Beater Archive

Hairshirt: 1989-2000 Geo Metro / Chevy Metro

By Andrew ⋅ May 22, 2008 ⋅  Email this Article ⋅  Print this post ⋅ Post a comment

GM’s unlamented three-banger makes a comeback thanks to $120 $130/barrel crude.

By Andrew Stoy

1991 Geo Metro Convertible

The Background

Hey buddy, come on over here for a second. Let’s chat. Now, things are tough all over. We know: For chrissakes, we’re writers living in Detroit. We proudly work at the lowest-paying job you can get with a college degree, and we do it in a city that’s been in a recession for 35 years. But you gotta maintain your standards, dig? There are some levels to which you just don’t stoop—potted meat food product, single-ply ScotTissue, and Dave & Buster’s, for example—no matter how desperate you get.

The Geo Metro is one of those levels. Normally, this little scooter wouldn’t have even been on our list of beaters to review; after all, we try to find the “diamonds in the rough” rather than the hairballs in the bile. But with recent news reports of Metros fetching $5,000 and upwards on the used car market, we figured it was high time to backhand some sense into the world of extreme fuel price overreaction.

Before we get into the nuts and bolts, some background: The Metro was a rebadged Suzuki Swift, known in GM circles as the M-body, built in both Japan and Ontario, Canada. It was available in 3-door and 5-door hatch variants and as a 4-door sedan (second-gen only); a convertible was offered for the 1990-93 model years. Divided into two indistinct generations, the 1989-94 Metro was powered only by a 1.0 3-cylinder engine, while a 1.3L 4-cylinder was also offered on “upmarket” second-generation Metros from 1995-2000. Incidentally, you may also find a Metro that isn’t a Geo: When the Geo name was euthanized in 1997, Metro continued production badged as a Chevrolet.

The Opportunity

Traditionally, we fill about three paragraphs with the advantages of a particular beater when we write a review. In order to maintain that tradition while writing about the Metro, we will need to resort to college-paper-extension tricks such as triple-spacing and unnecessary quoting. So here we go:

       “This car is ass-tastic.”
       –Andrew Stoy

The Geo Metro has exactly one redeeming value: fuel economy. Better than 40 mpg is quite possible on the highway, despite the 9000 rpm the little three-pot screamer has to turn at those speeds. However, the hybrid-beating mileage numbers quoted by the “new Metro aficionados” are actually only achievable behind the wheel of a relatively uncommon sub-series of the Metro known as the XFi. Metro XFi models had exactly zero interior refinements, but they were honestly capable of returning 50-55 mpg on the highway. Good luck finding one in running condition today.

At the other end of the spectrum, you can get a Geo Metro with automatic transaxle, air conditioning, and a tape deck. It won’t be luxurious, but you’ll have all the amenities you’re likely to find in a brand-new Aveo at the local bowtie dealership. Problem is, you’ll going to be lucky to squeeze 35 mpg out of it on the open road. Therein lies the problem: By the time you load the Metro up with enough features to make it a barely adequate means of transportation, it gets about the same mileage as any number of perfectly serviceable subcompacts.

The Downside

Today’s lesson will be brought to you by the number three (3). As in, “What the hell happened to the last spark plug? I only see three.” All early Metro models, and all second-generation base models, were powered…and we use that term loosely…by a 1.0L 3-cylinder engine making Goggomobil levels of power. The 1.3L SOHC four available in later models is a far more acceptable powerplant, but at the cost of additional fuel use. Even better is the final SOHC 16-valve four with DIS, but at that point you can get equivalent fuel economy from an engine installed in a vastly better car, so why would you choose a Metro?

You don’t have to be an engineer to deduce that a three-cylinder engine might have some vibration issues. It does. And on the Metro, that vibration is made worse with age as entropy sets in: Wear, carbon buildup, and increased tolerances make those natural imbalances that much more prominent. Add to the natural deterioration the fact that, until about a week ago, these cars were considered junk within a week of leaving the showroom floor, and thus are not likely to have been impeccably maintained, and you have a recipe for mechanical disaster. Trust us: A Metro with no compression, worn throttle shafts, brittle plug wires, and gummed-up injectors isn’t going to get anywhere near the rated fuel economy.

So what else? The Metro is tinny, tiny, haphazardly assembled, and generally devoid of the creature comforts that most of us have grown accustomed to even on basic transportation options. Hell, even on public transportation options. Narrow, high-profile rubber makes cornering a dicey proposition, while front disc/rear drum brakes sans ABS (though it was optional on later models) mean stopping is just adequate. Of course, with under a ton to drag down from modest maximum speeds, at least the brakes don’t have to work very hard.

The Hit
$100-$1,990, but market conditions may inflate pricing to ridiculous levels.

In a Nutshell
What are you doing? Seriously. What the hell are you doing? Are you actually considering spending your hard-earned cash on a Geo f-ing Metro? I mean, we’re sympathetic; don’t get us wrong. Four-dollar per gallon gas is kicking our asses too. But give up 5 mpg and get an old Civic, Corolla, or Sentra. Hell, even an Escort or a Neon would be a vast improvement, and any of these options would cost less than what Metros are suddenly fetching. The one saving grace is that Metros were crappy enough when new that they never sold particularly well. You’ll probably never find one worth purchasing, forcing you to instead buy a perfectly nice 1986 MR2, and forever remaining blissfully ignorant of the bullet you’ve dodged. May carma be with you.