The Mirage compares very favourably to my old 94 Geo Metro in terms of MPGs but I'm curious about how it does in terms of acceleration. I've been searching everywhere for the acceleration specs on the 94 Metro but can only find the automatic specs. Does anyone know how these two 5 speed manuals compared?
Ps. The reason I ask is that, subjectively, the Metro seemed to have quite a bit more "pep" than the current Mirage but, admittedly, I always pushed it hard.
I know my question might seem irrelevant but when my insurance company wrote off the 94 Metro I had been driving for 20 years I was VERY upset. I was upset because I only require two things from a car:
1) that it get me consistently and reliably from point A to point B dry and warm
2) that it do the above with the absolute least impact on the environment
I had watched the car market for years and was appalled that, instead of taking the lead set by the Metro in providing a virtually perfect city runabout, the market had moved further and further away from practicality and more and more towards excess and the frivolous. My Metro had served my purposes perfectly and I was loath to go out and buy a new car which would cost more, pollute more and give me nothing more of anything I deemed to be of significant value.
Then I discovered the Mirage and, while I am thrilled that it is every bit as green as my Metro, I did have to spend another $10,000 (above and beyond my insurance settlement) to merely match what I already had with the Metro in the first place. It has taken a little bit of the sting out of the experience to realize that the luxuries I had felt were unnecessary are turning out to make the driving experience a least a little more enjoyable.
i.e.
1) automatic climate control
2) power windows
3) power mirrors
4) power steering
5) heated seats
6) heated mirrors
7) a rear wiper
8) more comfortable seats
9) keyless entry
10) fog lamps
11) a stereo that hooked into my iPod
12) variable front wipers
13) an mpg readout
and finally...
14) a much easier car to get in and out of
Now... the only question that remains is: have I gotten any better flat out performance for the money I thought I had wasted on a new car?
My guess is, probably not but... all things considered, that's OK. :D
If you can give me some further specification of the motor (which type, maximum output hp/kW / lbft/Nm) and some more facts (link to a picture of the correct model, maybe wikipedia), I can try to make some driving performance diagrams for the Geo Metro, too.
I made some diagrams for the Mirage and the Space Star (european version) some days ago (look here), that prove the really bad acceleration of the european version compared to my 11 years old Daihatsu. Thatīs because of the really long gear ratio in first, second and third gear (different gearboxes for the Mirage and the Space Star).
I think performance figures compared to the Geo Metro would be interesting not only for you, but for some more Geo Metro drivers which are interested in the Mirage.
Greetings,
Florian
Here's link to the specs: http://www.edmunds.com/geo/metro/199...eatures-specs/
Ps. Click on and read some of the reviews. Unbelievably reliable... I get all teary just looking at a picture of it again. i had the green two door and I honestly couldn't have loved a car more.
I liked my 3 cylinder Swift (Metro) too, but for long distance European highway driving the aerodynamics were not good enogh. You could not sustain 140 kmh because of the noise.
The 4cylinder versions, especially the 1.6l with over 100 PS/HP wa a very lively car, more than a motor cycle on four wheels. Unfortunately they suffered very much from piston slap, because for saving costs, a one-size-fits-all piston was put into each motor regardless of the actual cylinder bore. There was a similar issue with some GM cars. Really a pity.
Mirage 0-62 mph (0-100 km/h)
From thread: Mirage acceleration times: 0-62 mph / 0-100 km/h and top speed (1.0L & 1.2L engines)Quote:
1.0L, 5MT manual 13.6 seconds
1.2L, 5MT manual 11.7 seconds
1.2L, CVT 12.8 seconds
Geo Metro 0 to 60 MPH
Source: http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle...-60-mph-times/Quote:
1.0L, 1993 Geo Metro LSi - 13.8 seconds
1.0L, 1993 Geo Metro LSi Convertible - 13.7 seconds
NOTE the difference in measurements. Mirage is to 62 mph, Metro is to 60.
Wow. The 1.0l Mirage is surprisingly slower.
I checked out the 0-60 page before posting. The reason I wasn't satisfied was because I couldn't tell if the 93 Metro LSI numbers were for a manual or for the automatic. I think that time might actually be for the automatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG
I searched the internet for motor performance graphs, gear ratios, drag coefficient, frontal area and all other figures that are necessary to calculate the driving performance diagrams and got the following numbers for the Suzuki Swift/Geo Metro 1.0 hatchback (for the file and the complete tables with the european specification Space Star look in my driving performance diagrams thread):
Model 0-60 mph [s] 0-100 kph [s] 400 m [s] 1000 m [s] 1600 m [s] topspeed [kph] Mirage 1.2 11.9 12.7 18.6 34 47 178 Geo Metro 1.0 14.1 15.1 19.8 36.4 51.5 156
I found an official document of Suzuki Germany which states 16.0 seconds for 0-100 km/h.
The diagrams I made show that acceleration is slightly worse compared to the Mirage in first, second and third gear, but not that much, you would notice such a very big difference I did, switching from my Daihatsu to the Space Star with the much longer transmission in the lower gears.
There are big differences that might the Geo Metro seem more lively:
- slightly shorter transmission in gears one to three: higher rpm, gears usable at slower speeds
- sitting much closer to the road and louder driving noise: sensation for speed is higher
- mechanical accelerator cable instead of electronic accelerator pedal and different feeling of the clutch
Feel free to ask any questions about the diagrams.
Thanks,Quote:
Originally Posted by 25Plus
That's how I remember the Metro...definitely more snappy off the line but.... the Mirage is just fine.