant in the room.

[cfg83]

Silveredwings -

Originally Posted by Silveredwings

I would second the transmission field request. Anyone of 'influence?' Do we have a quorum?

I think the EPA are as confusing as they are misleading. It's too bad really. But it sure proves that expectations can be premeditated resentments.

Transmission field, please. It's only fair.

CarloSW2

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I know this comparison doesn't prove my theory (about the Metro's relatively difficult to achieve EPA figures relative to other cars), but it's evidence.

Darin you've mention this a couple of times. You know more about Metros then anyone and could probably put one together in a dark garage but how could they change the protocol to make it optimistic? I though that it was pretty straight forward on the EPA tests. What varibles could they change or leave out? It seems true but am drawing a blank on how it could be changed to reflect that.

[MetroMPG]

I don't think they changed the protocol.

What's odd about these cars though, is that the constant speed at which they attain their EPA highway MPG is lower than other cars I've driven. IE. drive an unmodified Metro at 60 mph in warm weather on level ground and if you're very lucky, you may see its EPA highway figure (around 50 mpg US). Any other car I've driven permits you to go 5-10 mph faster before you fall below its EPA highway rating.

What does this mean? I dunno. Maybe the car was designed specifically to perform best in the range of the EPA test cycles?

I started the thread not just to bring it up again (I know I've said it a bunch before) but because I wanted to actually look at other cars, collect some figures, and make the comparisons. Factual fodder for a big expose on metrompg.com . Just thinking out loud.

And I wouldn't say I know more about Metros than anyone. I can think of 2 GS members who outrank me there!

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I don't think they changed the protocol.

What's odd about these cars though, is that the constant speed at which they attain their EPA highway MPG is lower than other cars I've driven. IE. drive an unmodified Metro at 60 mph in warm weather on level ground and if you're very lucky, you may see its EPA highway figure (around 50 mpg US). Any other car I've driven permits you to go 5-10 mph faster before you fall below its EPA highway rating.

What does this mean? I dunno. Maybe the car was designed specifically to perform best in the range of the EPA test cycles?

I think you might be on to something there with the speed of the EPA test. The Metro has about half the HP of most cars so that the extra power required to go over 50 proportionaly kills the numbers. I'm looking forward to your expose.

Should'nt we be watching the superbowl?