I never owned or drove a Metro. They were probably a little lighter and ran narrower tires (155/80-13) than a Mirage. All those things help when it comes to gas mileage. Looking them up, 1L Metro engines only had about 55-70 hp depending on the year.
I drove a 1990 Ford Festiva for 14 years. It had a 1.3L, 4-cylinder engine with only 64 hp. It only had 145SR12 tires. The car only weighed about 1700 pounds, & it didn't feel under powered for its size. Then again, my Festiva didn't have A/C, & it was 5-speed manual. Overall, my Mirage does consistently better than the Festiva in the mpg department. The Festiva was a super dependable car, but it was very crude & simple.
Following U.S. market trends, the Mirage may become bigger, more powerful, more expensive, and meanwhile less efficient. Since the Mirage is sold world-wide, the U.S. market hasn't ruined its charm yet. I don't see the 1L engine coming here. If it did, it would have a turbo attached to it. I doubt that would achieve higher mpg than what you already have.
Last edited by Mark; 08-03-2018 at 01:38 AM.
Checking the specs for all 3 3A9x motors it’s the 1.1 I find most appealing. Torque peak is at 3500 rpm and was rated only a couple of hp lower than the 1.2. I’ve wondered if the 1.1 cam has a different profile than the 1.2. If so it would be easy to drop in a 1.1 cam.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 automatic: 40.5 mpg (US) ... 17.2 km/L ... 5.8 L/100 km ... 48.6 mpg (Imp)
I agree. In my opinion, the Mirage doesn't need a turbo. Ford, however, used a 1L turbo in one of their small cars. Then again, new small Ford cars are becoming extinct soon.
I really like my 2017 Mirage as is. I don't expect it to stay that way in the U.S. market. Who knows?
The same thing happened with the Geo Metro. Up until 1994, they were very minimal cars that got over 50 mpg. I routinely got over 55 mpg in my 94 model. It was a death trap, but it had air conditioning and got good on gas.
After 94, they started putting bigger engines in them and building them a little bigger and safer. Eventually you were lucky if you could get 40 mpg in a Geo Metro.
The 3A90 (1L) and 3A92 (1.2L) are very similar. The 1L has 75 x 75 bore/stroke, the 1.2 has 75 x 90. The piston speed of the 1.0 is consequently lower and should prolong engine life.
The 1.0L is offered in many countries, and has been offered for just as long as the 1.2L. A pity you don't get it in the US.
In Europe petrol (Americans call that "gas") is rated 95 octane. In some states of Europe it comes with 5% ethanol, in other 10% in some both varieties are offered.
The European models have a higher compression ratio for making use of the better fuel.
My 1.0L has 11.5:1 compression ratio if I remember right. Both models are equipped with a knock sensor, and many other fuel-saving features. In real life, there is not much performance difference between them.
They both have very low NOX emissions, much lower than most, and adding a turbo would increase combustion temperature enough to significantly raise NOX.
Btw, I had a Suzuki Swift 3cyl. =Metro years ago (Metro Forum, Darin knows) and it used about 20-25% more fuel.
Last edited by foama; 08-04-2018 at 08:56 AM.