Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Oops, I bought another car.

  1. #11

    Lost that loving feeling (for Metros)?

    A member PM'd me wondering what my feeling is on Mirage vs. Metro these days. I figured I'd post in this recent & relevant thread without ID'ing the member. In case any other Metro owners want to chime in.

    I realized last year that I have to consider "Plan B" for my #&$^box future because parts for the Firefly are getting harder to find. EG. last summer I wanted to buy a front exhaust pipe, and none of the 3 national parts stores in my little city could get me one. I would have had to order it online from the States, but I ended up welding some patches into the old pipe instead.

    That's what happens when parts demand dries up. My '98 Firefly is the last of its kind I've seen on the road in this part of the world for 4 or 5 years.

    I still love the Firefly/Metro. I actually have FIVE of them now, with this parts car acquisition. Two are roadworthy, one is potentially roadworthy (a low-km convertible in storage that needs floors), 2 are parts cars. But I'm planning to cull the herd & get rid of 3 of them in the next year or so. Keeping the low-km, rust-free '98 Firefly and this new parts car.

    Plus one Mirage. Plus my #$*%box Miata.

    I still like owning & driving the Suzukiclones: I love the simplicity. (The first time my nephew rode in it a few summers ago, he had never seen a wind-up window. And he was shocked to learn there was no AC to turn on.) It's also starting to become entertaining because of its oddball rarity. A kid jumped out of a car at a gas station last year and asked to take a picture of my Metro. I don't think he even knew what it was.

    On the topic of fuel economy: my Firefly is a bit more efficient than a Mirage: it's lighter, lower, has a smaller CdA, a smaller engine, taller gearing, and less parasitic (accessory) drag. But I'm also digging the luxury amenities of the Mirage. Acceptible trade-off. Lifestyle inflation!


        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 63.2 mpg (US) ... 26.9 km/L ... 3.7 L/100 km ... 75.9 mpg (Imp)


  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Atlanta Metro
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    3,485
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 1,377 Times in 998 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
    I haven't even driven it for a couple of years. Too many other #&#$boxes in the fleet!
    Can I have it?

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2020 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 42.4 mpg (US) ... 18.0 km/L ... 5.6 L/100 km ... 50.9 mpg (Imp)


  3. #13
    It's my retirement fund.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 63.2 mpg (US) ... 26.9 km/L ... 3.7 L/100 km ... 75.9 mpg (Imp)


  4. #14
    Senior Member MacClyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    WI
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    290
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 142 Times in 100 Posts
    Your Firefly gets better mileage, hmm. Guess I'll need to maybe get an alignment on my nice one. With fresh wheel bearings and calipers, 230 psi on the engine and high treadwear rated Kumho TA11s it should be a best case scenario otherwise.


  5. #15
    Yeah, the Firefly has a bunch of other mods I forgot to mention: zero toe alignment; XFi camshaft; LRR RE92's on lightweight 14" Suzuki alloys; lowered 1.25" (chopped coils); a bunch of aero mods; etc. etc.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 63.2 mpg (US) ... 26.9 km/L ... 3.7 L/100 km ... 75.9 mpg (Imp)


  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Atlanta Metro
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    3,485
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 1,377 Times in 998 Posts
    About toe. My understanding is that with some (small) amount of toe-in (determined by the oem), that dynamic drag pulls the toe back out to 0 or very close to 0 (while driving of course).

    So maybe you could be shooting yourself in the foot a bit with 0 toe. I don't know the fact of the matter, I'm not a chassis expert. But that's my understanding.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2020 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 42.4 mpg (US) ... 18.0 km/L ... 5.6 L/100 km ... 50.9 mpg (Imp)


  7. #17
    Moderator Eggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    10,120
    Thanks
    4,030
    Thanked 2,781 Times in 2,100 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 7milesout View Post
    About toe. My understanding is that with some (small) amount of toe-in (determined by the oem), that dynamic drag pulls the toe back out to 0 or very close to 0 (while driving of course).

    So maybe you could be shooting yourself in the foot a bit with 0 toe. I don't know the fact of the matter, I'm not a chassis expert. But that's my understanding.
    I would expect toe in would work for rear wheel drive but toe out would be the way to go for front wheel drive. The drive to the front wheels would tend to pull them forward and in turn, toe in.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 49.6 mpg (US) ... 21.1 km/L ... 4.7 L/100 km ... 59.5 mpg (Imp)


  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Atlanta Metro
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    3,485
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 1,377 Times in 998 Posts
    I would say that the true answer would lie in the toe specifications from Toyota on their Camry. I worked in design for Toyota. I worked in design for Hyundai. Comparing the 2, Hyundai is a friggin joke. And, Toyota goes over and above on all their cars, but the Camry ... they beat themselves silly to get the Camry to be the best. And it is.

    The point is, whatever Toyota specifies for toe for the Camry (FWD of course), would be what I would stick with. The logic at least (slight toe-in, 0 toe, slight toe-out, whatever), not the exact setting measurement necessarily.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2020 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 42.4 mpg (US) ... 18.0 km/L ... 5.6 L/100 km ... 50.9 mpg (Imp)


  9. #19
    Toe spec was zero for the 2000-2006 Honda Insight. (EPA rated 70 MPG US highway when new.) Honda let its engineers pursue efficiency more on that car than any other mass market car I know of.

    That was my inspiration.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 63.2 mpg (US) ... 26.9 km/L ... 3.7 L/100 km ... 75.9 mpg (Imp)


  10. #20
    Moderator Eggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    10,120
    Thanks
    4,030
    Thanked 2,781 Times in 2,100 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
    Toe spec was zero for the 2000-2006 Honda Insight. (EPA rated 70 MPG US highway when new.) Honda let its engineers pursue efficiency more on that car than any other mass market car I know of.

    That was my inspiration.
    It’s a wonder why more manufacturers don’t specify zero toes - must have something to do with handling or something.

    Wouldn’t it be funny if Hyundai & Kia adopted zero toes? What would the world do then? Can’t be like Hyundai, that’s no good.


        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 49.6 mpg (US) ... 21.1 km/L ... 4.7 L/100 km ... 59.5 mpg (Imp)


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •