the variable rate mortgages were the scam, IMHO. when you lose your job AND your mortgage payment doubles, you don t stand a chance
Variable rates can be fine for certain people. A young, upwardly mobile professional can make it work. Low inflation, and the low rates that accompany them, can work to someone’s advantage. But you have to make sure that the rate can’t be raised too often or by large percentages. And you have to pay close attention to the market to make sure that rates aren’t going up soon.
I’m not sure what exactly you’re looking for, but the Mitsubishi Mirage seems to fit the bill. It’s rated at 37 mpg City/ 44 mpg Hwy, and it even has a three-cylinder engine like your Metro.
Although I do believe the Nissan Versa is cheaper…
No offense to anybody, but I don’t consider Mitsubishi to be a high quality Japanese brand
Oh, Mitsubishi has built some good cars, though we’ve seen very few of them here. Alas, the Mirage doesn’t seem to be one of them. It’s slow, tinny, cramped, and poorly equipped. So is the Versa, though it’s less cramped. However, for those whose requirements were met by the Metro, a Mirage, Versa, IQ, or Spark will seem just fine. Even a Smart if two seats are enough (and don’t do much freeway driving, where it’s too slow and rides too badly to be acceptable.)
See, there are actually plenty of small, inexpensive cars. Their EPA ratings are a lot lower, but that’s mainly because the EPA computes mpg quite differently than they used to, and the effect was a dramatic lowering of the EPA numbers since the time of the Metro. They do cost slightly more, in adjusted dollars, but you get a safer, more durable car (and more amenities, which you may not want, but most people do, and you get repaid most of the cost in resale value.) A car without AC would not be in big demand, especially with the modest effect on mpg of current AC. Even in one of the country’s mildest climates I would always gladly pay for it. Power windows and remote locks are less critical, but they’re nice to have, and not that expensive.
The problem with all those cars is that there are better cars available for not that much more. The Kia Rio of a few years ago was the cheapest car sold. Now it’s a smartly styled, roomy little car and nicely made. So is its Hyundai Accent sister model. The Mazda2 is very simple, but pleasant and inexpensive. It’s related to the Fiesta, but cheaper and more basic, and reportedly nicer to drive. Except for iffy reliability, the Chevy Sonic is pretty nice, far roomier and more comfortable, and less weird looking than the Spark. All of these models get gas mileage competitive with the smaller, slower models, especially freeway mileage, more dependent on aerodynamics than weight. When you can get 40 mpg on the freeway from an ordinary Accord, it’s hard to make a Mirage make sense.
Mitsubishi builds some very good trucks but like Suzuki was, parts and service didn’t seem their priority. I would assume that to be similar to their cars which have a spotty repair record according to CR. Bottom line though, if you throw reliability into “small inexpensive cars” that get good mileage, you really can’t go wrong with Corrollas. Just add Boring to the list of expectations.
I would like to chime in on the Metro. I currently have a 1994 Metro and am impressed with the car for what it is. This is basically a Suzuki product imported by GM. A lot were also made in Canada by a joint venture of the two companies. The Geo/Chevy Metro was a cheap car but is well made for what it is, much like the VW bug. The quality/reliability of these is actually quite good for a car that was so cheap. Compared to something like a Yugo, this was a good cheap car. Two things really hurt the Metro over the long term. The rust protection was never good on any of the models. Serious rust is a concern on any where the owner didn’t watch them and take preventative actions unless they are from some place like Arizona. The second thing was that it was a cheap car and people didn’t take care of it. These engines will run forever if you change the oil but are not forgiving to sludged up oil. Stuck rings and issues with the hydraulic lash adjusters/burned valves are common on neglected engines. Other systems of the car besides just the engine were commonly neglected.
This is a super simple little car to work on. The first engine in my car was a major oil burner. I went through a quart or more every 100 miles and left obnoxious smoke clouds behind me in the process. I found a good engine in a car that had rusted out and did the swap myself. I could pick the engine up and install it in the engine bay with little more than a metric socket set and a jack under the oil pan. The little 3 cylinder engine doesn’t weight that much. The new engine doesn’t use any oil and gets a fill of European spec synthetic oil each time it is changed. Changing the water pump or timing belt is something that can be done in a couple hours without much trouble. This is also a non-interference engine which is nice, at least for the SOHC (most common) versions. This is a great car and everything is very easy to get at and work on.
I agree the Metro isn’t for everyone as it is such a basic, small, and simple car without many creature comforts but I like the little car and enjoy driving it. Mine gets over 50mpg no matter how I drive it and rides like a big go kart. I do not like the automatics in a Metro. There are much better cars that get similar mileage for a similar or slightly higher price. This is all on the used car market now. The 3 speed auto in the Metro tops out at like 55mph for comfortable RPMs in the engine. I wouldn’t own one unless it was for parts. There several different setups of 5 speed manual transmissions in these too. There was a 4 cylinder with a higher gear ratio as well as an XFI model with the 3 cylinder engine. The XFI was rated at like 58mpg for a time and is considered one of the most fuel efficient cars ever made. I have the base model which uses one of the lower gear ratios that were available. I find this quite drivable and have no issues keeping up around town or on the highway.
The 1989-1994 generation of this car is still made by Suzuki or one of its partners in Pakistan. It is still basically the same exact car. The international name for this platform is the Suzuki Cultus.
The Mitsubishi Mirage is one car that has been discussed on the Geo Metro forums. I think this sounds like a modern version of the Metro but unlike the Metro, I have never seen a reliable or easy to repair Mitsubishi of any kind. If it weren’t for this, I could consider something along these lines for a Metro replacement. You have more modern features including better safety. The Spark, Sonic, Aveo, and such are all Daewoo products if I am correct. I understand these are also not known for reliability.
I also happen to own a 2000 S-10 pickup with the 4.3L V6. This is a manual transmission and is 2WD. It is amazing how much you can do with this little truck and have noticed that the used prices of trucks like this, the Ranger, etc. are inflated over book value because there is really no new alternative.
I also have a full sized 1997 F-250 light duty. It has a manual transmission and is one of the few reasons I got this model. Had I known all the issues with finding parts for the light duty, I might have avoided this truck. This is the kind with the 7 lug wheels.
I’d take a Prius over a Metro anyday. Similar MPGs, larger, more comfortable, more amenities, and safer.
I have never worked on a Prius but I would expect the hybrid systems are far more complex and harder to work on than a Metro. The Metro is really like a fuel injected and water cooled VW bug. It is extremely simple but requires far less tweaking than an old VW with points, valve adjustment, and such. The Metro was also far cheaper as a new car when adjusted for inflation. I am sure the Prius has more creature comforts and safety but they went the opposite direction and made it complicated to gain MPG.
On the other hand, I hear many saying really good things about the Mazda Skyactive system. They say it is just good old fashioned simple design and works quite well at improving mpg while keeping things simple.
The Metro had a MSRP of $6700 in 1991. Today’s version from Chevrolet would be the Spark, and it sells for the same price adjusted for inflation (&12,000). I don’t care for either one, but I’m able to afford a lot more car. If I were just starting out, a Spark might be attractive until I could afford a better car.
Not to argue jt but you might want to review what Greenspan himself had to say about the whole debacle. Something to the effect of he thought the bankers would be more trustworthy than they were and he shouldered some of the blame. He could have controlled the lenders better as chairman of the federal reserve. So there was lots of blame to go around including those that took out loans with no means of repayment.
@Bing
WTH, a little off target but, I was shocked to say the least to hear Greenspan under oath during a congressional hearing state there was little he could do to control the banking practices. After one of the questioners read his so called " job description" , he sat stone faced. Less then a week later, he sent out a statement retracting that part of his testimony saying indeed, he did have the authority and did not use it. His shouldering of “some of the blame” me thinks was at the request of his lawyer; it didn’t seem voluntary.
The banks were the adults in the room when it comes to taking out loans. The always have been and should be. The are suppose to access the risks to each and every borrower. So, I don’t blame the borrower when they are told they can afford these house loans. Few of us are economics majors and it’s up to the lender to aid the borrower and not encourage these bad faith loans. That was done in part to package and make money off them. These are some of the things that went on under Greenspan all over the country with banks, big and small. My kids almost fell into this trap of buying beyond their means through bank recommendations, and they were college educated. We dope slapped both of them for thinking that way…they were thankful once the crisis hit to afford the home they had chosen. Unfortunately, it’s the same buying cars on time too. We are all encouraged to buy beyond our means…that hasn’t changed !
15 years ago banks goaded the gullible to buy “all that they deserve.” E-mails were flooded with spam from multiple banks with offers to cash out equities so home owners could buy the cars and vacations and wardrobes they deserved then pay back the debt over 30 years. And mortgage brokerage firms appeared overnight to compete for loans using any means at hand.
It has long been my nature to be wary of all the exuberant rushes of the public toward whatever grand schemes for happiness were being pushed by mass marketers. In those years leading up to the real estate bubble bursting I often strongly discouraged people rushing into the ‘equity line’ credit schemes, the 110% loan to value mortgages, the ARM mortgages and the urge to ‘buy up’ into more home than they could afford. I don’t recall FANNIE or FREDDIE pushing such grand schemes (often scams), I do recall Wells Fargo’s brokers aggressively pushing loans based on ‘stated’ income to Realtors.
Easy money and the marketing of ‘getting all that you deserve’ by way of long term financing resulted in the 2008 debacle and the continued pouring of ‘liquidity’ into investment banks has been used to levitate the markets in the face of a seemingly inevitable crash. We are encouraged to run faster and buy more and more and more. I continue to be a ‘nattering nabob of negativism.’
And in the face of ever rising fuel prices and declining real income values we are led to believe that because the full size GM pickup can provide better fuel mileage than the now defunct S-10 we should embrace the behemoths and be grateful that GM lobbied for CAFE standards to eliminate that little mongrel that kept the C-1500 from its rightful place at the top… But does no one else wonder what mileage might have been possible from the S-10 if its efficiency had been as highly prioritized as the crown jewel C- model?
And again, redundantly, I opine that we here in the US are being sold ‘pie in the sky’ by slick marketing firms and far too many rush to get their piece of the pie today because they can pay for it so painlessly in increments over many, many years. Why buy a Corolla when you really want a Lexus? You really deserve the Lexus.
It’s amazing to me that a Conservative would put blame on the Feds because they WEREN’T regulating the industry enough…when they are ALWAYS saying how the Feds should NEVER EVER REGULATE ANYTHING.
So which is it…you want regulation or you want a completely free unregulated market??
Because we can ALWAYS trust industry to do the best thing for the country!
@RodKnox
I agree about the S10 . . . GM was really pushing the full size trucks on the consumer, not the S10
GM could have easily put in a more modern, more efficient engine, had they chose to do so.
But that’s not the only place that GM “failed” the S10. They chose to build it pretty cheap, quality wise. Whereas even the lowliest 1/2 ton GM truck was built to a much higher standard.
I’m sure it was done on purpose, so that people in the showroom would think "This S10 is really pretty junky, and it doesn’t even get great fuel economy. That Silverado 1500 right over there looks pretty good, for only a few bucks more . . . "
Chevrolet will bring the Colorado back in 2015.
There have been 3 S-10’s in my family. The first was a 1996 with the 2.2L 4 cylinder and a 5 speed manual. This was the most gutless engine for a pickup, even a small one. It felt like someone was pulling you backwards when you turned the AC on. My 3 cylinder Geo Metro would beat it in a race anyday. I understand this is basically the same engine that came in the Chevy Cavalier base model. So they put the engine from an economy car in a pickup. I can’t imagine what this would be like with an automatic and I know they made one.
The next one was a 2000 that I bought with the 4.3L V6. This one has the 5 speed and very respectable performance. I never really felt this was underpowered and this is a great engine for low RPM torque and it a long-lasting reliable engine. It may be old technology and not as efficient but the overall design seems to be excellent.
The next truck in the family was one my dad bought. It was another 2000 with the 4.3L and he really liked that truck. It wasn’t but a few days after I got mine that he traded the older one in.
While the 1996 4 cyl was like flogging a dead mule, the V6 is almost twice the displacement and very nice in these little trucks.
I think they may have improved the performance of the 4cyl S-10 around 1998 or so by adding 10-15 HP. This made a big difference as I drove someone’s truck that was a little newer but with the same engine and the power seemed to be a lot better. I guess when you start out with so little, a small improvement is drastic.
The old GM 4.3 V6 is a tough, old school design, and gives good performance in an S10 or Blazer
Amazingly, it was only discontinued very recently
It was replaced with an aluminum alloy 4.3 V6, which has absolutely nothing in common with the old one
The S-10 and Ranger were never more than meager offerings to compete against the Japanese pickups. Ford and GM understood that loyalty to domestic brands would give them a guaranteed base and the 24% tariff on the Japanese competition further aided the domestic ‘also rans’ to remain somewhat profitable but GM and Ford recognized that their step down pickups were competing with their higher profit full size models so they lobbied for CAFE standards and updated their drive trains to obsolete the ‘less than pickups’ out of existence.
The new GM model will be a mid-size, though. and no base model single cab will be offered. Where are the models available across Europe? Is there no market for basic models?