They mainly dont, its usually down to the wife allowing a husband to buy something that he fancies rather than how reliable it might be.
Just couldn't agree more! My wife judges a car by its look :( Naturally Peugeot and Renault catch her eyes most. Fortunately(?) she doesn't drive and grunts when she has to ride a car of my choice ;)
Actually I did have some minor issues with all my Jap/Korean cars. But since I've nevered owned Ford/Vauxhall, my wife believes that if I had owned those cars, they would have been more reliable =:-o
Bit off topic, but it is often true that resale value depends on the model itself. Especially, nowadays, ever then earlier, smaller cars are have far better resale value than their larger counterparts (Mazda 3 vs Mazda 6, Hyundai Getz vs Accent, Kia Picanto vs Magentis, Suzuki Swift vs Grand Vitara, Nissan Micra (old) vs Almera (old), Ford Fiesta vs Modeo etc.) Toyota Aygo said to have lowest deperication!
|
The OP asked a silly question imo :-)
He/she then said "But people continue to buy Renault, Citroen, Peugeot, Alfa Romeo, Fiat etc. Majority of common people are also buying Vauxhalls and Fords, in spite of their not so outstanding reputation for reliability."
There is a famous quotation about inertia selling " you can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time etc"
Most people act irrationally in life and habits die hard.
Look at all the people on this site who have just bought a Rover and are surprised it needs a new headgasket!
Most people are lazy , do no research or not enough etc etc..
As the OP did not do with his comments on depreciation which were so general as to be wrong!
:-))
madf
|
|
I feel that we all have our own definition of reliability. We ran a 307 1.4 Hdi which needed a new starter motor (warranty repair) and a couple of headlight bulbs during the 62k we ran it for. Now this is a car which comes so low down reliability reports that had we known we wouldn't have bought it at the time. However, I would certainly not have said it was unreliable, the exact opposite. There are no doubt some who would consider it as unreliable. What is the base line for judgement? Please note however that I did once own the most reliable Allegro in the UK never let me down in 30k miles.
|
|
|
|
As a long-time Ford owner/driver, and a recent Renault owner, this is quite a difficult question to answer.
There are two main reasons why I've owned a lot of Fords. In essence, I like the way they drive, and they are plentiful and cheap to run. With any Ford designed since (and including) the original Mondeo you get proper steering weighting, brakes that don't fling you through the windscreen when you sneeze on them, slick gearboxes, great chassis balance etc. Since Peugeot gave up worrying about dynamics, no other volume manufacturer in a similar market segment gets close in my opinion. I also like the way I can buy Ford parts from anywhere, and for a very reasonable cost. All the Fords I've owned or had long term custody of over the past 15 years (mk1 Fiesta, mk1 Sierra, 2 mk1 Focuses, mk2 Mondeo and a mk4 Fiesta) have exceeded my expectations for reliability. It was the success of the first Fiesta and especially the Sierra that built the trust, and the Fords I've had since have all been equally good. I would therefore recommend them based on my experience, but it's fair to say that the new mk4 Mondeo has about as much in common with my mk2 as a potato, and my experience is probably meaningless when it comes to predicting how reliable it is likely to be.
The decision to buy the Renault was simple. It was the only midi-MPV we tried that had a decent sized boot, and that had any real design flair to it. In short, both SWMBO and I fell in love with it, which is not something any of the other candidates got close to. It's funky, it's "different", it's lovely to drive (in a relaxed rather than sporting manner), it's as practical as you could wish for, and the 1.9 dCi engine is a peach. These are tangible, demonstrable qualities, but reliability of this particular example was an unknown beyond the fact the previous owner had had it from nearly new, and you don't tend to keep a car for 2 years if it's unreliable. Therefore, we thought it was worth the risk.
Of course, only time will tell if that was a stupid decision, and I could be on here in 6 months ranting about how appalling it is, but in fairness to it, it has performed faultlessly over the 4,000 miles so far completed. It's comfy, practical, quick enough, economical, quiet, smooth and loaded with kit. The kids love travelling in it, and we love driving it. Can't expect much else from a family car really.
But I guess the short answer is, as a Ford and Renault buyer owner, I do it because I like the car, and in Ford's case, have good previous experience with the marque.
Cheers
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
97 Ford Fiesta 1.4 16v Chicane (for sale)
|
The strange thing?
The most unreliable car i have had in recent memory, in fact the only one to leave me stranded requiring a recovery service? Any of the fords, Vauxhalls, Pugeots or Renaults I have run?
No
A Volkswagen.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
An unreliable VW is not strange: it's normal.. ignition coils etc...
I agree Ford parts are seldom needed, cheap and widely available.
Just look at all the posters on the Technical Forum with all their Japanese car problems.. so distressing :-))
And No Peugeot , Ford or Renault owners..
says it all really:-))
madf
|
never brag on here how reliable your car has been!... (previous posts)
just had another door lock go and a window regulator........can't complain too much as the car is 8 years old......but....... still irritating... and pocket denting
|
I know nothing of the public, but a reliable car to me is one whose problems are readily identifiable and cheaply and easily fixed.
People who expect cars to have no problems are asking for disappointment.
|
Sorry Lud but have to disagree with your theory.
A car cannot be reliable if it's problems are readily identifiable.
Reliability is all about dependability and trusting that the car will work as expected and not let you down.
If I have a car that never gives me any problems and a 2nd that has readily identifiable problems - I would not say that they are both reliable.
Back to the OP - I think reputation has alot to do with it - look at VW and MB. People still expect them to be reliable when relatively they are not.
The problem is reputations can be lost in an instant if you start leaving people stranded.
The magazines (which included) do influence people's view of reliability as well in my view.
I also tend to take with a pich of salt when people say they have never had any problems with a car. A little further questioning usually results in - oh yes I had that problem but all the Corolla's (for instance) had that problem so it don't count.
In my experience the only car I can say I never had any problems with were my 2 Honda's (and I mean NEVER had a problem), the Toyota I owned was a nightmare.
|
>>A car cannot be reliable if it's problems are readily identifiable. Reliability is all about dependability and trusting that the car will work as expected and not let you down.
So, a car that has problems difficult to identify and expensive and troublesome to put right is dependable provided it doesn't let you down, eh?
Until that moment, terrific. After it, carp.
Give me the sort of car I described any day.
|
|
|
Reliability is a highly subjective issue. Bought a 1.6 LEON S from new, based upon VAG underpinnings, in 2002. So far I've had the following problems in 5 years and 24,000 miles:
(a) the horn died
(b) the ignition coils had to be replaced
(c) the clutch master cylinder had to be replaced
(d) it has leaked in the footwells, (a well known LEON complaint)
(e) the glove compartment broke.
But having said all that, I honestly consider the car reliable.
|
I consider reliability, the sense that when you get to your car and turn the key, you fully expect it to get you where your going and it wont cost you more than a service each year, that nothing will fall off and everything works as it should.
My Suzuki van is like that, my Fiat, sadly is not although its not actually broken down, just feels like it wants to if given half a chance.
I spoke to a customer of mine who has Fiats - she said quite simply, the month that the warranty runs out, they chop them in for a new one again, so never have to worry if bits fall off as someone else pays when it does happen, although they havent had many problems.
I couldnt in sound mind, buy a Renault because they just dont seem to last very long, which is fine for a new car, but if you buy used, its like playing the lottery with thousands of pounds with the potential to spend thousands more.
|
>>So, a car that has problems difficult to identify and expensive and troublesome to put right is dependable provided it doesn't let you down, eh?
Until that moment, terrific. After it, carp. <<
Lud, I never said that if a car had problems that were difficult to identify it is classed as dependable - I said that if it did nit go wrong in the forst place it was reliable - I'm not sure where you made that up from.
Also as someone who studied reliability as part of a masters degree in quality (I know I should get out more) I never ever read anywhere that something was reliable if you could identify the faults easily. It would be easier to fix but not very reliable.
Next time you are flying off to your holiday destination just hope and pray that the aircraft/engines are not proven to be reliable based on your theory. You can just imagine the pilot announcing - "its ok everybody we are diverting because we have a problem but don't worry it's easily identifiable"
And you think I talk carp - you keep buying your stuff with easily identifiable problems and I'll get the stuff that works all the time.
You must be a salesman's dream come true - "oh yes Lud these cars go wrong all the time - but don't worry the problems are always identified - ever so easily - so you can buy one - honest".
|
Pendlebury i often study the barmaids apron and am informed her fiesta is reliable
to a degree and she has proven she can pull a pint in fact she is a master at it ;-)
|
|
What more can a man ask for ?
|
I don't care whether you call it reliabilty or give it some other academic name but Lud's definition fit's my definition.
"I know nothing of the public, but a reliable car to me is one whose problems are readily identifiable and cheaply and easily fixed. People who expect cars to have no problems are asking for disappointment.
|
"I know nothing of the public but a reliable car to me is one whose problems are readily identifiable and cheaply and easily fixed. People who expect cars to have no problems are asking for disappointment.
No, a reliable car is a car which very rarely goes wrong, but where it does have problems they're easily identifiable and repairable at reasonable cost.
Which rules out ANY car with a reputation for electrical faults quite honestly. In a cumulative 14 years of owning Nissan cars I've never had to lift a spanner to the engine or transmission (apart from the one occasion when a sub-standard clutch ripped a hole in the side of the bell-housing of the Primera). The cars have had faults, but these have been silly age-related gremlins like the struts keeping the bootlid open becoming tired and in need of replacement (used bits £3 each, fitted myself) and a jammed boot lock barrell (used part £10, again self-fitted). Electrical problems? Nowt. Yeah the exhaust and brake parts sometimes cost a bit more than they should have, but when I think of the lack of problems in general that's a small price to pay.
So, in my book Nissan = reliable. Not so Vauxhall; of the two Vauxhalls I've owned (cumulative 2.5 years) I had more than 5 times the expense. Never again.
|
And you think I talk carp - you keep buying your stuff with easily identifiable problems and I'll get the stuff that works all the time.
I didn't say or imply that you were talking carp. But I was wwrong.
|
I've used/owned "unreliable" Vauxhalls for 22 years, averaging about 20k/year, changing cars at 80-120k - in all that time, the Nova top hose burst, the last Cavalier dumped it's ATF from a loose pipe and later broke it's cambelt. Annual recovery fees are irrelevant because I'd still want that even for an almost perfect car. The parts cost for the top hose and autobox pipe were peanuts, the whole incident over in hours. Vauxhall paid for the engine rebuild after the cambelt failure.
I could pay almost list price, for a more "reliable" brand, which would cost more to service and replace worn parts - it might fail less than 3 times in 440,000 miles but no-one would guarantee that. No way would the increase in purchase and maintenance cost justify a marginally lower failure rate - it's a prime example of the law of diminishing returns.
The JD Power survey measures "perceived reliability" - performance vs expectation - that's why Skoda did so well for many years and have only "slipped" recently because expectations have risen as more people realise they're not a joke!
|
Which? magazine also has something to say on the matter.....Japan still rules trhe roost apparently
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6261590.stm
|
I think one of the biggest influences is the general tone/approach of the car magazines. They will make their comments and recommendations purely on how the test drive car performs during the test. There is little if any genuine commentary that rules out a car that scores 4-5 stars on test purely because of perceived or known unreliability of the brand. An awful lot of their commmentary is on how the car performs, its looks, development, image etc. And generally you do not see them saying "this car is likely to be troublesome as it is a XYZ brand"
By contrast Which? does do focus on reliability as the main bellweather ..and if anything places reliability and actual running costs higher than other categories. So a brilliant car from a perceived poor reliability brand does not get a best buy recommendation. Average scoring cars from high percived reliable brands often get at least to a worth considering level.
Also for my two pennies worth we also do not have high enough expectations in relation to cars in terms of reliability. At times it seems like people are very forgiving of "oh yeh had to get this fixed and this fixed" while waxing lyrical on how impressed they are with the car. If I spent £20,000 on a car I would expect zero defects on delivery and nothing to fail at least within say two years of normal driving. I don't buy a washing machine or TV and expect it to have faults on delivery or to fail within 5 years. I don't see why a car can't be the same. Companies have been building them for long enough...
|
There is little if any genuine commentary that rules out a car that scores 4-5 stars on test purely because of perceived or known unreliability of the brand.
I agree. The new Freelander won a 'What car' award. But much though I'd like one, I'm not going to go out and spend my own money just yet. Let someone else!
AutoExpress rated the Nissan X-Trail a wonderful used buy with marvellous reliability. But they didn't mention the number of issues which there have been with the diesel engine (and which led HJ to withdraw his recommendation).
I think the magazines are frightened of upsetting manufacturers - they need so many favours from them in order to have a viable magazine. I seem to remember that Vauxhall refused to let Clarkson test any of their cars a while back.
|
I judge reliability by the nature of the problems with a car. Only an idiot would expect a car to be 100% trouble-free for its whole 10-year lifespan. My Almera has had trivial problems such as blown bulbs in the dashboard, warped brake-discs, rusty brake-pipes. I accept expenses caused by these problems as a normal part of car-ownership. The car has never left me at the mercy of the AA either - it always starts and gets where it's going. *touch wood*
IMO an unreliable car is one with big expensive problems, occuring repeatedly, which prevent the car from being driven properly until they're sorted. Example = EGR valve on ex-girlfriend's Clio, failed, repaired for £150, failed again 2 months later, traded car in to avoid paying for another repair!
|
>>Only an idiot would expect a car to be 100% trouble-free for its whole 10-year lifespan.<<
My father has a 14 year old carina and after year 12 a bulb went.
Other than that not a thing went wrong with it.
It has had new brake pads and fluids only.
Same clutch, discs, exhaust bushes etc.
He has done 150 miles in it though.
Only joking about the last bit - If I recall correctly he has done 90K so ot big mileage but totally reliable.
Some of the Honda ownership sites also talk of huge mileages with nothing going wrong and only using std service items.
|
Being involved in the engineering development of engine components some years ago, we were provided with the Reliability Profile used by Cummins for their heavy duty diesel engines
This had the following statements, which seem reasonably in agreement with comments above.
"Customers perceive a product to be reliable when it performs its purpose adequately for the period of time intended under the operating conditions encountered. People don't want things to fail when they don't expect them to.
We therefore define reliability as the ability to prevent random failures not caused by wear."
Their actual measure of reliability was the percentage of engines or components passing through the warranty period without generating a claim.
There is also a statement on durability, which reads: " Customers perceive durability in terms of how long something will last before needing overhaul or replacement."
An important factor, cambelts an obvious example with reliability implications.
|
I purchased a new Mazda6 nearly 3 years ago.....I was hammered with 'realiability surveys' from about 3 months in of ownership
well it would be reliable after such a short period of time wouldnt it..hence I never replied..
after 2 years it began to rattle/squeek and in short was like driving a shed on wheels ..
Didnt get too many reliability surveys after the 2 year mark funnily enough.
|
In New Zealand, where all vehicles are imported, so there is no price pressure to support a local industry, the market has decided which vehicles are the most reliable, by buying them. It is probably a better market for judging reliability as the closest manufacturer is in Australia, and there is much less influence on the market by the large manufacturers.
I'm afraid that anyone but the Japanese and Koreans get very little share. There is a Holden Astra, and a few European makes, but if you stand on a street corner, it will be some time before you see anything but Japanese.
Other posters have talked about a car with a ten year life span. Over here, that's just the start of a car's life. Twenty years and more are not uncommon, and there is not the same 'Reg-Plate Snobbery' present in UK. We have no salt on our roads, so corrosion is not so much of an issue. My own Mitsubishi is now ten years old, and still has no problems. There are large numbers of Japanese cars over 20 years old, still going perfectly well, with reliable electrics, engines, brakes, good bodies. They're cheap to buy, run, maintain and repair. They're not all grey porridge either, as a lot of high performance Japanese cars are imported, like my Mitsubishi VR-4, and Nissan Skylines, Toyota Supras etc.
Years ago people from the UK used to laugh at NZ because we all still had old British cars , but the car market here was deregulated over 20 years ago and almost all of those old cars are now gone. There are a few still in the hands of enthusiasts (masochists?) like me (84 XJ12 & 76 Mini), but almost everyone else buys Japanese, Korean, or Australian. A couple of years ago I had a nearly new Astra as a hire car. I was not impressed. Uncomfortable ride, distinct lack of power, cheap and nasty interior. I could see why it wasn't a success, when compared with the equivalent Japanese car that cost a lot less.
|
Is it a British thing this theory that a car can only last 10 years or 100,000 miles ? or is it a simple matter of economics when repairs are sometimes worth more than the car afetr that period. Alot of people I know run 10 - 15 year old Jap cars or pick ups and never have any problem with them.
|
I remember Honestjohn mentioning in the Motoring column that with the increase of more complex cars to get them through the emissions tests, cars are only able to last 7 years before major repair.
So in trying to alleviate pollution, cars are replaced more frequently so in the long run the government would have made pollution "worse". But this has been mentioned here many times.
|
Interesting point.
>>But this has been mentioned here many times.<<
Apols - I had not seen it before.
|
There are many other factors that are far more important to many when buying a car....
e.g. Badge (and I don't just mean BMW - remember all the people who always bought Rovers), dealer proximity, nice salesman, cost . . . . .
And in the case of SWMBO - the colour!
|
My father has a 14 year old carina and after year 12 a bulb went....
That's not unusual for a Toyota, or any old-school Japanese car for that matter. The jist of what I was trying to say was that nobody *expects* that of a car - the odd repair bill shouldn't be a huge shock. In the rare cases where a car does actually stay problem-free for over 10 years, it's a bonus!
|
|
|
|
|
