Ah, memory lane… I can’t recall the exact year, but ours was a 3-cylinder bubble on wheels. The a/c didn’t have a prayer against the Texas sun until we coated all that glass in silver reflective tint, but faired well after that. I don’t remember the mileage, but I know it beat the heck out of my 318 Dodge and we were poor as heck at the time so couldn’t gripe about the power. We knew what it was when we bought it.
I remember getting 3 bales of hay in the back of that thing once. The interior room in the old bubble style was incredible. Unfortunately, it had a real spate of electrical problems, several of which kept it from running. When the diagnosis and repair exceeded my ability even with the books for it we reluctantly gave it up for something that would get us to work reliably. The wife still speaks fondly of that old roller skate. But no, I wouldn’t pay that much for one now even if I could spare the money.
Besides, I have a Honda Fit! Austin to San Antonio, 3 days and back barely used 8 gallons. Used maybe 30 to go Austin to Pensacola running 70-75 most of the way. I’ll take it over nostalgia any day.
Actually, I expect that someone (like toyota) will eventually buy GM to keep the name and the truck market (also the fleet market in the U.S.). Ford may have a chance of getting itself down to a manageable size in the U.S. and survive based on it’s overseas markets, we’ll see. I’ve pretty much given up on chrysler, I expect someone will eventually buy the jeep name (how many times has that been sold?) but the rest of the company will probably just fade away.
Not an unrealistic prognosis. Globalization does strange things. The most recent Automotive Engineering Journal (SAE organ) had the three US companies outline their future design plans.
Most R & D will be done overseas to save money and speed up the process. Chrysler’s small cars will be designed by Cheery in China, their next size up will have mauch work done in Mexico and South America. GM will basically have their small car designs done mostly in Korea, next size up in Europe (Opel, Saab) and only large cars and trucks in the US.
Ford will likewise develop small cars in Europe and Asia and only large cars and trucks in the US.
No car executive breathed a word about future ownership, but all three companies may end up in foreign hands. The Chinese would love to buy Chrysler, and the Japanese and Koreans may gradually buy up GM and Ford, taking great care not to run into US anti-trust legislation.
The current gas crisis, with large vehicle sales down 50%, will greatly determine who wins. It’s hard to believe that in 1993 all three conmpanies actually built very efficient experimental hybrid cars as partners in the New Generation Vehicles sponored by the US government.
The pressure recommended is the right pressure. Usually a few psi more will not hurt and will provide some marginal mileage improvement, but it is not going to get you a large increase.
True, but make sure you’re looking at the right recommended pressure. It’s in the owner’s manual or on a sticker somewhere around the driver’s door. DO NOT INFLATE TIRES to the number on the sidewall! That’s the absolute MAXIMUM cold pressure it can safely take, and would provide very poor traction. I went to an alternative fuels car show a couple of years ago (biodiesel, etc.) and several people were boasting about getting fantastic mileage by inflating to the sidewall number… and beyond. They dismissed me when I told them their tires were badly overinflated. Most of them are probably dead by now.
Last summer I bought a '95 Ford Aspire (Fords answer to the Metro)… for $950, runs great. I can say that it is ugly, has no options, and doesn’t have enough power to get out of it’s own way! But I’m getting over 40mpg (best of 49). It’s worth about what I paid for it. I think people are getting a little mental paying huge premiums for tiny POS cars because of the gas crisis. If you pay more than ~$2400, you’ve paid way too much. Judging by the picture, the car looked really nice, but, @ $7300, that’s ~$5k too much.
i sold new chevrolets from 84-92 and yes they would get between 48-50 mpg.
as i remember we didnt order them with the ac option in 3 cyl. i dont believe an ac
was an option. i think they finally made the 4 cyl engine an option w/ a.c. as i remember
the msrp was only about $6,500.00 for a base model w/o a.c.
deep plaid
You bought a Korean familiy car circa 1995. Ford ordered this car from Kia with some minor modifications to make it suitable for the US. People I know bought them as second cars, and their wives really liked driving them around town.
They were much better than the Ford Fiestas imported from England years before that. Those cars were bio-degradable and mechanically very fragile.
Both were orphan cars from a service point of view. Ford mechanics were not properly trained to repair them.
I’ve never had a moment’s trouble with my 2000 Suzuki Swift (twin to the Geo Metro). Well, except for that motor blower switch almost giving out last summer; I still have the highest speed and hope the new Swifts will “speed” their way across the ocean before any major repairs become necessary. 105k miles.
I can understand why you think $7,000 is too much to pay for a 12 year old econobox deathtrap, but consider current fuel price projections. It is projected that fuel prices might reach $7 a gallon by June 2009. However, this projection is based on current inflation rates, which are unlikely to continue their fast pace of growth. If gas reaches $7 a gallon, even hybrids will become fincncially sound choices. Let’s see, if gas cost $5 a gallon, and you trade a 23 MPG small pick-up truck for one of these Metros, you will make all $7,000 back after 37,800 miles.
…or you could just find a 5 or 6 year old econobox deathtrap for $4-5000 that gets slightly worse mileage. If you do the math, once you get better than about 30 mpg you are really getting diminishing returns. The $2000 difference between a $7000 econobox deathtrap and a $5000 econobox deathtrap will buy 400 gallons of $5 fuel, enough for 12,000 miles of driving at 30 mpg.
Because the Yaris and Fit are the Goliath’s of the freeway? I’m sorry but your claims are almost comical. Saying that the vaunted Metro is spacious, comfortable, and thunders down the road with an economy of energy often confused with an SR-71 on a top speed run. And now stating that the Fit, Scion, and Versa are about the same size as a Tahoe. I guess if you’ve only driven Metros/Swifts/Sprints, then anything larger than an EZ-Go will seem excessively large
By that time(37,800 miles)there will be nothing left of the used Econobox, and you have to start all over again, at a much higher price.
If you are serious about saving money in the long run, buy a new Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent or Yaris and keep it for the next 20 years. It will really save you when gas gets to $15/gallon.
Paying top dollar for something with limited life left in it is stupid and very shortsighted.
It might be a question of where you want your money to go. With Craig’s example, I might feel good about that extra $2,000 going someplace other than the oil companies. The problem with the Fit, the Accent, and the Yaris, is that I expect better fuel economy than what they offer. Let’s look at the EPA fuel economy ratings for those three vehicles with automatic transmissions. A new Fit gets 27/34 MPG, a new Accent gets 24/33 MPG, and a new Yaris gets 29/35 MPG. Yet my ten year old car gets 29/36. Where is the improvement? The fuel economy on a 12 year old Metro is almost twice as good as the Accent. Any new economy car should give you 40 MPG at highway speeds.
Truth be told, there is no comparable car “that gets slightly worse mileage.” We are talking about a difference of at least 15 MPG in almost every comparison. While it is true that $2,000 will buy a lot of fuel, I would not mind seeing that money go to a young entrepreneur instead of the oil companies.
I recall you own a Civic if that is the 29/36 # you quote. The thing is you need to adjust your old EPA figure to new. I believe the 10 year old civic only manages 25city/33 highway for an automatic Civic. The mileage has improved AND the power available. My wife had the anemic 96 Civic LX 5mt that we only averaged 29mpg overall with 40% city and the balance highway.
“They were much better than the Ford Fiestas imported from England years before that. Those cars were bio-degradable and mechanically very fragile”.
I had a former graduate student whose thesis in computer science I supervised who drove one of these Ford Fiestas. She was also a talented pianist. She worked on the car herself, including pulling the cylinder head and having a machine shop grind the valves. When she finished her degree, she drove the Fiesta from the midwest to California. She ran the car for a couple more years–she used the first money she earned to buy a grand piano. She told me in a letter that she finally gave up on the Fiesta when she couldn’t get parts.
Those numbers (29/36) are not EPA estimates. To be honest, my highway fuel economy varies between 34 MPG and 36.6 MPG, but my city fuel economy is always right around 29.5 MPG. You are right. The car is a two-door 98 Civic DX with a manual transmission. The EPA numbers for my car when it was new were 30/34.
Call me spoiled, but I am disappointed with my car’s fuel economy. I am even disappointed with my motorcycle’s fuel economy (50/42 MPG). Heck, that thing should be giving me 60 MPG!
Austin to San Antonio, 3 days and back barely used 8 gallons. Used maybe 30 to go Austin to Pensacola running 70-75 most of the way. I’ll take it over nostalgia any day.