Any reason NOT to get an XFI?

[Sven7]

Originally Posted by 2000mc

But how much fun would it really be to drive a ferrari the speed limit? Lifeless steering on mountain roads sounds like some good white knuckle driving though!

No. Handling limits and driving enjoyment are completely different. A Geo of course has a lower handling limit than the Civics due to suspension geometry and cg. But you will be able to push nearly any economy car to and past the limit (nearly) legally on public backroads.

The difference is that Civics will tell you what they're doing, and give you more grip and more control. You need to know what your car is doing and how it will behave if you are to push it. Even just test driving a Geo for two minutes told me that it would give little to no information to the driver, leaving him guessing when the grip would run out, or what the rear end might do.

Yes, cars with lower handling limits are more fun to drive quickly compared to driving a "fast" car the same speed. There's no doubt about that. However, it's a matter of horse and rider. You need to trust your horse and in my opinion the Geo is not a trustworthy steed. It may get great MPG, but that's all it does.

Please forgive my motorsport talk.

[War_Wagon]

Ferrari's are fun at any speed. You feel like a jerk driving one (and it wasn't even mine lol), and you can't wipe the smile off your face for a week afterwards, but it's fun. Saturns are another good choice, I have liked mine, they are cheap to repair, easy to work on, and you don't have to worry about rust. I had a '97 SW1 5 speed and a '98 SC2 (automatic sadly), and if you can get over the squeaks and rattles from the plastic interior they actually drive out nice and the single cam 5 speed models have some great FE friendly gear ratios. Plus the cars themselves are dirt cheap.

As for the Metro vs Civic - I have driven crappy examples of both, and nice examples of both. And I don't drive fast, but I do have to maintain highway speeds on some scary mountain roads from time to time. And in my experience, a worn out Honda drives nicer than a good condition Metro in that situation. Though, the best mountain/highway car I have ever driven was my '91 Tercel DX. I don't know what it is about those cars, but the gearing/torque is just perfect for maintaining highway speeds up hills and through the twisties. Where the Metro would go into 3rd, and the Civic into 4th up some of the grades, the Tercel spent a lot more time in 5th than the other two did. They are pretty comfy as well.

[ErrForce]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I disagree with the assessments that Metros suck to drive, but then I haven't ever attempted to drive fast with one on any winding roads either.

First thing that came to mind was Aeromodder's dopey claims of Tempo's becoming airborne at highway speeds due to lift; problem was he was driving a P.O.S. that left a trail of parts on the road. Of course when there are suspension and/or tire issues the car is not going to be fun to drive. They are all old cars now and so there will be worn out parts. Put it all in good working order and get back to me.

So, if I may ask, with your Motorcraft experience, how do you think a ~1985 Tempo/Topaz or Escort/Lynx with the Mazda RF diesel would stack up? Obviously now quite as many MPGs out of the box, but they are close. I do have a preference to diesels. How would you rate reliability versus a Metro or even a Civic/CRX?

[Frank Lee]

You feel like a jerk driving one

I can imagine. I always thought driving a Shelby Cobra would be the cat's meow but when I test drove a replica, I got the feeling of a middle-aged douche trying to compensate for something. :/

[2000mc]

Ok sven, war wagon... You've convinced me, I won't get a metro, saturn it is!

[War_Wagon]

It's true Frank Lee, I almost wanted to yell "Really, it's not mine!" out the window lol.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by ErrForce

So, if I may ask, with your Motorcraft experience, how do you think a ~1985 Tempo/Topaz or Escort/Lynx with the Mazda RF diesel would stack up? Obviously now quite as many MPGs out of the box, but they are close. I do have a preference to diesels. How would you rate reliability versus a Metro or even a Civic/CRX?

I've had Tempos and Topaz' for decades; an '84 has been in the family since new. I also have an Escort diesel but it is not street legal and I've only driven it on a few short "test drives".

Since you are after mpgs, steer clear of the a/t T/Ts. There is nothing wrong with the T/T a/t; it is a functional and durable unit but you give up a LOT of mpgs vs the 5 speed.

I can exceed 40 mpg with my gas '92 Tempo 5 speed but my average is lower than that, but still mid to high 30s. If you want ultimate mpgs the Metro or some other smaller car will more easily deliver.

You have an interest in diesel and that will get you better mpgs. My experience with the early '80s VW Rabbit diesels is generally good- great fe and comfortable interior; downsides were poor extreme cold weather startability and RUST.

There is a guy on here with a Tempo diesel that IIRC was getting 50 mpg but he hasn't posted for quite a while.

The T/Ts feel much more substantial going down the road than, say, Metros. Feeling "substantial" doesn't do anything for me but for many people it does. I like T/Ts in part because they have been very reliable, comfortable, and economical for me.

[ErrForce]

Originally Posted by Sven7

Yes, cars with lower handling limits are more fun to drive quickly compared to driving a "fast" car the same speed. There's no doubt about that. However, it's a matter of horse and rider. You need to trust your horse and in my opinion the Geo is not a trustworthy steed. It may get great MPG, but that's all it does.

Please forgive my motorsport talk.

Absolutely forgiven. I used to run Solo2 in a '99 Miata and then NASA-X in an '84 Supra. I have a copy of the PhoRS in my glove compartment. While I am focused on MPG and the rest of my stable is populated with station wagons, I do know my roots.

Originally Posted by War_Wagon

As for the Metro vs Civic - I have driven crappy examples of both, and nice examples of both. And I don't drive fast, but I do have to maintain highway speeds on some scary mountain roads from time to time. And in my experience, a worn out Honda drives nicer than a good condition Metro in that situation. Though, the best mountain/highway car I have ever driven was my '91 Tercel DX. I don't know what it is about those cars, but the gearing/torque is just perfect for maintaining highway speeds up hills and through the twisties. Where the Metro would go into 3rd, and the Civic into 4th up some of the grades, the Tercel spent a lot more time in 5th than the other two did. They are pretty comfy as well.

I used to own a '93 Tercel 2dr/4sp. I did like that car and I've owned 6(?) other Toyotas. I've actually never owned a Honda or an American car (except a '77 Wagoneer and a '90 Laser that was just a rebadged Eclipse).

I've heard a lot of reasons not to get a Metro and I thank you all. More than I thought at first, I do care about how the car feels.

[Frank Lee]

I'd say drive one yourself and THEN come to YOUR OWN conclusion. How windey/mountainous is your commute anyway?

[War_Wagon]

Ya, we can all yack about what we like, but you really need seat time in all this stuff before making a decision. If I just read forums I would have never tried a Tercel, and to me that's the perfect mountain/winter car. Your mileage may, and will vary, but Civics, Saturns, Tercels, and Metros should all be on the list.