Long Term Reliability / Dependability

Craig58,

If someone is interested in a car with Bluetooth, MP3 Jack, Navigation, you're not going to get it in many if any cars from 2003 or earlier, and those that you could are outdated at this point. Jedward didn't say he needs those things, but a new car brings with it a lot of options and accessories that cars of even 5 years ago couldn't like voice activation and nightvision, not to mention safety advances. The past 5 years has seen some major developments and advancements in auto technology. A car is more than just a way to get from point A to point B now. You really seem to like older cars, but you may want to try something newer-they're much nicer to drive than you think. Besides after 14 years of driving a 318 I'd want something new haha.

Dave, I've driven plenty (too many) of new cars with all those toys. They are cute, but no reason to buy the plastic car that surrounds them. I have a perfectly adequate GPS that will work in any car (including bluetooth, voice, etc) that only costs about $500 and can be upgraded in 5 years when it breaks or is outdated. I can also install whatever sound system I want in an old car. Personally, I'll pass on the "safety equipment" that is more trouble/expense than it's worth. The last BMW I really liked was the late 60s 2002 and the first generation 6-series (late 70s sometime). If the OP wants a new toy, they should buy one.

Consumer Reports, JD Power, and TrueDelta all provide long term dependability information, dating from 3 to 8 years. TrueDelta provides the average numberof trips to the shop, whereas the other two provide only a ranking. Take a look at them and see if they have data on the cars that you are interested in. I believe that the gap has been narrowed between Asian cars and tradional domestic cars. Cadillac and Buick rank near the top in dependability, as does Porsche and Lexus. I suspect that just about any car you buy today (except for a Jaguar) will be fine. Even the Jag will be better than a new one 10 years ago.

Thanks for mentioning my work with TrueDelta. Interesting thread here.

You'll find our latest survey results here:

http://www...esults.php

We use better methods than the others, but our sample sizes are in most cases still small. So I wouldn't try to split hairs with most of these results, just get a general sense of low, medium, and high--and of how often cars tend to require repairs. You'll find that in most cases we're talking about less than one repair trip per year.

The big advantages of our results:
--actual repair rates, not just dots
--continuous tracking, not just a couple of points in time
--prompt updates four times a year

The gap has certainly narrowed. The best have, on average, gotten better, and the "average" has gotten much better.

The difference between a vehicle in Consumer Reports with "average" ratings and one with excellent ratings is well within their statistical margin of error. Yes, they have the largest sample size of any survey. However, no survey is perfect, and they still don't have large enough samples to narrow error down to a smaller amount than the difference between average and excellent.

It's just like if you looked at surveys of Ohio before the 2004 election. If you took those numbers as fact, then Kerry would be president. The % gap there was larger than Consumer Reports is reporting as the difference between even excellent and "below average". And the sample size was significantly larger.

But the numbers are presented in a way to make them look far more significant than they are. They focus on "twice the problems" and statements like that. Those things remind me of Dilbert (April 19th - ). The average rate of failure per Consumer Reports is so small that this is very similar to how things are presented in their studies.

Besides, it isn't like their recommendations are perfect. Their top pick for a gas grill is made by Charmglow, and you should look at some of the consumer reviews about how horrendous those have been. I'll stick with Weber, thanks.

But they're certainly useful... Just find a car that you like, that isn't significantly worse than average, maintain it, and odds are you'll be fine with any vehicle, regardless of manufacturer.

(btw, *Ford* had a higher % of their models get average or better ratings for reliability than did Toyota this year - that certainly doesn't imply Toyota is junk)

Well stated. While there are differences, the difference between one driver who takes proper care of his car and the next who does not is far far greater. Get the car you want and take proper care of it. With luck (as I have had for over 40 years) you will come out far ahead.

JMHO, but I don't think much faith should be put into J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, or any customer survey organization.
The reason is that none of these groups really know, or even care to know, what the entire story is behind a problem.
There are certain biases or actions at work and this is not reflected in those surveys.

Take a 100 turbo SAABs and a 100 Toyota Camrys and see which one gets the most complaints. The SAABs more than likely because many SAAB owners will tend to be more nit-picky and disgruntled than a Camry owner. The driving habits will also differ greatly because the SAABs are going to suffer more from what one could call "spirited driving".

My opinion is that on average one car will last just as long as any other if maintained properly and not abused on the road. The majority of cars fit into that less maintenance/more flogging category.

Look at the bashing that Ford Taurus and Sable models have taken. My 87 Sable was still running/driving well and getting 24-25 MPG when I sold it a couple of years ago. This poor old thing had 420k miles on the original engine and cold A/C to boot. While sitting down one evening thinking about how much I put into that car over the years, other than purchase price, it came up to less than 2000 dollars total.
I would consider that a dependable car and 2 grand in parts over that time frame and mileage is pretty darned good.

(And for what it's worth, J.D. Power got caught taking some money about 15 or so years ago to skew their opinion a bit.
If I remember correctly they were on the take from Subaru. (Remember the "Subaru No. 1 in customer satisfaction awards"?) Power fired a few sacrificial lambs when it made national news and IMO it's probably still going on today; with a little extra care to avoid getting caught of course).

ok4450,

Saabs have an awful rap because they've been AWFUL. No, not the old ones like the classic 900 or 9000, but the cars made from the mid-1990's on. A Toyota Camry and a late-model Saab are on different planets from a design and reliability point of view.

I want to point out that I have owned European, Japanese and American vehicles and I am very open minded about purchasing any of them, but that said, there are clear differences between them in general. The idea that it's more how they're treated than who makes them is a reasonable point, but at the end of the day there are differences.

I think owners of any make of car are quick to defend them, especially folks who have had good luck with them, but personal experience can't play too big a role in opinion. I do have a strong fondness for BMW's and while I'd like to say they can be every bit as reliable as a Honda, it's not really true. They're prone to bad water pumps, A/C issues, window regulator failures, etc, but no one likes to acknowledge it, and owners will insist that properly maintained they're excellent cars like a Toyota or Honda, but it's not really true. I speak from experience as someone who has worked on them and had family who's owned them. Wonderful when working, but....

My brother purchased a really nice 2003 Saab 95 Aero in 2006 loaded to the hilt for $14k with only 40k miles. It has been flawless in his three years of ownership thus far.

Sigh...Once again, personal experience MAY vary. Believe it or not, every car ever made has at least one fan who's had great luck with their car. I'm sure for a select few people that a Yugo was the most reliable car they ever owned.

The truth is the bulk of owners have GOOD LUCK on all makes if they do the basic maintenance and driving normally. I think its a small subset that have the problems that people focus on.

I think ok4450 has hit the nail on the head again. I think it is important to know the story behind a problem rather than just stating, for example, that the car has transmission problems. Did the transmission have to be removed from the automobile, or was it an external component? This makes a big difference to me. I subscribe to Consumer Reports and fill out the questionnaire. Sometimes it is difficult for me to decide whether something is a real problem or just an annoyance.

I think one should keep in mind the Consumer Reports sends its questionnaires to its subscribers. This population may treat a car differently than the population of people who don't subscribe to Consumer Reports. Furthermore, I'll bet Consumer Reports doesn't get a 60% or higher return on these questionnaires. If the number of returns is less than 60%, the results must be looked at critically. The people that didn't respond may have different opinions than those who did.

Consumer Reports is a good starting point. I ask the mechanics at the independent garage where I have most of my service work done. They have seen enough different makes to know about the trouble spots. One of my vehicles is a 2006 Chevrolet Uplander which, according to Consumer Reports, has a poor repair record. I had the gasoline sender replaced under warranty and that is the only problem that I've had. I read Consumer Reports, but the price was right, so I bought it. I haven't been sorry about my purchase.

" If the number of returns is less than 60%, the results must be looked at critically."

CR would *love* it if they had a 60% return rate. Last numbers I saw showed a response rate closer to 10%...

Out of several million readers, that is still a lot. I just filled out my survey (on line now)and my only complaint is that on cars, they ask you to check whether there were any non-warranty problems in the various equipment categories, and what I spent. I conpleted the whole thing, including appliances, etc. in about 10 minutes. Agree that there should be an areas to describe the problems in detail.

However, their observed problems, especially on older cars, run exactly parallel to what my trusted mechanic tells me, even though he prefers Detroit Iron and drives a GMC truck.

I have all the April car issues going back to the early 1970s and it's hard to imagine a Gremlin having a higher rating than a typical import at that time, but imports, except the Beetle perhaps, were not very good then. The Toyota Corolla blew head gaskets and rusted quickly and the Honda Civic was almost bio-degradble.

It certainly is a lot. The problem is that they're also trying to measure a LOT of different models/years/options, so many that they end up with sample averages of 200-300 per model, which are not sufficient to determine very small differences even if the survey is well designed and executed.

And what Triedag subtly hints at is that when you have a survey with a low % of respondents, it immediately causes problems with your results. It doesn't matter if you have a million responses if your response rate is 5%. The low response rate alone causes large errors.

"Out of several million readers, that is still a lot".

The number in the sample is not the critical issue. The randomness of the sample is the important criteria. Here are two examples:

1) In 1936, a publication did a telephone survey asking the respondents who would be their choice for President of the United States in the next election. This was a nationwide telephone survey. The results were that a huge majority of the sample favored Alf Landon for President over Franklin D. Roosevelt. Well, even though U.S. history textbooks are suspect, I don't think there was a President Landon. I do barely remember my parents saying that the President had died and it was FDR. In 1936, the nation was in the last part of the depression and the less wealthy did not have telephones. Rural areas were also not served by telephone companies. Had only telephone subscribers been allowed to vote, there would have been a President Landon.

2) In 1955, Ford Motor Company did an extensive survey as to what price range and features automobile buyers wanted in their next car. The result was that in late 1957 the Edsel was introduced. It should have been a smash. However, the country had gone into a recession and autombile purchasing habits changed. Either people held onto their present cars or they opted for less expensive cars. American Motors became profitable selling Ramblers. Even Studebaker sold twice the number of the stripped Scotsman models than it expected to sell. Had For brought out the Edsel immediately after the survey was taken in 1955, we would probably be reading about problems of 2008 Edsels on this post today.

Consumer Reports is a good publication. The frequency of repair ratings is a good place to begin when considering a car. However, one needs to realize that 1) people who don't subscribe to Consumer Reports may have a different opinion than those who do and 2) the higher percent of Consumer Reports subscribers who do not return the questionnaire may have a different opinion than those who do.

Consumer Reports now reports owner satisfaction rating as well as a reliability rating. When I get a chance, I am going to correlate these values and see if there is a relationship between owner satisfaction and reliabiliy.

Good post!! The polsters made the same telephone survey mistake again in 1948 when they predicted and went to press that Dewey won the election; many of the democrats who voted for Harry Truman (who won)did not have phones!!

An accurate sample of the whole US popuplation of over 300 million needs only about 15,000 interviews. That's only a tiny fraction of a percent!! But, as stated, the sample must be choses to represent the whole country proportionately.

So, if CR has their samples correct, the reliability reports are correct 95% of the time. If you go through back issues of CR reports, and talk to your mechanic you will find that the troublespots are very accurate.

When I was in Business School, our class did a travel survey of single women and their choices of destination and mode of travel. A major airline sponsored this project. Our school was located in a city that was representative of the whole country, sort of Cleveland, Ohio in the past. I had the arduous task of interviewing 30 unattached college females; somebody had to do it! In total, about 400 individulas were interviewed, and the airline based their successful promotional campaign on our findings.

Even if they have their sample correct (good distribution of owners), though, sample sizes of 200-300 (per model) are not large enough to determine differences between two populations when failure rates are small and where the measured difference is 1 or 2%.

That's the problem. You have inaccuracies even in a perfect sample that make it so that they need larger samples. Then you have inaccuracies because their samples are not properly chosen (too low of a response rate).

That doesn't mean that the data is useless, though. You can easily use the very same data to show that failure rates are, indeed, small.

So a vehicle with good ratings is almost guaranteed to be very good on average.

But the relative "average" which hardly differs from "excellent" is so close to "excellent" that you can't measure the difference with accuracy...

Good point shorty! On their appliance reliability & failure data, CR states that "differences smaller than 4 points (% trouble) are not maningful", for instance on the refrigerator survey in May. That was a sample of 74,000 fridge owners, and the top 4 brands all fell wthin that range. Only Maytag stood out as a dog in most models.

I have always had faith in the figures for high volume cars, since the samples would be much larger, and troublesome cars like Mexican-built Volkswagens consistently score badly (worse or much worse than average). I agree that a low volume car would have results that statisticaaly would not be reliable.

I also subscribe to TrueDelta, and the "in the shop" figures correspond well with CR data.

One should use these publications as just ONE of the sources to buying a car. They all have problems. Neither of them gather enough data to be statistically accurate. CR for example has reported one car made by GM as having high marks...but the EXACT SAME CAR MADE IN THE SAME PLANT BY THE SAME WORKERS WITH THE SAME PARTS but under the Pontiac badge as having below average. That is statistically IMPOSSIBLE...UNLESS their sample rate is too small.

Magazines like Motor Trend...those are NOT tests. They are bought and paid for by the car manufacturer. The manufacturer with the MOST advertising in these magazines will ALWAYS get the car of the year reward...dating as far back as 1973(or 74) when the Chevy Vega was picked as MT's car of the year. And...trust me the Vega was one of the WORSE vehicles ever made by ANY manufacturer. Then in the 80's Renault was picked as car of the year...and the Isuzu pickup as truck of the year....All of these vehicles were among the WORSE cars ever made.