Metro/Swift

Comments

• mzn Member Posts: 727

  December 1998

  I've heard good things about the Metro, but I don't have any first hand knowledge of either car. Let's hear from our lurkers!
  
  carlady/host

  0
• currdog1 Member Posts: 1

  December 1998

  Hummm, well, I have driven both the previous Swift/Metro as well as the current generation Metro. They make for good mini-ultra-economy cars. The sedan seems to fit in with the subcompacts, but the hatch models seem to be significantly smaller than any other hatches. The three cylinder models are VERY fuel-efficient, however test-drive before you buy. Also, the Swift GT models are pocket-rockets!:)

  0
• gull Member Posts: 2

  January 1999

  I owned a 4-door '92 Metro hatchback for over 6 years and 88,000 miles. They sip fuel, are easy to park, make great commuter cars in-town, do well on medium-length trips (4-5 hours or less) and will probably never be stolen or borken in to. But, they have absolutely no power, and you have to remember at all times that it is a car for _defensive drivers_: you absolutely do not want to get into an accident while driving one.
  
  As long as you keep regular service up, they are pretty reliable ('92 and earlier Metros do have an issue with their A/C coolant, though, in that it is no longer available...if you loose your coolant for whatever reason, you need to spend $$$ to retrofit the A/C system) and relatively trouble-free. Just make sure you stay on top of your service, though: they do not tolerate "neglect" very well, and can quickly develop chronic problems as a result, much more readily than more expensive (and more quality) vehicles.
  
  If you do opt for a Metro, though, I _strongly_ recommend th 4-door. It is 4 inchees longer, and the hatch is more "vertical" than the 2-door, giving you lots more storage space. Contrary to popular belief, you can cram a lot of stuff into a 4-dr Metro hatchback with the seats down (including a bale of hay, mid-size chairs, 27" televisions still in the box, two large greyhounds-- the dogs, not the buses-- and half of a college dormroom...I did all of these in my old Metro with room to spare).
  
  
  Cheers,
  John

  0
• mousetom Member Posts: 1

  February 1999

  Metro or Swift are POS. They are SLOW, UGLY, LAME. You can't drive 80 miles in highway without blowing up your engine. Yeah... when you have an accident, see how fast you get crush in that toy car. I shopped for cars only 6 weeks ago. I went to a chevy dealer. They are offering a Metro anywhere from 10-13k. Yeah even a Metro cost over 10k now. I would advice get a Cavalier for little more money or buy a used japanese car or something.

  0
• baveux Member Posts: 175

  February 1999

  Mine is very reliable,3 cyl,90miles per days on highway,very cheap on gas,great car for commuting.
  Bought in feb 97,36k on it and never returned to the dealership(I'm doing the maintenance)just regular maintenance.
  Bought a Malibu also in sept 97,and.....you don,t want to know !!!!!!
  Not the same story,2 x the price,3 more cylinders,10 times more troubles!

  0
• carl_h Member Posts: 1

  March 1999

  I have a '89 Chev Sprint (basically same as the Metro/Swift). Great student/commuter car. Very economical and is still going strong. I have the 4 door and it can fit a large amount with the rear seats down. However, like Seagull mentioned in post #3, it is very important that you stay on top of the maintenance schedule. Since the car is quite simple, it is quite easy to do regular maintenance yourself. For a city commuter or second car, this car is great.

  0
• bluejays1 Member Posts: 40

  March 1999

  I too had an '89 Chev Sprint, which had the killer 1.0-litre, 3-cylinder engine, so tiny they didn't even offer a/c back then. We had it for four years and racked up around 130,000 km, including a drive from Ontario to B.C. and back -- spaced by two years when we lived in Vancouver. Anyway, the only problem we ever had was rather serious but covered by warranty: a cracked cylinder head around 100,000 km (thank goodness for extended warranties).
  I assume subsequent engines were more reliable, so I would recommend the car for light commuting etc. Oddly, it had far fewer rattles and squeaks when we sold it than the saturn coupe we got to replace it. That baby was a noise maker.
  Obviously, you don't want to be hit while in a Metro, but that's true of any car isn't it?
  And with the back seat down, you can't believe the room you have to move cargo. Really.

  0