Hyundai Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was just pondering on whether all this fancy engineering we are blessed with, actually has much benefit to the end user .


MG Metro

1275 cc, 73 hp (54 kW) at 6000 rpm and 73 ft•lbf (99 Nm) at 4000 rpm
Bore & Stroke: 70.61 mm x 81.28mm
0-60mph, 12.2 seconds, maximum speed, 100mph (source: Autocar)
Dry Weight – 840 Kg
Tyres : 165/60 R13


Hyundai I10
1248 cc 77 bhp at 6000 rpm and / 86. 8 lb/ft (117.7 Nm) at 4000 rpm
Bore & Stroke 71mm x 78.8mm
0 - 62 mph (acceleration) 12.8 seconds Maximum Speed 102 mph
Dry weight – 1010 Kg
Tyres 165/ 60 R14

Metro a cast iron lump about as crude as can be, the I10 state of the art. Interestingly the I10's Kappa is notable under square

Yet the performance is virtually the same.

Not intending to start a squabble, just an interesting aside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
Intersting...

I view the MG Metro as a kind of a junior hot hatch. Was perceived to have a bit of oomph but without all the negative costs of something like a Fiesta XR2. The styling was a bit rallyish - coloured seatbelts etc. I though it was a bit boy racer-ish and bought the Van Den Plas instead with the wood trim and more comfortable seating.

I have the Stlye now, and glad it's not chav-ed up to be a sport version like the MG was. But I guess the MG had a trendier image amonst younger people than the i10? Todays equivelant maybe a Seat sport or whaterver its called.

I think the MG had the best engine of the metros if I remember right - a nice tough that the current i10 range has the same engine....maybe a super i10 might come yet? An i10i???

As for progress....I hope the body doesn't rust like a metro! Reliabilty certainlt will be better too! I woudl imagine emmisions and economy shoudl be better - maybe that's the progression / compromise that's made?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
The MG's emissions would be very poor compared to the i10 (resulting in the road tax being about 10 times higher!), & the MPG would be even worse than the i10's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
The MG ( cough ) Metro was a tarts handbag.

Take a normal metro, tart it up, stick an MG badge on the front ( even though it had no MG heritage ).

Ohhh I had one !. That A series engine was good ( in its day ) and even now I would wager it will outlast the kapper engine. But the Car itself was on par with melted fudge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
But I will say the MG was fun to drive - well fun = dangerous!

After the Metro VDP, I went for the MG Maestro 2.0 EFI, low profile tyres, Honda Gear box, went like stink, 140mph on the M11 before I got scared!

The electrics died on it, and rust set in about 8 years old.

Has motoring changed? Do we like our comfort and extras and to be kind to the environment now...or is that just getting old for you!

Bit of both maybe...but I'll be much happier for me kids to have an i10 rather than whe cars I had (MkII escort backended on a roundabout - not even speeding!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I wasn't really comparing them as vehicles. Just the engines. Two completely contrasting designs, yet achieved similar results.

On the point of emmisions - thats a bit of a moot point. I have it on the authority of an MoT tester than many well set up old engines actually
don't produce a great deal more than a new "all singing" lump. Apparently a new engine produces a considerable amout more gas "throughput" and whilst there are less pollutants per cubic metre, as there is a lot more of it, the total amount isn't much different.

Of course this cannot be the case or we all would have been conned all these years. And that surely cannot be true! Could it?

Also the Metro tended to suffer from clutch judder which may be familiar to some.

Stupet11 - I owner a Montego Turbo - I remember dangerous, but by heck it did not half go (as long as the road was straight, flat and dry.) Accelerate - it turned left, lift of - right. Fun if one has to change up half way past a truck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
QUOTE (vincentr @ Jun 9 2010, 08:08 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=331367
I wasn't really comparing them as vehicles. Just the engines. Two completely contrasting designs, yet achieved similar results.

On the point of emmisions - thats a bit of a moot point. I have it on the authority of an MoT tester than many well set up old engines actually
don't produce a great deal more than a new "all singing" lump. Apparently a new engine produces a considerable amout more gas "throughput" and whilst there are less pollutants per cubic metre, as there is a lot more of it, the total amount isn't much different.

Of course this cannot be the case or we all would have been conned all these years. And that surely cannot be true! Could it?
The MG Metro (I knew someone who had one) would go out of tune every month. A modern car with a fuel computer & injection, and electronic ignition, will adjust for conditions and engine wear automatically. Remember manual chokes? Awful. Admittedly, the early automatic chokes were poor though.

Catalytic converters are required to pass the MoT emissions test, but a well-tuned old engine would produce as little as 2.5% CO. The limit now is so low, you have to have a cat to pass it (on cars registered since 1993 that is).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
QUOTE (ianwayne @ Jun 10 2010, 05:00 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=331667
The MG Metro (I knew someone who had one) would go out of tune every month.
A series engines never went out of tune, because they were never in tune in the first place. You could put 100k on one of those engines without changing the points or the air filter. Simplicity was the keyword.

The gearbox was bombproof, the cam chain rattled from new ( so never got any worse ) and it just went on and on like the mother-in-law.

Injection is < cue chav mode > well proper ennit, until it goes wrong. Then its a right PITA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
I find it interesting that the speeds are about the same, with very similar engine sizes, yet the i10 weighs significantly more. In a sense, I'd call that a performance increase.

And I, for one, am happier that my i10 weighs more... I like the airbags, ABS, nice stereo, four doors, alarm system etc. etc.

Modern cars do exist which don't have all these comforts, but they are more of a niche market these days.

An interesting thread, I like it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
The difference in weight is surprising, although it must be remembered that the MG was only a 3 door. I wouldnt fancy being in a accident in one.

Cannot agree about them going out of tune. By the time of the metro, BL had finally improved the A Series significantly. (It only took them a bit over 30 years!!)
It had a hydraulic cam chain adjuster and many other bits. And a simple SU carb. that would run for years and was simple to tweek. Main problem seemed to be quality and consistence. I had a friend with a humble 1300 Marina that would cruise easily at 80. However I owned a Metro would would need to be driven of beachy head to acheive the same.

Tho' it has to be said, they always started, always ran and always got you home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
855 Posts
QUOTE (vincentr @ Jun 9 2010, 10:17 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=331208
I was just pondering on whether all this fancy engineering we are blessed with, actually has much benefit to the end user .


MG Metro

1275 cc, 73 hp (54 kW) at 6000 rpm and 73 ft•lbf (99 Nm) at 4000 rpm
Bore & Stroke: 70.61 mm x 81.28mm
0-60mph, 12.2 seconds, maximum speed, 100mph (source: Autocar)
Dry Weight – 840 Kg
Tyres : 165/60 R13


Hyundai I10
1248 cc 77 bhp at 6000 rpm and / 86. 8 lb/ft (117.7 Nm) at 4000 rpm
Bore & Stroke 71mm x 78.8mm
0 - 62 mph (acceleration) 12.8 seconds Maximum Speed 102 mph
Dry weight – 1010 Kg
Tyres 165/ 60 R14

Metro a cast iron lump about as crude as can be, the I10 state of the art. Interestingly the I10's Kappa is notable under square

Yet the performance is virtually the same.

Not intending to start a squabble, just an interesting aside.
I see your reasoning but the Hyundai starts first time be it cold, wet or baking hot. No need to jiggle the choke or mess about with the points. A whole lot quieter too. 35 k before the Kappa needs new plugs is mind blowing. No tappet adjustments or pissing about with distributor caps and carburettors.

Then I had to fiddle with the car before doing a long journey and never quite sure if I would get there, Now I just jump in and expect to get there no matter how far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
All modern cars are weigh more than their counterparts from 25 years ago. They are loaded with extras, electric window motors, central locking, headlight motors, door mirror motors, ABS pumps, side impact bars, airbags, cat converters and all the parts that make up the air con, it all adds up. I do remember people who owned Maestro and Montego diesels claiming they got 70MPG from them, you don't get that out of your modern diesels and I'm not sure how much of a difference these low emission cars have made to the environment either, nothing is repaired now, parts are just condemned, chucked away and replaced, instead of tinkering. Manufacturing all these new parts must cost the environment more. But for an everyday run around car would you really want to go back to a Metro, I know what my answer would be :grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
I'd love to have a drive of my first car again........ a 1967 Vauxhall Victor FC 101. Three on the tree column change and a very 'ahem' cosy bench front seat :innocent: Built like a tank, drank about a gallon of a oil a month (seemed like every 2 weeks mind), but it never let me down. In second gear it could give a 1600E a bit of a shock too! In 30 odd years, my observations are that cars have lost 'character', they are less 'roomy', they are more 'plastic', and generally just well 'samey'. Back then, like most other stuff, things were built to last. If they broke down, they were made to be easily repairable..... and by the owner too! And this to me is 30 years of progress :beathorse:
Don't get me wrong, I love my i10. I love it for what it is, what I could afford, what I got for my money........ but given a choice, back to the old days and old ways for me :thumbsup: But then I live in cloud cuckoo land :banana:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
QUOTE (Mr Pogle @ Jun 11 2010, 10:34 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=332151
Don't get me wrong, I love my i10. I love it for what it is, what I could afford, what I got for my money........ but given a choice, back to the old days and old ways for me :thumbsup: But then I live in cloud cuckoo land :banana:
I agree to a point Mr Pogle, I am a big lover of classic cars and owned a couple in my time but I would never class the Metro as a classic :grin: . On the subject of Victors, I remember as a kid my dad having a gold 1970 with front bench seat which I always had to sit in the middle of. He then moved onto a white 1974 2.3 auto, then it all went downhill for him when he bought an unreliable Austin Princess, BL has a lot to answer for :grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
QUOTE (Noddy @ Jun 10 2010, 05:09 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=331668
The gearbox was bombproof, the cam chain rattled from new ( so never got any worse ) and it just went on and on like the mother-in-law.

Injection is < cue chav mode > well proper ennit, until it goes wrong. Then its a right PITA.

Many MG Metros entered the breakers due to a gearbox failure; including mine. Gearboxes were like rocking horse poo. The rest was OK. Interesting stats.
r
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
Would any body like to swap their i10 for an Mg Metro.
The A series engine was garbage even in the 1930's when it was designed.
The bypass hose (need I say more).
I'll get an old Metro if you want to swap.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top