Metro-powered sports car project

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Any Civic engine you would put in a car of that weight would be vastly overpowered and leave a pile of efficiency on the table...

Is that necessarily so? Consider the CRX, with decent fuel economy (~45 mpg the way I drove mine) from around 1500 CC engine and 2000 lbs weight.

Even though you have perhaps a larger engine than strictly needed, it seems as though the major reductions in body weight and CdA would more than compensate, much the way that Corvette owners reportedly get into 30s for highway mpg.

Then there are reliablity & availability issues. I don't know firsthand about the Metro, but it would be hard to beat Honda on either.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Is that necessarily so? Consider the CRX, with decent fuel economy (~45 mpg the way I drove mine) from around 1500 CC engine and 2000 lbs weight.

Even though you have perhaps a larger engine than strictly needed, it seems as though the major reductions in body weight and CdA would more than compensate, much the way that Corvette owners reportedly get into 30s for highway mpg.

Then there are reliablity & availability issues. I don't know firsthand about the Metro, but it would be hard to beat Honda on either.

Reliability is mostly a function of proper maintenance, not vehicle manufacture.
Availability is fairly matched for either, since (other than R-series, which are too heavy and expensive, and the Insight motor, which is just out there... ) the D-series is the only engine worth considering for economy, and it was produced for approximately the same amount of time that the Metro's G-series engines were.

You mention compromise, here, which is great (and usually necessary) in life... but why should one make compromises where not necessary?

The CRX DX had ~90HP, at 1800+ lbs.

This guy's going to have ~55HP, at ~1100 lbs and probably better aero. I don't see where doubling that HP figure would be necessary, and if it were me, I'd be looking in the high-revving 500cc range, honestly, or even ~300cc with a turbo.

As to the OP's claim of engine swap ability -

This alone would make me want it. Period. The fact that I could modularly build a Turbo 1600, have a 1.3 handy for "spirited" driving, and use the G10 whenever I wanted, while being able to swap them out each in a few hours, would make this project very appealing to gear heads looking for a fun car with great mileage.

You have my support and thoughts, I'll try to pitch in help where I can.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Even though you have perhaps a larger engine than strictly needed, it seems as though the major reductions in body weight and CdA would more than compensate

You're probably right: the difference in economy of going with the 993cc Suzuki vs. a the Honda 1500 may be modest.

But I also suspect you'll have a hard time convincing a minimalist builder with a philosophical / artistic bent (993 cc engine in a 993 lbs car? ) to go with the "not strictly needed" extra of the Honda.

[evolutionmovement]

I'm personally going with a more powerful engine (F20C in a 1500 lbs. trike) for my own project (partly for salability as I think it will actually scare the hell out of me—I hope the higher FD slows it down enough), but I can see the appeal of a strictly mileage-based design.

Another good thing about using the Metro engine is that you use more of a single donor. This way a guy goes and buys/gets-for-free a Metro with a rotted chassis and has almost everything he'd need besides the obvious chassis and body fabrication. Sounds interesting. I like this idea a lot, especially if the chassis leaves the body design possibilities open like it sounds.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Christ

Reliability is mostly a function of proper maintenance, not vehicle manufacture.

Major disagreement there: how come Hondas (and Toyotas etc) are just nicely broken in at 100K, when your typical American cars are about ready for that trip to the recycler?

[JackMcCornack]

jamesqf notes...
> ...Hondas (and Toyotas etc) are just nicely broken in at 100K, when your typical American cars are about ready for that trip to the recycler

The Chevy/Geo Metro qualifies as an "etc" (Suzuki made 'em, GM badged 'em).

Christ writes...
> ...As to the OP's claim of engine swap ability - This alone would make me want it.

The fly in the engine swap ointment is the long (wide?) four cylinder engines use an offset transaxle--however I can't think of a reason not to use the 1.3 liter transaxle with a 993 engine so it could still be an easy swap. I'm also considering making the rear subframe assembly a bolt-on instead of a weld-on, which would make the engine swap operation maybe 20 times harder than changing a tire (though you'd need two transaxles and two sets of wheels/brakes/axles/shocks/etc and the bulk of the wiring and the computer would have to stay with the subframe). Anyway, I wasn't thinking literally of swapping engines in one car depending on my mood, I was thinking that if somebody wanted to build a fast one, they could, rather than build themself one optimized for mileage.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Major disagreement there: how come Hondas (and Toyotas etc) are just nicely broken in at 100K, when your typical American cars are about ready for that trip to the recycler?

That hasn't been true for several decades now.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

That hasn't been true for several decades now.

I don't have any first-hand information, but going by things like e.g. news reports, various on-line mentions, and neighbors fixing/replacing their American vehicles, it's still true, though maybe not so much as it once was.

And then there was the whole Cash for Clunkers thing: what percentage of the vehicles traded in were American?Yet they're of an age where I'd consider a Honda/Toyota nicely broken in. I have a 2000 Insight with about 135K (bought at 50K), and an '88 Toyota pickup, with about 210K (bought at 200K), and both those clunkers have been running fine - except for the temporary effects of hitting a deer with the Insight.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Major disagreement there: how come Hondas (and Toyotas etc) are just nicely broken in at 100K, when your typical American cars are about ready for that trip to the recycler?

Can you site a specific example that isn't a travesty of a gov't program?

Have you actually seen any of the cars that went in for the C4C program?

Yeah, I guessed not.

Moving on...

[Christ]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I don't have any first-hand information, but going by things like e.g. news reports, various on-line mentions, and neighbors fixing/replacing their American vehicles, it's still true, though maybe not so much as it once was.

And then there was the whole Cash for Clunkers thing: what percentage of the vehicles traded in were American?Yet they're of an age where I'd consider a Honda/Toyota nicely broken in. I have a 2000 Insight with about 135K (bought at 50K), and an '88 Toyota pickup, with about 210K (bought at 200K), and both those clunkers have been running fine - except for the temporary effects of hitting a deer with the Insight.

By definition of the program, only one of those is a clunker...

Have you actually paid attention to what percentage of "American" cars are actually made of "American" parts? When's the last time you compared the brand names on certain OEM parts with the brand names on those same parts from "American" cars vs. "Foreign" cars?

And; without having any firsthand knowledge, what exactly are you basing your opinion on? Oh - You're basing your opinion on someone else's (possibly uneducated) opinion, aren't you?

(Fact: Editorials are actually opinions in pretty print.)