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: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jul 26, 2007 6:19 pm) But yeah, the later Met would be "faster" than the earlier ones with the little Austin...is it...A40....engine? |
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jul 26, 2007 6:19 pm) It might have the same motor, but I wonder if it would have a suckier transmission, or taller gearing, or something else holding it back? My old car book lists that engine as a 73.8 CID (probably around a 1.2-1.3L) from 1954-56, having 42 hp, with an optional 90.9 CID version (1.5L) having 52 hp. From 1959-62 hp was listed at "55/52"...I dunno what the 3 hp discrepancy was. Transmission options, maybe? I know back then, sometimes the automatic had a different hp rating from the manual. But could you even get an automatic in a Metropolitan? I think Nashes used GM 4-speed HydraMatics, and I seriously doubt one of those would fit in a Met! Coming from England though, I imagine a Met would have used some British auto tranny, if one was available. My book also says that the 42 hp version struggled to break 70 mph, whereas the 1.5 would hit 80. Didn't the VW Bug top out around 70-75? |
|
|
|
Ah, good catches, Andre and Shifty. As far as I know, and I'm not confident about this, Mets only came with a 3 speed (on the tree) tranny. So, in addition to the carburation/hp disadvantage of the 1500 engine versus the MGA, it also suffered a gearing deficit. Still, I'm thinking that 0-60 in 30 seconds was for the earlier, smaller displacement models, and that the 1500 reached 60 in mid 20s, but I'm basing this on perception rather than hard evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jul 26, 2007 7:05 pm) Let's see...that might cost about....oh, never mind. |
|
Yep three on the tree; all of them. I'm good to go there. I learned to drive on a 64 Nova wagon that always got "stuck" when shifting and we'd have to stop and wiggle something to "unstick" it...  I'm still awaiting delivery and am hoping for it to be as mechanically sound as the outside is. You guys are scaring me though.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars 1958 Nash Metropolitan
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
