"Aged" Geo Metro a "Better Buy" than Prius? So poses CNN

I dont get it. What kind of argument is this?
According to this argument - a motor cycle is a better-buy than a Geo Metro and a moped is a better-buy than a motor-cycle and a bike is a better-buy than a moped.
On the other end of the spectrum a Corvette is a better-buy than a Ferrari and a Prius is a better-buy than a Lexus GS450h ...
This is a retarded argument ...
Independently (without comparing it to Prius or any other car) - its a valid point i.e. a cheap old car which happens to be fuel efficient can be a reasonable choice for someone trying to cut down their gas expenses ... but comparing it to anything is just non-sense ...

 

I also have a 1995 GEO metro which consistently scored 32 mpg (CAN) and never really had any mechanical issues. It's half the car of the prius in that it is noisey, under-powered and far less refined but it is cute and reliable for it's day. Made by suzuki by the way, for GM.

 

Old Geo Metro's and Ford Festiva's have been considered the holy grail to pizza delivery drivers for years.

 

Yep, you're right. It's really what your priorities are. If you're a single person who commutes to work by yourself and therefore only occupy 1 seat, you don't care about the ride, you don't care about the features, you're willing to roll the dice on reliability, and you don't care about what people think of what you're driving the Metro may serve ones needs as in this case your number 1 priority is the cost per mile to get to work. If you're like many of us where you have a couple of priorities and weigh them against each other than the Metro is a less attractive alternative.

I'll use a real life example. I mentioned that I purchased some Nissan pickups several years back. I actually drove a '91 Nissan Hardbody to work from around '98 through 2001. At that time I owned 2 other new(er) vehicles (I had a 2 year old Dodge truck and my wife had a year old Expedition). My round trip commute was about 120 miles each day. I didn't care about the cost of fuel as much back then but I was getting tired of piling on miles on my financed vehicle. I decided I wanted a cheap reliable vehicle that was easy to work on (if needed) that had cold air conditioning (I live in AZ). This was a vehicle that I knew I could buy dirt cheap, piling on miles, and sell it for probably what I bought it for since it pretty much couldn't depreciate any more.

I knew immediately I was looking for a rear drive pickup truck with a manual tranny. Rear wheel drive meant it was easier to repair, manual tranny because the truck I was looking for would likely have over 100k on it, and pickup truck because I knew there was a market for beat up trucks with all the landscapers around here. I bought the truck and it was the best automotive purchase I've ever made. I paid a couple grand for it and the A/C was as cold as any vehicle I've ever had. Yeah, the paint was peeling off it.... but I didn't care. I had a nice new vehicle to drive outside of work hours.

At about 200k miles on it I let my brother-in-law borrow it because he was having some financial problems and had his car repo'd. He had it about 8 months. I then gave it to my parents for their tile business. They had it for about 2 years probably. Ultimately the truck caught fire while my step-dad was heading into the tile shop with it at about 275k miles. No joke. It was a good truck short of the fire incident that ended up ending it's life. Got a combined of about 28 mpg.... which was good compared to both my fullsize vehicles back then (and gas was much much much cheaper). Anyway, on a huge tangent now. I see my experience with this truck as a reason why the Metro might be attractive to some buyers.

Mike

 

Yes. Enough already.

People just don't like that there's a car completely out of whack with the rest of the auto industry. Everyone really wants there to be a big problem with it, as if we are all the dumb ones for owning it, instead of them being the dumb ones for NOT owning it. They hear the first myth, believe it, feel better about themselves and move on.

 

Har Har Har Har....rusty junked holy grail...


ZC1

 

any used car is a better buy than any new car. hell, an ancient suburban is going to beat out a prius over a few years because of the cost of new vs ancient/depreciated.

however, if you get your head out of your nice person and start thinking long term, anyone can see that a new(er) car is going to last far longer with far fewer problems than an old clunker with 150-200k on the clock.

 

Cyberprius asked about depreciation and every so often I check on this. Edmund's private party value for zip 97213 (Portland, OR). Single CD player and cruise control throughout; side air bags since 2002. Otherwise no accesories specified.

For the attached figure I gave 2007 Prius 5000 miles, and added 15,000 for every older year back to 2001. So each dot is a different year. The regression line indicates depreciation of about 11.5 cents per mile. I have certainly seem lower estimates than that, but pick your favorite. Other internet sources for this sort of info are KBB, NADA and another one I always forget.

It supports galaxee's idea that an older used non-Prius can save a lot in cents per mile. A rational approach is to figure the fuel cost difference and make a guess at maintenance costs for each. The 'intangibles' such as the value of better ride quality, carrying capacity, and emissions reduction are much harder to express in cents per mile. So just use your own.

The only thing we can be very sure of is that the fuel cost savings for high-mpg vehicles will continue to increase.

I rented a Geo Metro once. It drove OK but was pretty much a new car at the time.

 

A METRO? This car was a POS from day one. Small, harsh ride, under powered, slow as sin. Maybe and that's a big maybe, it worked well for those in a big city.
Put this thing on a highway and you were taking your life into your hands!

Want to guess why the back window's were heated in these things?

So you could keep you hands warm when you pushed it!

 

jamgolf, I agree with your thought process. After reading the article it was like comparing apples and oranges.. What's the point? As usual, CNN doesn't have anything better to report on!!

 

I had a new 1983 Nissan Sentara with A/C 1.6L ICE and it got 30 MPG real world ave if I remember correctly back in high school. This Prius is much faster then the Sentara especially if the A/C on, and the Prius is much safer with all the new safety features built in.
The Sentara had a MPG model that had a 1.5 L ICE that got even better mileage than the Sentara in 1983 but I don't think it sold well at the time. So cars have been out that beat the magical 35 MPG highway standers back in 1983.

what about the Iraq war was for oil argument, not seeing it yet but I can't wait for that to kick in any time now...

 

Next up on the "Most wanted "reliable" used car list - YUGO!"
what a joke...this guy paid $7300 for a 12 used car that he intends to put 25,000 miles a year on. Oh yea, and his job depends on it...hmmmm, I think not.

 

There's an important topic that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread (sorry if I missed it): Safety.

One of the biggest reasons why small, old cars get good gas mileage is that they had little-to-no safety equipment and their construction was not nearly as solid as that of modern cars.

While many people might not care about interior comfort or features, I consider "low risk of dying" as a major feature of a car.

Further, would anyone here really want to drive a 10 year old Geo Metro on a long trip? I never have to worry about breaking down while far from home when I'm driving my Prius.

 

this is my favorite:

Cars For Sale: Car Details - AutoTrader.com

In case the link doesn't work (eventually the car will sell!), it's a 2002 Prius with 60k and NAV and wheel locks for only $22,988. Wheel locks, as we all know, are a very expensive option.

 

The only thing this article proves is the old saying, "There is a sucker born every minute." I would add, "and a CNN writer who agrees."

 

Hey, I used to own a Metro and it was a wonderful car! I got about the same mileage as my Prius. I lived in the Bay Area at the time, and several times I'd find parking in San Francisco that I could not have fit into if the car was just two inches longer.

Granted, the seats weren't as comfy as the Prius seats, but I didn't mind.

 

Maybe the article is a deliberate attempt at a 2x4 upside the head. Maybe the writer wanted to get people thinking and realizing that the minimal transport for one's needs will be the least expensive transport. That has always been obvious but it's also obvious that tens of millions of car buyers have not considered it.

 

That's a very good point to make, and such a point is definitely worthy of an article.

HOWEVER, this particular article highlights the merits of buying old Geo Metros, and in fact profiles people who have payed five times the Kelly Blue Book value for these cars.

Sure, the Metro will save people money on gas. But CNN failed to account for the instant depreciation that you pay for when you buy something for more than it's worth. They've also neglected the future repair costs that are certain to be necesssary for any old car, let alone a crappy Geo.

You can argue that something is worth whatever people will pay for it (and thus folks aren't actually paying more than these Metros are worth). But how long will their value continue to be over-inflated?