[Jim-Bob]

The biggest problem with lowering a Metro is that you run out of suspension travel pretty quickly. Inadequate travel can make for some very spooky handling when you hit a bump while turning. What happens is that the suspension hits the stop and makes the spring rate infinite. This will cause the wheel to lose contact with the road as the tire will skip off the pavement. The Metro is already a pretty spooky handling little car as-is. I don't know that I would want to introduce any more possible negatives into the equation. It may well work for a small gain in fuel economy, but all of that economy is a moot point if you get into an accident. Plus, do you REALLY want to be any lower than the bumpers of other cars than you are already? You have a collision interface problem stock. Lowering the car will likely take the bumper and frame rails out of the crumple equation in an impact with a modern car, not to mention an SUV.

Why then ( you might be asking) can people get away with lowering Civics and still maintain good handling? it all comes down to the motion ratio of the strut to that of the wheel. As the motion ratio of a pure Mac Phearson strut front suspension is 1:1, it is very limited in how much lowering it can take without special struts that change the amount of travel they have. On a double wishbone Civic though, the motion ratio is not 1:1 The strut moves LESS than the rate of the wheel because it acts on a point that is inboard of the lower ball joint by a few inches. This means that it loses less range than a Metro when you lower it.