mmcartalk
Expert
- Messages
- 4,160
- Reactions
- 2,675
MM Retro-Write-Up: 1989-2001 Chevy/Geo Metro
^^^^^^^^^............And there's Reviewer Doug Demuro with a Metro convertible.
IN A NUTSHELL: Inexpensive, economical, maneuverable, and an ideal urban-runner….but flimsily-built and questionable for crash-safety.
In the 1980s and 90s, GM experimented with a new “Geo” sub-division that was sold through Chevrolet dealerships…..somewhat like the experiment that Toyota later did with the Scions that were sold at Toyota shops. The Geo vehicles (later to be sold as Chevy when the Geo moniker was dropped) included a number of Japanese-sourced products from Toyota, Isuzu, and Suzuki that were modified to meet American vehicle-standards.
One of these Geo vehicles was the Metro, an Americanized version of the diminutive Suzuki Swift/Cultus….the Swift was also sold here in the U.S. through a relatively sparse network of Suzuki dealerships. A Pontiac Firefly version was available in Canada, but was not sold in the U.S.
With the exception of the versatile subcompact SX4 AWD hatchback and the excellent compact Kizashi FWD/AWD sedan, I have never been much of a fan of Suzuki-designed vehicles, at least those that were offered in the American market. And, while I understand the concept behind the Swift/Metro, the reasons how and why it was designed like it was, I still did not find it very impressive or much to my tastes. Nevertheless, it was introduced and sold for a reason, and I’ll cover that in this write-up.
Upon examining it, the first (and lasting) impression one got of this vehicle is that it was designed for maximum fuel-efficiency and weight-reduction, within the limits of what would actually pass U.S. vehicle-safety-regulations in the letter, if not the spirit, of the law. First, of course, its diminutive size and very light weight (depending on the version, 1800-2000 lbs. empty) did pay off in gas mileage, particularly with the ultra-miser Metro XFi version and its tiny 52-HP 1.0L three-cylinder engine and 5-speed manual transmission. XFi owners who drove sensibly sometimes reported as much as 65-70 MPG under cruising-conditions at moderate speeds…..although it should be noted that the small 2-seat mid-1980s Honda CRX HF version could also achieve (roughly) similar mileage with a somewhat larger engine, better build-quality and a more substantial body structure than the Metro. Two former co-workers of mine once owned CRX HFs, and one of them, an older lady, regularly commuted on the D.C. Beltway, averaging over 60 MPG.
But, nevertheless, the Metro did have a couple of advantages over the CRX. First, unlike the CRX, you could get one in several different body styles, with back seats if you carried children or small adults, in sedan or hatchback form, and, for some fun in the sun, an adorable inexpensive small convertible painted in some bright cheery colors. And, unlike trying to make a deal on a new Honda with the salespeople back then (which, believe me, could be a real pain in the *** because of the supply/demand conditions then and Honda’s then-stellar reputation), in comparison, taking home a new Metro was a relatively straightforward and painless experience.
But the Metro’s low price (original 1989 versions started at a mere $5995) and relatively easy deals got you exactly what you paid for…..a cheap, inexpensive vehicle, and it showed. While the interior was not overly-stark in its decor, at least by the economy-car standards of the time, it clearly was made with second-rate materials. When the Metro first debuted in the American market, I looked at couple of them at the D.C. Auto Show that year, and was quite unimpressed with what I saw…..even borderline shocked. The sheet metal was so thin that I could lift the hood (which completely lacked insulation) and easily warp it laterally back and forth with my hands. I showed that to a Chevy/Geo rep standing next to me and my friend there at the show, and his face turned red with embarrassment. Of course, that was not his fault, but, nevertheless, those show-reps are paid to to promote their products, and my job, as a reviewer, was to point that kind of stuff out.
And, of course, the convertible version and its lightweight structure, without a rigid roof, was an ample source of the traditional convertible cowl-flex from a loose body-structure over bumps and road-irregularities. And don’t even think of rolling over in the convertible….the mere thought of that will raise one’s blood pressure. However, to be fair, all of the Metros did manage to pass the DOT/NATSA safety-regulations of the time, or else they cold not have been legally sold in the U.S. Still, this is definitely not the car I would want to be in for ultimate-safety, particularly in a collision with a larger or heavier vehicle.
But, it wasn’t all bad with the Metro by any means. If you drove safely, managed to avoid an accident, and didn’t get completely carried away with your right foot, you had a vehicle that was ideal for a dense urban environment, excellent maneuverability for getting into and out of tight areas and small parking spaces, simple to buy, operate, and work on, and, like the competing CRX HF, would give you up to twice the fuel-mileage of a number of other small cars of the time. That meant a lot less concern about the price or availability of gas…the lengthy gas lines and sharp price-increases of the 1970s had not then been completely forgotten by the public. And, it that meant one could take the money that you weren’t dumping into the tank, or paying off to the bank each month with an expensive car-loan, and spend it on other things….or save for one’s retirement.
Two generations of the Metro were sold in the U.S.…the first from 1989-1994, and the second from 1995 to 2001. The second-generation version did not make a lot of extensive changes except for relatively minor revisions and to drop the slow-selling convertible, which never really took off in the marketplace, perhaps because of its safety concerns. After 1997, GM discontinued the Geo organization, and its vehicles, including the Metro, were again re-branded as Chevrolets. Small-car sales dropped during the 90s as many vehicle-buyers were converting to crossovers and SUVs, including Chevy’s own Suzuki-built Tracker, a small off-road-capable, body-on-frame SUV. The entire Metro line was dropped for 2002. There was no immediate American-market replacement for the Metro at the time, although, later, Chevy was to market the subcompact Daewoo-built Aveo, and, today, the gas and electric versions of the Chevrolet Spark generally fill that role.
And, as Always, Happy-Vehicle-Memories
MM
__________________
DRIVING IS BELIEVING
^^^^^^^^^............And there's Reviewer Doug Demuro with a Metro convertible.
IN A NUTSHELL: Inexpensive, economical, maneuverable, and an ideal urban-runner….but flimsily-built and questionable for crash-safety.
In the 1980s and 90s, GM experimented with a new “Geo” sub-division that was sold through Chevrolet dealerships…..somewhat like the experiment that Toyota later did with the Scions that were sold at Toyota shops. The Geo vehicles (later to be sold as Chevy when the Geo moniker was dropped) included a number of Japanese-sourced products from Toyota, Isuzu, and Suzuki that were modified to meet American vehicle-standards.
One of these Geo vehicles was the Metro, an Americanized version of the diminutive Suzuki Swift/Cultus….the Swift was also sold here in the U.S. through a relatively sparse network of Suzuki dealerships. A Pontiac Firefly version was available in Canada, but was not sold in the U.S.
With the exception of the versatile subcompact SX4 AWD hatchback and the excellent compact Kizashi FWD/AWD sedan, I have never been much of a fan of Suzuki-designed vehicles, at least those that were offered in the American market. And, while I understand the concept behind the Swift/Metro, the reasons how and why it was designed like it was, I still did not find it very impressive or much to my tastes. Nevertheless, it was introduced and sold for a reason, and I’ll cover that in this write-up.
Upon examining it, the first (and lasting) impression one got of this vehicle is that it was designed for maximum fuel-efficiency and weight-reduction, within the limits of what would actually pass U.S. vehicle-safety-regulations in the letter, if not the spirit, of the law. First, of course, its diminutive size and very light weight (depending on the version, 1800-2000 lbs. empty) did pay off in gas mileage, particularly with the ultra-miser Metro XFi version and its tiny 52-HP 1.0L three-cylinder engine and 5-speed manual transmission. XFi owners who drove sensibly sometimes reported as much as 65-70 MPG under cruising-conditions at moderate speeds…..although it should be noted that the small 2-seat mid-1980s Honda CRX HF version could also achieve (roughly) similar mileage with a somewhat larger engine, better build-quality and a more substantial body structure than the Metro. Two former co-workers of mine once owned CRX HFs, and one of them, an older lady, regularly commuted on the D.C. Beltway, averaging over 60 MPG.
But, nevertheless, the Metro did have a couple of advantages over the CRX. First, unlike the CRX, you could get one in several different body styles, with back seats if you carried children or small adults, in sedan or hatchback form, and, for some fun in the sun, an adorable inexpensive small convertible painted in some bright cheery colors. And, unlike trying to make a deal on a new Honda with the salespeople back then (which, believe me, could be a real pain in the *** because of the supply/demand conditions then and Honda’s then-stellar reputation), in comparison, taking home a new Metro was a relatively straightforward and painless experience.
But the Metro’s low price (original 1989 versions started at a mere $5995) and relatively easy deals got you exactly what you paid for…..a cheap, inexpensive vehicle, and it showed. While the interior was not overly-stark in its decor, at least by the economy-car standards of the time, it clearly was made with second-rate materials. When the Metro first debuted in the American market, I looked at couple of them at the D.C. Auto Show that year, and was quite unimpressed with what I saw…..even borderline shocked. The sheet metal was so thin that I could lift the hood (which completely lacked insulation) and easily warp it laterally back and forth with my hands. I showed that to a Chevy/Geo rep standing next to me and my friend there at the show, and his face turned red with embarrassment. Of course, that was not his fault, but, nevertheless, those show-reps are paid to to promote their products, and my job, as a reviewer, was to point that kind of stuff out.
And, of course, the convertible version and its lightweight structure, without a rigid roof, was an ample source of the traditional convertible cowl-flex from a loose body-structure over bumps and road-irregularities. And don’t even think of rolling over in the convertible….the mere thought of that will raise one’s blood pressure. However, to be fair, all of the Metros did manage to pass the DOT/NATSA safety-regulations of the time, or else they cold not have been legally sold in the U.S. Still, this is definitely not the car I would want to be in for ultimate-safety, particularly in a collision with a larger or heavier vehicle.
But, it wasn’t all bad with the Metro by any means. If you drove safely, managed to avoid an accident, and didn’t get completely carried away with your right foot, you had a vehicle that was ideal for a dense urban environment, excellent maneuverability for getting into and out of tight areas and small parking spaces, simple to buy, operate, and work on, and, like the competing CRX HF, would give you up to twice the fuel-mileage of a number of other small cars of the time. That meant a lot less concern about the price or availability of gas…the lengthy gas lines and sharp price-increases of the 1970s had not then been completely forgotten by the public. And, it that meant one could take the money that you weren’t dumping into the tank, or paying off to the bank each month with an expensive car-loan, and spend it on other things….or save for one’s retirement.
Two generations of the Metro were sold in the U.S.…the first from 1989-1994, and the second from 1995 to 2001. The second-generation version did not make a lot of extensive changes except for relatively minor revisions and to drop the slow-selling convertible, which never really took off in the marketplace, perhaps because of its safety concerns. After 1997, GM discontinued the Geo organization, and its vehicles, including the Metro, were again re-branded as Chevrolets. Small-car sales dropped during the 90s as many vehicle-buyers were converting to crossovers and SUVs, including Chevy’s own Suzuki-built Tracker, a small off-road-capable, body-on-frame SUV. The entire Metro line was dropped for 2002. There was no immediate American-market replacement for the Metro at the time, although, later, Chevy was to market the subcompact Daewoo-built Aveo, and, today, the gas and electric versions of the Chevrolet Spark generally fill that role.
And, as Always, Happy-Vehicle-Memories
MM
__________________
DRIVING IS BELIEVING
