Do i need to seek Medical help?

[maddogmorg]

i'm looking at getting a new car and seem strangely drawn towards a metro/100. i'm tempted by both the original austin metro (1.3 A+ engine) or a rover metro 1.4/114.

i think really the austin one would be in need of excessive work (RUST) but it'd be a good car to play with, tuning of the engine is quite easy, parts plentyful due to its use in minis. but it's a pushrod and only a 4 speed gearbox. and still not especially quick.

the more realistic one is the rover 1.4. a 16v has aprox 100bhp in a car that's 800kg. the engine being a k series is revvy, but headgasket problems i am aware of. the suspension is supposed to be better.

i've heard lots of things about the handling being great fun, and i just want something fun, cheap to run, and i find the metros looks appealing for some bizzare reason, but then i think tipos look good

don't make comments about ncap rating etc. i don't care about that.

any good/bad experiences? or general comments? or any decent alternatives?

Cheers,
James.

 

[auto_blanco]

IMHO the metro is one of the worst cars ever constructed by hand of man, the suspension is noisy and bouncy and does anything from letting itself down to just collapsing thanks to balljoint failure. Hydragas suspension system of course and its pretty pants. I find it pretty damn ugly too, but I do like the Tipo lol!

The brakes are shocking without big mods and the driving position is incredibly offset. They can be made to handle "well" but basically a Fiesta, Mk2 or 3 or even 4 can run rings around wether comparing stock cars or modded ones, give me springs and dampers any day of the week. The only thing they offer is fairly ok steering, but then the non PAS steering in any small car is nice to use.

The K series powered ones are quick as you say and not prone to too much HG failure, especially the 1.1l ones and I think that is the main advantage over anything else of the time, ok engines, however too many of them come with 4spd boxes and therefore fuel economy is not great either if you actually want to use it!

But, you have 80s British build quality and yes of course they are truly dangerous. At the same time we had knocking about a Metro 1.1K series and a Mk3 Fiesta, the Fiesta was far far superior to drive and thats not exactly a Maserati to start with.

I did have the pleasure of driving a Metro 1.4 Si or something and it was quick, but in an unpleasant way, like you have no control over it around the bends, it actually felt structurally weak as a 5 door even though it was perfectly sound underneath. I could practically feel it flexing, granted a 3 door is ok in that respect but still no handler, not the way I think small cars should drive anyway.

If I were you, I would get a MK3 Fiesta, with 1.6 zetec in it, uprate the suspension and you have got a cracking little car.

 

[dave]

the answer to title question is yes

 

[MattMk1]

1.8vvc TRO FTW :slayer:

Go on, you know you want to! These things are rapid and don't handle bad either. I've seen them eat CVRs for breakfast.

 

[x Alex x]

TBH i quite like the older metros, rare these days, don't mind the newer ones too, we nearly got a GTi one agesss ago, still look decent today i reckon.

 

[AppleSei]

The arches on the later metros/100 at the rear were prone to tinworm

 

[Gingosporting]

The Rover Metro was top of it's class for ride and handling when launched in 1990 and at that time Rover were doing ok, lack of money for a replacement was one of the many issues which lead to the collapse of the company :-( an early 90s 1.4 GTI or GTA or a 1.4GS with leather might still be a fun little banger. Mind you they rust like nothing on earth!!

JON

 

[auto_blanco]

The Rover Metro was top of it's class for ride and handling when launched in 1990

JON

I too have heard that, I have to say in my experience of Metros I have never ridden in one that rode as nicely as a Fiesta or dare I say it, even a Nova.

 

[maddogmorg]

i've always found it's handling has been praised. for the rover ones. the old parkers i've got says the rover metro had better handling and the 100 had better again. i'm not looking for the ultimate handling car, i've had that (tipo lol) i'm after a fun one, but my experiences with small cars haven't been great.

my brother had an old 1982 austin 1.0 metro as his first car, he says he's never driven anything as fun handling since despite it's slow speed.

as for a fiesta it's a big no from me. i don't like fords. rust (says the person debateing a metro lol) and the interiors are really not to my liking.

what's the difference between gta and gti? is it just trim level? or is it engine/weight related?

 

[AppleSei]

gti is a later model, the GTA came first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_Metro

Interesting fact located in that wiki page

''This popularity endured in spite of the Metro failing to match the durability of key rivals, notably the Nissan Micra and Volkswagen Polo. This is illustrated well by the findings of Auto Express's 2006 survey[citation needed] which named the Metro as Britain's seventh most scrapped car. Just 21,468 were still in working order at the time of the survey, approximately 1.5% of all those registered''.

good luck finding one

 

[sledge]

Ever sat in an original Metro? its like climbing into a bath, they have a sill thats higher than Hadrians wall and a steering position similar to a routemaster bus. There was no 5 speed box option until they dropped the K in when it became the Rover 100 and they also had the dubious repution of scoring one of the lowest ever n-cap scores ever. Only the 1.4 GTI 16v MPI had 100hp on tap and they have all been rallied to death or written off by Barry and his mates. They were highly rated when launched but the usual Rover trick of not spending anything on development meant they where soon left behind by the competition........its all here.

http://www.aronline.co.uk/index.htm?p38adevf.htm

Walk away and find a tidy and well looked after 205 GTI instead.

 

[auto_blanco]

Actually agreed, 205 GTi's are superb, probably the best hatch to drive???

And dont listen to anything Parkers say they are a bunch of no nothings if ever I saw!

The reason Metros feel ok at 1st is because they are a little bit scary at 20mph because of their crap-ness, it soon gets tiring and you wish you were in something else lol!

 

[jug]

i've driven multiple metros and 100's and tbh they were all utter crap, even a late 114si feels ancient and cheap. if you havent driven one yet, do it asap and then you can put this crazy idea behind you.

there are plenty of much better cars for people on a very tight budget, so there is never a good excuse to be drivng a metro/100. the mk1 micra is so much better in every possible way for example.

 

[jamie86]

Watch a metro with a MGF or Elise K-series lump on a track and they are awesome..

Great handling 4pot brakes as standard iirc

And the weigh less than nothing

EDIT: Oh and better not forget the metro turbo!

Most have lost their engines to mini's though these days

 

[udtrev]

Now I would rate a 6R4, but that's it, you can keep the rest !

 

[J333EVO]

Have a look for I think Reyland's (famous for ubber Cosworths) Metro, its v.v. fast. Some youtube vids of it.

I have watched modified Metro's round Silverstone and they are blooming quick cars and great for track days.

If you go for late K series cars they have 5 speed Peugeot gearbox's IIRC and as they are K series you can fit with ease any other K series in including 190bhp Lotus engines.

I know someone who has an integrale 16V and a BMW E30 M3, but his toy, and fastest car of the lot is a near 200bhp K series Metro which runs Jenvey throttle bodies and standalone management, he's had to do hardly anything to rest of the car to make it seriously quick and handle really well.

I have to admit to secretly wanting to build one like that too.

 

[5abr3]

Suspension is good if its looked after until it gives up then you have a ball ache of a job to fix it (from experience)

rust can be make or break at every MOT, reason mine went was it needed about £600 worth of work to correct rust that had been 'fixed' first time it was spotted, clearly not worth it so bought a newer car.

Parts from and to mini's is questionable with some models it seems and getting spares is getting increasingly harder (took me 2 months to source ONE hydra-suspension unit). The only reason i fixed the suspension was because I couldnt physically move the car to a scrapyard to scrap it after jacking it up to see what had failed when the entire section blew out when the weight that was wedging it together was take off and the wheel vanished into the arch!

Gearboxes are fun too

 

[306maxi]

Walk away and find a tidy and well looked after 205 GTI instead.

That and don't modify it in any way whatsoever. It's perfect as it is.

 

[jamie86]

That and don't modify it in any way whatsoever. It's perfect as it is.

Not true

 

[306maxi]

Not true

Actually it is. The 205 GTi is perfectly balanced as is. Lower it, put big wheels on it, put a heavier engine in the front and so on and you ruin the balance that Peugeot so carefully worked on. Has anyone noticed that now that Gti's are becoming rare you're starting to see more original ones as in proper ride height, proper wheels and no bean can exhaust than you did before?