1992 Geo Metro Reviews - Page 4 of 15

1992 Geo Metro base 1.0 from North America

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership1992
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.0 Manual
Performance marks 3 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired9 miles
Most recent distance245000 miles
Previous carLincoln Continental

Summary:

Best car I've owned and I have owned over 100 cars

Faults:

Radiator went prematurely 150,000. Clutches last right at 100k, I do drive hard. 1 bad exhaust valve at 200k exhaust lasts about 90k. Map sensor went bad 212k.

General Comments:

Absolutely the best car I have ever owned. I believe it is the best available in the u.s. It has truly averaged 43mpg since purchased new. Still has original; starter, wheel bearings, struts, shocks, steering components (changed both ball joints) alternator. The original battery lasted 10.5 years 185k. No rips in interior, car is quick will run about 100mph, very comfortable with cruise on.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 4th May, 2006

1992 Geo Metro lsi convertable 1.0 -3 cly from North America

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership1991
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.0 -3 cly Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired100 miles
Previous carGeo Metro

Summary:

Small and sporty

Faults:

I have not done any mechanical work to it. It has had some very minor body repair. one dash button is off, but I still have it.

General Comments:

The car is still quick and responsive.

Has a mild vibration at idle when the top is down.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 23rd March, 2006

1992 Geo Metro from North America

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission Don't Know
Previous carGeo Metro

Summary:

The perfect urban car

Faults:

Interior door handles come loose.

Side windows have a tendency to get off-track.

General Comments:

This has been my second 1992 Geo Metro in a row--when my other one started finally giving up the ghost, I bought a used one from a friend that was the same make and model and color.

Great gas mileage and a surprising amount of power for a small car with a tiny engine. And with the hatchback it can hold an amazing amount of stuff. I've moved across town in this car twice--sofas and bookcases and all. The only thing I needed a truck for was my mattress!

I can't think of a better car to have in an urban setting. You can park this thing pretty much anywhere.

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

Review Date: 28th February, 2006

1992 Geo Metro 1.0L 3 cylinder from North America

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.0L 3 cylinder Automatic
Performance marks 3 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.5 / 10
Distance when acquired169000 kilometres
Most recent distance227000 kilometres

Summary:

Power? No. Fuel economy? YES!

Faults:

Catalytic converter ended up wrecking the piston rings which resulted in excessive oil burning and eventually replacement of the engine. VERY expensive to fix unless you could find a junker and work from there.

Working on my third alternator as the diodes on the other two burned out.

General Comments:

The Geo Metro is a love/hate relationship to the very end.

While there is absolutely no power to the vehicle because of the lovely 55HP 3 cylinder engine, owners of the vehicle (including me) were not looking for a sports car. The excessively nice advantages to owning a Metro are as follows:

- cheapest tires on the market ($25)

- amazing fuel economy (45+ MPG)

- cheap to fill a tank of gas ($27 at 90 cents per litre)

- it's more of a Lego car than Honda (Sprint, Metro, Swift, Firefly parts interchangeable) so finding parts is a breeze

- for people that like mobile audio, the car itself is a sub box. I hit 130db with one 10" sub woofer. Plus the rear cargo area can fit a dual 10" sub woofer box quite nicely.

Downsides to the vehicle are pretty apparent.

- There is NO safety when it comes to the Metro; I wouldn't be surprised if a motorcycle could cut through the car.

- It can hold 4 people, but expect the car to bottom out on the smallest bumps if attempting to carry that cargo capacity.

- There is little to no sound dampening for outside noises so expect to hear the motor and everything else outside pretty well.

- Like all older Japanese imports, these things tend to rust if there's even a small pain chip.

All in all, if you can tolerate a tiny car with no performance in the attempt to laugh at those with gas guzzlers, especially with the prices the way they have been, this is the car for you.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 24th January, 2006

1992 Geo Metro 1.0 from North America

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership1994
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.0 Manual
Performance marks 3 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 3 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.3 / 10
Distance when acquired27000 miles
Most recent distance177000 miles
Previous carChevrolet C1500

Summary:

Has been reliable and inexpensive to own

Faults:

Hatch supports are shot.

EGR valve problem at 99,000 and 177,000 miles.

Burnt exhaust valve at 175,000 miles.

Driver seat has hole at 125,000 miles.

General Comments:

Great car for city driving or commuting to work.

I bought my 1992 Metro in 1994 with 27K miles on it. It now has 177,000 miles.

I recently did a compression check, and found the #3 cylinder to be 1/2 of the pressure as the other two. After removing the head, I found the #3 exhaust valve to be burnt. While I had it apart, I installed a new timing belt, timing belt tensioner, water pump and alternator for a cost of less than $300 in parts.

My check engine light had been on for at least a year, so I obtained the fault code of 51 (EGR Problem). After inspecting the EGR valve, I found it to be packed solid with carbon. I planned to buy a new one, but thought I would try to clean the old one, since they cost $80 new. I successfully removed the carbon build up using a high pressure washer.

After all the work, the car has more power now and my check engine light is back off. It has been the least expensive to operate and maintain car I have ever owned.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 16th January, 2006

Average review marks: 7.5 / 10, based on 64 reviews