Japanese cars reliability - true or myth?

Well, in this case MB V. Lexus, depreciation is still a factor. Lexus has higher resale values than MB, a representation of their higher perceived value due to its superior track record of reliability and build-quality. Talk to a c-class owner and he'll fluff the truth about how bad he's "upside down". Land rover is just the same. Would you buy a used Land Rover? They're rather inexpensive. Whom would they compete with? Hard to say, its a niche brand and a specialty vehicle at that.

The smart person who drives the MB's, BMW's, Audi's, Lexus' will tell you that they lease the cars and not purchase them. They know that while some of the ones mentioned have a good dependable long-term driving record, the risk of costly repair/future maintenance checks will steer them away from having them past the factory warranty. This i imagine would result in a skewed opinion about their dependability. Not many surveys are conducted re-sold vehicles, and if owners only keep it for a 2-4 year period, chances are things are gonna seem pretty darn near perfect.

Agree that when all is said and done, the statistics favor Japanese cars when it comes to reliability. Only diehards will argue with these facts.

Those that praise US cars have usually had good experience with them, unlike German car owners who will massage the truth due to their intense loyalty to their favorate brand.

Since US cars are cheap to fix, and parts are readily available, you will still see many of the larger ones , and pickups, running since it is cost-effective to do so.

"Agree that when all is said and done, the statistics favor Japanese cars when it comes to reliability."

The problem is that people don't understand statistics.

You have a source like Consumer Reports showing VERY small differences between brands, and people accept it as fact, without even wondering what the margin of error is. Remember that the average sample size for a vehicle is around 200-300. Then look at problem rates for individual systems (http://www...ories-406/).

What it comes down to is simple - the differences, if they exist, are overblown. You're looking at **AVERAGE** major engine problem rates for 10 year old vehicles of just 4% on a survey with small sample sizes, voluntary and unverified responses.

Think about it for a minute - at the beginning of November 2004, Gallup had Kerry beating Bush by 4% in Ohio among likely voters, 7% among registered. That was with a significantly larger sample size than we get in this statistical data. Acutally, that was with about 6 TIMES as many responses as Consumer Reports gets to analyze a model.

And we know how accurate that result was - with Bush winning Ohio 51% to 49%.

So what am I saying?

The statistical data does not support the theory that Japanese models are better in reliability. Margins of error are simply far too large for that. It does not support the theory that an "excellent" vehicle has a statistically significant lead over an "average" vehicle.

The statistical data DOES support the theory that average vehicles are pretty danged good. 92% of Toyotas are rated average or better. So it DOES support the theory that Toyotas are pretty danged good. But 93% of Fords are rated average or better..... So.....

I've taken a number of courses in statistics and I perform Risk Analysis for my clients. I agree that the differences have narrowed between top and bottom, and even CU rates a Ford Taurus as average, which means means that you are not running a risk by buying one.

These statistics indicate that if a vehicle is MUCH WORSE THAN AVERAGE(black ball) in a category that is key, such as engine, transmission, body rust or electrical, it should be avoided. I will never recommend a vehicle with significant weak points to anybody.

Since there is a choice in the market place, I would pick a highly rated car over one that isn't. I recently bought a new Toyota Corolla, and priced similar cars. A Ford Focus with the same equipment cost $700 less, not worthwhile considering the shorter design life and lower reliability. If the Focus had cost $3500 less, I might have bought it, since that difference in price buys several transmission overhauls, for instance. A Dodge minivan selling for $9000 less than a Honda Odessey is a good buy if you do not use it for commuting to work.

On the other hand, the Hyundai Elantra, which had a sterling repair record failed the recommended list by CU since it did not meet their head-on collision measure. There is a car I have recommnded to most of my friends.

Most of my friends who have bought US cars and minivans have had good service the first 4 years or so, then problems became increasingly more frequent. The economic life expectancy of a US car vs a Japnaese is considerably shorter, so this has to be entered into the calculations as well.

My sister is an accountant and has tracked the life cycle cost of all their vehicles. They owned Ford and GM vehicles until 1986, when they switched to Toyotas. The ownership costs dropped significantly and the time they kept vehicles went from 6 years to 10 years of useful life in a highly corrosive urban environment around the Great Lakes.

So, draw your own conclusions; as a well known politician once remarked; "Statistics are like a bikini swimsuit; what they reveal is suggestive, but what they hide is vital!"

I think you have basically the right approach - the difference between "average" and the best is so small you just buy what you want. Interesting, though, that the Focus, which is average, you seem to have wanted a much larger price differential than is really justified - but that's fine, you're just risk averse (so am I, btw).

As for the recommended part of the list, I ignore their recommendations. I use IIHS and NHTSA for crash test results. But I despise it when CR refuses to recommend a car because they thought the seats were uncomfortable. I'll be the judge of what's comfortable to me, thank you.

But from experience of myself, friends, and family, the repair records and costs really are basically insignificantly different on anything rated average or better.

I would certainly avoid a Ford Windstar (much worse than average), for instance, though... In fact I'd avoid all minivans but the Sienna. The Odyssey's transmission reliability has been abysmal by modern standards, so... And GM didn't ever bother to even try on their designs, IMO...

I had a 1981 Honda Prelude and it was bad and i had a 1998 civic bought new not much better. I also had a lot of problems with VW's. I currently have a 2005 Xterra which was excellent until it hit 30k now it's falling apart. We had a few Subarus and jeeps and fords and they were all great. I also take great care of my cars.

----> In retort, seems like you had pretty bad luck, the unfortunate few in disagreement from the majority concensus. But i want to ask you, if your Prelude was so "Bad"(very vague here steveng), what led you to conside another product from Honda? In addition, sad fact remains that people are willing to pay more money for a used Honda that does not run then a used subaru or ford (Leaving Jeep out because of the loyal cult following) that can be reliably used as a daily driver. I wont argue that subaru or ford makes a great product, I've owned 2 escorts..back-to-back!!! Reason: Japanese counterparts which a prefered were way out of my budget at the time. I've since only owned Japanese vehicles.

I'm not bashing Hondas I did like the cars except for the problems. The Prelude was a 81 and it had transmission problems from day one. I bought the 98 Civic because I figured I just had a bad one. I drove the new Civic off the lot and 100 miles later the rear main seal went. Also had brake problems. You could have bad luck with anything.

TRUE=

Okay, folks, I've attempted to tally the results of the responses....after eliminating the entire discusison about the collapse of academia and eliminating the miscellaneous posts that I was unable to ascertain a position on.

Each poster that stated an opinion gets one position placement no matter how many posts he/she made.

The "statement" paraphrased is that Japanese cars are better quality.
The results, rounded, are:

The statements is true: 56%
The statement was true in the past, but the "American" brands are closing/have almost closed the gap: 32%
The statement is false: 12%

Make of it what you will.

Since most of the posters are at least reasonably objective, this actually speaks well for American-designed cars, and the progress that has been made since the bad old days.

Going back through the posts, there seems to be a general conclusion that European cars are both unreliable and expensive to maintain.

Most of the posters are also probably more aware of the true reliability of cars too.

My personal perspective is that it speaks of the fall of giants. Up through the 1960s GM and Ford built the best cars in the world bar none. Caddys and Lincolns were the finest affordable luxury cars and the "working class" sedans were the most durable and reliable for their time. Italian iron was (and is) sexy but demanding and finicky. European vehicles were fun and cheap but unreliable.

Yup, that conclusion was unanimous. Not one person was not in agreement that European cars are less reliable and more expensive to maintain.

It was not just the design. The old american cars were manufactured very poorly also.
The American cars today are are a lot better.

My 1993 Geo Prizm has a Toyota engine in it. 15 years old, 242,000 miles on it, and I STILL get 30-32 mpg on it!!! Enough said! And it's just now starting to have issues due to age. Cripes - I have the original headlights in it.