2001 Chevrolet Metro LSI from North America


Solid and Efficient runner


Timing belt tensioner went slack and caused a lot of noise under the hood. Luckily it didn't break and I was able to put in a new water pump, tensioner and belt for less than $400.

Has trouble starting when the temps hit 30 below, but that really isn't the car's fault.

Doors are pretty sticky and sometimes don't want to open right away.

General Comments:

If you are considering a car that has power and speed at your fingertips, this really isn't the vehicle for you. What this car has is economy, and it has it in abundance. The seats are inexpensive and seem to be wearing well, the general interior components are solid, if a little austere. The biggest problem we had with it is someone broke in and stole the aftermarket radio (itself circa 1996) and left a gaping hole in the dash. Again, not the car's fault.

The thing I like best about this car is that I really can't speed in it and when driving around town--daycare, groceries, work--the car handles beautifully. On the highways up here in North Dakota, where the speed limit is 75 and the expectation is 80, the car struggles, but manages. Again, it is not the excitement I get from the speed, but the mercy I realize at the pump. The most I've ever spent is about $22 for a full tank. I think we get about 35 MPG on the freeway and high twenties in town. Mind you, that's before the tune-up we expect this summer.

I can't recommend this car enough. It is cheap, efficient, and useful. If you can find one, I say go for it--you won't be disappointed. I would definitely buy another.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 5th March, 2008

2001 Chevrolet Metro LSI Sedan from North America


Not a dependable model once it's off the lot


Transmission blew at 45,000 miles.

Battery had to be replaced three times in the four years I owned the vehicle; there never seemed to be any reasonable explanation from professional mechanics for the frequent deaths of the battery.

Oil gaskets sprung leaks at approx. 45,000 miles.

Muffler needed to be replaced at 40,000 miles.

Never once did my check engine light come on for any of the above problems.

General Comments:

Though a cheap buy, my particular car ended up as nothing, but a failure. Perhaps mine was just one of those random lemons, but I came across problem after problem with this car; consistent battery issues, transmission problems at such a low mileage. None of it added up to a good experience.

All of that being said, this car had great handling -- a nice little car for the in-town driving it faced on a daily basis. I loved it until everything seemed to go wrong in such a short amount of time. One plus? It had excellent gas mileage.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 15th October, 2006

16th Mar 2007, 14:12

Obviously, the Chevrolet Metro had no idea these things would happen! The car doesn't know that the battery was going to die. The head gaskets would not be monitored by the on-board diagnostic system, if your Metro is so equipped. Transmissions blow out sometimes! The sensors get dirty with stuff, OR you didn't change transmission fluid. I'm not trying to point fingers at anyone, but some of these things are caused by neglect. Metros are fine cars, as long as you do the required servicing to them. Examples: Fill it up with gas, change the oil, get it a check-up at a Mr. Good-wrench (GM)

Service Dept, change fuel filter, oil filter, air filter, etc. Metros are great, as long as you appreciate their Japanese qualities. (they are made in Canada by Suzuki's and General Motor's plant.)

7th Jan 2011, 14:31

The Check Engine Light lights up for problems with sensors. When a crank sensor, temperature sensor, exhaust sensor, or intake sensor starts to give fluctuating or null readings, it triggers the light.

My only question would be why this car was equipped with an automatic transmission at all. Every new car review I read said that the automatic was a dog. Just about everything I've read since then corroborates this. Automatics and cars this small just don't belong together. Just ask the Smart owners who wait 5 seconds for their cars to change gear (1st gen). Even the 2.5 second wait on the second-generation cars is too long, and that's the best automatic transmission Mercedes-Benz figured they could put in these cars. Small cars should have a manual transmission to make the most of their limited power and great fuel economy, in my opinion.

12th Mar 2011, 17:40

You're right about the transmission for the Metros/Swifts. They only had 79 hp. I really loved my 98 1.3 Swift. It was was fun to drive and peppy, but the three speed auto. transmission was problematic. I had stalling problems on and off that drove me crazy. It also sapped the fuel economy somewhat.

I would have chosen a manual tranny, but I never had anyone to teach me to drive it. The car was still solid though. Lasted until 200,000 km, and the transmission went. Newer automatic trannies have more gears, and can even be superior to a traditional five speed.

2001 Chevrolet Metro from North America


Its paid for itself in gas


I have spent a wopping $105 in repairs. Thanks to auto zones free diagnostic tool.

General Comments:

I purchase mine from a rental place for 3500 dollars with 37,000 miles on it. It now has 75,000 miles on it the only problem I have is the heater does not allways come on. I am still tearing into that problem.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 10th November, 2005

2001 Chevrolet Metro LSi 1.3L from North America


Replaced the fuse for the dash and tail lights shortly after purchase.

General Comments:

It's not a bad cheap car. It has good 0-45mph acceleration out of stop lights.

Good turning radius (easy to get in tight parking spots).

Solid lightweight doors.

Not comfortable for anyone of 5'11" or taller because the center console will make contact with your right leg.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 15th April, 2004