| Year of manufacture | 1989 |
| First year of ownership | 2001 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2002 |
| 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 acquired | 5250 miles |
| Most recent distance | 5350 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
| Year of manufacture | 1989 |
| First year of ownership | 1996 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 1997 |
| 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 acquired | 56000 miles |
| Most recent distance | 67000 miles |
| Previous car | Rover - 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
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.
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.
| Year of manufacture | 1989 |
| First year of ownership | 2001 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2001 |
| 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 acquired | 93000 miles |
| Most recent distance | 93500 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
| Year of manufacture | 1989 |
| First year of ownership | 1989 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2001 |
| 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 acquired | 0 miles |
| Most recent distance | 80000 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
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!!!!!!!!)