How reliable is the Rover Metro/100 1.1?

Luke214SLi · Post by **Luke214SLi** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:23 am

Basically, wife's wanting to learn how to drive, so would like to get something small, Rover, cheap and reliable!

Seen a 1.1 Grand Rio on eBay, insurance aint bad at a tad over Â£400 TPFT (She's 20, not got provisional yet, me as the additional driver, 22 with 3yrs licence and own car, which i pay Â£300 TPFT for!) but i dont want to get her a car thats going to be breaking somewhere every month!

Also, whats the difference in reliabilty/running costs between the 1100 and 1000 metro's? (A 1.0 Metro City has also popped up pretty cheap)

The Rio is a 1993, the Metro C is an 89 i think?

Also, had a look at an insurance quote for an MG Maestro Turbo! Brought a very reasonable quote of Â£700 for us! mmmmm........a plan for when she can ferry the wee man around!

Post by **Punx0r** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:10 pm

The 1000cc is likely to be the old A-series engine and the 1.1 should be an early K-series.

barber · Post by **barber** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:20 pm

they are fine! and easy and cheap to fix if anything does go wrong.

gav2pac · Post by **gav2pac** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:28 pm

just watch out for the rust, especially arches and sills! and the 8v 1.1 and 1.4 are really good engines

victor3 · Post by **victor3** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:19 pm

My daughter had one for her first car. She loved it.

Luke214SLi · Post by **Luke214SLi** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:38 pm

Yeah, the rust is a bit of a problem on a lot of them....probably made with the same pre-rusted materials as the Maesto's

I would guess that Â£300 would get a half decent one with plenty of tax/mot? Need to get around Â£1300 for the lessons/car/insurance etc, so would be a while off yet, and we dont have a garage, so cant even get one that needs attention to get ready for when she passes!

Not looking to get one just yet, need her to actually start driving first! But dont really want the usual 998cc Micra or something french...

malcolm_durant · Post by **malcolm_durant** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 pm

My wife's first car after she started driving was a 1988 1.0 Metro. Fun car and surprisingly roomy compared to a larger, modern "super-mini".

Rust was a real issue frankly...it eats the tin very fast.

Have always assumed the K-Series engine Rover ones are technically better in all respects, even if the rust control is only marginally better.

A-Series is ultra simple and tough; can be serviced with a hammer, a flat blade screw-driver, an adjustable spanner and some pliers though..!!!

TBear in mind the A-Series 1.0 is painfully slow - my wife, on her driving test, went on the road up to Beachy Head and had to tell the examiner that she wasn't deliberately going so slowly (25mph in a 40 zone), the car simply wouldn't go faster up the twisty hill.

Perfectly capable of an indicated 93mph on the flat though

Malcolm

Ozz · Post by **Ozz** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:42 pm

Had a 1.1 Rover 100 for a while - was fine, ideal for nipping around town and great fun on the twisties, handles like a skate! Defo down on power for the A and M roads though, but will still crank up to over 110 indicated if you had enough road!!

155V6 · Post by **155V6** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:08 pm

I'd have a look on http://www.metropower.co.uk to get an idea what goes wrong with them,the main things seem to be rust as already mentioned,& head gaskets on the K-Series.

shen · Post by **shen** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:03 pm

dont get anything with an A series engine..rover 100s should be k series .. metros are mostly a series and are pants..they were a good desing 50+ years ago. Also i dunno if the 100s got rid of hydroelastic suspension but on the old metros that knacked up easily and gave the rocking ship effect and lots of squeaking.

MGJohn · Post by **MGJohn** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:04 am

Bought new in 1993, had a 1.1 in the family ever since until a few weeks ago when my son slotted a 1.8 K-series in it as he fancied a bit more poke..

I serviced the car virtually from new and apart from one little niggle, the car ran faultlessly throughout with a decent performance from so small capacity engine. The one little niggle being a hesitant flat spot when cold and at other times when pulling away from a standstill. Tried all kinds of things like carb swaps but the problem was always there occasionally .... no hesitancy with the 1.8 now ... infact quite the opposite....

Had an MG 1300 Metro from new in 1983 and that little A-series motor was very willing and vitually bullet proof ... again maintained by me from new. Mind you, that little MG Metro fell to pieces shortly after it's fifteenth birthday!!.. We certainly had our money's worth out of these family Metros.... I used to drive them hard evrywhere safe in the knowledge that they were well maintained and could take it.

I like to drive the Rover Metro with the 1.8 when circumstances allow .... puts the word 'fun' back in everyday motoring and them some.... My son has checked and found that the 1.8 engined car is MORE economical than with the original 1.1 carb engine. I suspect that for any given point to point journey, the 1.8 is working much less strenuously wheras the 1.1 was always working hard most of the time thus using more fuel. I discovered the advantages of a larger capacity understressed motor years ago. My days with lots of revs to get about are now well behind me.... have seen the light ...

dezzy220GsiT · Post by **dezzy220GsiT** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:37 am

as above jus watch out for the rust,not many clean 1z about