You are here: Forums Hatchbacks Chevrolet Metro/Geo Metro Chevrolet/Geo Metro

Chevrolet/Geo Metro

1692 messages,  Last post on Oct 24, 2009 at 5:27 PM

You are in the Chevrolet Metro/Geo Metro Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

What is this discussion about? Geo Metro, Chevrolet Metro, Hatchback

Messages Page 2 of 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 170 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#6 of 1692 alex travanti by alext Apr 30, 1999 (2:04 pm)
Not many Metro entheusiasts, are there? Well, then I am one of the few. I just got a new 99 Metro a month ago, which since the 98 model has the Chevy logo rather than the Geo. It's a beautiful dark metallic green, which makes it look like an insect. And for less than half the price of a new VW Beetle, it's just as cute. It's a perfect city car, gets an amazing 41 mpg. Even with sky-high L.A. gas prices I can fill up for $10 and go over 400 miles without a drop of fuel. However, the tiny 3 cylinder, 55 horsepower engine has a hell of a time going uphill. When climbing a mountain, the best thing to do is downshift, get in the far right lane and just let people go around you. The car is the perfect size for parking, even parallel is easy. But it can fit a lot in it with the back seat down. I'm a film student and I fit a betacam case, a miller tripod, a light package and all the trimming with room left to fill in the back. It's also very reliable, probably the most reliable among American cars. While it's often true that American cars (namely Ford and Dodge) have a tendency to burn themselves out after 3 years, cars like the metro with such a small engine don't have nearly the potential to do the same. My aunt the very first metro model to come out, the '89, and it lasted great through six or seven years and two accidents (the only reason she lost it was because she let my cousin drive it and he got it impounded through a run-in with the cops). To address the metro's safety: Most people think bvecause the car is so small it's a death trap. Well, if you're in a serious accident most compact cars aren't going to do a whole lot to save your skin, but the Metro does have dual airbags and a steel safety cage with "self-sacrificing" design. Plus, the 99 model has a new and improved extra-tall bumper. Trust me, this a huge asset. My girlfriend was in an accident the other day in the metro, one of those 4-car chain reaction rear-enders, and after getting hit from behind by a honda at 15mph, the bumper was only scartched up and dented a little. The bumper is so big that the body wasn't touched at all. So now it's as simple as slapping on a new bumper (which the other party's insurance will pay for, of course). So, all in all, I think the metro is great car. And itsets you apart from the Honda Civic hatchback mainstream. Replies to this message: pipeman (Jul 24, 2006 9:00 am)
#7 of 1692 carlady by mzn Apr 30, 1999 (7:01 pm)
You've moved me closer to being a believer, alext! I saw a 99 Metro drive past me last night and I did think it looked cuter than I recalled. And yes, parking would be a dream! carlady/host
#8 of 1692 jenn by jennvaccaro Jun 06, 1999 (4:51 am)
I own a 95 metro sedan because as a college student, it was all i could afford. it is much sturdier than i thought...i was rear ended by a huge pontiac grand am....not a scratch on the metro, the front of the pontiac looked like an accordion. HOWEVER....and a big however....while traveling on the causewy bridge in new orleans, la, which is a 24 mile long bridge over a lake, i was traveling at 55 mph (the speed limit) when i hit a slick patch on the bridge. the car lost control because the tires are so small, and i was spun on the bridge in oncoming traffic three times completely around and landed facing traffic int the wrong lane. not a scratch on the car, but i was so shaken couldn't drive it for weeks afterward. Needless to say, it has also given me a multitude of mechanical problems, and yes, i feel like i am driving a death trap. Come January, my husband and I are ditching it as fast as we can and investing in a big, giant, SUV.
#9 of 1692 alex travanti by alext Jun 06, 1999 (8:54 pm)
Well, the issue with the tires is very real. I recently got into an accident in my 99 metro hatchback. It was very dark and raining, which in LA is very bad because since it rains infrequently throughout the year the road becomes very slick. I was going about 35 mph on a slightly downward hill when a minivan in front of me stopped very quickly at a yellow light. I slammed on the brakes, which did stop the wheels, but not the car. Because the car is so lightweight and has such tiny wheels, the car kept sliding, right into the minivan. I was pretty much unhurt, except for being a little sore from the seat belt, and the minivan wasn't even scratched, but the front of my metro was bashed in. No damage to the headlight, just the hood and the front bumper. Thank good for the foot of space between the grill and the radiator! I took it to my body shop and their estimate is over $4000 (!!!), which is almost half the price of the car. Fortunately I have full coverage and a $500 deductible, so it'll only cost me the five hundred. But this brings up an important safety issue about the metro's wheel size. The stock wheels are only 13" by about 6" at the most. I am seriously considering buying new rims and tires after my car gets out of the shop, not only for looks but to add more weight and a fatter, meaterier wheel on the car. Pep Boys is offereing a deal on a set of no-name brand 14" x 7" wheels for about $600 total (including installation and balancing). Anybody out there have any other suggestions for making my metro better at handling the road? Replies to this message: corvairbob (Dec 01, 2007 7:20 pm) corvairbob (Dec 01, 2007 7:30 pm)
#10 of 1692 carlady by mzn Jun 06, 1999 (9:41 pm)
Before you think about getting new wheels, you might want to put your money into the best possible *tires* for your current wheels. Other small cars have the same size (or smaller) wheels so I'm inclined to think it is your tires that could use a bump up. What do others think? carlady/host
#11 of 1692 cjaccetta by cjaccetta Jun 07, 1999 (2:09 pm)
I own a '93 Metro 3-door and I agree with alext. Though it wouldn't hurt to get the best rubber you can buy, the skinny wheels simply won't put enough of it on the road. Luckily, the car's sluggish performance doesn't encourage "spirited" driving. Go for the wider wheels. BTW, count me in as a Metro enthusiast. This little car has been nothing but reliable. In five years of ownership, I have had NO troubles. I have replaced the front brakes and all four tires, and that's it. I live in northern NJ and my Metro is great for city driving and parking (just don't expect true comfort or refinement). Plus, you can fill the tank with regular for $9.00 and drive for a week. I even managed to squeeze three mountain bikes in the hatch. Question: is it possible or practical to retofit a '93 with A/C?. Replies to this message: joes1 (Jun 14, 2005 2:22 pm)
#12 of 1692 alext by alext Jun 07, 1999 (3:16 pm)
The 99 metro comes with goodyear tires stock, so there's not a whole lot more I could put in it. So, I've decided once it gets out of the shop to opt for the $600 to get new wheels. Not only will it improve handling and stopping ability, but it'll look a lot better than those ugly stock steel wheels.
#13 of 1692 bigger not better by baveux Jun 17, 1999 (9:36 pm)
Wider tire will just give you more problem like aquaplaning.Tailgating is much more dangerous,drive according to the road condition and you won't have any problem.I'm in ontario Canada,I'm driving 80 miles per day mainly on highway,on,rain or snow,and these small tire are just doing the job.I'm not trying to say here that I'm a better driver than you guys,I`M sure that we can find better tire ,but going bigger and wider,no thanks.... And IMHO a car is not loosing control....but a driver will...
#14 of 1692 jenn by jennvaccaro Jun 18, 1999 (9:48 pm)
Well, in response to "bigger not better," I did not lose control of the Metro.....as I stated in my original message (# 7) I was traveling the speed limit, and the bridge was nearly traffic-free at the time I was on it. I simply do not think that a CAR that loses control despite the driver obeying the rules of the road at 55 mph is a safe vehicle. In addition, prior to owning the Metro, I owned a small Nissan Sentra. I crossed the same bridge twice a day for a year in it because of my job, and was NEVER in danger of losing control. BTW, I have an impeccable driving record, so till the day I die I will insist that the METRO lost control, not me.
#15 of 1692 hey,hey ! by baveux Jun 18, 1999 (10:20 pm)
Jenn : L.O.L Don't get upset!!! You were probably not the only one who hitted this black ice.Do you really believe that 1/2 wider on four tire would have made any difference ? Personnally I dont think so.A bridge is the worse place to be in winter,and on black ice you can drive a semi and put yourself in trouble.So the Metro lost control....probably because where you leave they haven't put a sign at the entrance of the bridge saying that the road might be slippery below zero like we have here in Canada,so the poor little car ignoring the fact made a mistake ! Maybe 55mph was to fast on that bridge that day ? Maybe this, maybe that,so till the day I die I will insist that the DRIVER lost control,not the car.) Richard You probably think that my English sucks,but it's not me......It's that frikin keyboard.....! Take care

Messages Page 2 of 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 170 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Hatchbacks Chevrolet Metro/Geo Metro Chevrolet/Geo Metro