1991 Rover - Austin Metro Reviews - Page 6 of 6

1991 Rover - Austin Metro S 1.1 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.1 petrol Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired45000 miles
Most recent distance49500 miles
Previous carRover - Austin Metro 1.0 City

Summary:

Smooth economical transport

Faults:

Very little, it had O/S front damage when I got it, but it was repaired and apart from a service it hasn't been touched mechanically. It is even virtually rust free.

General Comments:

A huge improvement on the Austin Metro, the K series engine is smooth and willing, performance good for 1.1. The 5 speed peugeot gearbox enhances this further, only buy these if they have a 5 speed, a 4 speed will bring back all the old car's problems of getting stuck between ratios.

Front/rear connected suspension makes the car harder to set up and affects turn in.

Very economical 40+ mpg, even 50+ for grannies.

Very quiet compared to the A series version, engines sounds like a sewing machine below 4000 rpm.

Interior however is not up to the original MG Metro standards, bring back those racing seats please and the red carpets. In general a huge improvement, now I want an MPi 16v.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 15th November, 2000

16th Oct 2002, 18:36

40mpg? I get 30-35 if I'm not driving too hard! And yes, the carburettor is set up right. Oh, and yeah, I don't drive in a particularly fuel economical manner, but when I had to, I stuck to 60mph (and avoided any braking) and got around 50 (the fuel tank was almost empty in the middle of nowhere)

Worst I've had is about 25, but that was with bikes strapped to the back.

Nice little car tho. Faster than you might think.

1991 Rover - Austin Metro S 1.1 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership1993
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.1 Manual
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired9000 miles
Most recent distance121000 miles
Previous carFord Fiesta

Summary:

Nippy and cheap, a bargain buy now

Faults:

Battery at 70,000.

Brake discs at 90,000.

Rear suspension arms at 110,000.

General Comments:

Rust, rust & more rust.

Very reliable and cheap car to run. I have been to France, Germany, Austria & Holland with no trouble at all. Plus I have taken it to 110mph (on the clock) in Germany.

Fab, a much underrated car. If only it was not going rusty.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 23rd October, 2000

1991 Rover - Austin Metro C 1.1 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership1998
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.1 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired54000 miles
Most recent distance76000 miles
Previous carFiat Panda

Summary:

A cute, reliable and very under-estimated little car. If you can stand the jokes then go for it!

Faults:

Indicator stalk failed at 57K (replaced under warranty). Head gasket replaced at 67K, rear wheel arches starting to rust. Occasional rough idling, sometimes a slight flat-spot when accelerating - never sorted out by numerous garages so I gave up! Inspite of these minor niggles it has never let me down in 22,000 miles of spirited driving!

General Comments:

K series is a lively engine and revs freely (70MPH in 3rd gear). Goes like a mini rocket once you get above 3,500 RPM! About 4,000 RPM required to cruise at 70 in 4th but doesn't feel strained although it can get noisy! Comfortable seats, good economy (280 miles+ from a 33 litre tank!)

Watch out for those rear arches rusting though :(

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 13th June, 2000

1991 Rover - Austin Metro LS 1.4 8V from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership1995
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.4 8V Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.3 / 10
Distance when acquired34000 miles
Most recent distance102500 miles
Previous carRover - Austin Metro 1.3 L

Summary:

Great blend of performance, economy, handling and comfort

Faults:

Rear radius arms (after 6 months) not covered by warranty, so I fixed. Suspect they had never been greased since new. 'New' bearings are fine after 5 years use. So much for dealers and PDI (and the suspect MOT I was given at purchase!)

Nothing else major.

General Comments:

Ignore the Metro knockers!! Has been a great car. Up to 48 mpg and good performance. Now showing its age, with rust starting to take hold - had some welding done last year (around front jacking points). Still goes very well indeed even with 100,000 + on the clock.

Far better than the 'A'series Metro.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 2nd June, 2000

1991 Rover - Austin Metro S 1.1 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership1996
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.1 Manual
Performance marks 5 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.0 / 10
Distance when acquired37000 miles
Most recent distance66000 miles

Summary:

A decent reliable runabout, but don't rush out to buy one!

Faults:

Clutch judder, back brakes squealed all the time, rear wheel arches rusted badly, front wheel bearings wore out, engine hesitated on acceleration due to sticking enrichment valve in carburettor, suspension needed pumping up, front suspension knuckle joints needed replacement at 55K, sometimes hard to start from cold but generally dependable enough.

General Comments:

Generally quite good. Reliability was OK but it suffered a few irritating niggles. Not all spares are cheap - a new clutch would cost around £400 according to a Rover main dealer. Not too bad to drive - handling good when I first got it but it became a bit vague as the miles increased. Ride is good, especially at high speeds but perhaps a little firm around town.

Seats not too bad but the interior and boot are ridiculously small. I'm 5'9" and found it lacking in headroom in the front making it a bit uncomfortable. Driving position gets uncomfortable after a while. Cabin is dated and too similar to the old Metro but materials are decent quality.

Feels a bit vulnerable on motorways and gets blown all over the place in strong winds. Build quality a bit dubious - rattles and squeaks from every part of the car. Paint finish excellent and didn't fade.

Fuel consumption fine - 55mpg on longer runs. Small fuel tank means lots of trips to the pumps. I part exchanged it recently and had to fight hard to get a decent price as they are supposedly hard to sell on as it's a Metro, but they are decent small cars and will last well if looked after. I know someone who has a Metro 1.1C that has done 130,000 miles and still goes well. Enough said?

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 26th March, 2000

1991 Rover - Austin Metro L 1.1 petrol from Netherlands

Year of manufacture1991
Engine and transmission 1.1 petrol
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10

Faults:

Not much, if you look at the mileage (190,000 kilometers):

- new dynamo at 160,000 km.

- rust on rear wheel arches (quite bad).

- broken down hydragas suspension unit, rear left at 180,000 km.

General Comments:

Very reliable, fun to drive, easy to park, multi-functional, 'exclusive' (for Holland, that is), cheap to run, comfortable little car. I've had mine since it was one year old and it never ever failed me. The engine is still running smoothly and runs 14 km on 1 litre.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 16th March, 1998

1991 Rover - Austin Metro City 1.1 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
Engine and transmission 1.1 petrol
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.0 / 10

Faults:

Rear wheel arches rust terribly. I repaired them and repainted them and three months later they are off again. Slight water leak in passenger side door. Acceleration flat spot at low revs in first gear. Hydragas suspension needed pumping up.

General Comments:

Very reliable car. Quite nippy for a 1.1 engine. A lot of body roll on cornering.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 8th February, 1998

1991 Rover - Austin Metro GTi 1.4 16v petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
Engine and transmission 1.4 16v petrol
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.4 / 10

Faults:

The only problem in 6 years with this car has been an electrical problem traced to a chafing wire which caused a short.

General Comments:

Drives like a go-kart. Good acceleration and handling. It's too noisy for long motorway journeys.

Could have done with power steering as parking is hard work.

Surprisingly comfortable compared to old Metros.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 23rd November, 1997

13th Jun 2001, 09:30

I love mine, fast and a good looker.

1991 Rover - Austin Metro GTa 1.4 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
Engine and transmission 1.4 petrol
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 6 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.8 / 10

Faults:

New gearbox.

New ignition.

New clutch cable.

New cam belt at 65k.

Rusting quite badly at rear.

General Comments:

Quite an expensive car in terms of upkeep, but has been a great first car, easy to drive and very good for those of us who are vertically challenged !

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 23rd November, 1997

Average review marks: 7.0 / 10, based on 24 reviews