Super Clean 1986 Suzuki Samurai 4x4 Low Miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1991 Geo Metro LSi Convertible

Americans lost the ability to buy a new Detroit-made convertible starting in the 1977 model year (unless you count aftermarket conversions), not regaining it until drop-top Chrysler K-Cars showed up in showrooms in 1981. This gave convertibles a certain magical quality that lasted for quite a while here, and so it seemed to make sense for GM to offer an open-air version of the Geo Metro. Here's one of those cars, spotted in a self-service yard in northeastern Colorado. The Metro was really a second-generation Suzuki Cultus, successor to the 1985-1988 Chevrolet Sprint. While a four-cylinder engine became available in the later Metro (which got Chevrolet badges when the Geo brand got the axe in 1997), all Chevy Sprints and early Metros got this 1.0-liter three-cylinder engine. You're looking at 55 Suzuki horsepower here. The XFi version of the Metro (not available with a convertible top) managed to get better than 60 highway miles per gallon with an engine rated at 49 horsepower. There was an automatic transmission available… for 465 bucks (about $993 in 2022 dollars). That would have added nearly 5% to the cost of this $9,740 car ($20,805 today) and killed the fuel economy, so nearly all Metro buyers got their cars with three pedals. Do you like simple instruments in cars? You'll love the Metro! This one is good and rusty, with some really scary corrosion underneath. I think it sat in a field, buried to the axles, for many years. However, the bra tells us that it once had an owner who loved their then-shiny red convertible. No 1991 competitor could offer a new convertible with a price tag even close to that of the $9,740 Metro LSi. Oh, sure, a ragtop version of the wretched Yugo was available in 1990 and maybe 1991, but that doesn't count. A new Miata cost $13,800 that year, with a Mazda-based Mercury Capri going for $12,588. The 1991 VW Golf Cabriolet cost $16,175, and prices for convertibles just got higher with other competitors. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. How much? No way!

Watch Indian cars fail Global NCAP crash tests miserably

It's taken for granted that cars currently for sale in Western countries pass crash tests, and often merit four- or five-star safety ratings in NCAP or NHTSA tests. This is why these scores attained by Indian market cars are so galling: seven vehicles currently sold in India got zero stars in any category – a horrifying clean sweep. It is understandable that cars sold in a developing market are cheap and equipment levels are low, but acceptable crash safety is something that should be considered essential in all markets. The cars tested in the Global New Car Assessment Programme were Hyundai's Eon, Maruti Suzuki's Eeco and Celerio models, Mahindra's Scorpio SUV and several Renault Kwid models. All of the cars were manufactured in India for the Indian market, and the Mahindra Scorpio was the sole larger car. It was first introduced in 2002, with updates made in 2006 and 2014. Mahindra has long planned to export its vehicles to the United States, with the likeliest version a pickup variant of the Scorpio. Renault's Kwid crossover was tested in three versions. Initially, the Kwid was tested with and without airbags, and on both accounts it scored zero stars in adult occupant protection and two stars in child occupant protection. Renault strengthened the bodyshell and the crash tests showed the updated Kwid's structure did not collapse; still, it was rated unstable and that it couldn't withstand further stress. On closer inspection, the structural reinforcements were found to be done only on the driver's side of the passenger cell. Renault has confirmed more safety updates are on their way. "We welcome Renault's efforts to correct this and we look forward to testing another improved version with airbags. Renault has a strong record of achievement in safety in Europe and it should offer the same commitment to its customers in India", says Global NCAP's David Ward. "Global NCAP strongly believes that no manufacturer anywhere in the world should be developing new models that are so clearly sub-standard. Car makers must ensure that their new models pass the United Nations' minimum crash test regulations, and support use of an airbag." The airbag-equipped Kwid was the only model of the seven cars tested that was fitted with one. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. This is how the Mahindra Scorpio performed. This content is hosted by a third party.

Here are a few of our automotive guilty pleasures

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. The world is full of cars, and just about as many of them are bad as are good. It's pretty easy to pick which fall into each category after giving them a thorough walkaround and, more important, driving them. But every once in a while, an automobile straddles the line somehow between good and bad — it may be hideously overpriced and therefore a marketplace failure, it may be stupid quick in a straight line but handles like a drunken noodle, or it may have an interior that looks like it was made of a mess of injection-molded Legos. Heck, maybe all three. Yet there's something special about some bad cars that actually makes them likable. The idea for this list came to me while I was browsing classified ads for cars within a few hundred miles of my house. I ran across a few oddballs and shared them with the rest of the team in our online chat room. It turns out several of us have a few automotive guilty pleasures that we're willing to admit to. We'll call a few of 'em out here. Feel free to share some of your own in the comments below. Dodge Neon SRT4 and Caliber SRT4: The Neon was a passably good and plucky little city car when it debuted for the 1995 model year. The Caliber, which replaced the aging Neon and sought to replace its friendly marketing campaign with something more sinister, was panned from the very outset for its cheap interior furnishings, but at least offered some decent utility with its hatchback shape. What the two little front-wheel-drive Dodge models have in common are their rip-roarin' SRT variants, each powered by turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder engines. Known for their propensity to light up their front tires under hard acceleration, the duo were legitimately quick and fun to drive with a fantastic turbo whoosh that called to mind the early days of turbo technology. — Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski  Chevrolet HHR SS: Chevy's HHR SS came out early in my automotive journalism career, and I have fond memories of the press launch (and having dinner with Bob Lutz) that included plenty of tire-smoking hard launches and demonstrations of the manual transmission's no-lift shift feature. The 260-horsepower turbocharged four-cylinder was and still is a spunky little engine that makes the retro-inspired HHR a fun little hot rod that works quite well as a fun little daily driver.