Metros vs. Yarii gaslog comparo: -4.2% below & +5.1% above EPA respectively

[MetroMPG]

Thanks to the new garage search feature, I looked up the number of Metro variants here at GS. Of those with gaslogs, 9 are garden variety Geos (not counting Coyote's XFi) .

Out of curiosity, and to gather evidence for my theory that these cars have unusually optimistic EPA ratings, I calculated the average lifetime FE for the group: 44.056 mpg (US)

= 4.2% below EPA on average

(And note: that's comparing to the lowest - i.e. most attainable - EPA combined rating for these cars from 1990-1998. It was actually 46, 47 & 48 in various years.)

And how do the 9 non-XFi Metro drivers compare to the 25 non-XFi drivers (1.0L 5-speed owners) who have entered their FE info at fueleconomy.gov?

Their average: 42.7125 mpg (US)

= 7.2% below EPA (46)

---

The Metro Experience
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 49.64 MPG(US)

1994 Geo Metro HB
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 48.81

Firefly #1 (retired)
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 46.89

another Green Machine
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 43.36

The Geo!
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 45.77

Firefly #2 Blackfly
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 57.9 MPG(US)

Angry Hornet
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 39.98

The Green Clam (SOLD)
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 39.27

Ladybird
Lifetime Fuel Economy: 41.52 MPG(US)

[MetroMPG]

Compare to the Yarii crowd, for example. (See also the now out of date thread How are the Yarii doing?)

I found 6 of those cars in the garage that are 5-speeds (identified by their EPA figures - we really need a transmission field in the garage, Matt!).

Group average lifetime FE = 38.885 mpg (US)

= 5.1% above EPA combined (37)

[Silveredwings]

I would second the transmission field request. Anyone of 'influence?' Do we have a quorum?

I think the EPA are as confusing as they are misleading. It's too bad really. But it sure proves that expectations can be premeditated resentments.

[MetroMPG]

Premeditated resentments. Like it.

And yes, I think 2 counts as a quorum!

Continuing the comparo: 14 5-speed Yarii owners have entered their FE data at fueleconomy.gov.

They get an average of 36.4 mpg (US).

= 1.6% below EPA

I know this comparison doesn't prove my theory (about the Metro's relatively difficult to achieve EPA figures relative to other cars), but it's evidence.

[Matt Timion]

Will be happy to add the transmission field sometime soon. House guests this weekend make it rather difficult to do much of anything.

[Silveredwings]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

...I know this comparison doesn't prove my theory (about the Metro's relatively difficult to achieve EPA figures relative to other cars), but it's evidence.

If anyone could just know this through experience and yet be conscientious about stating that as fact, I'd think it would be you Darin. Kudos to you for your standards.

Still...a word picture comes to mind about a bunch of people sitting around a room talking, but nobody wants to come right out and mention that there's a live elephant in the room.

[cfg83]

Silveredwings -

Originally Posted by Silveredwings

I would second the transmission field request. Anyone of 'influence?' Do we have a quorum?

I think the EPA are as confusing as they are misleading. It's too bad really. But it sure proves that expectations can be premeditated resentments.

Transmission field, please. It's only fair.

CarloSW2

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I know this comparison doesn't prove my theory (about the Metro's relatively difficult to achieve EPA figures relative to other cars), but it's evidence.

Darin you've mention this a couple of times. You know more about Metros then anyone and could probably put one together in a dark garage but how could they change the protocol to make it optimistic? I though that it was pretty straight forward on the EPA tests. What varibles could they change or leave out? It seems true but am drawing a blank on how it could be changed to reflect that.

[MetroMPG]

I don't think they changed the protocol.

What's odd about these cars though, is that the constant speed at which they attain their EPA highway MPG is lower than other cars I've driven. IE. drive an unmodified Metro at 60 mph in warm weather on level ground and if you're very lucky, you may see its EPA highway figure (around 50 mpg US). Any other car I've driven permits you to go 5-10 mph faster before you fall below its EPA highway rating.

What does this mean? I dunno. Maybe the car was designed specifically to perform best in the range of the EPA test cycles?

I started the thread not just to bring it up again (I know I've said it a bunch before) but because I wanted to actually look at other cars, collect some figures, and make the comparisons. Factual fodder for a big expose on metrompg.com . Just thinking out loud.

And I wouldn't say I know more about Metros than anyone. I can think of 2 GS members who outrank me there!

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I don't think they changed the protocol.

What's odd about these cars though, is that the constant speed at which they attain their EPA highway MPG is lower than other cars I've driven. IE. drive an unmodified Metro at 60 mph in warm weather on level ground and if you're very lucky, you may see its EPA highway figure (around 50 mpg US). Any other car I've driven permits you to go 5-10 mph faster before you fall below its EPA highway rating.

What does this mean? I dunno. Maybe the car was designed specifically to perform best in the range of the EPA test cycles?

I think you might be on to something there with the speed of the EPA test. The Metro has about half the HP of most cars so that the extra power required to go over 50 proportionaly kills the numbers. I'm looking forward to your expose.

Should'nt we be watching the superbowl?

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

...
Should'nt we be watching the superbowl?

I can't look!!!

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

The Metro has about half the HP of most cars so that the extra power required to go over 50 proportionaly kills the numbers.

Should'nt we be watching the superbowl?

I wonder about that too. It would be nice to compare the shape of speed vs mpg graphs for similar cars with different power engines.

The superwhat?

---



Another comparison: nine 88-92 manual transmission Festiva owners reported avg FE of 40.45 mpg (US) at fueleconomy.gov. Compare to EPA combined estimates of 38-41, depending on the year.

[MetroMPG]

15 Chevy Aveo & Aveo 5 owners (manual transmission) averaged 28.68 mpg (US), compared to EPA rating of 29 or 30 depending on year. (= 4.4% below 30).

[ketel0ne]

The Geo hands down under 60mph kills the yaris imho for beating the epa mpg. I have 1 of each and if I was going 55 or less from here to florida and was alone I would take the GEO and make money on the trip on a bet.

But the yaris in comfort, ride, handling, acceleration and many other creature comforts wins and at over 35-40mpg to boot even in the winter. Also there is only a 1mpg epa difference in the auto/manual yarii.

So if me and her are going to Florida the yarii goes too.

I would also bet that people do not drive the yaris like they drive the geo. They expect that 40mpg on the sticker no matter what they are doing to it and shockingly they do. I said this part to say this, Darin you in a Yaris manual would be a site to behold against the mpg. If the avg joe get above, think what 50+mpg would be like in a yaris. The Geo has a tough road to hoe on a commute based mpg daily grind against the epa no doubt.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by ketel0ne

The Geo hands down under 60mph kills the yaris imho for beating the epa mpg.

Really? If you compared % over EPA at 55 mph for both cars, the Geo would win?

I don't think there's any question it'll return a better absolute MPG figure at a given speed, but I still suspect that relative to it's EPA figure, it'll be worse off than the Yaris.

---

Another randomly picked comparo. Still haven't found an econobox whose EPA is further from reality (such as it is - these really aren't valid samples) than the Metro's...

Toyota Tercel, 1991-97, 8 drivers reporting

- 37.3 average mpg
- 33.4 EPA combined (average - the figure varied from year to year and whether it was a 4- or 5-spd manual)

= 11.6% above EPA

[MetroMPG]

Just collecting more...

17 Ford Escort drivers, '91-'98

- 31.4 avg mpg
- 31.75 EPA combined (average - range was 28-32 for different model years and 4- vs 5-spd in some years)

= 1.1% below EPA on average

[Kraig]

I'm just happy my Festiva is maintaining a higher average than all you Metros!

The Festivas are also mentioned in an online article "Cars that last a Million Miles". Longevity also affects the long term economical impact of what you drive.

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I wonder about that too. It would be nice to compare the shape of speed vs mpg graphs for similar cars with different power engines.

The superwhat?

---



Another comparison: nine 88-92 manual transmission Festiva owners reported avg FE of 40.45 mpg (US) at fueleconomy.gov. Compare to EPA combined estimates of 38-41, depending on the year.

Darin what's the CdA of the metro is it about .33 or so?

I've notice that with the Daewoo (1.6L), smallest engine I've driven, if you make the slightest imput to the gas there is a drastic increase in fuel and manifoild pressure with no response compared to the bigger engines. There is a huge lag and It's almost like you need to just think about the desired imput and then wait and it will get to where it needs to be with out much decrease on the FE if your patience.
I wonder it the test on the dyno for epa are really precise and that the average driver of the 1.6l and down engine, to stay with the traffic flow, make an imput and the delayed reaction, because of the lack of HP, they keep putting the foot into it to get the "normal" acceleration which really kills the FE.

Or it could be as simple as with the Prius that people think that anything over 40MPG is outstanding and don't try as hard because it twice what everybody else is getting.

Just rambling, it will be interested to see what up come up with.

[jwxr7]

I'm just happy my Festiva is maintaining a higher average than all you Metros!

except mine

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

---


Toyota Tercel, 1991-97, 8 drivers reporting

- 37.3 average mpg
- 33.4 EPA combined (average - the figure varied from year to year and whether it was a 4- or 5-spd manual)

= 11.6% above EPA

It's interesting I went to the EPA website to see the location of the cars. Quick glance and I came up with METRO 60% were in cold country, Yaris 55% , Ford 66% and the Toyota is impressive 85% in the cold country and beating epa by 11 %. Granted it's not very scientific but more to think about.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

Darin what's the CdA of the metro is it about .33 or so?

Yeah, 33 ish. Though I've never seen a credible source for that info.

I wonder it the test on the dyno for epa are really precise

Apparently the rate of acceleration is controlled in their tests - it's timed to reach, say 50 mph at the same time, regardless of car.

Good thought to check on the "cold" vs "hot" states. And you're absolutely right - there's nothing scientific about this. Collecting this info is only really good for "things that make you go hmmmm....".

[cfg83]

MetroMPG -

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Yeah, 33 ish. Though I've never seen a credible source for that info.

Apparently the rate of acceleration is controlled in their tests - it's timed to reach, say 50 mph at the same time, regardless of car.

Good thought to check on the "cold" vs "hot" states. And you're absolutely right - there's nothing scientific about this. Collecting this info is only really good for "things that make you go hmmmm....".

It would be really neat if there was a tape of a complete test of "vehicle X". That way, we could rip it apart for details in order to see where MPG is being lost for "drivetrain Y".

If you want an MPG leader to increase your fleet MPG, just "design to the test", aka "leave no car behind" aka "leave no Hummer behind".

CarloSW2

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by cfg83

MetroMPG -



It would be really neat if there was a tape of a complete test of "vehicle X". That way, we could rip it apart for details in order to see where MPG is being lost for "drivetrain Y".

If you want an MPG leader to increase your fleet MPG, just "design to the test", aka "leave no car behind" aka "leave no Hummer behind".

CarloSW2

I'm not sure since they changed the CAFE standards(they made it really confusing) but I don't believe that the Hummer is included in there because vehicles with gross weights over 8500 or exempt.

[cfg83]

zpiloto -

Originally Posted by zpiloto

I'm not sure since they changed the CAFE standards(they made it really confusing) but I don't believe that the Hummer is included in there because vehicles with gross weights over 8500 or exempt.

My forehead is getting a bit tender from the wall bashing.

Wah-Wah-WAhhhhhhhhhhhh
(Gameshow "you lose" music)

CarloSW2

[usedgeo]

= 4.2% below EPA on average


Their average: 42.7125 mpg (US)

= 7.2% below EPA (46)

If I had posted the mileage numbers for the '95 metro I owned last fall I could have pulled the average down a bit more. Obviously there was something wrong with it. After pricing a 4 wire oxygen sensor and then a dimmer switch I really lost my motivation with that car. I did not need the dimmer switch. The light wire had burned up at the main junction block for the whole car. It is only anecdotal but it sure felt like a draggy car to me.

However this 2001 Saturn SL I am driving now is pretty amazing. I have never beaten the highway EPA numbers so easy in my life before and it is rated 40 mpg. The scangauge is not fully calibrated yet but is close. It shows a bit over 40 mph most of the time at 65 mph. This car is still completely stock except for 60 psi in the tires. I will be fueling again in a few days and then will have a real number.

My scanguage completely reset in the middle of this tank though. Does that happen often? I think I hit two buttons at once with the engine off.

Ernie

[white90crxhf]

Originally Posted by Kraig

I'm just happy my Festiva is maintaining a higher average than all you Metros!

The Festivas are also mentioned in an online article "Cars that last a Million Miles". Longevity also affects the long term economical impact of what you drive.

yeah but that festiva in the article didnt even have 300k! my crx will have 300k this week! maybe tomorrow.

Longevity also affects the enviromental impact as well as the economics.