1993 Rover - Austin Metro S 1.1 petrol
Summary:
Easily one of the worst!
Faults:
Just about everything. Head gasket, oil leak, coolant leak, driveshafts, the list goes on.
Most famously for this car, yes it was a rust bucket, even at barely 4 or 5 years old we noticed it starting everywhere.
General Comments:
This Metro deserves its poor reviews. A very unsafe and poor quality car.
We bought used approved back in 1997. The car had low mileage and was in good condition so how bad could it be we thought? Blue L reg, "S" model, very basic.
As it turned out, the car was OK the first year or so. But we noticed the famous rust starting. Then the mechanicals started giving problems as the mileage rose. But we looked after the car and drove carefully.
Interior was cramped. Uncomfortable. Too much noise. It felt unsafe just sitting in it, let alone on a motorway passing lorries.
The 1.1 was surprisingly nippy in the right conditions. Also contrary to popular belief, it could actually manage 100 mph with the wind behind it going downhill. Maybe the speedometer was over-reading!
Scrapped at 10 years old, not worth fixing. No wonder Rover went under, they needed a popular hatchback and this offering was terrible. Mind you, I do not hate Rover - my father had a 600 then an 800 around about the same time; they were actually OK cars, still had reliability issues but at-least they could give similar cars a run for their money.
But the Metro was a terrible car. Even the updated nameplate change Metro "100" in its final years was basically just as bad, despite the "improvements".
Good points? It was not as slow as people said they were, and it was cheap enough to fix. But not a car that will be fondly remembered; there are some hardcore fans of it here in the UK, it has quite a following but I will never understand why. Easily the worst car we had in the family (and we had/have lots!).
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know
Review Date: 25th March, 2024
15th Mar 2004, 09:58
Spot-on!