http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/12202.page Public Action http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1305022 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1305022 GMT
I agree that the best, but still flawed, data on cars is Consumer Reports. It is flawed because it is based on owner responses. It would tend to follow that certain cars tend to attract certain kinds of owners. For example performance cars will likely get owners who may push their cars more and may well see more repairs than the exact same car that was owned by a more conservative driver. ]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1305016 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1305016 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1303818 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1303818 GMT We talk about reliability as a selling point....in reality it is the last thing that auto manufacturers want, or consumers for that matter. Selling cars that are too reliable and you decrease the turnover rate. Engineering gamemenship is the name or the game. The ultimate motor (electric) will never see the light of day from automakers by choice w/o IC back up. With upwards of 40% of their profit in maintenance, only John Deere, Kabota and the like are qualified as truley reliable vehicles. The "family car" is a joke where reliability is concerned.

Build a car like a hybrid locomotive and you eliminate transmission/braking problems with power to spare.

Look at the "family" farm equipment that is handed down from generation to generation to take your que as to what American manufacturing is truely capable of...... Henry Ford would "give" cars away just to own the parts market.

Toyota/Hondas are only as reliable as they have to be as it remains a selling point to steal GM customers. They all play the same game and cars are no different than other "replaceable" consumer goods.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1303640 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1303640 GMT you say you've had a great relationship with your current bmw 3 series. i've had a couple myself. (i change cars more often)and found them to be very reliable, hold their value well, good looking and most of all lots of fun to drive.
so what can i tell you buy another 3 series, in fact treat yourself to the convertible. you can get it w/ rollover bars, the top is well insulated against temp and noise and the fully automatic top is 1 button user friendly. go for it!!!!!!!!!!]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1106412 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1106412 GMT That was me who suggested to OK to write a book and that I'd be one of the first to buy it but I haven't seen it on the store shelves yet. (grin)]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1109044 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1109044 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1104642 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1104642 GMT My experience has been with SAAB, VW, Fiat, Subaru, Honda, and Nissan multi-line dealers and everything else when running my own shop.

I can tell you that I have not seen one make any more problematic than another and if I had to pick one car that I absolutely love from a mechanic standpoint then it's a Subaru hands down. Why? Because of high maintenance and labor intensive problems. What's not to like when the flat rate time (spelled M-O-N-E-Y) is accruing?
(And I'm not a Subaru hater; I've owned 3 of them.)
My best paychecks were courtesy of Subaru and Nissan.

My point about auto complaints (even ones made to the BBB) is that 99% of the story behind the complaint is missing. You would be surprised at how many people will trash their vehicle at a young age and point the finger at the car maker/dealer/mechanic rather than themselves.
We had a guy with a 17k miles VW who had it towed in with 2 rods sticking through the side of the block. We had changed his oil at 5k miles so ergo, it was our fault. After much screaming and questioning our ancestry over several weeks he admitted he had not raised the hood since we had done the oil change. In a nutshell, the oil level had dropped dangerously low and that was it.
Wonder how this guy responded to a customer survey? (Got a million of those)
]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1103018 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1103018 GMT
10 years ago you could buy a vehicle that would run relatively maintenance free for 200,000 miles. I did that with 3 consecutive F150's in the 90's.

Back then, the trucks were relatively simple and a monkey could maintain one. The last one I had I ran 295,000 before selling, and it's still on the road today. The truck had a 300 6 cylinder engine 5speed manual tranny. About every 100,000 miles you had to put spark plugs, new coil, cap and rotor on it. That was the extent of a tune up. I went 200,000 miles before the timing gear broke. About every 80,000 miles I had to put brushes on the alternator. About every 50,000 front brakes, and in 295,000 I changed the rears once. I did have an AC compressor go out right around the time I sold it, and never did put a clutch in it. Other than that, I didn't do a thing to it but put oil, filters, and gas in it. I changed oil every 5,000 to 7,000 miles, so no I didn't baby it. By the time I sold it, the bed was beat up pretty bad, seat ripped and the red paint had turned pinkish. I never did find much that went wrong with either of those 3 trucks that common sense couldn't fix or understand.

That said, 10 years later, they (the manufacturers, all of them) have engineered early retirement into these vehicles. If you look at Ford's progress on their diesels, I know of several 7.3 IDI's with in excess of 500,000 miles on them, relatively trouble free. The 7.3 Powerstrokes were a bit more complex, but still there are many still in service 300,000 to 400,000 miles later. Having owned a 6.0 liter and knowing several people that have one, you would have to be insane to voluntarily own one of those bastards past the 100,000 mile warranty period. Why? There's way too much garbage on the engine and the only people that can service them is a dealer. The new 6.4 liter Ford is even worse.

With the 7.3 IDI and 7.3 Powerstroke, any competent diesel mechanic and most guys with reasonable mechanical skills could work on them and parts are fairly reasonable save for injector pumps on IDI's and HUII injectors on 7.3's. Even still, you could send either off to the diesel shop and have them rebuilt reasonable in cost.

The 6.0 is a pain in the but to work on mainly because Ford shoved the thing up under the cowl then proceeded to ad 40,000 hoses, pipes, wires and assorted junk that wasn't on previous engines. For many repairs on these things, the recommended procedure to get to the engine is to remove the truck's cab. Removing a cab is a half a day's job at best and then you have to put it back not to mention if you need to start it up and check for leaks, then find one and have to remove and replace the cab yet again. Basically this kind of garbage added hundreds of dollars in labor to the simplest repairs like changing glow plugs or pulling injectors to install new O ring seals. It went from a situation where you could take your 7.3 to the dealership and pick it up that evening, to a situation where you had to make an appointment 2 weeks in advance, then wait a week to get the truck back. If I'm taking my truck in, it's because it's broke, I don't plan 3 weeks in advance on it breaking, and I need it back ASAP not next month. It wasn't uncommon for my 6 liter to be in the shop 3 weeks to a month at a time although the first time I took their loaner Taurus through a strip job and back I did start getting it back a little faster.

The new gassers are no different. Where my 300 6 cylinder was easily servicable, my wife's Expedition with the 4.6 V8 isn't. Changing spark plugs has went from a $100 job to a $400 job and instead of a coil, distributor cap and rotor, there's an ignition control module and 8 coil packs on it. Yeah, a computer will tell you, but before I didn't need a computer to know my coil had gotten weak and I wasn't getting a hot enough spark out of it. Today I have to know which one. Things as simple as the old $12 air filters are now $60 items because they are some odd ball fancy shape that's unnecessary.

The long and short is it would take an idiot to own a 6.0 liter F250 past the 100,000 mile factory engine warranty knowing that a glowplug job that used to cost a couple hundred bucks and you could do it yourself for $70 will now cost you $1500 because the cab has to come off to get to the last 4 cylinders. The newer 6.4 version is actually designed for "Easy" cab removal. What they ought to have done is put the dang engine in front of the cowl so you could get to it and that kind of garbage wouldn't be necessary. Then there's that $2000 particulate filter on these newer trucks to reduce emmissions. The 6 liter Ford costs so much to work on that as I and a lot of other owners found out, Ford wasn't willing to bear the cost of fixing them correctly under warranty, yet they expected us, the owners to pay their unreasonable maintenance prices post warranty. If Ford can't/won't pay to fix these things, what makes them think I can or will?

The long and short is, IMO, we have reached a point with new vehicles that when the service bills become the responsibility of the owner and not the manufacturer (warranty runs out) it's about time to get rid of the hot potato before it burns your hands. When it gets to the point that every other month you are putting a couple grand into repairs and maintenance, it's no longer economically viable to continue owning the vehicle. That's sad, but it's the way vehicles are and have been heading for some time.

The idea is to shutdown independent shops and drive all the business to the dealers. The problem is, to a big extent, the dealer mechanics aren't significantly better than the independents, it's just they have the tools necessary for these more complex machines that are designed to stop you, me, and Joe's Garage from repairing our own.

A buddy of mine and I were discussing this in a round about way today. His wife had hit a turkey and knocked a headlight out. The headlight was in excess of $900 to replace. Anybody remember when there were 4 different headlights for every car on the road? There were round and rectangle light and in each there were high/low or single filament bulbs. They cost $10 or so. I remember having a boat that's trolling motor stuck out in front enough that in some odd turn angles it would knock the tail light out of my truck. You could buy a new lense at Napa for $15 and a bulb for a couple dollars. Today the tail lights are LED light and the lens is a module thing that costs several hundred bucks.

Honestly, this kind of thing is making leasing more attractive by the year. If it's going to come to the point that a tune up costs $3000, then IMO, we'll very soon be dollars ahead to lease it, let them take car of repairs during the lease and give it back to them at the end of the lease and let it be someone else's problem.

Skipper]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102424 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102424 GMT n the article I read, PM had surveyed owners of the Ford and corresponing Mercury vehicle. In the demographics of the owners, the Mercury owners were 7 years older than the Ford owners for that particular pair of twins. My guess is that the same the was true for the Ford Maverick/Mercury Comet pair. The younger owners bought the Maverick and probably drove them harder and didn't have the money to spend on maintenance. This age factor, IMHO, contaminates the results.  

If you are looking for a new car, then yes this could be considered "contaminated" results, but if you are buying used those are good results. It says the Ford buyers don't maintain as well, on average, as the Mercury buyers. Good to know when looking at used cars.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1108611 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1108611 GMT
My graduate work was in applied statistics and I had the same question some years back. I couldn't understand why the Ford Maverick had much lower marks than the Mercury Comet when the two vehicles were the same cars except for nameplate. I wrote to CR and the answer I received was "this is the way the data came out". Well, then, why did the data come out this way?" I finally found the answer while reading Popular Mechanics in the barber shop while I was waiting for a haircut. Popular Mechanics surveyed owners opinions of a particular car. In the article I read, PM had surveyed owners of the Ford and corresponing Mercury vehicle. In the demographics of the owners, the Mercury owners were 7 years older than the Ford owners for that particular pair of twins. My guess is that the same the was true for the Ford Maverick/Mercury Comet pair. The younger owners bought the Maverick and probably drove them harder and didn't have the money to spend on maintenance. This age factor, IMHO, contaminates the results.

One of my vehicles is a 2006 Chevrolet Uplander which has a poor repair record according to CR. The only problem I have had was with the sending unit for the fuel gauge which was replaced under warranty. Maybe the reason that I've had good luck with this vehicle is that I am an old geezer, drive reasonably and follow the maintenance schedule.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1104649 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1104649 GMT
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. ]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1104635 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1104635 GMT
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. ]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1108223 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1108223 GMT
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...]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1106820 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1106820 GMT
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.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1106211 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1106211 GMT
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. ]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1105261 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1105261 GMT
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.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1105023 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1105023 GMT
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.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1105018 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1105018 GMT
CR would *love* it if they had a 60% return rate. Last numbers I saw showed a response rate closer to 10%...]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1104611 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1104611 GMT
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.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102046 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102046 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102230 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102230 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102032 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102032 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102023 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102023 GMT
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....]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101825 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101825 GMT 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).]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101466 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101466 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101630 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101630 GMT
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)]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101426 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101426 GMT
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]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1303454 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1303454 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101821 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101821 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102067 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1102067 GMT
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.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101431 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101431 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101423 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101423 GMT
We considered used but here's the rub - most people selling 2 year used cars have either pile on the miles or loaded them up with so many options that even with 10 grand of depreciation its only 2 grand cheaper than the car we want new. For the difference I'd rather take the new car. Plus if we're keeping the car for 7-10 years the initial depreciation isn't a big issue for us.

]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101419 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1101419 GMT
If the OP simply wants a newer car they should go buy one, but that's not an economic decision, it's just buying a new toy. There's nothing wrong with that if you understand why you are really doing it, but I would still recommend a late model used car instead of a new one (let someone else eat the initial depreciation).]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087433 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087433 GMT
I dunno about you, but after a decade I myself would probably like to try a new car too haha. Maybe one with something exotic like a CD player in the dash ;)

On the point about buying used. I agree that's usually the best route, but I'm a car person and view the world with different glasses. If I knew little about cars the prospect of buying used would seem daunting and full of potential missteps. CPO doesn't mean much these days either sometimes. Besides, sometimes a new design comes out that's worth paying the dough for-I'd love a new 135i myself.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087424 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087424 GMT
2. Why are you planning on buying a new car (instead of used)?

I wouldn't do #1 unless the cost to repair/maintain the BMW has exceeded it's replacement value.

I would never do #2.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087268 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087268 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087258 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087258 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087223 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087223 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086849 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086849 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086847 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086847 GMT
Car programs,such as Motor Week (PBS) do "long term" test; they keep the car for 10,000 miles or so. That tells you very little abput predicted reliablity, but does reveal assembly quality, something J D Powers is strong on reporting.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087271 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087271 GMT Some manufacturers showed a remarkable improvement over late -- Kia, for example, and maybe Hyundai. Oh, yeah, Buick too. Then there are those that showed a drastic decline in quality -- VW and Mercedes for example. Wha' hoppen?!

Anyhoo, just buy any car from a reputable manufacturer and take good care of it. Better pick one you like; it will likely last as long as you can bear it.

]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087219 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1087219 GMT
I agree that long term reliability is a poor indicator because it is so delayed. But I still prefer to buy from a company with a better long term quality record. Past isn't prologue but betting on a winner is usually safer. ]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086827 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086827 GMT
I agree with your theories 1, 2, 3, and especially 4. One fellow here a while ago griped about a car not being able to get OnStar!

]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086640 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086640 GMT
I've noticed though that if you research you'll find common complaints on the chat boards. I've found this with 3 series, A3s, Lexus - what have you. I'm sure the dis-satisfied are more likely to post than the happy majority.

This may be one more reason to trust the Consumer Reports survey which reaches out to them both.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086824 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086824 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086639 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086639 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086635 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086635 GMT
I don't put much stock in JD Power's surveys or numbers, but I do put a lot of faith in Consumer Reports. Especially in the way they focus on specific areas of reliability from exhaust to electrical. The numbers always seem to line up with what's really happening out there.

As for the gaps narrowing. Err, yes and no. If you look at a comparison of the major car brands after they're ten years old Honda and Toyota absolutely kill everyone else in reliability. Initial quality/reliability is useless to me. I want to know how a car holds up after a few years and this is an area where American cars and German cars get killed. If you've had a reliable 318 you've been lucky, as I used to work on BMW's, and they had a lot of head gasket issues and assorted bugs back then. The newest crops of BMWs are pretty good though. You might look at a new 128i-the interior, ride and acceleration are excellent and maintenance is free for the first 50,000 miles.

]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086634 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086634 GMT
Put another way is it like the Miss America pageant where top 10 are all beautiful or is it more like the NFl where the number 1 team tends to stomp all over the number 5 team?]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086504 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086504 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086494 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1024009.page#1086494 GMT