Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Is that necessarily so? Consider the CRX, with decent fuel economy (~45 mpg the way I drove mine) from around 1500 CC engine and 2000 lbs weight.
Even though you have perhaps a larger engine than strictly needed, it seems as though the major reductions in body weight and CdA would more than compensate, much the way that Corvette owners reportedly get into 30s for highway mpg.
Then there are reliablity & availability issues. I don't know firsthand about the Metro, but it would be hard to beat Honda on either.
|
Reliability is mostly a function of proper maintenance, not vehicle manufacture.
Availability is fairly matched for either, since (other than R-series, which are too heavy and expensive, and the Insight motor, which is just out there... ) the D-series is the only engine worth considering for economy, and it was produced for approximately the same amount of time that the Metro's G-series engines were.
You mention compromise, here, which is great (and usually necessary) in life... but why should one make compromises where not necessary?
The CRX DX had ~90HP, at 1800+ lbs.
This guy's going to have ~55HP, at ~1100 lbs and probably better aero. I don't see where doubling that HP figure would be necessary, and if it were me, I'd be looking in the high-revving 500cc range, honestly, or even ~300cc with a turbo.
As to the OP's claim of engine swap ability -
This alone would make me want it. Period. The fact that I could modularly build a Turbo 1600, have a 1.3 handy for "spirited" driving, and use the G10 whenever I wanted, while being able to swap them out each in a few hours, would make this project very appealing to gear heads looking for a fun car with great mileage.
You have my support and thoughts, I'll try to pitch in help where I can.