| Year of manufacture | 1995 |
| First year of ownership | 2001 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2001 |
| Engine and transmission | 1.1i Manual |
| Performance marks | 8 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 10 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 8 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 6 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 9 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
8.2 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 3800 miles |
| Most recent distance | 9300 miles |
Summary:
Excellent little runner, cheap to buy and run
Faults:
Headlamp seal came off.
Wind noise from the driver's door at high speed.
Rear windscreen washer sprays everywhere.
Stiff gear changes (I think the clutch is faulty).
General Comments:
Dashboard is a little dated, could have been better updated from the Metro.
Always starts first time!
Lots of squeaks:
Steering wheel
Accelerator pedal
Drivers seat.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 22nd November, 2001
| Year of manufacture | 1995 |
| First year of ownership | 2000 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2001 |
| Engine and transmission | 1.1 petrol Manual |
| Performance marks | 4 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 5 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 7 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 2 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 2 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
4.0 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 67000 miles |
| Most recent distance | 71000 miles |
Summary:
Poor, piece of junk
Faults:
Revs increase causing vibrations and launches the car at high speeds in difficult situations.
Suspension collapsed after hitting a small pot hole.
Rust over arches.
Alloys corroded and look ridiculous.
Alarm fails to work.
No record of replacement Rover keys.
Petrol consumption is very poor.
Leaking door seals.
General Comments:
A rubbish car with poor dealerships and poor after sales service.
My mother also owns a 214 SEi which also has problems that show poor build quality and the dealerships are unable to help.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No
Review Date: 17th April, 2001
Rover Metro - Poor, piece of junk.
This chap is obviously wanting to get the earth (and the rest) from a 1 litre engined car with 67,000 miles on the clock. A Rover 100 Kensington doesn't have 'alloys' as standard which suggests that this car has led a hard life in the hands of a boy racer. Not all Metros are bad. Every barrel has a bad 'apple' in it somewhere but if any 'apple' is abused, it will turn bad. He is also using a bad dealer. Maybe he should change?
| Year of manufacture | 1995 |
| First year of ownership | 2000 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2001 |
| Engine and transmission | 1.4 petrol Manual |
| Performance marks | 8 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 4 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 6 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 6 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
6.0 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 71000 miles |
| Most recent distance | 82000 miles |
| Previous car | Ford Fiesta |
Summary:
Performance very good, not many around
Faults:
Suspension collapsed at 76,000 miles, expensive to repair, £300.
Head gasket blew at 75,000 miles.
Lots of rust on the wheel arches.
Faulty petrol gauge, being quoted £110 to fix.
General Comments:
Cheap car to insure.
The car's performance is brilliant.
Holds speed up hills on motorways.
Very good on fuel.
Cheap car to buy, just have the money left over for the repairs, you will need it.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No
Review Date: 15th April, 2001
| Year of manufacture | 1995 |
| First year of ownership | 2001 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2001 |
| Engine and transmission | 1.1 petrol Manual |
| Performance marks | 7 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 7 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 9 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
7.7 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 44000 miles |
| Most recent distance | 48000 miles |
| Previous car | Volvo 240 |
Summary:
Cheap, enjoyable, no-frills supermini
Faults:
Fixed water leak from the passenger door - rubber seal had been trapped by the door and squashed. Free repair - with the help of a Swiss army knife.
General Comments:
I've only had the car 3 months so this is an early impression. Not as well built as my wife's Fiat Punto, but only two thirds the price.
Fun to drive, and 47 mpg so far on a daily 45 mile round trip commute. Petrol tank too small though.
I plan to rustproof the rear arches before the rot sets in (if it's not too late already - I've seen 1993 Metros with seriously rusty arches).
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 21st March, 2001
| Year of manufacture | 1995 |
| First year of ownership | 1995 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2000 |
| Engine and transmission | 1.1 Manual |
| Performance marks | 3 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 5 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 5 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 2 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 6 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) |
4.2 / 10
|
| Distance when acquired | 2 miles |
| Most recent distance | 26000 miles |
Summary:
Rubbish, still wondering why I bought it
Faults:
Rear wheel bush.
Sunroof warped.
Steering wheel fitted wrong.
Remote door lock failed in one door.
Rubbers around the headlights.
Sun visor on the driver's side fell off.
Internal door lock surrounds fell off on both doors.
Electrical fault drained the batteries (bought new one when not required).
Car delivered with scratches.
Wires hanging down below the dashboard.
General Comments:
The first car N126 XKM was delivered with so many faults that Rover (LEX Bexleyheath) took the car back and gave a us new one which had the above faults before the car had 7,000 miles on the clock, so you can imagine what the first one was like.
Rovers are bad and my husband is having trouble from his 416SLI. Rover are not worth saving, please let them die .
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No
Review Date: 28th October, 2000
Agreed.
I used to get Rover company cars every 6 months - all had problems. The worst was a faulty airbag (the dealer explained that I didn't hit the other car quite centrally on the bumper! Still did nearly £3k of damage).
We have better ways of using manufacturing investment than with these no-hopers.
That's crap, I've had no problem at all, they are a very good car and the performance for the size of the engine will match most things a lot better - comfortable and good to drive, and when a 1.1i can beat a 3.0 Mercedes diesel, it comes to something.
I just got a Rover 100 Kensington SE, has been parked in someone's garage for the last 3 years, (only 4000 miles on the clock!). Never the less, it runs fine, although I hate the non power assisted steering and the clutch is excessively springy, making town driving difficult.
My Kensington has had similar problems and as for beating a 3 litre merc, no way.
To the person who bought one with 4000 miles - get the underneath resealed as it will be covered in rust.
If you don't like the car, then sell it and stop bleating about it. I've had no problems with mine, and it's a gorgeous little car.
Re the last comment you made - it is true. Rover should be allowed to die...it's hanging on by its fingertips and doing no-one any good at all. You can't stop development and looking to the past is futile and pointless.
And, yes, if you don't like it, then sell it. The Car Supermarkets can't get enough of them.
I had a 1995 Kensington and really wish I had never had it. everything broke and it cost me a small fortune. At the top end the suspension failed costing me over a thousand pounds!. still there is one good thing I can say about it, I smiled when I part exchanged it for a 2001 Vauxhall Corsa Club 1.2 16v goodbye rover haha.