The final nail was the very poor crash (in comparison to it's competitors) test that was made public

 

Do you mean discontinued, or discounted?

 

As Chris T says, the Euro NCAP test results were shockingly bad (still the worst car for safety they have ever tested), meaning sales plummeted and the decision was made to finally pension the car off.

 

You have to remember that the Metro was a bit long in the tooth and had been around for quite some time. It had many facelifts and was at the end of it's life.

At one point the Metro was a class leading car and MGR had plenty of time to work on a replacement but didn't.

I think it was a mistake not to replace it as it sold in good volumes but Rover seemed to want to go up market and had decided the profit margins for small cars were too tight.

I was in a Rover dealership once when an elderly couple came in and were keen to replace their Metro with a similar Rover product. The saleman had a torid time trying to convince them to buy a R200 which was clearly not what they wanted.

I wondered how much repeat business Rover lost. The P4 tried to fill the gap left in the product range with the dismal City Rover but the game was up by this point.

 

The elderly couple probably didn't want it because of the price. It was similar money to Escorts. Very expensive for a supermini.

 

It was well past its sell by date when it did eventually go.

 

No doubt about it. The basic shell dates back to 1977 and the ADO88 prototype

It was only kept on as the R100 because of the decision to put the R3 (Bubble 200) in the next catagory, even though as a supermini it would have cleaned up.

 

Poor crash test, you couldnt have power steering or aircon. Very old design - end of

 

For some reason the UK never got air con or electric sunroof. Europe Japan and rest of world did on export models!!

Not much room though with air con
http://www.d1.dion.ne.jp/~dewey/100/japanese/01_e.html

 

R3 was supposed to replace the metro and then presumably the hatch and boot versions of hhr would have supplied the 200 and 400 as they did with the r8

 

Yep absolutely, that was the original plan.

 

Metro should have been replaced with a new car of about the same size, but all it ever had were face lifts. The 1990 (ish?) conversion to K series engine and revised suspension transformed the car, but the old body shell held it back.

There were many plans to do a proper job of replacing it, but the investment was never approved.

The 200 was far too big to replace it. They tried to say it could, because there was no alternative at the time, but it was hopeless.

 

Disagree, it was up against the Mk3 Fiesta, the Uno, etc. With the exception of the Corsa/Nova all were roughly the same size as the R3. Cars have continually got bigger. The Metro was too small.

 

You would probably stand more of chance being fired into the wall at 40mph without the car....

 

Why on earth did they ever submit the car for NCAP testing in the first place :daft:

Regards

John

 

Don't forget as well that some within Rover Group saw the successor to the Mini as also siring a Metro replacement e.g. the 5 door Spiritual Concept.

That said, early sketches of the 200 Mk 2 actually have 100 on the bootlid and my understanding was always that this car was scheduled to launch as a 100.

Interestingly, there have been suggestions that a 5 door Metro will be launched when the next MINI launches and BMW have retained the Metro moniker.

Regards

John

 

I agree the 200 was far too big to replace it OK we now have supermini's which are approching that sort of size but at the time it far too bigger jump, not only in terms of size but more particularly in price as the 200 was priced as an Escort Sector Car.

Given the car bodyshell was primarly the same car as introduced in 1980 its hardly surprising it didnt fare too well in the NCAP. I guess if you ncap tested other cars of that era they probably wouldnt do too well either. Rover should should have been given the Money for a complete new Model in late 80's but unfortunately that didnt happen.

 

I agree the 200 was far too big to replace it OK we now have supermini's which are approching that sort of size but at the time it far too bigger jump, not only in terms of size but more particularly in price as the 200 was priced as an Escort Sector Car.

.

This is true. New model Corsas, Fiestas, Clios and the like are NOT small cars. They are bigger than Maxis were, and they were seen as a large family car!

 

I would have been interesting to see how the fiesta and nova would have done it the ncap.

The metro / 100 was a great little car, its a shame that the ncap finished it off, but to be honest R.Group should have gone with the 200 as the new small car instead of stretching it out to the 90s as the 100.

 

Fiesta Mk3 would be better than the Metro through NCAP. The core was retained through to the Mk4 and 5, and they are 3 star cars.

The Nova had already gone when the 100 was put through NCAP.

 

In fairness though, every majoe manufacturer was cutting the tripe out of prices at the same time, as a result of HMG's investigation into the motor trade.

Regards

John

 

In fairness though, every majoe manufacturer was cutting the tripe out of prices at the same time, as a result of HMG's investigation into the motor trade.

That I think is a very important point. I bought a 9 month old 216si in 1997 for £10000, and 4 years later a similar spec 25 was not much more than that new

A little off topic I know, but certainly the Government virtually ordering manufacturers to cut their prices was not a helpful factor when Pheonix took control of Rover.

 

i think they should revamp the metro gti & r100 by putting a better choice of 16v engine fitted,
basic models 1.4 16v like the metro gti did and then do special models with the 1.8 & 1.8 vvc engine fitted like i have. i think it would be a great move for rover to do this as it will attract the the people who just buy the saxo's and pug's

very happy to be knocked down on this point.

 

i think they should revamp the metro gti & r100 by putting a better choice of 16v engine fitted,
basic models 1.4 16v like the metro gti did and then do special models with the 1.8 & 1.8 vvc engine fitted like i have. i think it would be a great move for rover to do this as it will attract the the people who just buy the saxo's and pug's

I think it was a mistake to kill off the GTi too. By the mid 90's, hot hatches weren't selling as well as they had done primarily because of rocketing insurance so I don't know how much of a market there would have been. Rover was struggling to match VVC demand with supply at the time as well which would have written that option right off but a standard 1.6 or 1.8 would have been brilliant.

 

The Roverised Metro my be seen as a success, but Imagine what sort of success it would have been if it had been completely re-skinned. Just look at the Saxo and 106, they were not killed off until 2002.

Another failing is not having a replacement lined up for the Metro/100, part of this I guess is due to Rover and BMW being slightly confused what the brand should represent.

 

The Roverised Metro my be seen as a success, but Imagine what sort of success it would have been if it had been completely re-skinned.

And of course, there were prototypes built...

http://www.aronline.co.uk/r6xdevf.htm

 

Another great failing was not to successfully replace the R8. The HH-R is by no means a bad car, but even if it were priced correctly, it still somehow lacked the showroom appeal of the R8. I'm sure the R8 could have lived on a few more years. Subtle changes could have kept it's 'wedge' like appearance up to date. Just take a look at Peugeot's conservatively styled 306 and 406 , they lived well into 2002.

IMO had hit the mark with the R8 and 600. Models such as the SEi , standard alloys , metallic paint and half leather, what more could you want?

 

And with HHR, despite its high price, it was very poorly equipped in the early days.

 

True, IMO rear head rests should have been standard on the Si. I also feel the range of colours was a little weak, I really didn't help the HH-Rs appearance. The problem with the HH-R is that it never really looked like a premium product, it was purely a standard hatch with a grill slapped in the front. No careful detailing, thoughtful trim etc.. to make it feel and look like a premium product.

 

To me, this whole story is a total tragedy.

Let's look at it - Rover had a successful car in the 1990 Metro. OK, it needed a rebody, but in the first couple of years, sales were excellent and it coped.

A few years later, they have the R3 ready to launch. A perfect replacement for the Metro, arriving at exactly the right time as sales began to fall off. If this had been launched as a direct replacement, Rover would have cleaned up - no question. The old Metro could have been facelifted (ala R100), reduced in price and continued as a budget option.

Instead, we get the whole business of pricing the R3 as a 200 replacement and continuing the Metro as the 100 series. To me, this is what ultimately finished Rover off. The board members who authorised this action should be shot. What a sodding shame.

 

A few years later, they have the R3 ready to launch. A perfect replacement for the Metro, arriving at exactly the right time as sales began to fall off. If this had been launched as a direct replacement, Rover would have cleaned up - no question

No, it definately would not!

As I pointed out previously, at the time of launch the R3 was similar size to the Escort, Astra et al.

There was absolutely no chance of it taking significant sales away from the likes of the Fiesta, Corsa, 205 etc, because the buyers in that sector would not have bought a bigger car.

R3 was definately in the 200 market at that time, it is only since that car models seem to have moved up a grade in size.

Indeed, sales started to drop off rapidly after the Metro was discontinued and Rover tried to sell the R3 as a Metro class car. It was too big for anyone wanting a Metro, so they wouldn't have one, whilst those looking for a larger car ignored the R3, because Rover were telling them it was Metro sized :irked:

What they needed was a Metro replacement such as the concept susequently shown at the Motor Show (can't remember which year)

 

Agreed. If the styling and equipment had been kept up to date, and it had been made safer, I would have bought another Metro. I prefer them to the Fiesta's of the same era, really. The Metro used to make me smile when I drove it - the Fiesta just feels like a tin can, a device for getting from A to B.

Rover lost a great deal of custom when they killed of the R100, in my opinion.

 

The Metro is one of those great ifs. Had it been rebodied in 1990 it probably could have survived NCAP and at least continued until a decade later. Plus it could have commanded better prices and profits. Also its sales figures even in its twilight were a substantial cash generator which BMW forgot to replace.

 

R3 wasn't that big. Look at today's latest superminis - they're huge in comparison to the Metro.

I think if the Metro was rebodied in 1990 then it would have been a different story certainly - but I can't help but feel that R3 offered them a way out that they didn't take.

 

If you look at the Astra which was contemporary with the R3 at launch, it is very much the same size externally. The Astra is much more cramped internally - I speak from experience of both.

JohnH - there is no point trying to compare the R3 to todays so-called superminis. At the time the R3 was launched in 1996 they were similar in size to the Metro ie. smaller!

I certainly agree that the R3/200 was overpriced, as i recall it was over expensive even for an Escort/Astra sector car. All part of BMW having ideas for Rovers market position that were unattainable.

 

If you look at the Astra which was contemporary with the R3 at launch, it is very much the same size externally. The Astra is much more cramped internally - I speak from experience of both.

JohnH - there is no point trying to compare the R3 to todays so-called superminis. At the time the R3 was launched in 1996 they were similar in size to the Metro ie. smaller!
.

The fact remains R3 was slated as the Metro replacement. Concept sketches exist of an R3 wearing 100 plates. HHR comes in hatch and saloon forms - just like the R8 it replaced...
This from AROnline

Rover agonised over how to replace the Metro because on one hand, the limited profitability of superminis and the fact that the company were producing approximately 500,000 cars per year meant that it would be desirable to produce primarily bigger, more profitable cars. By 1992, Rover were deep in the throes of devising a viable supermini strategy: they were developing R3 on one hand, but at the same time with that car’s slow move upmarket, something needed to be done about the direct replacement of the Metro. Did it need to be replaced? The finance men argued against, the strategists argued in favour, talking in terms of maximising market share.

In the end, the decision made was to replace the Metro with the Mini replacement that was in the early throes of development, move the R3 into the Golf/Escort market and the HHR into the Mondeo/Cavalier market.

 

I acquired an R3 216 about a year after they were launched, having previously run an MG Metro for 8 years. My impression was that the 216 seemed huge in comparison with the Metro.

It doesn't really matter what Rover had slated it for - they were thrashing around trying to fill the gap the Metro would leave without replacing it.

R3 would not have worked, because it was too big for what most Metro customers wanted. After Metro production stopped, most moved to other makes, not to the R3.

 

I acqyured an R3 217 abouy a year after they were launched, having previously run an MG Metro for 8 years. My impression was that the 216 seemed huge in comparison with the Metro.

It doesn't really matter what Rover had slated it for - they were thrashing around trying to fill the gap the Metro would leave without replacing it.

R3 would not have worked, because it was too big for what most Metro customers wanted. After Metro production stopped, most moved to other makes, not to the R3.

217? Thats a rare one

I ran a Metro for years, then moved to an R8, then an R3. My first thought when I get into the R3 was 'OMG this feels just like the Metro '

Bigger, plusher, faster, better, but still nippy, and it still had the same sort of feel to it.

 

In the end, the decision made was to replace the Metro with the Mini replacement that was in the early throes of development, move the R3 into the Golf/Escort market and the HHR into the Mondeo/Cavalier market.

This strategy actually could have worked, if:

1. The Mini replacement was based around the Spiritual Type concept of a Mini One (direct replacement for the Mini) and a Mini Too (direct replacement for the Metro)
2. HHR was a better, more premium product able to command a premium over the Escort / Focus, Astra and Golf and therefore justify Mondeo levels of pricing
3. The lifespan of R3 was limited to no more than 5 years from launch
4. A 600 replacement appeared no later than late 1998

However, once BMW gotten involved... it was effectively game over. Their ambitions for Rover were radically different from Rovers and any such product development programme was at odds with BMW's ambitions for the company.

A shame, because between 1989 and 1995, it appeared as if Rover Group was literally on the verge of greatness. Ten years later and it was all over

Regards

John