Mighty Metro - if it's a Rover version (Rover Metro)

Member Name: r_welfare

Product:	Rover Metro
Date:	01/07/02 (859 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Nimble, great engine, classy interior for it's day

Disadvantages: Suffers from image of earlier model, lack of space in the rear, eventually starts to go flaky round the edges

On the morning of my 17th birthday, my father drove me down to the local industrial estate, attached L-plates to the front and back of my mother's Rover Metro 1.1S, and let me get behind the wheel.

I stalled it.

More than 10,000 of my own miles (and 8 years) later, this is the only time I've done this.

Previously I have told you the story of my mother's Ladas. This love affair with the Communist Cortinas came to an abrupt halt in 1993 when, at the age of 16, I threw a paddy and refused to get in it anymore. I begged my mother to get a new car. Surprisingly, she agreed, and bought a nearly-new Metro 1.1S from the local (Lada) garage. At nine months old, with 6,000 miles on the clock, it cost £5,995 which back then was a saving of about £3,000 on the new price.

This was also around the time when the Rover Metro was considered only second to the Peugeot 106 as The Daddy Of Small Cars. Suddenly I had gone from zero to hero.

It was easy to see why. Compared with the Samara we had before it had an interior that was properly screwed together, for a start. In fact, compared to most small cars of the time it was very well put-together, the only downside being the dashboard that had been carried over from the previous Austin model.
The other stupid thing about the dashboard was there was a rubber mat that rested on the top shelf, but was not secured to anything, so during fast cornering it would dislodge. A far better solution would have been to mould it into the dashboard in the manner of the contemporary 200/400 series.

The front seats, coming out of the 800, were very comfortable, but left passengers in the rear with no legroom to speak of. The Rover model is actually inferior to the Austin version in this respect, as the earlier car had diddy chairs in the front. Boot space was also lacking.

Being the mid-range S model, the car had a few goodies - a pop-up sunroof, a 5-speed gearbox, and a Phi
lips stereo. No power steering, aircon, central locking or any of the niceties you get on today's small cars.
For the most part, however, the Metro didn't need it.

Compared to the whiny old A-series engine and four-speed box, the K-series engine is a revelation. Smooth and revvy, it produces 60bhp which still is good for an 1100cc unit. Our car suffered from a slight flat spot at low revs, but otherwise was vice-free. Fuel economy is not bad on the open road, averaging about 40mpg, but you only get about 250 miles out of the very small tank. At least the filler isn't in the bottom of the back wing like the old model, being up by the window.

It doesn't handle quite as well as a Mini, but the handling is good enough to give a feeling of invicibility. Low-profile Dunlop tyres give lots of grip, and I only lost the front end of the car once due to sheer stupidity. I hit a grass bank (due to panic locking of the front wheels) but luckily no damage was caused to the car. The ride is also excellent; the bounciness of the Metro of old is lost because the Hydragas suspension units are connected front-to-rear as well as side-to-side. Saying that, because we live in an area with a lot of speedbumps, the suspension sees a lot of action and the gas will be displaced so the car acquires a "lowrider" look (often the look of a neglected Metro). £20 paid to the local tyre shop gets it pumped up again.

I used the car most between the ages of 17 and 19 when it was my only available form of motorised transport. In all I racked up about 10,000 miles, mainly driving to and from universities for interviews, and running my mates about. Another friend's parents had a K-reg 3-door model and we used to test out the 0-60 times in drag races. All good fun. To be honest I think driving it hard was a good thing for the car, as my mother drives in a very sedate way. That's my story and I'm sticking to it - let's just say tha
t I was more naive in the days I paid for every other tank of petrol. And no tyres.

We still have the car almost 10 years later, and it continues to give my mother good service. It's up to 45,000 miles now, and has never let my mother down. There was a scare a few years ago when we thought my brother had cracked the sump (he's also responsible for the front indicator lens falling out and the cassette flap on the radio breaking off), but by changing the gasket it stopped leaking oil. Otherwise it's just needed regular servicing, an exhaust here and there, and new tyres.

The bugbear of the old Austin Metro, rust, seems to have been brought much more under control for the Rover model, if not totally eradicated. Places where these cars rust most is around the rear wheel arches, it must be the design. Our car is garaged all the time and still has needed work here, once by ourselves and once professionally. Once again it is starting to go at the edges, two years after the professional repair. There is also a bit of rust creeping up under the rear valance and on the sills.

Since the safety scare regarding the NCAP tests a few years ago, values of the Rover Metros have dropped off to the point that the early ones cost not much more than Austin versions. Even with such low mileage and in excellent condition, our car is probably only worth £900. Still, for that money it would make someone an excellent first car, as there's plenty of life in the old girl yet!

Summary: