Not to go off track but the truck limit in Indiana is 65 and 70 for cars. Drives me nuts going through there because you are constantly going from the right lane to the left lane to pass trucks then back to the right lane again. Insurance companies hate this.
What's your own opinion? What is the maximum 0-60 time do you think is safe for the kind of driving you do there in New Hampshire?
That’s the POINT you CAN’T. The 0-60 time is ALMOST a meaningless measurement when determining how safe it is to merge on the highway.
I think that is what test drives are for. A safe 0-60 for me is totally different what what is considered safe for someone else. When we tailgate, I notice my wife really takes her time merging on the fwy. She has never had other people complain that I know of, so apparently her driving is still within the bell curve but not what I will do.
@galant…"when we tailgate…"
Ahhhhhh.
I’m complaining ! :=()
That aside, I really don’t know or care about the 0 to 60 numbers either. But, when I try out a car or truck, and it can’t safely accelerate fast enough to provide some confidence in merging, it would drop on my “have to have list”. The only exception would be something big and ugly…like a dump truck. But, IMHO, slow and small, like in football and Sparks (gas version) is a “deadly” combination.
I purchased a 1994 Geo Metro about a year ago for its fuel economy. I am surprised no one has mentioned these little cars since they are one of the classic economy cars or “beater” cars of all time. I believe mine had an EPA rating of 48 mpg. I have been getting between 52 and 55 mpg out of mine. Of course I have everything tuned up perfectly and have spent the money to do any needed repairs. While it is no racecar, I am able to merge into traffic without trouble and maintain the highway speed limit on hills, often without downshifting from 5th gear. My car is a 3 cylinder 1.0L with the 5 speed manual transmission. It is my opinion that the automatics negate the purpose of such a car. The automatic is a completely different animal and I wouldn’t own one.
The little engine does have to work hard to pull the car around so I use a European spec synthetic oil to prevent breakdown and sludging of the oil, stuck rings, and such. People who have owned many Metros seem to swear by the use of oil exceeding the manufacturer specs for long engine life. Rust is another common issue with these little cars. They were made cheap without much rust proofing so they don’t tend to survive long in northern climates. Since these were such a cheap car to begin with, one of the main problems was that people often viewed them as a disposable and didn’t take care of them real well.
These cars are also extremely simple and easy to work on. Besides having some computerization and a water cooled engine, they are kinda like the modern day VW bug. I can lift the little three cylinder engine out of the bay by myself. The first engine in the car drank oil and spewed nasty clouds of smoke out the back but continued to exceed 50mpg until I found a good replacement engine in a rust-destroyed car. Everything is out in the open and easy to get at which surprises most people as it is such a small little car. Everyone thinks things will be so compact and crammed in but this isn’t the case.
I know this isn’t the safest car around but it is safer than the alternative of a motorcycle or scooter, plus it is cheaper to buy and often cheaper to fuel, but maybe not as fun. The little car is kinda like an oversized go kart. It also gets better mileage than other cars such as the Smart which I would think should do much better considering their size.
I pulled up next to a Chevy Spark the other day at a parking lot (in the Metro) and made a point to give it a look. This was my first time seeing one and I figured it was the Metro or Aveo replacement. While I know the Aveo was far from being a good reliable car, the Metro is solid as long as routine maintenance is carried out. I guess time will tell if the Spark is good or not. How easy is this to work on?
These types of little cars have a place for people who don’t need or care about having all the luxuries or a big car. It is a great little car for a single person to ride around in.
I had to rent one of those once but I don’t remember it getting anywhere near that good a mileage. Good for you if it does.
Speaking of highway merging…on the other end of the “slow vehicle” spectrum is my Dodge B250 extended camper van with a big fiberglass top. I use it for summer camping and occasional large object moving. Drove it today to pick up some furniture. Accelerates about as fast as a tugboat hauling a coal barge on the Mississippi…but I have no problem merging in rush hour Boston traffic. No one wants to get crushed by a tugboat, so the waters part like the Red Sea for Moses. 
I agree @cwatkin, those 3 cylinder Geo Metros were good cars. If a manufacturer sold them new today on a new car lot for around $10,000, with the manual transmission, I expect they’d have no trouble selling all they had. College students and 20-somethings, what with student loan debts & all, high tuition fees, they would like the affordable basic transport and good mpg.
But I doubt it is possible to sell them in the same configuration as your 1994 version. There are probably new gov’t mandated requirements since then about air bags, electronic stability control, emissions, that would make that car impossible to sell in the USA. Seems like a good idea to offer up an inexpensive reliable car which isn’t exactly perfect in every single person’s view, but we (as a people, through our gov’t) apparently have decided not to allow it. Sort of a situation where we cut off our nose, to spite our face.
I bet your rental Geo Metro was an automatic. The automatics are a joke. The performance and mileage penalty is huge as this is a pretty crude transmission. I wouldn’t own one in an auto as that defeats the whole purpose of the car. There are bigger and safer cars that get the mileage of an auto Geo Metro.
I also made a few tweaks such as a slight timing advance which will improve mileage and performance a tad.
I know that the 1995+ models of the Metro are considered to be a lot safer car. I think the structure is better and they have airbags, better brakes and bigger wheels, etc. at the penalty of 1 or 2 mpg less. I have considered getting a newer model for the added safety and selling my car, except that mine now runs so well I would hate to take the chance of getting one that doesn’t run as well. I am considering a junk “parts car” for the better brakes and bigger wheels as they can be interchanged to the older models.
“Seems like a good idea to offer up an inexpensive reliable car which isn’t exactly perfect in every single person’s view, but we (as a people, through our gov’t) apparently have decided not to allow it.”
You have posted this theory previously, George, and once again, I believe that you are part of a VERY small minority in the US that would want a car with fewer safety features and few creature comforts, just so that they could buy a very cheap car. When a society becomes more affluent, most people have little desire for the most basic of objects, and instead, they “reward” themselves with products that have the amenities/luxuries/features that you seem to think are not necessary.
As a tangible example of this phenomenon, consider the nation of India. Yes, it is a Third World country, but the middle class has increased in size to a very great extent over the past 8-10 years, with a concomitant increase in the desire for more sophisticated goods with more than just basic features. Take the case of the Tata Nano, which was introduced several years ago as, “the world’s cheapest car”. Tata, which is an experienced and respected auto and truck producer in India, thought that a very cheap car, “for the masses”, would be a sales success.
However, the reality is that sales figures for the Tata Nano, while initially promising, have cratered to an incredible extent. The newly affluent (by their standards) middle class in India just doesn’t seem interested in buying this car in any quantity.
If the Third World shuns a very basic car with no amenities, that should give you some idea of how the US public would react to a car that was this “basic”. No major auto maker in the US is interested in making the car that you desire, but that lack of interest is for very good reasons, namely that so few people would buy one that it would be a losing proposition to design & manufacture one.
This has nothing to do with a government conspiracy, and everything to do with market forces in an age when people have come to expect certain upscale features on the cars that they buy.
Take a look at:
http://wheelosphere.org/tata-nano-sales-1032/
In support of @VDCdriver , Henry Ford had the price of his Model T down to $275 at one point in its production. However, he had to close the plant for the better part of a year back in 1927 to tool up for the Model A. Even at the low price of the Model T, the competition had cut into his sales.
I’ve avoided what I thought were un-necessary gadgets for years. However, I would not want to give up air conditioning in either my house or car. If I have to replace our refrigerator, I am going to have an ice maker. I had to replace my cell phone because something happened to the display on my previous cell phone and the display read from right to left instead of left to right. In order to read the display, I had to either use a mirror or find a dyslexic person to read it to me. I am going to have to pair the new cell phone with the blue tooth system in my minivan. I find it quite helpful to just press a button on the steering wheel instead of fishing in my pocket for the cell phone.
@Tridaq Yes, society as a whole wants at least basic conveniences. A major breakthrough was the self-defrosting fridge, the forerunner to Frost-free. A chicken farmer down the road from us had a good year and bought his wife a Westinghouse 12.5 cubic feet automatic defrost fridge in the mid fifties. It cost $750, a very sizable sum at that time. The family never looked back and felt sorry for everyone else poking around with an ice pick to get their fridge defrosted.
We bought our first Frost Free model, a 15 cubic foot (all metal) Frigidaire (made by GM) just about the time they left that business and sold the division in the late 60s. It cost $395, reduced from $512 to clear the inventory. This machine went through 4 houses in 3 locations and finally became un-repairable in 1992 (electrical short) and I sold it for $70 to a theatre prop supplier who needed it for a 60s movie. For all I know it still performs that function.
The Tata Nano lesson tells you something. If people have a choice between a very basic cheap NEW car and a used one with more gadgets, they’ll go used. India is a large market and hand me down used cars with more space and conveniences will win out over new bare bones strippers. Consumer advocates and environmentalists want governments to mold our tastes. Forget it! When the Iron Curtain fell, Eastern Europeans were salivating to get their hands on USED Western European cars. Their own new ones were pathetic and less reliable than a VW Golf with 100,000 miles on it.
@vdcdriver: the whole fact that the feds invested so much time and money writing legislation prohibiting the sale of vehicles without airbags, stsbility, etc indicates they disagree with you.
There’s no reason to outlaw or otherwise prohibit an action unless people will actually engage in it absent prohibition. Drinking roofing tar to “get high” would be very detrimental, yet no law against it, AFAIK, exists…as nobody has any inclination to engage in this behavior.
If you are right, and there is no market in the US for cars without stability control, et al, then the regulations are redundant, and should be stricken…as the free market would attend to this all by itself.
The feds might be wrong, but they believe there would be a viable market for such cars, absent regulation.
I think it would be irresponsible to buy a new car without stability control, airbags, etc.
The driver may not want that stuff.
But the passengers might benefit from it, especially in an accident.
That’s a little off track. The feds only involve themselves in safety and environmental issues. They are not about to, nor can mandate automatic transmissions, radios, tinted glass, power windows, and so on. While once back up lights and heaters were options, the modern public demands more. That’s economics. Unlimited wants and limited means. Business tries to come up with the new wants for the limited dollars. OTOH, what will you do will all that money saved anyway, pass it on to the next generation?
I guess it all comes down to how much bang you get for the buck. And that is viewed different from one person to the other. No doubt about it, market forces always prevail. Eventually.
At least we can agree to disagree . . .
Hopefully nobody will disagree with that
Let’s not confuse safety items and other items mandated on a car with convenience options like sun roofs, automatic, A/C and so on.
Government’s role is to set standards for safety, environmental compliance, and in some cases durability (rust protection), for instance. The only other role is to set fuel mileage standards for a manufacturer’s car fleet so that we don’t run out of oil too soon.
@db4690, Maryland speed limits are the same for all vehicles except school buses, which are set at 55 mph on highways. And I already said it is the small box trucks, as shown below.
As the mandated requirements for technical wizardry causes the price/cost of automobiles to grow the popularity of pre-technical models will grow. It may be cheaper for me to continue to feed my 16 mpg trucks and even spend $1,000 on a rebuilt engine rather than buy a 5 year old model with its myriad of trouble$ome electronic systems.
Nissan will build a car the can drive itself. That will enable the “passenger” to watch a movie and text while traveling. But what happens if you get up late and the car has already left for work?