Why did we have some of these cars in the early '90s but do not now?
Like the Geo Metro XFi and the Honda Civic HF; those cars were capable of reaching into the 50 MPG range on gasoline.
I understand that those cars were extremely light but haven't we made big enough strides in technology to overcome the weight gain small cars have made in the last 15-20 years?
If they could build me a small 4 door car that got around 55 mpg on gasoline, had just a few options (P/S, P/B, A/C, C/C, P/W, rear defroster, rear wiper (if a hatch), and a CD player) for $9K-12K, I'd buy one right now.

 

So would I. I don't need all of these heavyweight options and features with gas prices going beyond $4.00/gallon.

I'm actually scouring used car ads for a cheap early 90's Civic hatchback as we speak.

 

1) SMall cars are still heavier today than those tuna cans were...they'd never pass today's safety standards.

2) Evne small cars today are fast in compariso to a 3-cyl metro. Those things had what, 70hp? Even an Aveo has like 120hp.

That said, if they *could* build a car that was as unsafe as a Metro legally and got >50mpg I bet it'd be a huge hit.

 

you pretty much out lined my old cobalt except the p/w and with the 5 speed i was averaging 33 on road trips i could see 37 to 38. and that cost about 13k


i agree though i think they could get to 50 if they wanted to. people just dont want to give up some things like HP or the ability to do over 80. i mean gms new car is supposed to do what 40mpg with a 1.4 turbo.

 

Differences in the XFi to the LSi
- lighter curb weight (1621 vs 1650 lbs for the LSi)
- no passenger side mirror
- no a/c
- different engine computer
- different cam shaft & sprocket
- different piston design (2 vs 3 rings)
- taller final drive
- 49 hp / 58 lbs-ft vs 55 / 58

Honda typically makes the lightest vehicles in their classes
Honda Civic 2628 lbs
Honda Fit 2432 lbs

We are looking at 800 to 1000 lbs difference.

FYI, the metro had a 3 star crash test rating.

EDIT:

Some more food for thought, here is a 0-60 video of it...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Nv-lfsx_xo&feature=related

 

Wow, even less HP than I thought. Still, I don't think a car like this is marketable even @ $4/gallon. Sure some people are willing to give up all amenities for fuel economy, but most aren't. Maybe if/when gas hits $7-$8/gallon...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayof.../20/geo.metro/

 

I'm fully aware of the change in value of the Metro...i've made numerous posts about it. The article using some extreme examples. I still see Metros around here selling for around $3-5k. A good $1-2k more than they were selling for 2 years ago, but that doesn't necessarily mean large volumes of people are willing to go plop down $10k for a new one if it were to be built. With the slim profit margin the car would bring I imagine they'd have to move hundreds of thousands of these things per year to make it a worthwhile venture.

 

GM sells a 52mpg Diesel Astra and a gasoline model that gets 42mpg in Europe.

 

Metros are still fairly cheap around here... provided you can find one. The issue is supply and demand. The 3-cylinders were notorious for having performance and efficiency issues once the EGRs went bad. A lot of them were scrapped because they were valued under the price of the repairs. When folks complained about performance, GM answered with a bigger 4-cylinder and fuel efficiency suffered slightly.

Essentially the Aveo is the Metro's replacement. Perhaps GM should look at replacing the Aveo's 1.6L E-Tec with a smaller (1.0L - 1.4L) Ecotec thus improving efficiency. (But with a loss in performance.)

Then they could drop in the 1.4L Turbo and give us the Aveo SS I've been suggesting for some time now.

 

 

Weight due to safety issues and features people want in cars.
NO. We are limited by physics and people's money. No one wants to pay for it, but everyone wants the benifits.
Too bad once you get all those items, plus safety features, the only way you'd get a car with 55MPG is to have a no-hp engine that maxes @ 35MPH.

There's only so much energy in fuel, it's not like a new engine makes more energy in the fuel, it just is more efficent at getting out the energy that's in it.

 

I found the CRX HF specs too...

1713 lbs
60 hp
73 lbft

0-60 in about 12 seconds.

Not a car I would want.

 

The system used to rate the fuel efficiencies of cars has changed once, maybe twice since the early 90's. So a 50 mpg car back then does not equal a 50 mpg car today.

 

The Aveo is actually getting a 1.6 Ecotec for 2009 MY that improves mileage slightly. I agree a 1.4 option would be good, though.