Chopped Metro (convertible - seeking possible project advice)

[Christ]

That car uses the OE windshield. The A-pillars are pie-cut and laid back, and the windshield will fit back in the same location.

By the looks, the rear window also remained the same. The only real modification there appears to have been the frame for the convertible top (and removing some material) and trimming the side windows to an appropriate size for the new top. All stock glass/windows were probably reused in that chop.

[m4nyt1mes]

doesn't sound too bad, any thoughts as to what i said? it SHOULD make the car a little safer, and i am not a fan of convertibles.

[Christ]

You could install roll bars, yes. You could also stretch the fabric over them. You'd also have to use parts of the frame from the top, because it's what the windows seat against when they're up. Other than those pieces, and the locking rail from where it locks to the windshield, you could pretty much frame it up with whatever you want, especially if you never plan on dropping the top.

Safer is relative. I won't answer that question.

[m4nyt1mes]

safer as in roll bars, like mud truck style roll bars installed, but i might not go that far. what about the engine, is there any major loss in power from the 1.0 to the 1.3?

[Christ]

Safer is still relative. Why would roll bars be any safer unless you intend to put the car on it's roof? Keep it on the tires, dirty side down, and you'll be OK.

The power loss thing is negligible... at such low power, you're not likely to notice the difference between them... however, the 1.0 is much more fuel efficient, and if you're going to chop/lower a Metro, the 1.0 will feel something like the 1.3 does in a "normal" Metro.

The actual numerical difference is something like 12 HP between them, IIRC.

Gasoline Fumes will surely know, and probably be able to correct me on that.

[m4nyt1mes]

makes sense, i guess. hmm.
two other hurdles -
- major problem towards chopping the top. . . im 6'2". anyone know of some real small (low set) bucket seats? not loking for a pair of $1200 racing seats, but if anyone ever thought "wow, my seats sit low to the ground," hit me up.

- also, i heard that in early '91, some of the convertibles had seatbelts and padding in the back to form back seats. how hard would it be to make legal seats in the back? a 2 seater is not really practical for a DD, and i expect to spend a lot of my summer watching my nieces, and they would fit well (one of them anyway) in the back.

thoughts?

also, what are some of the best free mods for mileage particularly for this car?

[Christ]

Just put a seat back there. You can get cheap bucket seats that are Sparco knockoffs from eBay, Summit Racing, and several other places. Since you're installing a roll bar, you'll probably also want seat support bars. This will make it difficult for a child to get into the back, anyway.

Chances are, you'd be better off with a "normal" Metro. You can still chop the top, and the only modification is the side glass. You can lay the windshield and backlite down from OE without them leaking.

A 2 seater, for most people, is more than practical for a DD. How many times do you drive alone? I'm not disputing your need for conveyance for more than 2 people, but you see the point.

[m4nyt1mes]

let me reiterate my situation, and be specific about it. (wow, that sounds really stuck up...not meant to be, not even upset. just filling everyone in)

i am 17 and looking for a car. i worked for a while to get myself a cool car(92 camaro). i have since grown bored of the car, seeing as i can never really afford gas in it. 305 w/5speed earns you about 22 mpg if you are easy on it, but being 17, i can't be easy on it, so i am dropping $40 a week into the tank for minimal driving. i have decided to move on to a gas efficient car(i am hooked on little gas cars, as per my first car, the ol' 86 escort), and found this in my virtual travels, and decided it would be a fun, original car to have, and still have the ability to have it be a "project", while i drive around in my buick century, racking up ~20 mpg. i have since been fired, and do not have any more profit than what my babysitting will bring me this summer. in which case, i need a car cheap on gas that would carry me and my 2 nieces. and by DD, i mean i eventually intend to own only the metro. that being said, i do NOT own the metro yet, so i have no idea what the rear (seat) area looks like, so i don't know if a bucket/bench seat would work, or if just padding on the raised part (if there is one, idk). and then the mounting of seatbelt(s), how would that be? i would have to assume SOMEONE here has a metro convertible, if so would you be able to post me a picture(s) of the back area?

...hey, just found THIS in the "similar threads" thing...is wjdennis around anymore?

(also, offtopic, but is ther a way a mod could disable my "safety mode where i can't see stuff till 10 posts? another forum i am in had that capability)

[Gasoline Fumes]

Originally Posted by Christ

The power loss thing is negligible... at such low power, you're not likely to notice the difference between them... however, the 1.0 is much more fuel efficient, and if you're going to chop/lower a Metro, the 1.0 will feel something like the 1.3 does in a "normal" Metro.

The actual numerical difference is something like 12 HP between them, IIRC.

Gasoline Fumes will surely know, and probably be able to correct me on that.

I can do that!

XFi 1.0L .................................................. .. 49 HP
Normal 1.0L .............................................. 55 HP
Turbo 1.0L ................................................ 70 HP (I think)
1989-1997 1.3L ....................................... 70 HP (SOHC 8V)
1998-2001 1.3L ....................................... 79 HP (SOHC 16V)
1989-1994 Swift GT/GTi 1.3L ................. 100 HP (DOHC 16V)

[m4nyt1mes]

i have also found this, scroll down towards the bottom and it says the mileage difference between the 100 hp swift engine and the 70 hp engine is 28/35 vs 37/43, and the same site says that the weaker metro engine gets 53/58. definitely keeping the weaker engine.