MG-Rover.org Forums banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Going to look at a metro gti tonight, thinking of getting it instead of my 400.. what do you guys think?

My 400 is gettin on a bit now and has a few problems, thought that I would rather put a bit of money into a car that might be a bit more fun??

Do you think that it's a come down? Are they a lot less refined than the 400's?

This one has a low milage 1.4 mpi k series in so just basically same as mine but faster :bgrin2:

Needs the wheel arches doin tho which my local friendly body shop has given me a ballpark figure of around £300 for..

What do you ppl rekon?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,794 Posts
CRNeo said:
Do you think that it's a come down? Are they a lot less refined than the 400's?

This one has a low milage 1.4 mpi k series in so just basically same as mine but faster :bgrin2:

Needs the wheel arches doin tho which my local friendly body shop has given me a ballpark figure of around £300 for..

What do you ppl rekon?
Is it a come down / a lot less refined than the 400's?? To be fair, you will undoubtedly find the interior itself of the car a lot less appealing than that of the 400. It can also be quite cramped if you are carrying people in the back.
Fortunately the (front) seats are quite comfortable and a 3 hour drive in a Metro/100 is easily doable.
As for the ride, it really does depend on what the state of the suspension on the metro is like - if its riding properly it will be good enough over bumps, around corners, etc. (although you will probably find the 400 ride still a bit more 'refined' in some ways).

Of course it will be a bit nippier than the 400/45 due to weight. Depending on what you want from the car will depend on whether you think its a step down or not - to me it is a step down, especially if you actually do a lot of fast road / motorway driving as the 400 will be a fair bit more settled. Around the city though and getting through tight squeezes, the metro will be a touch better, although in my opinion doesn't handle speed bumps brilliantly.

As for the rust, yeah they all rust at the back - at least the front has some wheel arch protection. You may still wanna try and get a look underneath the whole of the car body though.

Oh, forgot to add, there is no steering wheel position or height adjustment - so if you are of a non-standard height, size or shape you can only adjust the seat to get a 'good' position. Worse still, if you are tall your head will be a bit higher than the tiny people the car was aimed at and you may need to dip and kink your head at traffic lights to see them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Really? safety... maybe yeah, comfort, those gti seats look well comfy!

Which 200 mk3?? The only mk3 that wud come close performance wise would be the vi and I can't afford one!

I thought it might be quite kool, seen a few of these when I went on track day with my m8 and they were keepin up with his chipped fabia vRS pretty well!

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Vincero said:
As for the ride, it really does depend on what the state of the suspension on the metro is like - if its riding properly it will be good enough over bumps, around corners, etc. (although you will probably find the 400 ride still a bit more 'refined' in some ways).

Of course it will be a bit nippier than the 400/45 due to weight. Depending on what you want from the car will depend on whether you think its a step down or not - to me it is a step down, especially if you actually do a lot of fast road / motorway driving as the 400 will be a fair bit more settled. Around the city though and getting through tight squeezes, the metro will be a touch better, although in my opinion doesn't handle speed bumps brilliantly.
I find my 400 is sh1te round corners ... it's uncomfy rolls like a boat on national boat rolling day and I don't feel comfy doin more than 80 on the motorway in the 400 anyway...

Also my 400 just feels tired now, thought that a perky low mileage metro gti might be the answer for a year or so

tbh I'm after a car I can use every day to do the 8 mile commute to work and back over the fun country roads, and occationally pop up the lakes or up to gretna once in a while to my SOs caravan in resonable comfort for the odd blast down the country lanes round mine, the odd track day and something with out some of the problems my 400s got
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,813 Posts
Metro crash safety is very poor. High risk of head injuries in a collision.

I'd stick with your 400, it looks in good nick from your sig, is much more roomier (for 5 adults) and can easily move larger objects / luggage.

I think you can do more things to a 400 and you've probably got a lot of luxury items compared to the 100. (ie sunroof, electric windows, airbag??)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
G13SJC said:
Metro crash safety is very poor. High risk of head injuries in a collision.

I'd stick with your 400, it looks in good nick from your sig, is much more roomier (for 5 adults) and can easily move larger objects / luggage.

I think you can do more things to a 400 and you've probably got a lot of luxury items compared to the 100. (ie sunroof, electric windows, airbag??)
My car looks in good nick, the interior is spotless and the body is ok... however the engines done 107,000 miles now ... the suspension is prob orignal and crap, something at the front is still bent, despite having the sub-frames and the steering rack replaced so I have set back in the near side wheel which causes pulling to the left and tyre wear, I need 2 new tyres, the front discs are warped, I think the front pipe is blowing and me lekky windows are playin up
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,794 Posts
You can get a electric windows in a Metro and indeed there is a sun-roof (indeed it's perfectly named - i just lets the sun flood in - you may wanna put some film on it if you get one). I think there may be a few late Metro's that have an airbag - driver only - but few and far between I think.

I can see you have an older R400, not the 400/45/ZS version. Can't comment on the ride of that car. But dont worry, the Metro does roll around a bit also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I thought it would be a fun car and was all for getting it ... you lot have put me right off now!!

I thought that the Gti might be a bit of a retro classic a rapid fun little machine?

As for the sunroof, I always leave the blind open on my 400 coz I like a bright cabin!
 

·
Registered
rover_45
Joined
·
11,628 Posts
A Metro GTI will see of a 400 in the corners no problem. The anti-role bars and front dampers sort the handling out and on my 1990 H reg one you could not get the dam thing to role in a corner at all. The crash safety of the Metro is poor but as is the MK2 200 and MK1 400. These cars wear built and designed in the same era just remember that. As for extra kit you can get just about anything for a Metro/100. I have a list of stuff that includes,

Heated seats,
Leather seats,
Puddle lights,
Exterior temperature sensor,
Electric windows all round,
Electric sunroof,
Air-Con,
PAS (Used for the ex Mobility cars),
Electric rear blind just like a 75,

There is plenty you can do with a Metro/100 and they make pretty good cars and are heaps of fun. The seats are the same as a MK2 200 and MK1 400 with different runners on them in most of the cars. If you test drive it and you don't like it look else where but I don't think you will be disappointed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,794 Posts
CRNeo said:
I thought it would be a fun car and was all for getting it ... you lot have put me right off now!!

I thought that the Gti might be a bit of a retro classic a rapid fun little machine?

As for the sunroof, I always leave the blind open on my 400 coz I like a bright cabin!
Yeah, I have to side with Sejin, take it for a spin and see what you think.

Remember though, you did ask what people thought of one vs. the other - did you really expect people to choose a metro over a 400 purely based on things like interior, space, toys, comfort, etc.??

The metro is a fine car for running around town in (although I think it could use better brakes sometimes) and will be much more economical in terms of insurance, fuel, tax and most of the time any problems will be trivial.
 

·
Registered
rover_45
Joined
·
11,628 Posts
I have yet to see anybody take a Metro/100 on a test drive and be disappointed. They always bring a smile to my face when I drive one. That is not often as my sons got the wifes old one and he's always out. The 1.4 is seen as the worst engine in the range as everybody says the 1.1 suites the car better but I have to disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,906 Posts
I think theyre great cars!!! Get one!! Just watch out for the rot hotspots. Get the best you can, sort it then rip out the interior panels and waxoyl everywhere!!! Then take the wheels off and get it high on axlestands and use another load of waxoyl underneath and in all the wheelarches!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,794 Posts
Sejin26 said:
I have yet to see anybody take a Metro/100 on a test drive and be disappointed. They always bring a smile to my face when I drive one. That is not often as my sons got the wifes old one and he's always out. The 1.4 is seen as the worst engine in the range as everybody says the 1.1 suites the car better but I have to disagree.
Yeah, I have driven both and own a R100 1.1 and believe me, the 1.4 is much better in the car - anyone who says the 1.1 suits the car better probably either can't smoothly control the power in such a small car or is a mpg penny pincher. It's not so much the extra power (which is always handy), it is more a case of it flows a bit better - the extra torque lets you get away with a lot more and you can use the lower revs a bit more. I only got to drive 1.4 8v version so can't comment on a 16v gti model, but either way it was more than spritely enough.
The 1.1 is good (and makes a nice noise for such a small engine) but is a bit underpowered at times, even in a small car like the metro - I dread to think what the 200 1.1 was like.
 

·
Registered
mg_zs
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
The 1.4 gti is quick and the handling is better in fact it feels like a bigger car in fairness, still you have to drive it with your feet in the passenger footwell because the pedals are so offset:rotflmao: or did they do that so us tall folks can drive it? better close this before my wife sees it, she has had a couple of vitaras now but still got a soft spot for the metros, mind you her first MG really nice black one ;got written off when the brakes failed 24hrs after quick fit did them and she ran in the back of a (couldnt have been a cardboard box could it? oh no) volvo which suffered no identifiable damage?? I kid you not

IVAN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
Why not go for a 200 coupe? They have comfy seats, leccy windows and best of all the targa roof. They can also fit 4 adults without too much trouble and handle very well. There are a few low mileage 220 nasp's going on ebay for £12-£1500? They also look light years better than 400's and metros.

hth
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top