Talk:Geo Metro

message: Does anyone have statistics on how many old model Metros were sold from '89 to 94 in the US?--70.59.155.91 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many old model Metros were sold from '89 to 94 in the US? 

message: The article shows the horsepower of the 1.0 Liter base engine as 110 horsepower. I wish my 91 3dr had that kind of power and got the 45 to 50 mpg it always did.I say did because just this week the lower front suspension part of the frame just broke away nearly causing a serious accident. A word of caution to folks still trying to operate one of these cars in rusted condition DON'T!
209.83.10.151 04:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be a common problem: Rust on the frame rail near the lower control arms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.46.88 (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, how damn light is this thing that it manages a "just over 10 seconds" 0-60 time with just 55 bhp? That's more a ~80hp time as far as I've seen, even amongst small lightweight city cars. 55hp would be more around 15s for the same class of vehicle. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.0 Liter HP Rating is a bit off.  

message: Geo/Chevrolet Metro → Chevrolet Metro — move from strange pseudo-compromise that goes against naming conventions —Reginmund (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Oppose - the name should obviously change, but "Geo Metro" should take precedence as the original name. The article needs a thorough cleanup anyway... PrinceGloria (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: * I moved this page to Geo Metro following a revised request in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=180493580 . I did not correct some of the resulting double redirects, which are from Maruti and Suzuki makes, which are not Chevrolets; although I am not the world's expert in makes of cars. Someonne please examine this. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move and double redirects left alone 

message: Wouldn't it make sense to merge this article with Suzuki Cultus... much the way Daewoo Kalos consolidates Chevrolet Aveo, etc. ? 842U (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the original vehicle here would be the Suzuki Cultus, although the Geo Metro (and, in turn, the American Suzuki Swift or whatever it was called... darn Suzuki...), anyhoo, they had another body generation the Cultus and "global" Swift missed. So I guess there is some reason in keeping the Metro separate from the Cultus. That said, articles on Suzukis and Suzuki derivatives are a total mess and certainly need a good cleanup. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the Pontiac Firefly even has its own article, and that should certainly be incorporated into the Metro article.  By contrast, getting all the iterations of the Daewoo Kalos into one article was a good thing, and alleviates a lot of headaches. 842U (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have begun integrating the Geo Metro, Chevrolet Sprint and Pontiac Firefly articles into the Suzuki Cultus article.  The early sections of the Suzuki Swift article belong under the Cultus, as well.  Discuss842U (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge has happened.  Firefly, Forsa, Metro, Sprint and Swift (except GenIV) articles info have been integrated into the Suzuki Cultus article.  Certainly there is overlap between the subjections, specifically generational and engine info, but the article is now more in keeping with the WPS guidelines. 842U (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultus merge? 

message: What about removing the anecdotal info on this engine, re its problems, and uncited mpg claims? 842U (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdotal I-3 engine notes