1988 Rover - Austin Metro Reviews - Page 2 of 3

1988 Rover - Austin Metro City X 1.3 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1988
First year of ownership1998
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.3 petrol Manual
Performance marks 5 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired42000 miles
Most recent distance52000 miles
Previous carFord Escort

Summary:

Seriously cheap motoring

Faults:

Nothing has gone wrong other than the rear brakes which needed a new set of shoes due to normal wear.

The material of the sun visors has rotted with age.

General Comments:

An excellent car which is 100% reliable.

Apart from the rear brake shoes, I have not spent any money on repairs or maintenance, and it passes MOTs with flying colours. Three years motoring for £500, not a bad deal.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 28th September, 2001

9th Feb 2002, 14:25

Don't buy a Rover Metro, as they are prone to overheating, lose power, water pipes exploded, handbrake packed up, need lots of friends to push you around, took 8 friends pushing and me in first gear to drive up a hill!!! Really embarassing!!!

Would I buy another... NO!!!

Pete.

1988 Rover - Austin Metro L 1.0 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1988
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.0 Manual
Performance marks 3 / 10
Reliability marks 6 / 10
Comfort marks 3 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.0 / 10
Distance when acquired60000 miles
Most recent distance70000 miles

Summary:

Old banger

Faults:

Chassis needed welding back together, but I suppose the car is pretty old...

Amazing ability to rust.

Door handle fell off.

General Comments:

Not bad for a first banger I suppose, fairly easy to drive.

Terrible on the motorway, it shakes when you get to 70, and feels like it's going to fall apart.

It was nice to have 5 doors on such a small old car and I can fit a drumkit in the back fairly easily!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 22nd May, 2001

1st Nov 2002, 06:33

If you bought this car second hand, you would have to expect some flaws in it. I did when I bought a 1988 1.0L in 1995, however I still own it 7 years later, and it is very reliable I can tell you! It's only broken down once and passed all of its MOT tests! Now that's a car you should have!

1988 Rover - Austin Metro City X 1.0 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1988
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.0 Manual
Performance marks 4 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 4 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.0 / 10
Distance when acquired79000 miles
Most recent distance82000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin Montego

Summary:

Cheap to run, but not for the motorway

Faults:

Engine would not run properly on unleaded despite adjusting the ignition.

Starting problems in damp weather.

Faulty brake master cylinder causing a spongy brake pedal.

Tailgate keeps coming open when driving.

General Comments:

Plus and minuses with this car. Generally economical, easy to drive and park and good load area for small car.

Downsides are dodgy starting in the damp, rattles and squeaks everywhere and poor performance. Noisy ride.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th April, 2001

1988 Rover - Austin Metro L 1.0 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1988
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.0 petrol Automatic
Performance marks 0 / 10
Reliability marks 2 / 10
Comfort marks 1 / 10
Dealer Service marks 0 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
2.2 / 10
Distance when acquired21000 miles
Most recent distance26000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin 216 GSi

Summary:

Cheap insurance, crap drive

Faults:

Broken steering shroud.

Leaking roof (from top of the sun visor).

General Comments:

Broken down 3 times, fault still unknown, biggest load of crap I have ever driven. NOT VERY GOOD FOR THE EGO!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 15th December, 2000

13th Sep 2001, 06:21

There was no Metro with a 1.0L engine automatic, either 1.0 manual, or 1.3 auto. Which is it?

5th Feb 2002, 13:40

In reply to the first comment about the engine size, this is wrong there was indeed a 1.3 and a 1.0 Metro L in automatic and Manual.

1988 Rover - Austin Metro MG 1.3 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1988
Engine and transmission 1.3 petrol
Performance marks 5 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.8 / 10

Faults:

The main thing to go wrong with Austins Rovers is oil seals, they must have made them out of rice paper.

Also rust is a problem especially in Britain. Be careful to check everywhere underneath if you're considering one of these cars otherwise you're in for an expensive MOT/Roadworthy if it gets through at all.

General Comments:

This is not really an MG, more of a pretend one but it does have the indestructable 1275cc modified A series motor which dates back to the original Mini Coopers. The performance is better with the Turbo models but the standard MG is more economical.

Overall not bad, much better than a standard Metro.

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

Review Date: 15th June, 1999

1st Nov 2002, 05:29

I have a 998cc 46bhp version, and it is surprisingly nippy around town, so the 1275cc 62bhp must be even better!

1988 Rover - Austin Metro GTa 1.3 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1988
Engine and transmission 1.3 petrol
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.0 / 10

Faults:

Lots, new gearbox, rear radius arms, new clutch, new exhaust, new starter motor, new disc brakes.

General Comments:

Cheap car but insurance far too high for young drivers. Needs five gears. But easily tuned up to beat Novas. Needs to be thrashed to get anywhere but looks quite good and handles surprisingly well due to fat wheels.

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

Review Date: 7th February, 1999

9th Feb 2002, 10:24

I would say that a Metro would look nice tuned as I have now got one, but I have no ideas on how to tune it. I always read Max Power and have never seen a Metro in there, does anyone have any pics of one of these cars done up?

Average review marks: 5.9 / 10, based on 13 reviews