Anyone seen/driven a Chevrolet Spark yet? Geo Metro 2.0 ?

[MetroMPG]

The news I've read is vague on when these cars will go on sale in North America. But I just read a preview that says sales would be starting "about now".


Image: GM

Basic specs:

• 1.2 L, 4-cyl engine
• Horsepower (hp / kW): 85.2 / 63.5 @ 6400 (est)* (source: GM)
• Torque (lb-ft / Nm): 81.7 / 110.8 @ 4200 (est)*
• Curb weight base (lb / kg): 2269 / 1029 (manual)
• 5-speed manual
• optional engine block heater for $75
• $12,995 (including destination)

GM hasn't announced fuel economy figures yet. But it's safe to bet it'll be good for 40+ mpg highway, 30+ city. I'll go on record with a guess of 35 mpg city, 42 highway.

It's ~450 lbs fatter and 30 hp angrier than a base Geo Metro was - is this as close as we'll get to Metro 2.0?

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

tination) GM hasn't announced fuel economy figures yet. But it's safe to bet it'll be good for 40+ mpg highway, 30+ city. I'll go on record with a guess of 35 mpg city, 42 highway.

I'll eat my words.

One source is saying the manual-transmission Spark will be rated 32 mpg (US) city and 38 mpg highway, for a 34 mpg combined figure.

Blah.

I guess gone are the days when "economy car" also meant good fuel economy. Now you have to pony up extra. Good MPG is now an "option".

[bhazard]

A 3dr Yaris is 30 lbs heavier and is rated 30/38 33 combined.

And has 21 more hp.

I'll take the Yaris.

[HydroJim]

Do the engineers at car companies really not understand aerodynamics or what? If they cleaned up the front, dropped the roof racks, and didn't have wind turbines for wheels, It could easily get 40 mpg highway. Also, who needs all that extra tech crap?

A 2000 Chevy Metro is rated for 41 mpg highway, so that's not bad considering a spark is a 1/4 ton heavier and has 30 more horses.

[bhazard]

The Sonic is over 400lbs heavier and is rated 40 hwy with the 1.4 turbo and 6 speed.... and does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds.

I dont get the entire point of the Spark. Only a couple more city mpg at the cost of hwy mpg and a huge hit on power?

[Daox]

The Sonic isn't nearly as cheap as the Aveo it replaced. The Spark fills that cheap gap would be my guess.

[niky]

It wasn't that bad when last I drove it. I got about 35 combined. I know that 45 or more mpg highway is possible at a set 50 mph on a flat highway.

Maybe they were taking it off the Indian sites? Some Indian sites quote 16 km/l highway for this... which is just one km/l higher than my combined driving cycle result... which is kind of weird. They also quote the same 16 km/l for the 1.0, and from feedback from owners, the 1.0 Spark is well able to hit 20-25 km/l on the highway.

(conversion km/l*2.35 for US MPG)

[Flakbadger]

Originally Posted by HydroJim

Do the engineers at car companies really not understand aerodynamics or what? If they cleaned up the front, dropped the roof racks, and didn't have wind turbines for wheels, It could easily get 40 mpg highway. Also, who needs all that extra tech crap?

A 2000 Chevy Metro is rated for 41 mpg highway, so that's not bad considering a spark is a 1/4 ton heavier and has 30 more horses.

Sorry, style > fuel efficiency with Joe Consumer, at least until gas prices go up some more.
As for tech crap, I'm inclined to agree, though AC, airbags and power windows/mirrors/door locks are nice conveniences that I'm glad they included on my no-frills car. That's just me personally.

[ksa8907]

Originally Posted by Flakbadger

Sorry, style > fuel efficiency with Joe Consumer, at least until gas prices go up some more.
As for tech crap, I'm inclined to agree, though AC, airbags and power windows/door locks are nice conveniences that I'm glad they included on my no-frills car. That's just me personally.

Believe it or not, some power window systems are lighter than the hand crank setup.

[HydroJim]

AC, power windows/locks, airbags, ABS, and things are all good. It wasn't really from a weight perspective, but I'd much rather be able to buy a car without all the fancy touchscreen computer systems, power mirrors, back up cameras, and TPMS because the vehicle would be cheaper and also cheaper to maintain.

Sometimes, they're good to have, but it's added expenses I'd rather not have. If you break a regular mirror off, you can get one for 20-30 bucks, but the electric ones are 50-60 bucks and costs add up. TPMS systems are really expensive and don't really do much if you know how to keep your tires inflated. Back up cameras are nice, but people could just turn their heads and look out the window.

All the technology is more stuff to break and makes it harder to service your own vehicle. A-lot of cars are becoming impossible to service yourself because they require special dealer services.

For example, my ford focus only came with one key when I bought it. I figured I'd get a new one made for $5 but turns out it has a special chip in it so a new key and programming is like $100 which sucks