Are those imperial gallons?
42 imperial = 50 american
52 imperial = 62 american

Those engines (like the 1.4L DI turbo) will make it over here as people demand them more - just like the 3 sub-compacts GM displayed at the NY auto show a few years ago.

But weight will be hard pressed to bring down, and knowing side airbags are going to be required in a few years...

I'm still waiting for GM to get its new V6 diesel in a CTS and get mpg/performance rated.

 

Exactly. Buyers demand contemporary safety and crashworthiness in new cars. Anyone wanting an old Geo... take a look at this nasty offset frontal crash test...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=53j2wl16Ozw&feature=related

 

By the new standards, the 1990 CRX HF is 40 city 47 highway 43 combined vs the old 49 city, 52 highway, 50 combined

1990 Metro XFi is now 43 city 51 hwy 46 combined vs the old 53 city 58 hwy 55 combined.

That's still phenomenal mileage compared to anything you can buy today.

 

Nope, that is in US MPG. I converted it from Liters/100km to gallons. data is from the German Opel site.

also your conversion is backward. Imperial gallons /1.2 = US gallons.

 

It is also a phenomenal death trap too. Save some gas to lose my life? I don't think so.

 

Well, so many people are thinking about moving to (or already have moved to) motorcycles and scooters.
I gotta believe that a Metro is safer than a bike or a scooter. So......

I still think they could do it. Give us a 1.0L, all aluminum engine with the latest & greatest technology (D.I., DOHC, 4 valves per cyl, VVT, variable intake runner length, many composite engine parts,etc), a 6-spd manual transmission, numerically low final drive ratio, low weight thru use of lighter materials and absense of "gadgets", great aero, and any other things we've learned since 1990 and I bet they could hit that number no problem.

And I think there will be more and more interest in a car like this as gas keeps climbing higher. Like the other poster said, let's see what kind of cars people are looking at when gas hits $7-$8 dollars per gallon.

And it needs to be a gasoline car. Diesel cars are too expensive for the boost in mileage plus diesel is a lot more expensive.

Anyways, I know I'd buy one. I've been trying to find a Metro XFi in my area with no luck. I drive 68 miles a day and the 21-23 mpg I get in my Colorado is not cutting it for me. It was great when gas was cheaper but not so much now.

 

^ The VW 1L concept hits over 200mpg by basically doing what you mention above.



Except that the passenger sits jet fighter style...and there's no cargo to speak of. but using these concepts I don't see why they couldn't add 100-150 pounds to the weight to make it more roomy and add some cargo...and still get over 100mpg.

 

It's true! I died twice in mine when I owned it!

Believe me, when 0-60 takes 14 seconds, you plan everything pretty well

He was just asking about the relation to the current gas standards and that's the question I answered. It makes the point that if those cars are only rated at 40 by current standards what it would take to get 55 mpg today.

 

Cross country on a tank of gas and going into production:

http://www.aptera.com/

 

Adding weight isn't so much the issue, but it would add drag. This would kill the MPG considering the reason it's shaped as such is to minimize drag...

 

But how many people are going to be willing to drop $35k on something like that?

 

I was thinking adding two feet or so to the length of he car for storage...I can't imagine that would impact drag that dramatically?

 

Do the math though. I did a similar calculation comparing my Tahoe (on 87) vs. my Z/28 (on premium). Even with the high price of premium (over $5/gal in most locations here) I still save over my Tahoe because of fuel mileage. (And we're talking about an automatic LT1 and not a fuel sipping LS1 M6.)

Incidentally, I'm using the improved mileage angle of the LS1/M6 on my wife to try to argue that we'd save money by upgrading to a 98-02 SS from the 95 Z/28. She has to keep throwing that damn logic into the equation by asking, "how long would it take to make back the difference in price?" (by selling the '95 and buy an used SS.) Serves me right by marrying a financial analyst.

 

Well, if you take a look at the new thread in this section about the Chevy Beat and how it gets 56 MPG and will probably cost less than $12K, you can see how the manufacturers can do what I suggested.

So there are no worries about such a car costing $35K as you suggested.

 

Actually, I didn't do the math but I'm just thinking about the price difference between, let's say, a diesel Rabbit and a gasoline Rabbit. Isn't the diesel version like $2,500 to $5,000 more than the gas version right out of the box?
And then the difference in diesel vs. gasoline. Diesel is around $4.69 a gallon here while gas is $3.89 per gallon.

And for what, an 8-10 MPG difference in fuel economy?

Without doing the math, I'm not sure you could make the differences up. Well, at least in the length of time most people keep their cars.