Editing Nash Metropolitan (section)

==First reviews==
Compared with the typical American car of the 1950s, the Metropolitan was considered "remarkably nimble" by many early testers, and "the consensus is that the Metropolitan isn't just fun to look at, it's fun to drive too."<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.hemmings.com/stories/article/pint-size-motoring-1957-hudson-metropolitan |title=Pint-Size Motoring - 1957 Hudson Metropolitan: Twenty years of fun behind the wheel of a 1957 Hudson Metropolitan |first=David |last=Conwill |date=24 September 2018 |work=Hemmings |access-date=21 June 2024}}</ref> Owners of the cars reported that the "Metropolitan is a good thing in a small package".<ref>{{cite magazine |title=Metropolitan is a Good Thing in a Small Package, Say Owners |magazine=Popular Mechanics |volume=102 |issue=5 |pages=118–122, 248 |date=November 1954 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=sdwDAAAAMBAJ&dq=Nash+Metropolitan+is+a+good+thing+in+a+small+package+say+owners&pg=PA118 |via=Google Books |access-date=22 March 2022}}</ref>

Automotive industry veteran and the largest publisher of [[Clymer repair manual|automotive books]] at the time, [[Floyd Clymer]], took several Metropolitans through his tests. He "abused" a 1954 Metropolitan convertible and "got the surprise of my life" when its "performance was far better than I expected", that he "felt very safe in the car", and that "it may well be that Nash has started a new trend in American motoring. Perhaps the public is now getting ready to accept a small car".<ref>{{cite magazine| last=Clymer |first=Floyd |title=Clymer Road Tests the Metropolitan |magazine=Popular Mechanics |volume=102 |issue=5 |pages=119–250 |date=November 1954 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=sdwDAAAAMBAJ&q=Clymer+Road+Tests+the+Metropolitan&pg=PA118 |via=Google Books |access-date=22 March 2022 }}</ref> Clymer also took a 1957 Metropolitan hardtop through a grueling {{convert|2912|mi|km|abbr=on}} road test that even took him {{convert|14100|ft|m|abbr=on}} up [[Pikes Peak]]. He summed up his experience that "I can not praise the Metropolitan too highly. It is a fascinating little car to drive, its performance is far better than one would expect, and the ride is likewise more than expected".<ref>{{cite book|last=Foster |first=Patrick R. |title=The Metropolitan Story |publisher=Olde Milford Press |year=2002 |page=100 |isbn=978-0-9662019-1-8}}</ref>

According to ''Collectible Auto'' magazine, the car was described in ''Car Life''{{'}}s review as "a big car in miniature" that was "fun to drive" and "ideal for a second car in the family,"<ref name="metlib13">{{cite magazine|url= http://www.metropolitan-library.com/CollectibleAuto13.jpg |title=1954–62 Metropolitan: 'Big Car in Miniature' |magazine=Collectible Auto |date=April 1990 |page=64 |via=Metropolitan Library Website |access-date=22 March 2022}}</ref> while ''[[Motor Trend]]'' was not alone in regarding the rear "utility" seat as "a joke".<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.metropolitan-library.com/CollectibleAuto14.jpg |title=Collectible Automobile, 1954-62 Metropolitan: "Big Car in Miniature" by Arch Brown, April 1990, page 65. |website=metropolitan-library.com |access-date=22 March 2022}}</ref>

''Motor Trend'' praised the car's economy: its test Metropolitan returned:
:{{convert|39.4|mpgus|L/100 km mpgimp|abbr=on}} at {{convert|45|mph|km/h|abbr=on}},
:{{convert|27.4|mpgus|L/100 km mpgimp|abbr=on}} at {{convert|60|mph|km/h|abbr=on}}, and
:{{convert|30.1|mpgus|L/100 km mpgimp|abbr=on}} "in traffic".<ref>{{cite magazine|url= http://www.metropolitan-library.com/MT11544.jpg |title=The Most Economical Car Regardless Of Size: '54 Nash Metropolitan |magazine=Motor Trend |date=November 1954 |page=19 |via=Metropolitan Library Website |access-date=22 March 2022}}</ref>

''[[Mechanix Illustrated]]'' editor [[Tom McCahill]] wrote: "It is not a sports car by the weirdest torturing of the imagination but it is a fleet, sporty little bucket which should prove just what the doctor ordered for a second car, to be used either for a trip to the movies or for a fast run to a penicillin festival."<ref name=McCahill>{{cite magazine |url= http://www.metropolitan-library.com/MI4546.jpg |last=McCahill |first=Tom |title=McCahill Tests the Brand-New Baby Nash |magazine=Mechanix Illustrated |date=April 1954 |page=95 |via=Metropolitan Library Website |access-date=22 March 2022}}</ref> He added that it was a "nice-handling car with plenty of control and amazing dig, considering it is powered by a small Austin A-40 engine" and that the finish was "very nice", although having no trunk opening except by pulling down the back of the rear seat "poses a problem".<ref name=McCahill/> His test car accelerated from [[0 to 60 mph]] in 19.3&nbsp;seconds and could exceed {{convert|70|mph|km/h|abbr=on}}.

A ''[[Road & Track]]'' road test recorded acceleration from 0–60&nbsp;mph in 22.4&nbsp;seconds, "almost half of the VW's 39.2". However, the magazine noted that at {{convert|60|mph|km/h|abbr=on}}, a typical American cruising speed at the time, the Metropolitan was revving at 4300 rpm, which shortened engine life, whereas the Volkswagen could travel at the same speed at only 3000 rpm.<ref name="bill">{{cite web|url= https://www.autos.ca/motoring-memories/motoring-memories-metropolitan-1954-1962/ |last=Vance |first=Bill |title=Motoring Memories: Metropolitan, 1954–1962 |publisher=Autos Canada |date=8 September 2006 |access-date=22 March 2022}}</ref> ''Road & Track''{{'}}s testers also said that the car had "more than its share of roll and wallow on corners" and there was "little seat-of-the-pants security when the rear end takes its time getting back in line".<ref name="metlib13"/>

''Road Test'' magazine wrote in 1954 that "on roadability and responsive handling, the Met shines. It also offers easy maintenance and downright stinginess when it comes to gasoline consumption. Also, it's literally a brute for punishment. On several occasions I took familiar corners at speeds half again what I would dare to use in some cars of twice the weight{{spaced ndash}}proof that proper weight distribution, low center of gravity and well engineered suspension have more to do with roadability than massiveness, weight and long wheelbases. Admittedly, the short wheelbased Met does pitch moderately on very rough roads, but the sensitivity and ease of steering make driving a pleasure."<ref>{{cite magazine|url= http://www.metropolitan-library.com/Road_Test54a.html |title=Nash Metropolitan: America's smallest car has proved amazingly popular |magazine=Road Test |pages=42–43 |via=Metropolitan Library Website |access-date=22 March 2022}}</ref>