1992 Rover - Austin Metro Reviews - Page 3 of 3

1992 Rover - Austin Metro 1.1 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.1 Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.3 / 10
Distance when acquired128300 miles
Most recent distance134430 miles

Summary:

A cheap, reliable runabout only let down by unstoppable rust

Faults:

Starter motor after 1 month.

Carb flat spot cured with a spoonful of oil in the dashpot.

General Comments:

Dirt cheap to run.

Totally reliable (so far!)

Seats leave a bit to be desired.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 28th February, 2001

1992 Rover - Austin Metro GTI MPI 1.4 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.4 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 1 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 3 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
4.8 / 10
Distance when acquired107000 miles
Most recent distance112000 miles
Previous carFord Escort XR3i

Summary:

Little pocket rocket

Faults:

OK here we go:

Thermostat at 111k.

Coolant pipes (metal) 111k.

Head gasket at 111k.

Water pump at 111k.

General Comments:

A very comfortable car for its size. 16v engine takes some winding up and has to revved hard, but due to it's size and weight it is very similar to a turbo car.

It handles like nothing else removing the need to slow down for corners and the gear box is very neat.

I have not been impressed by the head gasket going, but I did not have to pay for the repair so I don't care! The only advice I can give is that never buy one of these that has been sat for more than 2 months. It kills them and yes, that is what happened to my head gasket!

Oh and one more thing, don't bother with the SPi, it is nothing like the MPi and you still pay the same insurance. The SPi has an intake pipe over the engine, the MPi does not! Plus the MPi has 7 spoke alloys, the SPi has cross spoke.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 2nd February, 2001

22nd Jan 2002, 10:00

What do you expect with a little engine which has done 111K miles?

1992 Rover - Austin Metro C 1.1 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.1 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.6 / 10
Distance when acquired62000 miles
Most recent distance76000 miles

Summary:

Love it

Faults:

Not much, only failed to start once due to a battery.

Cylinder head gasket needed replacing at 70,000.

General Comments:

A super little car, looks good, drives well and is quite fast for the engine size.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 12th January, 2001

1992 Rover - Austin Metro LD 1.4 diesel from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
Engine and transmission 1.4 diesel
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.3 / 10

Faults:

Very slight coolant leak.

General Comments:

A very likeable, cheap to own little car, lacking in rear space, but great to drive.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 18th October, 1999

1992 Rover - Austin Metro S 1.1 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
Engine and transmission 1.1 petrol
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 2 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.0 / 10

Faults:

Needed new exhaust at 26k; suspension needs pumping up every year or so (especially if you live in an area with lots of speedbumps). But that's about it. It's got a bit of rust on the rear wheel arch lips - it's been repaired but a year later it was doing it again. Seems to be a design fault - the lips are kinked which weakens the metal. Replacement tyres (65-profile) not cheap.

General Comments:

Bought by my mother at 8 months/5000 miles, it's now got 30,000 on the clock, of which about 10,000 are mine! K-series engine a smooth delight, apart from slight flat spot. Gearbox (5-speed) excellent. Handles like a go-kart, but gas suspension can float and bounce on back-road crests. Big grin factor. Not as economical as it should be. Rust (see above) on a 5-year old garaged car (well looked-after) unacceptable.

Front cabin great - 800-series front seats make all the difference. Rubber mat on dashboard top pointless; it slides all over the place if you go fast round corners. Rear accomodation (even on our 5-door) silly. The Metro is now too small for our needs; we'd look elsewhere for a replacement, as I'm not convinced about Rover's "quality" reputation and pricing (with particular reference to the rust).

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 12th January, 1998

22nd Jan 2002, 10:04

Yeah, what is the rubber mat all about? I just laughed when I bought mine.

2nd Mar 2002, 10:32

Still have the old Metro, although I've moved on to other cars. Got to admit it's been quite tough though - it's stood the abuse that both my brother and I dished out while learning to drive and the couple of years afterwards before we bought our own cars.

Now has 48k on the clock. Rear wheel arches were repaired 2 years ago for about £200, but surface rust is coming back. Also bubbles have appeared on the sills between the join of the rear and front doors - very similar to Rover 200's. Still, it has done us well. And it's still fun to drive, even though my usual chariot now is a 136bhp Audi Quattro.

Average review marks: 7.1 / 10, based on 14 reviews