|
I'm looking for a 1st car for a 17 year old, just seen a austin metro g reg, 50,000 miles service history, tax & mot until feb 2008 for £200, are there anythings to look for? there is a little bit of surface rust on the roof gutter but it is only £200.
|
Probably the worst small car ever made. Unsafe, rusty, self-destruct engine etc. Almost anything else would be much better.
659.
|
still a bargain though,its even got £80 worth of tax
i would buy buy buy and scrap when something expensive breaks
|
|
|
|
£200 for a banger, with tax & test, isn't anything to worry about whatever you buy!
Metro will have oil leaks, a horrid gearbox, which won't be anywhere as precise as later/other makes, so perhaps not too reassuring for a 1'st time driver.
But to get used to driving, it's as good a starter motor as any.
VB
|
|
Plus give very good experience on how to work on a car. Even if he scraps it at the next MoT he'll get something for it.
|
|
|
|
I drove my parents G reg 1.0 Metro when learning to drive. Nothing special, but it does the job. Having a choke may not be great for a 1st time driver though. My parents had rust, and the engine died years ago.
|
|
Sorry to hear about your rusty parents.
|
Sorry to hear about your rusty parents.
wonder if they had a rusty bin? too :=(*
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there, I have had more than 100 of these (honestly) to buy, do up, and sell in the last 15 years. I have had superb examples, and nightmares.I feel that they are now to old to buy. Have you thought of a fiesta ? Cheers. Graham.
|
There's lots of choice in that segment. I bought a Nova 1.0 for £180 with 12 months MoT. Honest John quite likes them.
If you'll drive a Metro, what about a Skoda Faviorit? Dirt cheap, and not bad, with plenty of VW bits.
Another car to consider is a Fiat Uno 999 cc. Engine is quite good if it gets the coolant changes, and if the cambelt goes, there's no chance of damage.
|
|
|
|
Why would you want to put a 17 year old in a potential death trap? I like Metros, one day I'll own a 6R4. But the thought of having anything to do with the mess that will result if the 17 yo crashes in a Metro would lead to permanent insomnia. Spend 3k and buy a Corsa, Polo or Yaris (really!)
I looked at buying a Mini for a 17 yo, minimum mods were a cage, seats and harnesses but the insurers were not interested in safety improvements.
|
Why would you want to put a 17 year old in a potential death trap?
God forbid it might teach them the art of safe and defensive driving.
Tsk. They'll be putting engines in those bicycle things next, you mark my words, grrrr, smell of wee, etc.
|
|
>My parents had rust - so do all parents. My daughter thinks I was born old and rusty!
|
|
|
">God forbid it might teach them the art of safe and defensive driving.<"
I can't recall the phrase "defensive driving" having any relevance when I was 17, so what's changed?
">you mark my words, grrrr, smell of wee, etc<"
I like the cut of your jib MissTW, you'll go far on this messageboard.
|
I can't recall the phrase "defensive driving" having any relevance when I was 17 so what's changed?
So you ceased to learn anything about driving from the moment your last driving lesson finished? Nice one.
|
"> last driving lesson finished<"
I had three driving lessons, none of which featured defensive driving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No such thing as a safe car, despite what all the doom moongers tell you.
Great for a learner and no street cred so no incentive to go quicker than anyone else etc.
ideal as a learning tool, scrap if anything expensive goes wrong, cheap and cheerful until then.
|
"> No such thing as a safe car, despite what all the doom moongers tell you.<"
Have you crashed in a Metro? I have. It was quite worrying. The Jag that pulled out in front of me was untouched.
So it's Jags for 17 year olds then.
|
And a jag versus an Arctic?
Its a learner, beginning to drive remember. Not a passed the test racer !
There is no such thing as a safe car. You can be killed in ANY type of car.
Defensive driving is far safer for you than all the safety features if you drive dangerously etc.
Learning to drive properly should involve being aware of th other people (treat them all as idiots) on the road and avoiding them. If that means stopping or slowing and allowing the "wrong" person to get in front etc; then so be it!
Good luck on his/her driving career too.
Oh and I have rallied in a metro and survived ok !
|
"> And a jag versus an Arctic?<"
I would drive the Jag south and rely upon the warming effect of the Gulf Stream.
|
|
|
">Oh and I have rallied in a metro and survived ok !<"
If it was a proper rally then you would have benefited from a roll cage, seats, harnesses, crash helmets, fire extinguishers, marshalls, closed roads with no Jags appearing from driveways and so on.
I trust that anyone who buys a standard Metro for a 17 yo understands the concept of negligence.
|
|
|
And a jag versus an Arctic?
SNIP !
Unnecessary quoting of post being replied to removed.
See www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=42612 for more details
I agree, the other problem is the damage and destruction that can be caused to other things. With a safer car the person can just as easily (maybe easier) end up killing somebody and have to live with it for the rest of their lives, or maybe even go to prison. People should be taught to drive responsibly!
|
|
|
|
|
op spend 500 squillion buy your own factory and then the learner can have a different car everyday
or buy the metro
if its got this far then its ideal ,a real car to learn in,it will set the learner up for life.
hardly going to be traversing motorways on its learning soujerns is it so multiple airbags and t-o-t-r cd is not important
|
I would check if the car is structurally sound - if it is buy. If there is rust (and there will be because it's a Metro) this could weaken the structure enough to make it very unsafe in the event that there was an accident.
I would go for something more modern personally - just for the sake of safety.
|
">weaken the structure enough to make it very unsafe in the event that there was an accident.<"
don't you mean "it would make it even unsafer than very unsafe in the event that there was accident" ?
|
|
|
|
Plenty of people my age owned early 80s Mini Metros after passing their test (the holy grail being the Vanden Plas with velour seats...). Yes they were rust buckets but they're perfectly adequate for teaching the basics of suburban driving.
Not everyone can afford several thousand for a nearly new supermini. In my day, if you were lucky, you got a 10 year old car costing about a grand to cut your teeth on after you passed your test.
|
|
I haven't considered a fiesta or skoda because he actually wants a austin mini, but the metro belongs to somone who's post i deliver. There a elderly couple, i know the cars been looked after serviced every year, is reliable because i've seen them driving it for the past 4 years.
|
|
|
">Not everyone can afford several thousand for a nearly new supermini.<"
There should be a minimum pricing level to keep those poor types off the public highway and onto the railways where they belong.
|
It's a dire car. But for £200 it might be the least dire car out there.
If you're really not willing or able to spend more (and good superminis are expensive precisely because of this constituency for whom insurance costs are everything) then it's cheap enough to be worth a punt.
|
Offer £150. Go to £175.
There are more "modern" cars out there for the £200.
If he gets it, try to stop him doing what every first car owner does - attaching well marketed rubbish sold as car accessories to every corner at great expense to himself. It's a cheap car and he should show it the respect it deserves
|
Surely the Metro shouldn't be too dire.
Even if it's a gearbox-in-sump job it may be all right, and parts used to be cheap, upgraded ones too.
But weren't late Metros separate-gearbox arrangements? Quite decent even? Perhaps I'm wrong.
As for the alleged flimsiness of the thing, well, depends on yr teenager really. If he's a kamikaze get him a tank and let others bear the brunt... If he has any sense he'll understand and behave accordingly.
|
|
G reg could be one of the last A series or first K series, a K Series 1.1 or 1.4 Metro was a fine car in its day, ggod to drive, fun handling, not "safe" by modern standards though I remember reading that in the 80's a Metro was likely to fair better in a prang than a 205.
|
|
Why not get it (but offer a little less), after all, it has T&T until Feb '08! And besides, it will be something a little different from all those boring Saxos, Corsas, Clios, Fiest zzzzzzzzzz
|
In its day ( 1980, or thereabouts) it was considered a safe car. Car design has improved beyond all recognition since then.
Watch out for terrible corrosion in the rear wheel arches of the Metro.
|
I recall pictures of a crash test on a Metro, that was new enough to have a driver's air bag fitted. In a frontal impact the body distorted so much, and so quickly, that the dummy's head missed the inflated airbag. Not for my children than you!
|
|
G reg could be one of the last A series or first K series a K Series 1.1 or 1.4 Metro was a fine car in its day ggod to drive fun handling not "safe" by modern standards though I remember reading that in the 80's a Metro was likely to fair better in a prang than a 205.
No it won't - G reg is definately A+.
K-series version didn't arrive till J reg (or poss *very* late H)
|
anything costing £200 and 17 years old is unsafe by todays standards.
but a metro is more unsafe than pretty much every other car of that vintage.
|
No it won't - G reg is definately A+. K-series version didn't arrive till J reg (or poss *very* late H)
The K Series was introduced in '90, G reg was Aug '89 to Jul '90 so I reckon very early K Series would have been on a G plate.
|
|
Thanks PU, we were looking at the same place at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I once bought a 1986 model 9 mths old & sold it 18mths later before it ruined me. Apart from the mechanical frailty, my overriding impression was the rust in such a young car.
|
K Series launched May 1990, G plate one here:
www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?r6storyf.htm
|
I can tell all of you nay-sayers have never been in a Perouda Nipper...
Foolishly I went out in it with a friend WITHOUT putting on my Arai and some of Frank Thomas' finest beforehand. :-O
|
|
Don't laugh, did you know that as paint is now a structural item, any car less than 3 days old has to be considered as unsound if it has not been waxed on the hour every hour by a team of highly trained nubile Brazilians?
|
|
|
|
K Series launched May 1990 G plate one here: www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?r6storyf.htm
That's a Rover Metro, not an Austin Metro.
|
|
|
|
|
for a few quid more, you could get something decent:
cgi.ebay.co.uk/1997-RENAULT-MEGANE-RT-1-6-RED_W0QQ...m
|
For a learner?
You ever tried insurance quotes for learners?
|
For a learner? You ever tried insurance quotes for learners?
Sure have. My first car was a Megane. Insurance was £700 for the 1.6 while still on provisional licence. Insurance group 4 for the 1.4 I linked to.
The horrid rustbucket that the OP wants to buy is group 3. I wouldn't expect insurance to be any cheaper than the Megane, as I suspect the Metro attracts more 17-year-old drivers and hence has more accidents.
But as you say, insurance cost is important - when a single month's insurance can cost more than the value of the car, I'd find the best quote before buying one.
|
The man himself wrote in his Car by Car Breakdown:-
What's Good
Decent new 'K' series 1.1 and 1.4 engines. End-on gearbox and up to 5-speeds at last. Front-end rust traps largely eliminated. Better built than Austin Metro and generally reliable. Simple CVT auto worked well - far less troublesome than Ford and Fiat CVTs. Comfortable. I've done 450 miles in a day in a Metro CVT. Decent fuel consumption.
and I bought a 3yr old one in Dec.97 with 13K recorded. (Mobility ) Just over 9 years later clock now at 75K.
For me this has been a useful motor. Let me down once on the way to my daughters wedding with dodgy fuse box. CVT. required a new bearing at 40K cost fitted by local FETA member £220 inc.vat.
Was going to replace it with a Picanto but bought QxMan's Nissan QX 2L auto instead.
Metro is on the pavement now with For Sale ticket and all detail as I write.MOT 04/12/07 Tax till 30/10/07
Was Happy Motoring for me + SWMBO . Used its carrying capacity to good effect when refurbishing bungalow I bought early in 1998
Phil I
|
En passant.
Qxman's description of his vehicle did not do it justice. I have never seen a more immaculate car than his.
It could be described as better than new.
Even Happier Motoring Phil I
|
this metro could be a 1300 a series and as such is worth many dolla to right man
car free
hope youve bought it OP
|
|
The A+ is a good engine to cut mechanical teeth on, at least you could get an understanding about how cars worked without resorting to the Diagnostic port !
|
I can still recall the pain of working on a Mini distributor.
And that stupid little hose.
But the delights of making good progress through twisties more than made up for it. Roundabouts with good approach visibility were best, flick-flack and that's it, no need to reduce revs. Mini pick-ups were even better, light weight and that rubber cone suspension, has there ever been anything main stream that was nearer to a go-kart?
|
Can not resist adding that the metro was the worst car I have ever had the misfortune to own, and from new after just being introduced I had it for only 6 months and relieved to be rid of it.
|
|
The car you are thinking of buying is a rustridden deathtrap, the poor design of which has claimed many lives. For a 17y/o who may be more likely than any other age group to have an accident, it is perhaps not a good car in which to drive, unless you believe in the concept of natural selection and want to see how he gets on?
|
On the other hand, you won't find many cars with lots of tax and test left that a 17 year old can also insure for £200. Also, they're not really much worse than any other small cars of equivalent age and design, people should bear in mind that when the metro was eventually tested by NCAP in 1997 (?) it was MUCH older in design than any of the compeition, that's why it appeared to be such a deathtrap, not because it has always been an inherently bad design. I was ferried about as a toddler in the 1980's in a Metro HLS (with velour interior) and it I don't think that my parents are monsters for taking such a chance.
If you can't stretch your budget, I would just say to go for it, you know that it's as good as it can get for it's age and model type.
The best soloution of course would be to stretch the budget and buy a newer and safer car and pay the little extra to insure it, but then money doesn't grow on trees unless you're in the Carbon Offsetting business so this may well not be an option. :-)
Blue
|
|
The point is that there are now much better (safer) cars to be bought. OK they might cost more than £200 but how much is a 17 yr old worth?
|
The car you are thinking of buying is a rustridden deathtrap the poor design of
>>
Car is mot"d until next feb so we have feb/ mar /april /may/ lets assume the mot was done on the 7th of feb then you can make a complaint to vosa that the car should not have got a pass 3 months ago if it was a rustridden deathtrap see section 5 on the reverse of your mot for clarification.
There wont be an mot station in the land that will pass a deathtrap anymore, they have far far too much to lose, the new co machines alone they have to buy cost nearly £4 grand so they are hardly likely to pass something just for a quick £20 bung.
|
|
For my money, at that end of the market I'd go for a Fiat Uno 1.0ie; that 999cc 'FIRE' engine is a gem, power delivery like an electric motor and if you believe what you read on the web, is 'non-interference' so won't get totalled if the timing belt lets go. I had one of these as a stop-gap car about 4 years ago, it ran perfectly through a very cold Scottish winter and never let me down; dirt-cheap to run and surprisingly spacious too. AIUI the bodies were galvanised and the fuel injection/ignition systems are Bosch, so no worries with dodgy electrics like Fiats of old. Keep an eye on the "attached" stuff though like sumps, fuel tanks etc. as they rust before the bodies.
|
I have nothing but praise for the later (K engined) Metros.
Two friends had them when we were at college. One was a 1.4 SL which put up with all manner of outrageous abuse until the front of it was literally run over by a skip lorry when parked up. The other was a GTi 16v with the full fat multipoint injected engine which for many years was the quickest car I'd ever been in. 120 bhp from a naturally aspirated 1.4 is still impressive today. Handled brilliantly too, and even with 80k on the clock was as reliable as clockwork.
Of course Rover wrecked it by rebadging it as a Rover 100 and keeping it in production for a billion years, but there was nowt wrong with it when it came out. I'd buy one today if I wanted a cheapie and one came up at the right money. In my madder moments I have visions of buying a GTI and a crashed MGF VVC and having a game of swapsies....
Cheers
DP
|
|
I wouldn't worry about the crash-worthiness or otherwise. He could have wanted a motorbike........
|
|
Sorry, that should have read 102 bhp not 120 bhp. Typo!!
|
Quite agree with the comment about the Fiat Uno 1.0 FIRE. Terrific little engine and almost unburstable. Metro I had (1300) was DIRE and, for all the street cred it posessed as one of those waste of time Special Edition versions, sounded utterly ridiculous with that appalling whining 4 speed manual gearbox. IMHO the car was outdated even when launched back in the early '80s.
Manual choke also a pain in the rea. Cable would snap and render the car useless on a freezing morning. Even the 1978 Maxi (1750 HL twin carb...!) I had was better than the Metro.
|
|
