Any reason NOT to get an XFI?
 

So here's my situation:

I commute 130 miles round trip, 5 days a week. In my Outback, it costs me roughly $20/day. Given a budget of $3500, it makes the most sense to buy a much more efficient [dedicated] commuter than trying to ecomod an Outback.

Is there ANY REASON NOT TO buy a Metro XFI? Given my budget, of course. Otherwise I'd have a Karma or something.

The only better option I can imagine is a 1st-gen Insight but I think that's a little out of budget at the moment. With $3500, I can buy/repair/maintain/rejuvenate/ecomod an XFI, right? If I can get 50mpg, I'm saving roughly $12/day (~$3128/yr)

Because I will keep my Outback for trips to the store and shuffling kids around when necessary, I have no concerns about passenger comfort/capacity/safety/ill-begotten judgement, etc.

As long as you have some minor mechanical ability for smaller repairs, I don't see why not. It's if you have to take it to a mechanic every time there is an issue (say the wipers stop working), that the savings in fuel will get eaten up by other costs. These cars are 20 years old now, so things will randomly fail on them, just like any other 20 year old car. My only other concern would be rust, I don't know what the rust situation is like in your area, but structural/undercarriage rust would be a deal breaker for me. It's one of those things that can be fixed, but it's seldom worth it, and never cheap.

Rust/salt isn't terrible here. It's certainly not Georgia, but it's not Minnesota, either. I do have pretty good hands/tools/knowledge for repairs and I have a '72 MGB in the barn so I'm not at all a foreigner to random failures (or rust, for that matter...).

Assuming 250 workdays per year, I'm looking at ~32000 miles per year. I know that's tough on any car but for what I'm saving in fuel (money), I can likely acquire a back-up XFI engine and rebuilt it. Hell, after a year, I may be able to buy a whole back-up Metro.

My real question is are there any better US-spec options than an XFI? I've racked my brain, google, fueleconomy.gov, and a handful of forums and can't think of any. But, if there was, I figured you guys would know.

Mid 90, s chevy cavalier? But won't top 50 mpg without a lot of aero...

Well, exactly. A Cavalier would put me in a worse boat that a Metro LSi or a CRX HF. In terms of out-of-the-box MPGs, are there any better options than an XFI? I'm certainly open to a CRX HF or a Civic VX, but I'm looking for something to save me some dollars in the near-term without putting a lot of mods into it.

Besides, any money I spend on Aero-modding a Cavalier I could spend on aero-modding a Metro and still end up ahead.

In the long term I'd like to build a <1500lb VW Type 1 based fiberglass kit with a rearmount Renault K9K. But, that's just a dream and a few SolidWorks files right now. I can't keep driving my Outback while I build something like that or I'll never have the money to do so.

The Civic VX (lean burn) is a better highway cruiser than an XFi, if that's your typical usage. But the Metro XFi will beat it in sub/urban driving.

A Civic CX isn't much worse than a VX.

No reason not to get one if you can find a non-rusty one, and are prepared to do maintenance/repairs yourself!

No AC. :eek:

The 65 miles one-way is broken into 35 miles of hilly highway (55-65mph zones) and 30 miles of hilly country roads (30-45mph zones) including some mountain switchbacks. I encounter all of 2 stop-lights on the trip. One by the parking lot of my place of employment and one about 0.5 miles from the house where I cross over a major road. Other than that it's a scenic, mountainous, hour and fifteen minute commute over the river and through the woods.

Special thanks, though, your website [in no small way] influenced my desire to go with a Metro XFI.

You can also go with a regular Metro, and modify it to get close to XFi numbers (final drive gearing, camshaft, aerodynamics, weight reduction). And given that much of your route is high load on the climbs, a Civic VX (unmodified) may not be able to hold lean burn.

And if you run the numbers, you'll probably find there isn't a huge difference, dollar-wise, between a 45 mpg car and a 55 mpg one. That gives you a lot more options.

PS: glad you enjoyed the metrompg.com site!

I'll tell you this. If you are driving a Geo Metro on twisty mountain roads you're going to want to drive it off a cliff just so you don't have to live with its lifeless steering and complete lack of driving joy. Seriously, you'll wonder if the steering wheel is actually connected to the tie rods.

Do yourself a favor and buy a 1988-1995 Honda Civic/CRX. As long as it's not an Si you can put a few mods into it and get 40mpg highway easily (mine has an engine swap and I'm averaging 37mpg). My Civic is seriously the most fun to drive car I've ever owned (and possibly driven (No, that was a Miata)). It's like a big go-kart.

And the parts are CHEAP!

In order of decreasing fuel consumption: Si, DX, CX, VX, HF

If you're driving 130 miles a day, you may also consider renting a room nearby for a few hundred a month and walking or cycling to work. Unless, that is, you work for Fujiwara Tofu!

My main reason would be rust, before you buy it check the frame around the front suspension!
I would also opt for not buying one because of age and I don't really like driving Geo Metro's while Honda's are a much much more comfortable car with a solid feel to them.

I'd look at a Honda Insight because they are reaching the bottom of their value right now and they will not rust out, all of the Honda Insights around here still look brand new while all of the Geo Metros around here are loosing chunks of rust as they drive down the road, it will take an extra year or so for it to pay for it's self but I think it would be worth it in the long run.

Around here there are many more Civic HXes than VXes and the highest listing price that I have seen for a HX was $3,500, but I would hope that you would try to negotiate down.

I have a Forester and it is a great car, I just was not able to find something more economical and after a year, I think that it is time. I have made many posts on here about looking for HXes, but having called about four, seeing two, and test driving and making an offer on one, I am waiting until finals are over!

The HX does not get as good mileage as the VX, it is rated 31/39 instead of 37/45, so it would cost you 15% more to drive, but being a larger car with a trunk, you might not need to keep the Outback, and then you would be saving more!

I will point out that if you really want to ecomod, you can easily put a Kammback on a VX and presumably a boat-tail, but it is much more difficult with a sedan. Basically, your attachment options are duct tape or something permanent.

Whatever you choose, good luck, and please keep us posted!

Even if I do get rid of the Outback, that leaves me with a Mazda MPV and a Mercedes E320 wagon. I have more grocery-getters than any sane person needs. Therefore, I have no reason to compromise on purchasing something that is designed for anything more than sheer MPG.

For my dollar, the Metro XFI, Civic VX, and CRX HF rank at the top. I've seen a few CAN-spec diesel Smarts and a few 1st-gen Insights that I'd rather have, but they're out of budget right now.

To fill in part of the story: I went to school for biofuel production and I'm rather passionate about biodiesel. An early diesel Rabbit or an A2 diesel Golf are also vying for attention on my "want list". My mother works as a dealer representative in the auto auction industry, so I can put a call out to watch for a certain car if I know that's what I want.

I appreciate all the input and opinions, I really do. I feel like I want an XFI and I'm calling on you all to play Devil's Advocate. So far you're doing a good job. :)

Thanks!

Don't forget the mentioned civic cx no lean burn but it'll do 40 plus with no mods. Actually a good running cx will net better mpg than a poor running vx. The hx has more creature comforts like ac and power windows that's why mpg ratings are lower. You can find cx and vx that have ac. they are one step nice than a geo. Good luck.

Just test drive a Honda before you buy a Geo :)

Rust will be on either one, but the Geo's rust is much more likely to be dangerous.

If your mom is in the auction business, she's going to be able to find you something for cheaper than you'll find on the street, it just might take a while. In 14 years I never saw a first gen Insight go through, then I saw 2 in 2 weeks lol. As for diesel Smart cars, we looked into shipping them south but they won't meet US emissions standards, at least in the states around here. Too bad, they are dirt cheap in eastern Canada ($5000 for a low mile 2006 wholesale cheap). And to me personally, I like driving them better than a Metro. In fact I like driving pretty much any eco car more than I like driving a Metro, but they are hard to beat if you are only interested in bang for buck high fuel economy. Though I would take my rat bagged, rusted out '92 VX with 220k miles over the mint 2000 Firefly 1.0L with 73k miles I had any day of the week if my daily commute included hilly, curvy roads and any stretches of highway. If you are spending that much time driving everyday, you might as well get some enjoyment out of it, and a Civic, CRX, or 1st gen Insight is just plain fun to drive compared to a Metro.

Here's what I'm doing.

I bought a 1993 geo metro XFi rust free with known mechanical problems. I'm putting about $3000 total into it and rebuilding just about everything on the car. I'm going to completely strip the car down and fix/clean everything. It will be like a new car when I'm done.

A geo metro is about the only car that you can do this on with your budget. Civic VX or HF might be had that doesn't need all that work, but it won't be like brand new.

Why not get the Karma?

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!

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... which, if a guy is trying to commute to work economically, ISN'T A FACTOR.

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.

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. :)

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.

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 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. :/

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

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

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. :mad:

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.

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. :)

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.

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

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.

http://i658.photobucket.com/albums/u...rks/route1.png

It's a little... Appalachian-y.

No, everyone should just do what I say. Then I'd be that much happier! Me me me! :D

That looks like a really fun commute.

Cripes is that a map or a seismograph?? Boring climb, boring climb, holy crap hard astern!! lol. What's the elevation difference?

Well, round trip the elevation difference is 0. :)

Every mountain I go up, I also come down... I know Lewistown is ~340ft above sea level. I imagine Carlisle is close to the same (my handy-dandy GPS est kaputt). Though, going over Tuscarora Mountain it gets just upward of 2,000 ft.

185 60 15 or 195 50 15 wheels tires
 

Just to toss another option in the mix, a Corolla would be in your budget. Wouldn't get quite the numbers of a Metro, but they are nice little cars. Loved my 02 and the only reason I moved to the 11 Yaris is my Corolla was totaled in an accident sadly, with only 160k miles and no rust, could have gone for twice that mileage. As the guy from Wisconsin said, the only Metros you see around here are almost falling apart from the rust. They seem to be up there with older VWs as the least rust resistant cars, but than again if your car makes it 10 years here without major rust problems you're doing pretty good.

God, I just remembered that part from Fargo, "Well, the tech coat, ya." But in MN some cars do need a dealership undercoat, the guy at the dealership I purchased my Yaris from told me not to waste money on it, because Toyota undercoats their cars from the factory, but KIA doesn't. It's also why the Saturn S series were so popular here, they didn't rust.

Yes, but gravity is a lot less picky about dragging you down hill than lean burn / 5th gear ratio is about getting you up hill. If you have a lot of steep climbs that will keep you out of 5th or lean burn (in a VX etc), then you might as well save the money and buy a CX or some other non lean burn car rather than a VX/Insight.

According to Wikipedia, the VX weighs 2,039 pounds and the HX 2,319, a 14% increase.

I wouldn't expect power windows to affect mileage unless you constantly used them as you drove! :D

Then again, if you have kids...

I would imagine the engine would need to work the slightest bit more to spin heavier wheels.

Mass matters most with a lot of start and stop driving. You need torque to get that static mass moving. In drag racing, 100 pounds in weight reduction is generally equal to 1/10th of a second of off your E.T. But once you get something rolling, no matter how fat it is, mass becomes less of a factor, and aero & rolling resistance have more of an effect. So for someone on the highway a lot, the difference between an HX and a VX will be minimal. But in the city, with a lot of stop and go traffic, the lighter the vehicle, the better. And as far as wheel size/weight goes, unsprung rotational weight (your wheels, tires, driveshafts etc) count for a lot more than your static weight (taking out the spare tire). So a lighter, skinnier tire and wheel combo will benefit you more in stop and go traffic than taking out the passenger and rear seat. But, if you are on the highway most of the time, then it won't make much of a difference.

I've changed my mind. What you need is a Cessna.