Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars 1958 Nash Metropolitan
42 messages, Last post on Jan 18, 2009 at 2:39 AM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 22, 2007 4:43 pm) |
|
Thanks for that visual Mr. Shiftright  I'm visualizing a deathtrap on wheels. I know she isn't for long holiday trips. We live in the greater Seattle area with a lot of slow traffic so I should fit in fine! I think I found a mechanic who "loves to work on old cars" to come and pay us a visit when she arrives. She does have two year old tires, so hey one thing off the list. Colleen
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: mymet (Jul 22, 2007 7:37 pm) I trust your mechanic understands British engines (basically an Austin unit)? The car itself is not hard to work on. You'll be amazed how some carpeting and underlayment will cut down the noise. And by all means pull the wheels and check the brakes on the car. These cars can run reliably and safely but just don't fling them into turns at high speed. They are NOT sports cars and shouldn't be driven like one. Yes, good suggestion. Have the exhaust system inspected for leaks and rust. A local muffler shop should be able to fit any variety of mufflers or pipes under there--it's a very simple car. There are certainly people who know a lot more about the car than I do, and parts are available for restoration. Just "google" away and all sorts of stuff will pop up. It's a fun little car and I hope you enjoy it! I wouldn't mind owning one myself. |
|
|
i got a referral for a shop about 50 miles away so first stop will be there for a complete safety check. My insurance requires it anyway. If nothing else, she is saving me money as with the multi-car discount, my rate for both cars is $10 bucks a month less. There are many places to get necessary parts, so i think i'll be fine. Thanks for the advise. |
|
I dunno if this is true or not, but I've heard that sometimes radial tires can actually screw up an older car. Now on most mid-late 60's cars, it's probably no big deal to switch to a radial, and in many cases will improve performance. But once you go back to the 50's and such, unless you make other mods, I've heard that radial tires can cause all sorts of screwy things with handling, ride, etc. Probably varies from car to car.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 24, 2007 8:37 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 24, 2007 9:07 am) I dunno how true this is, but I heard that back when cars had bias-ply tires, the suspensions were firmer to counteract the softer, squishier tires. When they started using radial tires, which are firmer, the suspensions were actually made "softer". So, back in the early 70's, for instance, when Pontiac was playing up that "RTS tuned" stuff, making it sound all sporty, what they were really doing is just softening them up! The only direct comparison I can comment on, personally, was with a 1969 Dart GT. It had bias ply tires when I bought it, but I put on some 205/70/R14 radials. I remember the bias ply tires used to go crazy on highways with truck ruts, or overpasses where you have that metal seam that separates the concrete patches and runs parallel to the direction of the road (not the perpendicular metal seam where the road goes from asphalt to concrete as you get on the overpass). It was also VERY easy to make the sucker squeal in turns, without even trying. The radial tires made a world of difference, making it corner better, truck ruts and such no longer bothered it, and I don't remember any real detriment to ride quality. My '67 Catalina most likely had bias ply tires when it was new, but by the time I bought it, it was shod in 215/75/R14 radials. It always had a bad habit of tossing hubcaps, which my mechanic attributed to the car having radial tires on it. It only seems to throw the right front hubcap, though. Until the last time I took it out, it decided to ditch the right rear. I found it after about 5 minutes of searching. Naturally, since I'm allergic to poison ivy, it landed in a nice big patch of it!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 26, 2007 7:12 am)  here's a guy who really likes them. Very interesting and complimentary (did I spell that right?) article: http://www.allpar.com/cars/adopted/nash-metropolitan.html Not sure about living with 0-60 in 30 seconds however! Gee, that makes a Mercedes 300D seem fast at 19 seconds.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 26, 2007 7:47 am) How would a Metropolitan act at 60 mph? I'm just getting this mental image of a jittery, flighty thing, especially if it encounters truck ruts or cross-winds. As for acceleration, it's kinda interesting, but while America is fixated on 0-60 times, I imagine that it's actually pretty rare that I do 0-60 as quickly as 19 seconds! Heck, sometimes, I probably don't even do it in 30! There's just no need to. But then, I guess you still have to drive a Metropolitan flat-out to get that 30 second 0-60 time, and that might be a bit more disconcerting than loafing something that can do 0-60 in 10-12 seconds up to 60, because you can always just stomp on it more to get it moving quicker if you really have to. |
|
|
|
|
"...that might be a bit more disconcerting than..." I don't think 0-60 is too relevant for the Met, any more than it would be for a '50s VW, Renault, or Morris Minor. Most of your driving would probably be very local, at speeds not exceeding 55. And for that occasional drive to an out-of-town car show, you could either tow it, or cruise at 60 in the far right lane. But wait a minute, if it's got a 1500 cc MGA motor, shouldn't 0-60 be a little quicker than 30 seconds? I know it's no Viper (Nash Metropolitan, I knew Dodge Viper, and Nash Met, you are no Dodge Viper!), but maybe we're underestimating the Metropolitan's acceleration.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars 1958 Nash Metropolitan
