If GM offered a car for under $10k, that got 52 MPG, would you buy it?

Or should I say... "Did you own one?"
Because the car I am talking about is not some new car.
It's the 1991 Geo Metro XFI.



I was flipping through some old magazines from the late 80's not long ago and saw and ad for a Geo Metro, that boasted 58 miles to the gallon. The ad may have well been from 2011, because of how it was phased.

The system for measuring MPG by the EPA has changed. Nowadays, the sticker would read 52 MPG instead of 58.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySidePopUp.jsp?column=1&id=7608

I understand why we don't have many small diesels in this country. But why the hell don't we have your basic European 3 cylinder "city car"?

You don't need some fancy expensive hybrid. You can probably pick up one of these metros on the used car market for under $500. But this should be the trend of cars. Doing more with less.
Instead the automakers are still making engines larger and more powerful. And vehicles are still large- although they do appear to be reducing the size of them somewhat. (ford exploder)

Do Americans still have some insatiable appetite for powerful cars and still worry what others might think of them for driving the smallest car you can get? Or have we evolved?

Sound off, please.

So $10 was a lot to pay for a pile of junk.

I don't think the Ford Escort cost $10K however. ?

I was just throwing the 10k figure there just for illustration purposes.

Someone I know had one of those and it broke down almost every week. It was a costly nightmare, I know that much.

Maybe that is why you don't hear about the Ford Escort much any longer?

:dem:

And it explains why you don't see any on the road today. Only because of competition and govt regulation did we get new technology and better methods of construction, and most importantly, the end of rust problems that I believe was planned obsolescence engineered to sell more cars sooner.

As an example, when they test new cars for emissions now, they put it in an airtight chamber and check for pollutants escaping from the entire car, including under hood and fuel tank. Those tests have led to closed fuel systems, much more efficient power plants, and new gasket technology that has made such a difference that while an older engine would become caked in grease over time, now they just get dusty. because of that advanced tech brought about by "evil govt regulations", our cars are now more reliable, efficient, and consumer friendly. It's a fact that a Dodge Neon emits fewer emissions at idle than a '65 Mustang does with the engine off.

That Geo was from the era of Bic lighter automobiles. Use it awhile, throw it away and get a new color. Good riddance.

seems to be the only car besides an 88 Honda or Toyota (with 5 million miles) that gets good gas mileage, cheap parts and plentiful on the cash market.

I had one of those and it got close to 40 MPG on a long trip.

and damnit, they used to be standard!

We drove it until it had 200K miles on it & then gave it to a poor friend. (Actually she was a GOOD friend--just didn't have any money :) ) and she put probably another 50K on it. That was a great car. It was a little rusty at the end, but ran fine still got 43 mpg.

and it got about 40+ mpg as well. It was a great car and I drove the hell out of it.

I was sad to let it go admittedly!

:dem:

Manufacturers would rather sell a $40K pick up/SVU/luxury car than an inexpensive one...

The problem we have in the US is that most people have to have a car to get to work, and on freeways, people in little tiny cars are at a disadvantage next to the behemoths that many drive..(often the aggressive ones) so many people are actually afraid to be in those small cars..

People who don;t need a car to commute long distances are often not looking for the most efficient ones, since they won;t be buying that much gas..

They just don't put super small engines in them.

Example... Chevy Aveo. Probably even weighs less (that's a guess) than the metro.
Honda Fit is another one.

We keep them a very long time & we are "old", so the ones we have now will outlast us:)

My husband finally got his "nice truck" (Nissan Nismo v-6) last week & we have our Amanti for comfy trips.. (Last time I put gas in it was about a month ago:) )

Very fast.

But alas, it had poor fuel economy.

except for occasional trips to Lowes & the dump :rofl:

:toast:

I like hotels..nice hotels:)

... I like tents. Tents pitched as far away from anyone else as possible.

Apparently, I have some things to work out.

:hi:

It's true, the ones with the 2.x turbo diesel.
Not nearly as fast as the one you got but a hell of a lot better on gas,

As I recall, Metros weighed under a ton. Around the same weight as the Miatas of the time. There might be a Lotus made today that's lighter and I'm guessing there are a lot of kit cars under that weight, but cars made today are generally a lot heavier than cars made 20 years ago (especially compact cars). The Aveo is around 2500lbs or so, so is the Fit. The biggest reason for this is the Mutually Assured Destruction of the automotive business. Because there are so many more behemoths around today, compact cars need a lot more protection in order for them not to be death traps when faced against a much larger vehicle. Add to that additional emissions controls and such, and it's rather difficult to make a compact car under 2000 lbs. Even the Minis are getting a lot heavier. Opt for a new Countryman with AWD and you're pushing close to 3400lbs! That's more than twice the weight of the original. Unfortunately, most engines around the liter mark really aren't capable of moving 1.5 tons of metal around very well at all.

It takes just as much effort and expense for a car company to assemble a $10,000 econobox as it does to assemble a $40,000 luxury car. If YOU had the choice of using a multimillion-dollar final assembly plant to build expensive cars or inexpensive ones, knowing you can get exactly as many cars per day out no matter what they cost, which would you do?

You're not going to sell as many at 40k as you are at 10k. Not by a long shot.

The days of ordinary people buying what were marginally luxury/performance cars are probably over between rising gas prices, falling wages and a declining standard of living.

Their solution to all their competitive short-comings is lunatic financing rather than addressing underlying competitive challenges. Hyundai makes money selling cheap, small cars. Using South Korean labor that has unions every bit as entrenched and powerful as the UAW. So it isn't a labor economics issue. GM sells a number of excellent small cars in international markets such as the Opel Corsa so it isn't a technical expertise issue. The problem is group think and a belief Americans don't want small cars.

I talked to a GM big shit a while back who went off on this screed about how GM was already over-exposed to small cars and had to shift their focus to the cross-over market and small SUV market.

Over-exposed? With the Aveo and Cruze?

Hyundai makes what it makes for one overarching reason: it's what fits on their roads. Therefore, they engineered their business model around small cars. (Plus, Hyundai has so many irons in so many fires, they can run the car division at small profit margins because the ship and crane businesses will make up for it.)

Thinking out loud...maybe a modular car? Rather than getting the car as thousands of pieces and screwing them together on an assembly line, bring in the parts as a Body with the interior in place, a Chassis with the rear suspension in, and a Powertrain with the engine, transmission, radiator and front suspension all in a piece, and bolt those things together at the "final assembly" factory.

Their margins are presently quite fat because they aren't burning money on incentives to move inventory where almost everyone else is. And whatever motivates Hyundai to design competitive small cars doesn't really matter because GM does the same for the European market.

The Opel Corsa is one of the most successful cars ever, just not here...


Despite the fact the car is sold in Mexico and built at the same plant as other GM vehicles for the US market they refuse to offer it in the US and Canada. Heads were scratched when they brought the production of the atrocious Chevy Aveo to the US rather than globally successful Corsa.

Much of the reason I was opposed to the bailout is little about the way Detroit does business has changed and they will be right back where they were in no time. They have the wean themselves off cross-subsidizing mediocre small cars with the margins off more lucrative but low-volume product lines.

which is shit mileage here in france ;), the new ones get better milage and with a diesel engine you can push 60mpg

They seem to be following the pattern that the Japanese automobile industry blazed. Start with less car for less money (think of the Hyundai models of the 1990s, then start offering the same car for less money (Sonata since about 10 years ago), then more car for the same money (Genesis and Genesis coupe), and finally more car for more money (Camry, Accord, and up into the luxury marques)

It was a 1974 Beetle. Had very low miles,bought it used from someone who did not know what they were doing, I drove it for years all over the West Coast.

I also think I remember the Geo....was there some concern about safety with that car?

Since 1994 I have been driving a Toyota Tercel ( sports model, called Paseo), 5 speed, gets 40-42 hwy.
And, it is old and looks it, but drives great.

Only problem with it is I tend to lose in grocery store parking lots because it is practically the smallest car around, now that SUVs have taken over.

Gas mileage has always been the first consideration for my family since the early 70's.
Before then, gas was so cheap no one thought about prices much, and varoom varoom was the issue.

Why have the car companies not worked to improve efficiency in their combustion motors until recently?

It's ridiculous.

I had one of these for a couple years: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/8964.shtml

It's rated 24/35, but we actually got more like 32/40, with some road trips going as high as 44.

They just need to use smaller engines.

They had this technology in the 80's.

Not exactly safe or long lasting. In 20 years, they should have been able to improve mileage and safety.

Quite literally a 500+ hp Corvette can get 32 mpg on the highway if driven gently at even moderately supra legal speeds.

Mostly why cars don't get any better mileage than they did is because of two things, they are on average heavier and emissions standards are more restrictive.

Emissions standards tend to hurt mileage more than horsepower because top horsepower runs aren't part of the emission test parameters so the engine designer doesn't have to compromise much in that regard.

He averaged nearly 26 mpg over a 411 mile course which means that at highway cruise he had to be getting considerably more than the average because stop and go traffic will cut the mileage considerably.

A big engine turning very slowly with a moderate load on it at highway cruise has lower pumping losses than a small engine spinning up at high rpm, it's counterintuitive but a big engine doesn't necessarily mean poor gas mileage with modern engine technology.

My daughter has an Expedition with a 5.4 V8 and a towing package that also has a real time mpg meter on it.. When she drives it she rarely if ever gets 12 mpg avg, it's almost always less than that. When I drive the truck I can beat 18 mpg easily and 20 mpg if I really concentrate on hypermiling, I can beat my daughter's gas mileage while towing a dual axle trailer behind the truck with four thousand pounds on it, it's all in knowing how to do it.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/10/505-horsepower/



Think you’ve gotta drive a boring econobox or a hybrid to get decent fuel economy? Nope. A British moto-journalist took top honors in a fuel-economy challenge behind the wheel of a — get this — Corvette Z06 with a monstrous 7-liter engine.

Journalist Richard Hammond (no, not that Richard Hammond) took hypermiling to a new level during the two-day, 411-mile MPG Marathon, achieving an impressive 30.96 miles per Imperial gallon (that’s 25.77 U.S. mpg). Although that was well short of the 84.66 mpIg (70.48 U.S. mpg) reached by the guy in a Toyota Yaris, it was enough for a win.

<snip>

More at the link..

Much like the lauded gm 3800, can no longer pass emissions requirements.

Take a pick; clean air or fuel efficiency. It seems that you can't have both in 2011

And yes, I am still bitter about the loss o the 3800. My bonneville gets 36 hwy, something most new cars can't touch.

for our economy.

... between econobox and comfortable car. An Accent or other similar tiny cars don't do much if any better on gas but are much less spacious.

I have an older Saturn that will get 40 mpg on the highway, but it is not a particularly comfortable or enjoyable car to drive.

Strides have been made in fuel economy, it is not fair to compare something like the Fit with a tin can like a Starlet, Tercel or Metro. What has been gained is reasonable fuel economy in a vehicle you'd actually want to drive.

My Fit is the best car I've ever owned. I have a 2009 model ... have not reset the gas mileage readout in over 2 months and it's sitting now at 40.2mpg, combined city and highway. I'm a musician and I can get all my equipment in there, along with one other player AND all his stuff. I'm regularly getting over 50mpg on the highway (manual transmission, cruise set on 55mph), according to the onboard computer.

The only other new car I've owned was a 1981 Dodge Colt (Mitsubishi) that also got over 50mpg. Can't remember the details on that one, but I seem to remember it was in the high 50s. No problems with that car ever, and I drove it until it rusted out ... lasted over 10 years. That was a great car, too. No a/c or catalytic converter, though.

.rog.

Mine is also a manual transmission. I found the dashboard fuel economy readout to be horrifyingly inaccurate when I manually calculated miles driven by fuel used, as I have been in the habit of doing with every car and truck I've ever owned. It was at least 10% optimistic. Well, there's a TSB (technical service bulletin) for that. It turns out that Honda knows about the flaw, and has a fix (an ECM re-flash), but they will only apply it if you've noticed and ask about it.

I had the fix applied, and now the reading is much more accurate, if less impressive. I "only" get about 42-43 MPG at 55 MPH.

(Google "Honda Fit TSB 09-086")

That said, I still love my Fit. It's a NICE small car that doesn't lack for features or safety, and doesn't suck to drive. I just have more realistic expectations of what a 2,500 pound car with a not-exactly-state-of-the-art, (no direct injection, only single-stage VVT, no turbo...) 115 HP gasoline engine can deliver, especially given that it could desperately use a sixth gear out on the interstate.

of bloat over the last 20 years. A few main reasons - 1) americans are getting larger so need bigger "small" cars, 2)most americans want automatics, AC, PW, PL etc which all add weight, and 3)increased weight for safety equipment like ABS, air bags, side impact protection, crumple zones etc.

Look at the weight of a chevy sprints (earlier version of the metro) 1367 lbs to 1653 lbs (depending on equipment) compared to a honda fit at 2390 lbs.

I have lots of cars (8 at the moment) and only 1 (a 2009) is less than 20 years old. You can really feel the difference in weight when driving newer cars. Also, with all the new technology (anything OBDII or later circa 1995), it is almost impossible to fix anything without a computer and proprietary software ($$$$) - sorry about the thread drift - just a pet peeve of mine.

The chevy metro with its 52 MPG would never be able to pass today's safety tests. There is a cost to safety.

Lightweight car with a small engine. Cost: $500

2 liter 4-cylinder turbo diesel. I get about 35 in the city, 40 on the highway. Last year, there was a $1300 federal tax credit, which boosted my refund considerably.

I'd love to get a TDI VW, but the dealers in my area all add $3,000 grand or more to the cost, just because they can, apparently.

than their gas engine counterparts?

All 3 have hybrid models. All 3 get at least 40 MPG. I like the TDI technology actually.

I'm weary of the long-term costs of hybrids at this point.

Interestingly, they all seem weary of putting too many miles on them. They take other vehicles on road trips.

It's almost like some hybrid manufacturers think that hybrid drivers are not "car" people. Aside from the necessary compromises to increase efficiency, the Prius I drove seemed like it was trying to be anything but a CAR. Blips and bleeps on the dashboard, poor road feel and steering feedback. Acceleration was actually fine, and it was comfortable enough and seemingly well built. Just too much of an appliance car for me.

By contrast, a Civic Hybrid I drove for years drove like ... a Civic. Modest performance, but great road feel and lively handling dynamics. Fun, even.

EVs and hybrids, etc. have the potential not to be simply eco-conscious and so forth, but actually better, more practical cars. Some car makers don't get that, and are sticking with the idea that a hybrid or EV is some kind of hippie hairshirt sacrifice that's supposed to be about little green leaves lighting up on the dashboard, rather than a vehicle that makes you more independent of the gas pump. Something BETTER. It's irritating to see Chevy advertising the Volt as "more care than electric," when for me, the "electric" part would be the big draw.

http://www.mpgfacts.com/?did=36&year=1984



Engine Size: 1.3 liters
Number of Cylinders: 4
Transmission: M5
Hatch Back Interior Volume: 73 ft3
Hatch Back Luggage Volume: 10 ft3
Release Date: 83 9 2

EPA Official City MPG: 44
City MPG (2008 computation method): 36
EPA Official Highway MPG: 57
Highway MPG (2008 computation method): 50
EPA Official Combined MPG: 49
Combined MPG (2008 computation method): 42

It didn't have much pick up and go power, so if you had to move fast, it would not. It was wonderful to park. All in all I loved that car, but for a one car, I don't think that's the one. I had a Escort and loved it. It really went when I stepped on the gas...Zoom... unfortunately, I didn't get the timing belt changed on time, it broke. Luckily I was not on the freeway at the time. The car was never the same after that.

I now have another Escort, a '98 ZX2 5 speed. It gets around 34 MPG on the freeway. It belonged to my aunt who hardly ever drove it. It only had 8K miles when I got it.

One hassle today would be finding replacement parts.

These vehicles were quite basic, and anyone who took auto shop in high school should be able to keep them going just fine.

I once had a 1966 Dodge Dart. Talk about basic. That was one lovely little car, back when Dodges were actually decent cars.
Unfortunately I have about as much mechanical skill as a gerbil, being female, never having taken auto shop, and not being terribly interested. Buy my boyfriends said it was an easy car to work on.

And we had looked at the Corolla/Prism as a main vehicle when we got married in '92. We ended up going with a Saturn, which was not a bad idea at the time, IMO. We drove our BIL's Prism around town when we visited, and, man, that car was a scary tin can.

I listened to the Car Guys a weekend or two ago, and they had a caller who is planning to take a Dart on a cross country trip. Of course, he's having his BIL follow him in a new pick up with spare parts and tools!

:hi:

I still see a lot of them on the road!

like the "Chevy" Metro. It's still made in Pakistan of all places, and there are enough old cars/aftermarket parts that they aren't really an issue.

Vast majority of Geo metro's had a 4 cyclinder engine.

The 3 cylinder was a special model - and if I remember right - a real problem engine.

I had an '88 Ford Festiva (not the Fiesta).

It was actually a Kia, ocassionally got 42 MPG.

Also one ofr the most comfortable cars I ever had - not kidding. Tall and upright with fabulously fitted seats.

First rate fit and trim throughout.

Man, I loved this car!

Diesel only sold in Europe. That's highway miles, average, 55 to 58.
Ford has said to make a profit on the diesel in the USA it would have to sell 360,000/year, so they don't. I would think Mazda and other would take up any slack on sales here.
I'd buy one.

http://www.stevelarkins.freeuk.com/ford_focus_tdci_review.htm

Ford has taken a loss on other models, just to get their "average" mileage up, so it seems odd for them to refrain from marketing a diesel Focus in the US. Ugh. I really would look at one of those, if it was available right now.

gets me 50mpg in town and 60 highway

pickup.

Throw modern safety and emission standards on this size vehicle and it will weigh about 1000 lbs more and produce a fraction of the emissions and get about 40mpg instead. This is about what you'll get with real world driving in a Honda Fit.

I do appreciate that there are cars that are much more efficient than we can buy today in this country (countless compact European diesels for example), but perhaps people should ask why we can't get these more efficient vehicles in the 15-20k price range rather than a horribly unsafe 20 year old Geo Metro.

91? 1,ooo pounds worth, you say. That needs some support, or I call silly improv.

Not so much, why can't we have another metro, but why can't we even come remotely close by simply creating a 1.x 3 cylinder engine and popping it into the Aveo, a chevy that meets modern standards,

Problem was it's 3-cylinder engine. Not very good on highways with inclines - you could just feel that engine strain to get up there. The Cavalier 2.2 stick I bought 3 years later got just under 40 mpg and had far more power. It's still functional today after 261,000 miles.

on pickups and suvs.

Let it go.

I buy Ford trucks because they are build better than GM and are more reasonably priced.

:boring:

LOL to each his own. You like and buy GM more power to you.

Chill.

In '72 I bought a new vw beetle for $2200, in '78 a new vw Sirocco for $5600 in '98 a new ford f150 for $20,000. In '67 I was making about a buck an hour give or take as I was on salary, in '72 about two bucks plus an hour construction, in '78 I was self employed working by bid, in '98 20 plus bucks an hour as vp of my brother and myself company. Yes I paid myself by the hour even though I could have taken more.
I never gave much thought to the miles per dollar I was getting in any of those new vehicles.

It's a Suzuki, if memory serves. Have no fear, GM still does this. The Aveo is a Daewoo. But I digress.

I admit to being a bit of a car snob. Champagne tastes with beer budgets, I believe they say. But I do like my airbags, anti-lock brakes and sound deadening material. I also like that if some moron is yapping on their cellphone obvliviously careening through stop signs in their big SUV, I just might live through the impact.

I also have a thing for cars. It's not just transport. They should have some sort of personality or passion. That's fine for some folks just going from A to B. And I do love horsepower, and yes, the size of my penis is just fine (for those of you that knee-jerk right to that because you don't have a clue).

Slowly, over time, pictures of DU members begin to emerge.
tho not as many volunteering penis satisfaction as I had hoped.


Except for Grey Warrior, of course.:evilgrin:

If you know what I mean.

:evilgrin:

:thumbsup:


That's why they make Ferrari's and Toyota's

I'd sell a kidney for that Cadillac. Lord above, but that's just automotive perfection.

it got all of 30 mpg. nice to go camping in the mountains and powerful. only gets 23 mpg burning ethanol but i kept thinking to myself "my dacia logan diesel gets 50 MPG"

It was gas powered but got about 45-50 with its little 3 cylinder Suzuki engine. Drove that little guy all the way down to Puerta Vallarta and back - tent camping all the way. We eventually sold it to a good friend of ours who is mechanically talented and he still drives it.

Nasty little rattletraps, those were. And the non-diesel had HUGE problems passing California smog tests after two or three years of driving.

They were also gutless as all hell. Trying merging onto the 10 freeway in one of those and you'll never need to ride an amusement park thrill rise again.

Geo? Meh. Made in Japan.

All of the first gen Metros were made in Japan by Suzuki. The second and third gen Metro's were made in Canada at the CAMI plant, which was co-owned by Suzuki and GM, but was primarily run by Suzuki management. AFAIK, there was never a Metro plant in the U.S.

IMHO, the Metro was the only decent car that Geo ever made. Quality-wise, they were all crap, but the Metro was efficient enough to balance it out and make the crap worth enduring. Mine had holes rusted in the floor at 90,000 miles, which didn't bother me much since we started finding metal in the oil at 75,000. They were cheap and efficient, but they were designed from the get-go to be "throwaway cars".

I had a Chevette that I drove for 16 years. You know how it is with Chevys, you either get a lemon or one that goes until the wheels fall off. Oh wait, that was redundant.

I had a maroon '81 Chevette 4-door hatchback that I drove for over 100K miles. It was a gasoline model and got over 40 mpg on the highway, even with the air conditioner on.

I miss "Little Red" and I would buy another one in a heartbeat! (if I could afford to buy ANY new car, which I can't)

I bought this new for 10k. Had 10 miles on the odometer. Currently has 176k miles.
New battery in 2005.
New brakes on front twice. Once in rear (didn't really 'need' them).
New tires on front four times. Once on rear. Small size, high mileage tires for this are always the cheapest.
Many oil/filter changes. Coolant changed twice. Always used synthetic oil and premium gas.
Worst gas mileage was 38. Best was 49. Checked at every fill up since new.
This car has got to be my favorite of many that I've owned in my 70 years.
Has airbags, ABS, 1300cc 4 cyl., double overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, five speed manual trans.
I'm 6'4" and this car has plenty of room for me.
I liken this to a comfortable over-sized, civilized go-kart.
Nimble. Rapid acceleration (serious) due to light weight. Stops on a dime and gives change.
Easy to find parking space.
Several trips from Portland to California and Spokane via Seattle.
Couple of times from over the Sierras from Sacramento to Reno.
Easily makes it over the mountains with only an occasional down-shift to 4th, to maintain 65 mph.
No problem staying in the traffic flow at 80mph down through Cali's 70 mph limit. (Have seen 90 on the speedo)

Have owned (starting with my first car for my 16th birthday in '56): '28 Model A Ford (Dad gave $50 for it and drove it home), 49 Merc, 49 Chev PU, '53 Studebaker, 3 different '56 Chevs (one a Nomad Wagon), an unknown vintage rear engine Fiat 850, '66 Chev Impala, '74 Toyota Corrola, '72 Ford Van, '76 Pinto wagon, and a '93 GMC small PU. With several motorcycles thrown into that mix over the years.
I've been a mechanic most of my life and feel qualified to call this Suzy my all time fave.

The mileage wasn't quite THAT good, but it was still pretty amazing. Unfortunately we had constant problems with the water pump, the alternator, the alternator belt, and the battery. We went through FOUR alternators on that thing before we finally gave up and sold it for parts.

Also, riding on the interstate in those cars can be pretty scary. You feel like you're riding in a Pepsi can, and those tractor-trailer trucks zooming past you can damn near blow you off the road.

Hit a deer one night and completely totaled it. I was running almost a hundred when I hit it, so lack of power wasn't *that* much of a problem, even with a 3 cyl. I miss that car.

Now that all the companies have hybrids they're not going to make one. Who'd buy a hybrid that gets upper 30s when you could buy a car that costs a third as much and gets better mileage?

Current federal safety regulations, along with the demands of the marketplace, would make a much different car than an early 90s Geo Metro.

For today's cars, all those airbags, reinforcements, stronger frames and whatnot required by the government add weight, and additional weight decreases fuel economy. Plus, consumers like power windows, air conditioning, comfortable seats, ABS, etc. That will also subtract from MPG. Buyers also like motors that can actually accelerate on the highway.

Those old Metros do have a devoted following, but if they were economically viable in today's marketplace, some company would be building that exact car (like Suzuki, which built the original Metro/Swift). Newer nameplates on the US market, such as Fiat, Smart and Mini would have already done that. In addition (and this is the dirty little secret in the car industry), bigger cars and SUVs are much more profitable. Bare-bones subcompacts are essentially loss-leaders (unless they're hybrids).

Though you do have to salute GM for their current incorporation of smaller, yet peppy motors in their new lineup, in cars such as the Cruze.

I'm sure SUVs and other guzzlers are more profitable but if GM can't make a profit making fuel efficient cars, then Michael Moore really had the right idea when he said GM should get into the business of making other things.

Nobody has even tried to offer an available 3 cylinder engine since the metro.
Even if it only saves a few MPGs, that's at least a step in the right direction. Every other civilized country with modern safety regulations (save canada and maybe mexico) has more efficient city cars.

Tata motors has their eye on this market too.

and it's simply dreadful. The mpg sucks in comparison, and don't get in an offset collision if ever walking again is something you might enjoy.

I will agree that other countries (especially in Europe) have many, many more/better options in high MPG cars that are actually pretty good. They've also embraced diesel far better than we have.

Shouldn't there be special lanes for cars like this? So drivers of these efficient cars can be safer?

but I think as much as our infrastructure is dated and/or failing, getting that done...it would just be cheap to give everyone a super-efficient car. Even then, it would only protect them on highways. I was really excited when it looked like hydrogen was going to be the next "fuel" but that's not going to happen.

Every time I bring up how brilliant the Honda Clarity is I get a bunch of static about how it's not feasible. Honestly, I stopped listening to naysayers about it. Seems like a great idea to me.

Did they make the people with clarities turn them all in by now?

I'm not positive. I'm sure they'll crush them when they do.

my peugeot 206 has dual airbags, a reinforced frame and doors (i got slammed into by a full sized van who missed a curve and the car was not even totaled and even thought they hit on the drivers side going about mph i didnt get hurt either). They can make durable frames from lighter weight composites today can't they? I have power windows, a button on the key to open the locks (declined air conditioning because i like the heat, that is why i live on the riviera after all) comfortable seats, abs and with a 1.4l diesel i get 50 city and 60 highway and highway here includes the tollway where the speed limit is 81 mph, 130 kph, i have no problems going up mountains at the speed limit of 90kmh 57 mph or at the 130 kmh mountain passes on the tollway. I think there is not a huge difference in standards between the E.U. and the USA.

this web site explains that european union standards are just or safe or safer yet the us government simply has standards for their own one country and do not allow for imports (at least you get 27 countries with eu standards)

When you shut the door, it really did feel like a tin can. My mother was with me and she told the salesman she felt safer on a bicycle.

Nothing good.

and you would be shocked to find out that a full sized fan slammed into me in my tiny peugeot 206 going 40mph and i was not injured in the slighest and my car was not even totaled.

After the new siding and windows, carpeting, counter tops, kitchen appliances and central heating.

Motorcycling in the meantime with roughly the same mpg.

and coming up with a version that doesn't work quite as well as the original wheel and costs 10x as much.

Not sure why. Maybe we always want something new. So old solutions just don't seem that interesting.

New cars are loaded with air bags, door beams, ABS, and various other complications that we probably want, but which add weight, complication, and cost.

I've wondered whether someone could make a go of it business-wise dropping small electric motors into older, simpler cars as a way to bring affordable, low-emission commuter vehicles to market without the millions it costs to develop a new vehicle. There are hobbyists out there doing similar things already.

For now, I'm a recent convert to VW / Audi's TDi motors. Good horsepower, mountains of torque, and 40+ mpg on the highway. Not cheap, but competitive with hybrids and far less than the first generations of really good EVs, e.g. Tesla.

Diesel-electric hybrids have even more potential, although they too will be expensive. Volvo says its bringing a diesel / electric wagon to market that will get 124 mpg equivalent and have a 700+-mile range, with AWD and very strong acceleration. It will be too expensive for most, but I'm sure technology and the economies of scale will bring costs down.

Safety standard continually increase this requires heavier vehicles. I am not just talking about SUV. Even small compact cars are significantly heavier than 20 years ago. Weight reduces effeciency. Emission standards have significantly tightened also which reduces efficiency (due to back pressure) and increases weight. Safety also costs money raising sticker price. Lastly inflation means $10K in 1991 is roughly $17K in 2011.

The 1991 Geo Metro XFI as built in 1991 couldn't be built today due to safety and emission standards.

Better Safety
Better Emissions

vs

Higher Gas Mileage
Slightly Higher Cost.

And the going price, if you can find one close to you, is $1,800.00 to over $5,000.00!!!!!!!!!!


I could not believe it!!


http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/searchresults.jsp?lastBeginningStartYear=1981&num_records=25&search_lang=en&page_location=findacar%3A%3Aispsearchform&search_type=used&distance=0&address=30228&marketZipError=false&make=GEO&model=GEOMETRO&make2=&start_year=1991&end_year=1998&min_price=&max_price=&seller_type=b&transmission=&engine=&drive=&doors=&fuel=&max_mileage=&color=&keywordsrep=&keywordsfyc=&keywords_display=&sort_type=priceDESC&body_code=0&certified=&advanced=&highlightFirstMakeModel=&showZipError=n&default_sort=newsortbyprice_DESC&awsp=false&systime=&rdm=1300132311585

That's twice as much as I recently sold a mint condition 01 Mercedes e-class with less milage for.

one

maximum amount of energy available in a gallon of gasoline. Second, a Prius weighs almost twice as much as a Metro or Honda CRX (but is roomier, more comfortable, and MUCH MUCH safer in a collision). So if you consider that, the Prius drivetrain actually gets almost twice as much "work" out of a gallon of gasoline as in these older examples.

For example:
http://metroxfi.com/geo-metro-xfi-hybrid-project-page/

My wife, me and 4 kids (2 adopted) could not fit in such a thing.

I'm waiting for Tesla Motors to roll out their new RAV4-EV. Now that's talking eco-friendly.

mileage.

I like it.