Why was the Geo Metro only 1600 lbs?

[Madison320]

I was just reading an article on the Geo Metro and reading the comments. Many people mentioned how much better the mpg were on older cars compared to current cars because of the added weight. I thought this was just bad anecdotal evidence but then I looked up the curb weight of the Metro and it was only about 1600 lbs! The Mirage is about 2000 lbs and that's much lighter than most of the other cars in the subcompact class which are closer to 2,500 lbs. I would've guessed that with newer, lighter metals that cars would be lighter, even with more safety features like airbags.

Does anyone know what accounts for the heavier weights of current cars? I'm assuming it was not just the Geo Metro that was lighter, maybe I'm wrong?

[grsupercity]

The mirage as an example has the rise body. Much stiffer and stronger setup then that was used in a metro. More airbags. Bigger car. Lots of little safe features that slowly add to the mass

[Mistah JT]

My cars rego states it weight 846kg. So around 930kg with me in it.
The base model is even lighter.

[MetroMPG]

Off the top of my head, the 1st generation base model Metros that were that light ...

• were much smaller,
• had 12 inch wheels/tires,
• had much smaller brakes
• had smaller, lighter engines
• had smaller, lighter transmissions & axles
• fewer amenities (no radio on the base model, definitely no A/C standard)
• no rear wiper
• possibly no outside passenger mirror
• no airbags
• fewer structural reinforcements for crash protection
• manual steering
• minimal sound insulation

And probably some other things I'm forgetting...

My 3rd generation Metro is a base model that weighs in at around 1830 lbs. It's got better crash protection, bigger wheels/tires and better safety structure than the 1st & 2nd gen cars. It's a bit bigger, too.

[Ares]

You'll be surprised how low one can get the car's weight by removing little stuff and safety/required stuff.

[kerc]

I remember these ones.

[Daox]

Safety regulations are the main reason. Additional power options, electroincs, and luxury features are another. Mitsu used a mix of higher strength and lighter weight materials in the Mirage, thus the reduced weight. However, it costs more than if they were to make a everything out of cheaper steel. The benefit is the gas mileage, and a more spacious car for the same outside dimensions.

[Madison320]

Off the top of my head, the 1st generation base model Metros that were that light ...

• were much smaller,
• had 12 inch wheels/tires,
• had much smaller brakes
• had smaller, lighter engines
• had smaller, lighter transmissions & axles
• fewer amenities (no radio on the base model, definitely no A/C standard)
• no rear wiper
• possibly no outside passenger mirror
• no airbags
• fewer structural reinforcements for crash protection
• manual steering
• minimal sound insulation

And probably some other things I'm forgetting...

My 3rd generation Metro is a base model that weighs in at around 1830 lbs. It's got better crash protection, bigger wheels/tires and better safety structure than the 1st & 2nd gen cars. It's a bit bigger, too.

My guess was that they were smaller and had less crash protection. I didn't realize there were so many smaller factors.

Thanks!

I think one reason mpg seemed better on those older cars is because the US govt changed the way they calculate mpg around 10 years ago. I think it was a pretty significant change so that a car that got 40 mpg might only get 35 with the new method.

[adrew]

Here is what the Mirage would've gotten with the old-style EPA ratings. I've never had any trouble getting the "old" ratings in any of my cars. My Yaris, for example, is rated 30/38, with old ratings of 36/42. I usually get 35-36 driving it around the city (with little concern for MPG) since it gets 37-38 by driving super calm or 35-36 if I wring its little neck. I have gotten a few 41-42 MPG tanks out of it on long trips, but that requires keeping the speed under 60-65 MPH the whole time, otherwise it will drop to the upper 30s if I go the Texas speed limits (75 MPH+).



All of them seem pretty accurate to me. My wife is getting 37± MPG in 100% short-trip city driving with the A/C on all the time, which is the kind of driving that the "new" ratings are supposed to reflect. She's a calm driver but doesn't use any hypermiling tricks. I don't drive the car very much but I can get it up to 45-50 MPG really easily on surface streets. Can't wait to see what I can wring out of it on a longer drive.

[MetroMPG]

Safety regulations are the main reason.

I don't think that's the main reason.