1989 Rover - Austin Metro Reviews - Page 3 of 5

1989 Rover - Austin Metro 1.3 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.3 petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired5250 miles
Most recent distance5350 miles

Summary:

Underrated performer

Faults:

Clutch had got a bit weak.

Accelerator cable was loose.

General Comments:

In immaculate condition.

Very quick considering it's a Metro.

Cheap insurance (good for me since I am a 17 year old male).

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

Review Date: 21st January, 2002

1989 Rover - Austin Metro MG Turbo 1.3 turbo petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership1996
Most recent year of ownership1997
Engine and transmission 1.3 turbo petrol Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 3 / 10
Comfort marks 3 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
4.8 / 10
Distance when acquired56000 miles
Most recent distance67000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin Mini

Summary:

A joke!

Faults:

Oil leaked from everywhere.

Head gasket blew twice.

Overheated in traffic.

Jumped out of 2nd gear.

Various instrument failures.

Rust (at 7 years old!).

General Comments:

As a fan of the A series engine, having owned two Mini's, I can honestly say that bolting a turbo on to it was a complete mistake. Used as much oil as petrol, overheated at the slightest sign of traffic, and blew two head gaskets in a year.

The car was quite lively, but had the mechanical integrity of a lump of blu-tac!

Handling was go-kart like with really nice steering, but the driving position was awful, and the interior would have held together better if it was made out of paper mache. It was also rusting to nothing by its 7th birthday.

I was actually pleased when it got stolen and rammed into a bollard in a car park at about 40 mph, as it saved me the conscience testing prospect of having to sell the heap to some other poor unsuspecting mug. As a final insult, it kicked me in the privates with a trade value at 7 years old and 60,000 FSH'd miles of just £500.

Never again will a Rover product pollute my driveway. Unless it's another Mini of course...

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 13th January, 2002

15th Jan 2002, 17:32

How can you write off Rovers? There cars are great! They make the K-series and that's a fantastic engine! No wonder its won awards! Yeah OK the old Austin-Rovers weren't that great but from the very late eighties to present they have been making great cars! Rover is leading the way in car manufacturing. The only reason Rover had problems with BMW was because BMW tried to overprice Rovers cars! But now look at Rover doing extremely well and with more new cars on the horizon, I think they are fantastic, they deserve the respect they now have.

2nd Mar 2002, 17:07

I have to say I am a great fan of the Metro and I am currently in the middle of modifying a 1989 1275cc Austin A+ engine model. Although I have to agree that the turbos were poor cars. There was not enough time and effort put into these cars and it paid the price, poor reliability.

1989 Rover - Austin Metro Clubman 1.3 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.3 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.5 / 10
Distance when acquired93000 miles
Most recent distance93500 miles

Faults:

Only having the car for a month or so (500 miles), a fair bit has gone wrong with it, and all last weekend! The battery died on me, the drive belt snapped and the starter motor finally lost it's will to live. I've now spent far more on repairs than I paid for the car itself, but hopefully they'll be no more surprises for a while.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 20th February, 2001

1989 Rover - Austin Metro GTa 1.3 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership1989
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.3 Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.3 / 10
Distance when acquired0 miles
Most recent distance80000 miles

Summary:

A faster first car than your mates!

Faults:

Absolutely nothing - this car goes on and on. Of course there has been the odd belt change etc.

General Comments:

I've had this car since I was 17 and it's got to be the most fun for that sort of money. This is a first car must if you can get a good one.

The grip is exceptional and very predictable. There is plenty of fun to be had, especially on roundabouts!

The tyre size is awkward as is finding tuning parts etc, but if you persist, they are there to be had.

The sound proofing on them is pretty good as well, so you can fit a decent stereo!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 11th January, 2001

12th Jan 2001, 06:36

I can't believe that you think that an A series lump is reliable and as fast as you make out.

PS, has the rot kicked in yet? (if not start to worry as it's on the way!!!!!!!!)

18th Jan 2001, 16:57

I also own an '89 Metro GTA. Most cars its age have rust or have needed welding. My car hasn't got any! And it is a very quick little car and the handling is second to none. There's only one drawback, I can't find a single bit of tuning around.

Average review marks: 7.0 / 10, based on 22 reviews