This is what I would get and it looks good too.

Geo Metro was a Chevy, NOT a Suzuki, that is like calling the Chrysler badged Versa the real Versa. The real Suzuki version was the Suzuki Swift. That car was badass if you had the GTi/GT version.

that, and the non-GT versions of the Swift were exactly the same as Metros. I mean, down to the sheet metal and everything.

Quote, originally posted by Knightro2 »

Wasn't the Metro 3 cyclinders of RAW POWER! heh heh

In two displacement levels!

You could have 1.0L of fury or 1.3L of fury!

that's right, the cylinders were SMALLER than a 12 oz soda can on the 1.0L

2nd Nissan: 2007 Versa S HB 6-speed.

Exactly.

Why couldn't the 1600 lb curb-weight ForTwo get better than an EPA combined rating of 36 MPG? If I'm going to buy a micro car, it's going to need to get better mileage than a 15-year old (gargantuan, by comparison) compact.

My friend had a green first-gen Metro hatch in high school - it sure wasn't a chick magnet, but with the manual-trans he got near 50 MPG in town without babying it too much. The car was so light that acceleration actually wasn't that bad.

Although I've heard that the 3-cyl motors weren't the best for longevity, his was achieving that kind of gas mileage with well over 100k on the clock. I was all about the ForTwo until I heard how inefficient it is. What a shame.

Yep, that was my first car, a 1993 Sentra XE 5-speed. It would easily pull 35 MPG in town, even with spirited driving. The GA16DE engine was rev-happy, refined, and extremely thrifty. That generation of the Sentra (B13) was even somewhat "sporty" stock, with a 0-60 time of just under 9 seconds. The suspension wasn't anything to write home about, though, although that was remedied on the SE-R.

Some B13 owners bought the Tsuru grille as a mod, but I never really cared for the look.

If you made the '90's Metro/Swift legal for sale today, it would weigh closer to 1900lbs and the engine would need some major work to meet emissions. I think this is alot of the problems the Smart car has.

I saw a crash demonstration of the Smart on a TV show (forget which one) and while the passenger compartment survived, there is very little sheetmetal in from or behind the car to absorb energy. It's like being in a 80's pick-up truck without the advantage of it's 5000lbs. They compared it to another small european 4 seater and you could tell it's front end provided a much softer crash.

It's not worth compromising safety to get mileage. I'd rather be on a motorcycle and at least have a chance or getting thrown over the car... not to mention the better brakes, power and handling... than be trapped in a cage of a tiny car... with even worse handling and braking than most other small cars.

If you're going to have a small car like the Smart, why not at least make it a little Alpha Romeo type roadster that fun to drive while getting great mileage.

It was Top Gear, and there's a link to the video in the Smart vs. Versa thread.

And it should be noted that they said the shell would hold up well, but the violence of the collision could potentially cause serious injury, and that the other European 4-seater they tested had a higher degree of survivability.