There was a particular make of Japanese compact 4x4 sold in Australia in the 1970s...one of our cops saw that fatal fires would result from petrol pouring onto the road after relatively minor collisions. He wrote a letter to the Manufacturer. The makers took an urgent interest and the fault was rectified within months. That's how it is supposed to work.
Considering the number of Metros built, only a handful of 'incidents' was hardly a scandal. Yes, the design of the venting/filler neck could have been improved in the first place, but the main reason why this used to happen was because people brimmed the fuel tanks over the maximum level, made worse on baking hot days. The Metro filler neck/vent tube system was designed so that any excess fuel would vapourise and drain through the tube, which should have flowed out just above the fuel tank cap, well away from the wheel. Where the vent tube joins the filler neck under the wheelarch, it is directly above the wheel, hence if the pipe split, popped off, or wasn't fitted in the first place, it would drip onto the wheel, although occurences of this were extremely rare. The venting/draining of the tank was to minimise the risk of damage to the tank, fuel system, and/or the engine through over/under pressurisation of the tank. The woman at the start of the video either did not refit the cap correctly, or a pump attendant did not refit the cap correctly after filling up, as explained by the accident/recovery man. So that was not a manufacturing fault anyway.
Nicholas Kennedy The fact that Austin Rover sent letters to 300,000 owners to have the fuel caps replaced would indicate that the caps were faulty making it easier to fit it incorrectly. Also the fact that the filler is so low that if the cap is not fitted correctly fuel can spill out would indicate a design fault. Also nowadays you never see cars with a fuel filler cap that low again would suggest a design fault.
@@iangascoigne8231 I agree, design flaw having it so low. The 5 door body incorporated a high level filler from the start , and the 3 door design was eventually changed around 1988/9 to have a high level filler too. Why would they change it if there was nothing wrong with the original design?
It’s crazy to think that they only moved the filler cap up to just below the window, on 3-door versions, in the final year of production of the Metro before the Rover Metro was launched.
Girlfriend rang me to say this had happened to her, I didn’t believe her. I gave her my car and I drove hers home. It was an MG Metro and I flung it into a left hander and it did a complete 360. Thankfully nothing coming the other way.
Austin Rover: This isn't a recall! Also Austin Rover: 'its just a service action were implenting under a Code of Practice for recalls'. Same thing isn't it? Surely youd have been on top of this, seeing as it was their biggest selling car, and they were trying to break from the British Leyland image? Obviously old habits are hard to break...
The Metro also had other faults. Such as a complete lack of rustproofing and it was also an extremely unsafe car, highlighted when EURONCAP tested it in 1997. The result being, that the death trap was withdrawn from sale.
In terms of safety, the Metro was state-of-the-art in its class when it was launched in 1980, receiving the Don Safety Trophy. Clearly, by 1997, a twenty year old design could not be expected to match contemporary vehicles, and it should have been withdrawn long before then.
There was a particular make of Japanese compact 4x4 sold in Australia in the 1970s...one of our cops saw that fatal fires would result from petrol pouring onto the road after relatively minor collisions. He wrote a letter to the Manufacturer. The makers took an urgent interest and the fault was rectified within months.
That's how it is supposed to work.
Of course! Made in Japan, not made in USA (Pinto), England or Italy..........
On the 5dr and the late Metro's like the Clubman range and other limited models the fuel cap was mounted much higher.
Considering the number of Metros built, only a handful of 'incidents' was hardly a scandal. Yes, the design of the venting/filler neck could have been improved in the first place, but the main reason why this used to happen was because people brimmed the fuel tanks over the maximum level, made worse on baking hot days. The Metro filler neck/vent tube system was designed so that any excess fuel would vapourise and drain through the tube, which should have flowed out just above the fuel tank cap, well away from the wheel. Where the vent tube joins the filler neck under the wheelarch, it is directly above the wheel, hence if the pipe split, popped off, or wasn't fitted in the first place, it would drip onto the wheel, although occurences of this were extremely rare.
The venting/draining of the tank was to minimise the risk of damage to the tank, fuel system, and/or the engine through over/under pressurisation of the tank. The woman at the start of the video either did not refit the cap correctly, or a pump attendant did not refit the cap correctly after filling up, as explained by the accident/recovery man. So that was not a manufacturing fault anyway.
Nicholas Kennedy The fact that Austin Rover sent letters to 300,000 owners to have the fuel caps replaced would indicate that the caps were faulty making it easier to fit it incorrectly. Also the fact that the filler is so low that if the cap is not fitted correctly fuel can spill out would indicate a design fault. Also nowadays you never see cars with a fuel filler cap that low again would suggest a design fault.
@@iangascoigne8231 I agree, design flaw having it so low. The 5 door body incorporated a high level filler from the start , and the 3 door design was eventually changed around 1988/9 to have a high level filler too. Why would they change it if there was nothing wrong with the original design?
Totally wrong. Engineering is all about making things error-proof and fool-proof, especially in the *safety* department.
It’s crazy to think that they only moved the filler cap up to just below the window, on 3-door versions, in the final year of production of the Metro before the Rover Metro was launched.
Interestingly, safety recalls can be found with your car's registration if you look at the website to see if it's taxed and MOT'd.
Girlfriend rang me to say this had happened to her, I didn’t believe her. I gave her my car and I drove hers home. It was an MG Metro and I flung it into a left hander and it did a complete 360. Thankfully nothing coming the other way.
Taken from 4 What it's Worth from the A Plus team
Austin Rover: This isn't a recall!
Also Austin Rover: 'its just a service action were implenting under a Code of Practice for recalls'.
Same thing isn't it? Surely youd have been on top of this, seeing as it was their biggest selling car, and they were trying to break from the British Leyland image? Obviously old habits are hard to break...
A124FAO Police Metro Cumbria Reg still taxed Registered April 1984
Is this 'Top Gear'?
If this was modern top gear they would be showing this fault on a track for entertainment.
I think it was a consumer programme shown at the time.
Caps made in France!
Put on by brits. Damn, was it that complicated?
The Metro also had other faults. Such as a complete lack of rustproofing and it was also an extremely unsafe car, highlighted when EURONCAP tested it in 1997. The result being, that the death trap was withdrawn from sale.
In terms of safety, the Metro was state-of-the-art in its class when it was launched in 1980, receiving the Don Safety Trophy. Clearly, by 1997, a twenty year old design could not be expected to match contemporary vehicles, and it should have been withdrawn long before then.