Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Posted ImageWelcome to the all new Geo Metro Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are features you can't use and images you can't see. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Join our community!




Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Metro vs. Prius argument feat. rabid Metro fans
Topic Started: May 17 2015, 01:22 AM (1,483 Views)
perfesser
Member Avatar
Elite Member - Former Metro owner

Comparing a Prius to a Metro is like comparing a Chevy Equinox to a Cavalier. Apart from the mpg factor, they are totally different vehicles from different generations, designed for different purposes.

How about comparing a Prius with a Jetta TDI? Take them both to the track and do 5 laps each, then 150 miles through the mountains of SoCal and another 100 on open freeway, at the speed of traffic. I would love to see that test in Motor Trend, done by real car testers rather than a fanboy site argument!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spud
Member Avatar


perfesser
May 19 2015, 01:36 PM
Comparing a Prius to a Metro is like comparing a Chevy Equinox to a Cavalier. Apart from the mpg factor, they are totally different vehicles from different generations, designed for different purposes.

How about comparing a Prius with a Jetta TDI? Take them both to the track and do 5 laps each, then 150 miles through the mountains of SoCal and another 100 on open freeway, at the speed of traffic. I would love to see that test in Motor Trend, done by real car testers rather than a fanboy site argument!!
:+1
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Freeman
Member Avatar
The Family Man

Jeez Pref, Top Gear already did that. They pit something like a Jaguar (14 MPG) up against a Prius or something and it got better fuel economy around a track at the same speed. You have to drive with a feather foot and take your time for these cars to actually be fuel efficient. If you are trying to keep up with anything, you lose potential fuel economy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
supercrust
Corpse Pilot

Perfesser, those are good points, although maybe not in Motor Trend...

All I can say is this, and in as smug a voice as humanly possible (and an inapprppriately British (?)(!) accent):

"ReNAULT AlLiance. MOtor Trend's NINEteen Eighty FOUR CAHH of the YEAUH."

We all make mistakes, but seriously??

I'd like to see a comparison between *that*, a Metro, and an old-school Fiesta. Heck, maybe with a Festiva thrown in for good measure. *Then* we'll see who's in whose class, and put those smug FESTIVA owners in their GOL-DURNED places!


As I've stated elsewhere- I owned an '84 Alliance. Not a day passed during the following 6 months that I didn't curse at Motor Trend. Still, it's closer to a Metro than a Prius. It's way closer.
And, Renault's bizarre claims notwithstanding, they did actually get great mileage. Extremely good under some circumstances.

Hey, Motor Trend: OOPS.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
perfesser
Member Avatar
Elite Member - Former Metro owner

I used to work for a Renault dealer. I feel your pain! :O :O
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scratchpaddy
Member Avatar
Not so fast

Car & Driver did a comparison between a whole bunch of economy cars in 1992, including the Festiva, Metro, Subaru Justy, and even an Eagle Summit. They disliked pretty much everything about the Metro except its shifter and its "trim and modern shape." :drool

Econ Majors

In 2010, they did a comparison between a Prius, an Insight, and, as a joke, a '98 Metro (3 cyl, 5-speed). They hated the Metro a little bit more than the Prius, and they really hate the Prius. The page where they actually talk about the Metro is broken, but I remember them saying that the Metro's slow acceleration actually makes it dangerous, a claim I think is ridiculous. Over 600 miles of testing, the Metro got better mileage than both Hybrids, though. :P

2010 Honda Insight vs. 2010 Toyota Prius, 1998 Chevy Metro

Regular automotive journalists never liked the Metro. The things it does best (long-term reliability, economy, easy to work on, etc.) aren't things they really consider when judging a car. 0-60 times are far more important to the Joe Public, right?
Edited by scratchpaddy, May 21 2015, 12:09 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spud
Member Avatar


scratchpaddy
May 21 2015, 12:09 AM
Car & Driver did a comparison between a whole bunch of economy cars in 1992, including the Festiva, Metro, Subaru Justy, and even an Eagle Summit. They disliked pretty much everything about the Metro except its shifter and its "trim and modern shape." :drool

Econ Majors

In 2010, they did a comparison between a Prius, an Insight, and, as a joke, a '98 Metro (3 cyl, 5-speed). They hated the Metro a little bit more than the Prius, and they really hate the Prius. The page where they actually talk about the Metro is broken, but I remember them saying that the Metro's slow acceleration actually makes it dangerous, a claim I think is ridiculous. Over 600 miles of testing, the Metro got better mileage than both Hybrids, though. :P

2010 Honda Insight vs. 2010 Toyota Prius, 1998 Chevy Metro

Regular automotive journalists never liked the Metro. The things it does best (long-term reliability, economy, easy to work on, etc.) aren't things they really consider when judging a car. 0-60 times are far more important to the Joe Public, right?
Sounds like all biased input from the companies. Maybe we start a Car and Driver like company and go out and get people unfamiliar with Geo and Prius to test drive then write a report based on that. :news
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZXTjato
Member Avatar
bass heads

saying a metro is slow to accelerate is kinda bs. they are not fast so to say but they aren't slow either
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Freeman
Member Avatar
The Family Man

Slow acceleration? Half the drivers are on Facebook, do they even care how slow it is?

I don't see any of these arguments come up about my '74 bug. It gets 20 mpgs most of the time and does 0-60 in 17 seconds. It does the 1/4 mile in about 20 seconds at 70 mph. It is slower than anything I've ever been in. My auto Metro is actually kind of peppy when you get on the gas and the five speeds I had before that were all able to keep up with traffic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZXTjato
Member Avatar
bass heads

TurboEF
May 21 2015, 05:36 AM
Slow acceleration? Half the drivers are on Facebook, do they even care how slow it is?

I don't see any of these arguments come up about my '74 bug. It gets 20 mpgs most of the time and does 0-60 in 17 seconds. It does the 1/4 mile in about 20 seconds at 70 mph. It is slower than anything I've ever been in. My auto Metro is actually kind of peppy when you get on the gas and the five speeds I had before that were all able to keep up with traffic.
thats what im sayin, my buddys camp van was SUPER slow before he put a subaru boxer swap in. andmy ther buddys van was even slower than the rest. toyota yaris 1.5 CVT transmission car is slower tha the metro i think, least it feels like it. semi trucks are slower the metro is not the slowest. i did drive the 2010-11 prius and what a lame ass car it was. my buddys mom owned the car so we took it for a joy ride, rather lame to drive i thought, felt like driving a soggy noodle where as his beetle was fun to drive even tho it could have exploded at any second.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Freeman
Member Avatar
The Family Man

My VW went toe to toe with semi trucks, except I was flooring it and I don't think they were. At least until the top end of second when the bug picked up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rondawg
Member Avatar


Wanna talk about slow.....my old VW Rabbit Diesel pickup was the slowest I ever had. Pretty much run it wide open and adjust the speed by what gear you were in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scratchpaddy
Member Avatar
Not so fast

Okay, I pulled up cache of the broken webpage, and they complained about how slow it was, but didn't call it dangerous. Also, it didn't beat the Prius in mileage, but tied it for first place at 42mpg.

Quote:
 
Let’s start with the Metro’s faults: It takes 20.3 seconds to cover the quarter-mile, roughly twice the average span that Americans will listen to Kenny G before changing channels. Top speed: 87 mph. Amenities? Well, it came originally with oil in the engine, a full tank of gas, two windshield wipers, and a dome light. Fit and finish? Some. Side airbags? Nope, but there are two horn buttons. Steering-wheel adjustment? Negative again, although strategically arranged pillows removed from the Comfort Inn can easily overcome this dilemma.

The "dangerously slow" thing was in an incredibly snobbish editorial they wrote in 2008, at the height of that gas crisis, right after a '92 Metro XFi sold for $7,200 on eBay. The article mentioned that point over and over and over again, as if every used Metro sold for that much.

Quote:
 
With its puny 1.0-liter three-cylinder engine, the ’92 Geo Metro took an automotive eternity—13.1 seconds—to do that task. This, friends, is the verifiable definition of rip-out-your-fingernails agony, a fast track to road rage to be avoided if for no other reason than to prevent the driver behind you from whipping out a sawed-off shotgun and blowing holes through your faded gray rear bumper. The best we could muster in a ’92 Metro was 39 mpg, compared with the 50-plus promised by the EPA, because we were on the gas all the time for survival.

You don't have to push a Metro that hard to outrun your average soccer mom in a CR-V. I'm usually frustrated by how slow people are to get up to speed on freeway on-ramps, and that hasn't changed since I got the Metro.

The article actually suggests that you should buy an old Ferrari or Porsche instead, since those cars would surely be better maintained than an old Metro. That's true, because if you don't check up on an old Ferrari every few miles, it's liable to catch on fire. :bananaburn But of course, I'm sure an old, well-maintained Ferrari would be more economical than a much-abused econobox. Shall we talk about what those go for on eBay? :whistle
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old Man


I can talk about SLOW. Back in the early 60s I owned an early 50s VW flatbed pick-up, the kind with the fold down sides. 36 horse power. Took a mile of flat ground to get up to a FULL TOP SPEED of 57 miles per hour. But it was a workhorse for its time. Did not matter if it was empty or had a two ton load, speed was the same---but then, stopping was a problem too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZXTjato
Member Avatar
bass heads

metros top speed is only 87 mph???? how is that correct?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Geo Metro Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply