Jump to content

2flags

Full Members
  • Posts

    421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 2flags

  1. 2 hours ago, Cavcraft said:

    Christ almighty, I know I'm the resident Vauxhall fan boi/Corsa licker,  but a Metro is absolutely leagues behind the Vauxhall. 

     

     

    Sorry, but the Mk1 Corsa, though much better made than the Metro, was utterly gutless, had unresponsive steering [four turns from lock to lock.] The Metro was a much better drivers car. Far more responsive and much more fun to drive. The build quality was, as you rightly said shite. Shame really as it was a great car underneath. 

  2. On 18/03/2024 at 16:24, UltraWomble said:

    What Hill Will You Die On for your opinion but other motorists think is wrong:

    THE ROVER K-SERIES METRO/100 WAS UTTER SHIT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT IT WAS.
    IT DESERVED TO DIE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED OFF MUCH EARLIER.

    The A series mini Metro/ Metro was an adequate BLARG offering for the time,  in an ideal world the bean counters would have fitted it with normal suspension rather than hydrolastic/hydragas  and someone shoudl really have tried harder to come up with a 5 speed option rather than the overly tall 4th gear. But considering when it was designed and how quickly it went into production against established small cars like the Fiesta and Polo, it was OK.

    Grease nipples remained a part of weekend fettling, as was checking the dash pot had a bit of oil in it and going around the car treating rust blebs before they became bigger blebs the size of a subframe. It was still a car with 1950's technology and people who bought them for the most part understood this. Fast wind to 1991 and the K series Metro...

    The K series engine, good on paper but not quite as good IRL. A small coolant leak quickly led to the head gasket failing and in some cases completely knackering the engine. OK, not the end of the world, but something that should have been better from the outset, as was the use of plastic locator dowels and bolts that went riiiiiight through the block to  attach the head. Dont get me wrong the K series when looked after and with an adequate coolant system can be a really good engine, Lotus used them for a while. The thing that really really really pisses me off about the K series Metro/100 was teh build quality.
    Essentially  Metro Mk2 with some facelifts both inside and out but with no attention paid to the actual build quality.

    In the early 1990's  customers were starting to get used to cars with decent prep and rust prevention from new, so that they were not the proud* owner of a pile of rust on wheels by 6 years old.  Despite Rover being able to make a 200/25 bubble with reasonable build quality, they somehow bypassed this on the Metro and examples 4 and 5 years old were rusting badly and failing MOT tests - for this reason alone is why I hate with a passion the K series Rover Metro/100.
    No matter how good a new/sorted 1400 16v feels driving the whole of the underlying car remains frankly a let down with a clocks shared with the LDV vans of the time.

    I dont expect to sway anyone with my opinion or change theirs if they only see the K with rose tinted spectacles, in the same way that cars I loved and still do are undoubtedly utter shit. However its my opinion and I shall DIE ON THIS HILL.

     

     

    Over to you...

    You are correct that the build quality was rather poor on the interior. However, I came out of a Mk1 Corsa and into a Metro. It was chalk and cheese. The Metro handled, the Corsa didn't. The Metro had some go in it, The Corsa didn't. I was a driving instructor. All of my pupils preferred the Metro bar none. I agree that the car should have had a better design, been more modern and have been better put together, but overall, it was still a good car. As for the K series, again quality control was the problem. The Chinese managed to sort it out with the MG6. No reported problems there. Why couldn't Rover had done this ten, fifteen years sooner? I know they had little money available at the time, but a bit more on development, with better quality control and who knows, maybe they would still be with us today. 

  3. Great work on this. They were great at being 'a car'. Seen loads of late 90's Toyotas around lately. Don't know whether they are ULEZ refugees or people can no longer afford the HFM new shiny on the drive and have begged or borrowed Grandad's old car. 

  4. Unfortunately, they are, or have, reached that age where they ae worth very little. For us it is great as we can pick up a very nice working vehicle for not too much cash. I do see some cars up on ebay/facebook for serious money, and yes perhaps for the very best it is warranted, but for the rest, £1250-£2000 seems about it for a cherished, low mileage example with a full MoT. These are lovely cars. They ride beautifully. The diesels are reasonably good on fuel, but the V6, on full chat, well, let me tell you, it will make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck and give you goose bumps! Lovely. My V6, unfortunately succumbed to the dreaded tin worm. Hopefully my tourer will fare better. 

  5. What you can do with your LED light bar, I might have done this on my Landrover, is to put a 3-way switch on it. One way the LED lights are off, One way they come on with the main beam headlights, 😁 and in the other position they are on all the time. I just turn them off for the MoT. 

  6. On the topic of popularity, you might find that if a car has a starring, or significant role in a TV series or in a film, then that model will see a surge in popularity. [MK2 Jags, Morse. Granadas, Sweeney.] It is as always budget dependent. Decide what you want, then get the best you can afford. At the moment, the best value sports cars seem to be MGF/MGTF or Mazda MX5's. Modern enough to have all the luxuries, power steering, decent brakes, airbags ect without the outrageous sticker price of something older. 

×
×
  • Create New...