44.2 MPG-all city driving!

[Odin]

what is the stock weight of your metro?

[Jim-Bob]

Originally Posted by Odin

what is the stock weight of your metro?

My 4 door, 5 speed,without factory air 1991 Metro weighs 1690lbs and my 1992 2 door 3/auto (soon to be 5 speed) with air weighs 1643lbs. A/C adds around 20lbs as a Metro XFI weighs 1620lbs. This for a car that can seat 4 adults in reasonable discomfort. There are very few 4 seat cars you can buy in the US from the last 25 years that come close to being this light. Even the Smart Fortwo weighs more. In fact, only the Metro's predecessor-the Chevy Sprint- is lighter (well...maybe the Zastava Yugo GV and Kia Pride/Ford Festiva too.... I haven't really looked). The 95+ Metro/Swift is a heavier car but about the same size. It gives up a little in terms of fuel economy but is built to be a much safer car (it even has dual airbags). Insurance prices will bear this out too in that early Metros are more expensive to insure than later ones. I think the late Metro is around 1800 lbs for a 3 cyl/5 speed hatch. Even still, an accident in a Metro is bound to be ugly so driving one requires you to be attentive to your surroundings in order to be safe. This is true of other cars but most of them are more forgiving in a collision. I would also warn you that no 3 cylinder Metro or Sprint was available with power steering. The manual rack it has isn't too bad except if you need to do a lot of low speed maneuvering such as parking or turning around in neighborhoods. I do it 15-20 times a night and it gets tiring at times. Also, once you drive a Metro for a while, every other car you drive will seem like a land yacht. My friend's Civic SI feels like a Cadillac to me every time I drive it!

So....would I recommend a Metro? Yes! The fuel economy is great and it really is all the car one person needs for most things. I hypermile all night long and do not fear for my safety but then I am reading traffic 30 seconds ahead of me too. Part of hypermiling is distance planning of your actions rather than constantly reacting which makes it a fairly safe form of driving. If you do not plan to do this then you are better off in a larger car-like a 95-99 1.6 liter/ 5 speed Nissan Sentra/200SX. They can still get 50+ on the highway but are safer in a crash at high speeds than the unforgiving Metro.

[Odin]

Time to look into a metro! 1640 is incredibly light so i wonder how much better you would do without an interior just the drivers seat

[bikepilot]

Great results and light car!

My wife's bone stock and always full of crap civic is doing about 40mpg in the city/burbs (no hypermiling techniques at all). I try to get her to clean it out more often so its at least not heavier than stock...

[Jim-Bob]

Originally Posted by Odin

Time to look into a metro! 1640 is incredibly light so i wonder how much better you would do without an interior just the drivers seat

Honestly, not much better. Nothing in the car weighs all that much and I would be surprised if you saved 50 lbs. There really isn't any sound deadening in the car to speak of either and driving without an interior is like sitting in an echo chamber with a weed eater running at full throttle. Trust me, I've tried it. If you want to up your fuel economy though there are a few things you can do that aren't that expensive. Changing the cam to either the 3 Tech econo cam is reportedly worth 5 mpg for less than $200. About the same is true for a 3.79 transmission from either a Metro XFI or a 4 cylinder/5 speed 95+ Metro. You could also switch to 155 80 R13's on 13 in 95+ wheels for the same effect. I'm doing all of the above plus I had the fuel economy head package done by 3 Tech for my other Metro. My hope is that it will see 50 mpg city on a regular basis and touch 70 mpg on the highway. Whether it will or not is just speculation at this point as I am still gathering parts.

[texanidiot25]

You should keep an eye out for older CRX HF's. My '87 would average 41 pretty easily, with nothing other than short shifting it. And even then, driving it aggressively only brought the city mpg down to 38 or so. This was while working at Domino's too!

On the highway, I could do trips at 75 mph and still return 38 highway, which for a gutless 4 banger being on the verge of floored for most of the trip (Hill country), is quite good.

It was the California special, which gives up some gearing and has more emissions equipment-- less fuel economy than a federally emissioned version.

[Jim-Bob]

The biggest problem with the CRX HF is that most of them were converted to more powerful engines long ago. Plus, the early ones with the plastic fenders are all but extinct-even in dry states. If you can find one, great. Finding parts for it will be another problem all together. For a Honda though I would suggest either a Civic VX or HX as they are easier to find and have lean burn engines and tall gearing to have surprisingly good FE. Plus, they are based off of Civic generations that are still popular with the tuner crowd and still available in the self-serve junkyards.

[aggie sig]

Originally Posted by Jim-Bob

I had my best tank ever today! Yes, I really got 44.2 MPG in all city driving while delivering pizza. It took oodles of engine off coasting and DFCO but I am a little closer to my 50 mpg (city) goal. The only real changes to the car from stock have been higher tire pressures, 0W-30 Mobil 1 and a 75% grill block. Otherwise, it's pretty much the same car I bought for $250 on December 21st.

Nice work, I had the best tank of my vehicles life a few weeks ago when it was 40 degree and pouring rain outside everyone on the freeway decided to go 45-55 and I pretty much Idled in OD for 40 miles home. My mileage at that point was around 46. of course the other 400 miles of that tank were my normal 70MPH commute but it brough my overall average up to almost 38 for the tank (my EPA rating is 29)

[low&slow]

Nice work! Its great to hear that you were able to get your Metro for so little and have built up a very efficient daily driver with some sweat equity.