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.Ever Victorious wrote:Anyone remember the last 50+ MPG Suzuki? AKA the Geo Metro?
that, and the non-GT versions of the Swift were exactly the same as Metros. I mean, down to the sheet metal and everything.BBISHOPPCM wrote:No, the Geo Metro was a rebadged Suzuki Swift.
In two displacement levels!Knightro2 wrote:Wasn't the Metro 3 cyclinders of RAW POWER! heh heh
Exactly.Ever Victorious wrote:Anyone remember the last 50+ MPG Suzuki? AKA the Geo Metro?
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.BBISHOPPCM wrote:Nissan actually has a more efficient vehicle than the Versa. Available in Mexico, the Nissan Tsuru is the 1990-1994 Sentra we had here in the 'states, and still with the 1.6l engine. I had a 99 Sentra that actually got 35 mpg CITY!!!
It was Top Gear, and there's a link to the video in the Smart vs. Versa thread.motoguy128 wrote: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.