The Rover Metro

M

y father had several Rover Metros, all leased for about six months, and all of which had the 1·4 litre engine, when the Rover Metro was deemed to be the best small car money could buy. Indeed, I learnt to drive in Rover Metro GTa, which at the time, was quite something for a 17 year old.

The first two Metros that I drove were the basic GTa model: powered by the 8V version of Rover’s K-series donk. These engines had a carburettor rather than fuel injection, and a manual choke, but with close gearing they had excellent acceleration. The suspension was upgraded from lesser Metro models and they sat on low profile, 185 width tyres, they had lots of grip - just perfect for the inexperienced DervMan going around a corner a little quicker than he had first envisaged.

The next Metro I drove was one of the limited edition GTa 16v models. Rover introduced these when it was getting rid of the single point fuel injection, 16 valve 1·4 litre engines that were originally in the GTi 16v model. They put a cat on, which saw power from 95 PS to 90 PS, and retained the GTa’s suspension (rather than use the upgraded GTi’s settings) and tyres. Despite only having another 15 PS compared to the ordinary GTa, the GTa 16v models felt a lot quicker. You could squeal the tyres changing up from first to second, and again going from second to third.

The next Metro was a 1·4 Si automatic. The Si was the replacement for the GTa, and essentially had the same equipment, tyres and suspension, but had a single point, fuel injected 8v 1·4 litre K-series donk. The automatic used Rover’s CVT gearbox, which made it a rather unusual experience. In the Metro, you had the usual automatic positions of Park, Reverse, Neutral and Drive, but also Low. Put it into Drive, accelerate gently, and the revs rise to around 2,000 rpm. Then the car picks up speed. Push down harder and the revs rise a little bit more, up to about 4,000 rpm. However, put the transmission into Low, and the revs rise a lot quicker (to just over 5,000 rpm from memory) and you accelerate a lot quicker, too. Unfortunately, drive the CVT Metro with any sort of enthusiasm, and your economy drops to the low 30s - 25% less than the manual.

The final Metro I drove was a 1·4 Si automatic, which drove essentially the same as the old GTa, except you didn’t have to faff about with a choke when the engine was cold. That said, the engine lost a little of the zesty, grunty character that the GTa of old had.

During my stint with the Metro, I toyed with the idea of leasing one myself, and the Rover dealer at Boston let me borrow a 1·1S for an afternoon. Despite only producing 60 PS rather than 75, the 1·1 is a good little engine - willing and flexible. I also tried the 1·4 litre diesel (the same engine as is used in the Peugeot 106 and Citroën AX), which wasn’t as impressive as in the 106 (but just as economical).

Overall, the Metro is a good car to drive at a time when Ford’s Mark Three Fiesta and Vauxhall’s Corsa had sloppy handling, coarse, rough and limp engines, and very little to entice the driver to enjoy the car.

I like the Metro’s sweet, gutsy 1·4 litre K-series engines, all models have good fuel economy and drive well.

But I don’t like the poor rear space, the name, the CVT’s thirst, and the fact that they rust. Badly.