Has anyone here gotten into a crash with a Geo Metro or some other fuel efficient car?

[Piotrsko]

Never had oversteer in my super bug, it had severe understeer unless the back end broke loose. Wonder what the difference was between yours and mine. Maybe the stance messed with handling. The Golf is totally neutral, but I get an intermittent pain on my right side trying to get to the limits.

[freebeard]

The notchback was such that I could initiate a low-speed U-turn hammer down and then lift to tighten the turn.

I don't like to think it is the stance. I attribute it more to the branding of the tires, Federal Formosa on the front and Kelly Metric['s that it came with] in the rear.

[Piotrsko]

That should be understeer with those tires so the stance must be loading up the front

[freebeard]

It's lower on both ends, biased toward the front, not a Cal Look rake. The 165/50s have a contact patch that is stock width but shorter, the 145s shorter and narrower. I suspect differences in the tread and carcass.

145s remind me of a farm tractor, very responsive; but no match for the brakes.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Never had oversteer in my super bug, it had severe understeer unless the back end broke loose. Wonder what the difference was between yours and mine. Maybe the stance messed with handling. The Golf is totally neutral, but I get an intermittent pain on my right side trying to get to the limits.

What I've read on rear-engine cars in general is that a lot of them were likely to understeer from having way too little weight on the front until enough braking or engine torque were applied and then they would oversteer. Of course that's a general observation for most rear-engine cars.

As far as safety is concerned, there's a lot more to it than just big vs. small. And it can be hard to quantify it all.

I do think, though, that the research done by actual car safety companies is far better than anyone's own personal experience and opinion, even though the tests and data are far from perfect.

As far as small car safety goes, I couldn't find anything on an old Metro on the IIHS's website, but they do specify the 2000-2002 Toyota Echo as causing about as many deaths as the 2000-2002 Chevy Tahoe (75 driver deaths per million vehicles registered of said vehicle).

[freebeard]

In 1969 I drove a 1957 oval-window with F-60/15s 'belted bias' tires, which was the best tires available at the time. I had a wheel shop in Portland rivet Buick 8" rims to the wide five centers.

All four corners. On gravel it would turn or brake, but turn and brake and it went in a straight line.

The I found European Klebers. Those were the best (roundest), when they started manufacturing in the USofA they went downhill.

[Piotrsko]

In the 70's I was fond of Firestone for the soft rubber and resulting handling improvement of F 70's but they wore out under 10k miles, were biased ply, and looked goofy on standard width rims.

Freebeards super still has a nose low condition overall as opposed to the ridiculously high nose of a later standard super necessitating the chin vent. He's also got the strut bracing.

Riveted? All my oddball home made customized rims were welded

[freebeard]

[f]reebeard's [S]uper has the chin vent because it's the location for an optional factory air conditioning condenser.

[MetroMPG]

Who loves crash test videos!?



Here are a bunch of Metros (of several generations) meeting their fate in the name of science:

https://www.youtube.com/c/CarPro1993/search?query=metro

[2016 Versa]

I turned over a ragtop MG Midget in July 1981. Other than totaling the car I came out pretty well. I had a few cuts and my left arm was bruised from wrist to shoulder apparently where it was trapped between my body and the ground while the car slid on it's top. It took about a year to get full use of my arm again. The ragtop frame and windshield frame held up amazingly well.