1986 Rover - Austin Metro Reviews

1986 Rover - Austin Metro City 1.0 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1986
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.0 Manual
Performance marks 6 / 10
Comfort marks 3 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.3 / 10
Distance when acquired31000 miles
Most recent distance33000 miles

Summary:

Fun for a short while..

Faults:

Heavy Oil leak between engine and sump. On a hot day the oil would burn on the engine block, and smoke would rise from the bonnet vent!

Rust.. rust.. rust, repaired at rear of sills, crumbling sills behind the front wheel arch and jacking point.

Strong smell of petrol when turning corners.

General Comments:

This was my first car that I owned for 3 months until its MOT ran out.

I cannot comment on reliability due to having the car for such a short amount of time. Mechanically all seemed fine, but when it required an MOT it was sold on. However, the car is still on the roads today.

The Metro was very basic, being the city model, having virtually no creature comforts. The ride was bouncy and the car had the typical A-Series whine.

However, the car was fun to drive. Although having only 998cc, it was relatively nippy around town and the engine revved quite freely. The best point was the handling. The Metro cornered well, but had little grip from the 12 inch steel tyres, even with good make tyres on the front, with the car understeering quite easily. The Metro was an easy to drive car, with excellent visibility and manouvreability, helped by the light steering.

The Metro was not all that brilliant one fuel considering its engine capacity. Its replacement (Skoda Favorit 1.3 - see my other review) is a lot more economical.

The main problem was rust - and lots of it. Another one of Rovers pathetic attempts at rustproofing - Maestros and Montegos of the same era are just as bad.

Overall fun for a first car, poor rust protection and uncomfortable on long journeys. Glad to see it go.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 30th May, 2004

1986 Rover - Austin Metro L 1.3 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1986
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.3 Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired14300 miles
Most recent distance16700 miles
Previous carFord Orion

Summary:

Pleasant to drive, a good first car

Faults:

The car had sat for six years and the head gasket had perished. When it was put back together the exhaust olive was not put in correctly and does not seal properly, but otherwise fine.

General Comments:

Good runner, only 16k on the clock. Quite difficult to find parts for modifications. Nippy for a 1.3, but handles like a shopping trolley due to the small thin wheels. Should be better when I fit some alloys.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 23rd March, 2003

1986 Rover - Austin Metro Vanden Plas 1.3 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1986
First year of ownership1995
Most recent year of ownership1996
Engine and transmission 1.3 petrol Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired65000 miles
Most recent distance75000 miles

Summary:

Excellent runner and quite luxurious (for a small car)

Faults:

Brake pads and clutch wore out just before I got rid of it. Would cost too much to repair.

Minor rust underneath meant that it failed the MoT. Didn't cost too much to repair.

When I got the car, some joker hadn't fitted the rocker box gasket back properly. Lost 3 litres of oil from it when I was changing the oil.

General Comments:

Very very nice runner. Had the 71bhp MG Metro engine.

Started with no problems at all on half choke and then didn't need the choke at all once it was running.

Believe it or not, I could still (bearing in mind it was 11 years old) get 40mpg from it and, if I wanted, I could reach 100mph on the motorway. It was just going to cost me too much to repair.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th October, 2002

11th Dec 2002, 17:52

The mk2 Vanden Plas Metros had electric windows as standard which is very good for a small cheap car of that age. Metro's came with abit of class.

21st Jan 2003, 06:03

Yours did not come with central door locking by any chance did it?

6th Jun 2003, 05:55

Yes, I think it did. I often wonder whether the garage scrapped it or not >sniff<

1986 Rover - Austin Metro MG Turbo 1.3 turbo petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1986
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.3 turbo petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 6 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 1 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 4 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.4 / 10
Distance when acquired100000 miles
Most recent distance110000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin Metro

Summary:

A small high performance bargain

Faults:

At the moment not a lot has gone wrong with it. All I have had to replace is a head gasket at the moment.

General Comments:

I love the Metro Turbo so much, I have always wanted one since the day I got my first car which was a Metro 1.3 HLS. Now I've got one I'm so pleased with it, and would most definitely get another one if anything was to happen to the one I own now.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 15th January, 2001

Average review marks: 6.1 / 10, based on 10 reviews