Back...but briefly

Post by **special** » 09 Jun 2005 05:03 pm

redline wrote:rather spend money on the volvo than drive a metro!!!!

oh oh now youve gone too far slaging off metros
metros are a great british car

(and no im not taking the piss )

Post by **SteveP** » 09 Jun 2005 05:06 pm

special wrote:(and no im not taking the piss )

Really?!

I had one for 3 months with 26k. After them three months it was p*ssing oil everywhere and it required £200 worth of welding to get through its next mot. Needless to say I got rid.

Post by **redline** » 09 Jun 2005 05:07 pm

the 6r4 was ok but most of the rest were a nightmare unlike the original mini which is still one of the greatest things on four wheels (no not that bmw rip off either )it all started to go wrong when they shrunk the maxi and called it a clubman LOL

Post by **Tom** » 09 Jun 2005 05:07 pm

special wrote:metros are a great british car (and no im not taking the piss )

Remove the 'great' bit and you'd be spot on.

The rear arches are about as rust resistant as a piece of scratched to hell metal in a downpour.

Post by **redline** » 09 Jun 2005 05:08 pm

I think Stuart just spelt great wrong , He of course meant grate LOL

Post by **special** » 09 Jun 2005 05:13 pm

having owned two metros i can and will say they are great cars funny how nobody slags off minis even though a metro is a mini in a different body shell
(its quite funny realy volvo owners slaging of a metro )

Post by **redline** » 09 Jun 2005 05:16 pm

the metro never had capture the charecter like the mini , I had a couple of metros years ago ( mg 1300 and a vanden plas ) but they just never seemed much fun as the old round eyed mini

Post by **Tom** » 09 Jun 2005 05:20 pm

Minis are pretty shit too! There! :p

In all seriousness, I don't like Metros because my grandad owned one at the time my mum was pregnant with me..She went into labour at my grandparent's house and they all jumped in to rush to hospital, but the bloody thing wouldn't start. Haha!

My rust comment only really applies to the Rover era of Metros, nearly every Rover Metro you see has rusty arches (not that the Austin version was a whole lot better).

340s are tons better than any Metro, anyway. I *think* it was almost the same price when new and you got a car that was more robust (ie, one that allowed you to hit stuff at over 10mph without breaking your neck), with a better engine, and tons more comfortable. What's wrong with bloody Volvos anyway?

Post by **redline** » 09 Jun 2005 05:22 pm

cant imagine you getting into one anyway now Tom ( unless you got back into the foetul position or had the sunroof open )LOL

Post by **Tom** » 09 Jun 2005 05:29 pm

Oh, God...that's a good point...on that subject, I had a traumatic experience last week, I got into the back of an Audi TT and I had to crouch right down..my head was nearly on the seat! Add to this the fact that the driver was a wanker..

Post by **SteveP** » 09 Jun 2005 05:45 pm

Well its a fact that the Metro is the only car I've owned that showed signs of breaking.. and only after a few months with such little mileage... surely that explains something

As Mick says.. atleast the Mini can get away with its god damn awful rust protection because it had character and charm (not that I actually like them). Give me a Hillman Imp anyday over a Mini!

Post by **petavius** » 09 Jun 2005 07:05 pm

Well I've decided I cant give up on my Volvo so i'm keeping him, but I'm having the metro too! ITS A FREE CAR!! Will give me time to mend the ovlov hopefully. By the way we have had 2 austin metros which were fine and this one is a rover 111 GSi - so far a tidy little motor.