Welcome 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! |
| Can i put 1.0L engine on a 2000 Chevrolet Metro Lsi sedn | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 30 2016, 11:27 PM (285 Views) | |
| Zachary1989 | Nov 30 2016, 11:27 PM Post #1 |
|
Fresh Fish
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have 2000 Chevrolet Metro Lsi sedan, and i wonder if this can put 97 metro 1.0L engine and 3 speed auto from the 1st generation metro, it has same engine bay as the hatch. And also does it can get slightly more mpg? I know its quite slow |
![]() |
|
| WiscoMetro | Nov 30 2016, 11:36 PM Post #2 |
|
Seeking the Science of MPG
![]()
|
Short answer yes, long answer I don't know all the details. But if you care about mileage you'll need to use that 3 cyl especially in a heavier sedan with a manual. |
![]() |
|
| freegeo | Nov 30 2016, 11:49 PM Post #3 |
![]()
|
Your post is a little confusing. I' m not sure which car you want to use as a driver and which as a donner car. There is no such thing as a 97 3 cylinder auto trans car. Can you clarify what you are wanting to do? |
![]() |
|
| suzukitom | Nov 30 2016, 11:53 PM Post #4 |
|
Tom
![]()
|
95-01 1.0 litre engines only came with 5 speed manual transmissions from the factory. You can probably do it, but the 1.0 engines ECM and older TCM may require significant hacking to adapt to your 2000 sedan chassis and wiring harness. Plus when you are done, the car will be slower than dirt, and probably consume as much fuel as the original 1.3 /auto combination in your 2000. |
![]() |
|
| WiscoMetro | Dec 1 2016, 12:07 AM Post #5 |
|
Seeking the Science of MPG
![]()
|
Sounded to me like he wanted to use the 00 sedan as the driver, with a 97 engine, with a 89-94(first gen metro) auto trans. And after typing that I feel like I just repeated the confusion, sorry. Edited by WiscoMetro, Dec 1 2016, 12:08 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| cwatkin | Dec 1 2016, 12:07 AM Post #6 |
![]()
|
Yes, an undersized engine will work harder and not be efficient. We had a 2.2L Chevy S-10 growing up and the thing was a dog. It was like flogging a dead mule. Yes, it was a 5 speed and I understand the autos were even worse. Then I ended up with the 4.3L V6 version of the same truck. It has ton more power and is actually enjoyable to drive. The mileage is the same or better as well with the larger engine. I also remember the temp gauge climbing a tad on hot days when climbing a hill at highway speeds. The needle would more up more than just slightly under load and then drop off when you were coasting. It never got near the red but was still a sign the engine was undersized for the job. I wouldn't do this especially if you are in a hilly area. If you do, use the low-range transmission. Conor |
![]() |
|
| freegeo | Dec 1 2016, 03:34 AM Post #7 |
![]()
|
After re reading that a couple of times I think your right. 2000 car. Put a 97 1.0 engine in it with a 89-94 auto trans in it. No it won't work. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Engine Tech & Diagnostics · Next Topic » |


Welcome to the all new Geo Metro Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





9:29 AM Jul 11