Reliability..........the big myth(s)......

galwaytt

so, according to HonestJohn, here's the current state of affairs for electrical problems in the UK.

NOT GOOD, IS IT ? Audi, BMW and Mercedes..........all worse than Alfa?? Crumbs.......:( All the nice stuff, the stuff you want............seems to be rubbish. And having had most of those, over the last few years, it's not wide of the mark, either.........

If you look under engine reliability, even stalwarts like Porsche are appalling - so much for quality engineering, then...........

Was thinking of a V70, but that gets slated, too.........

I think it's time to back to motorbikes - at least you can get performance and style for reasonable money...........and not much grief in the mechanical dept, either............long time since I saw a motorbike at the side of the road...........

jayok

I'm not debating the figures, but just wondering about the interpretation. For example, for Honda has 20.55% of faults are electrical, Alfa Romeo 19.55%. This would suggest that Alfa's are more reliable here.

But on the overall reliability index, Honda get's 37.91 whereas Alfa get's 153.65 (eek). So, of the 37.91 failures by Honda 20% of them are electrical (7.58) where as for Alfa 19.55% are electrical (30.03).

DAIHATSU is another example. So I assume that this figure in isolation doesn't really mean anything, you need to take the overall reliability index, where Alfa is still well below average (60).

Am I correct in this?

deegs

Look at it this way, alfa's have ahd years of slating..... therefore they try harder these days for more reliable components than say the likes of BMW and honda etc who always took that for granted.

And alfa look sweeeeet

jayok

deegs wrote: »

Look at it this way, alfa's have ahd years of slating..... therefore they try harder these days for more reliable components than say the likes of BMW and honda etc who always took that for granted.

Eh... No.

And alfa look sweeeeet

Agreed, but this isn't a beauty contest.

deegs

jayok wrote: »

Eh... No.

How do you qualify that? The 159 is one of the most reliable cars out there in all reports.

JHMEG

galwaytt wrote: »

Audi, BMW and Mercedes..........all worse than Alfa??

Altho focussing on electrical problems alone is not indicitive of the overall picture, Audi, BMW and Mercedes were never top of the pack for reliability anyway... I don't think any of them ever made the Top 10.

itarumaa

I really dont think that Daewoo is so good you can see in the stats:)

But it is also really confusing if you compare overall stats to stats like in engine etc

L1011

jayok wrote: »

Eh... No.

...and there are the words of someone who hasn't driven or in any way experienced a modern Fiat Auto group car...

JHMEG

MYOB wrote: »

...and there are the words of someone who hasn't driven or in any way experienced a modern Fiat Auto group car...

Jayok can speak for himself but he might have been saying "no" to some other part of the sentence, like "BMW and honda etc who always took that for granted." Most reliable car on that list is a Honda. I don't think they got there by taking stuff for granted.

Marcus.Aurelius

Engines are probably a better reflection of reliability.

http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/man_index_2.html?searchtype=engine&apc=3128339010848601

As is time off the road, a better measurement of breakdown severity

http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/man_index_2.html?searchtype=avglabour&apc=3128339010848601

JHMEG

maoleary wrote: »

Engines are probably a better reflection of reliability.

http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/man_index_2.html?searchtype=engine&apc=3128339010848601

As is time off the road, a better measurement of breakdown severity

http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/man_index_2.html?searchtype=avglabour&apc=3128339010848601

Is the best one of all the Reliability Index itself?
http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/man_index_2.html?searchtype=relindex&apc=3128339010848601

E92

maoleary wrote: »

Engines are probably a better reflection of reliability.

http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/man_index_2.html?searchtype=engine&apc=3128339010848601

As is time off the road, a better measurement of breakdown severity

http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/man_index_2.html?searchtype=avglabour&apc=3128339010848601

On this basis a BMW is better than a Toyota... no mean achievement that. And nearly 4 times better than a Scooby:eek:. The more I look at it the more I think that that survey doesn't make sense though. There's no way a Scooby is 4 times more likely to let you down than a BMW with engine trouble.

That said BMW engines are very good for reliability provided they're looked after and you stay away from noted trouble spots like the 02-04 320d etc. It's suspension and electrics that will go wrong in a BMW usually.

Though having looked the reliability index itself it's clear that while BMW are some way from the top, they are still a better bet than several makes, and some way below the average score of 112.

Henry Ford III

JHMEG wrote: »

Is the best one of all the Reliability Index itself?
http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/man_index_2.html?searchtype=relindex&apc=3128339010848601

I reckon so. I takes every other factor into account. Some surprising results there.

Marcus.Aurelius

JHMEG wrote: »

Is the best one of all the Reliability Index itself?
http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/man_index_2.html?searchtype=relindex&apc=3128339010848601

Depends on how they weight the individual groupings into the index. It could be very subjective!

L1011

E92 wrote: »

On this basis a BMW is better than a Toyota... no mean achievement that. And nearly 4 times better than a Scooby:eek:. The more I look at it the more I think that that survey doesn't make sense though. There's no way a Scooby is 4 times more likely to let you down than a BMW with engine trouble.

As one of the lads in work has just said - is the Scooby engine failure rate by any chance down to the kind of person who drives them rather than reliability

Slidey

MYOB wrote: »

As one of the lads in work has just said - is the Scooby engine failure rate by any chance down to the kind of person who drives them rather than reliability

Not sure about that but the rear piston on the left bank of the turbo is made out of chocolate!!

cashmni1

The very nature of a survey, is just that. Its a survey and not fact. It will never cover all eventualities.
Not all cars will have the same problems as listed in the survey.
Keep in mind that a survey will never ever cover everyones car or everyones opinion on whatever "they" are surveying.
It has flaws, just like statistics!

JHMEG

cashmni1 wrote: »

The very nature of a survey, is just that. Its a survey and not fact. It will never cover all eventualities.
Not all cars will have the same problems as listed in the survey.
Keep in mind that a survey will never ever cover everyones car or everyones opinion on whatever "they" are surveying.
It has flaws, just like statistics!

That would all be true, if it was correct.

It's not a survey. It's warranty claim data.

ambro25

MYOB wrote: »

As one of the lads in work has just said - is the Scooby engine failure rate by any chance down to the kind of person who drives them rather than reliability

Ummm... dunno... what kind of person drives a Forrester? A Justy? An Outback? A Legacy?

JHMEG

ambro25 wrote: »

Ummm... dunno... what kind of person drives a Forrester?

Lesbians. And they're known for being hard on cars.

jayok

deegs wrote: »

How do you qualify that? The 159 is one of the most reliable cars out there in all reports.

I qualify it as that Honda, BMW et al, are not now taking their reliability for granted.

...and there are the words of someone who hasn't driven or in any way experienced a modern Fiat Auto group car...

Not true. Driven a few when I've hired cars - the diesels are fliers. The built quality seems fine, but I have no experience of ownership of these new models so I am not making any claims here.

FWIW I'm not approaching this as "Alfa's are sh1te and Hondas are deadly" brigade. I appreciated manufacturers improve with time. But I was simply trying to put the the results of "Alfa Romeo are more reliable that say Honda or BMW" into context of the OP.

Don't see the issue.

zilog_jones

Kinda not really surprising that Daihatsu are top of the index there - I'm sure things would be different if they sold a lot more in the UK. I'm surprised Mazda are still very high (higher than Honda), especially considering their apparently dodgy diesels in the 6...

Biro

zilog_jones wrote: »

Kinda not really surprising that Daihatsu are top of the index there - I'm sure things would be different if they sold a lot more in the UK. I'm surprised Mazda are still very high (higher than Honda), especially considering their apparently dodgy diesels in the 6...

Could be a key word there.

Guy:Incognito

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I reckon so. I takes every other factor into account. Some surprising results there.

Yeah, whats the deal with this? PORSCHE 242.99

JHMEG

Stekelly wrote: »

Yeah, whats the deal with this? PORSCHE 242.99

Porsche is (not surprsingly) the most expensive of all to fix. Average repair cost is £810.50. That drags Porsche's score waaayyy down.

By comparison Mazda is £214.50 and Skoda £170.99.

green123

going on this information a punto is more reliable than a fiesta

and a punto is just as good as a polo

nearly all fiats are more reliable than a toyota corolla

a renault megane is more reliable than a corolla

in fact the corolla is one of the worst cars , coming in at number 91

so either this reliability infomation is wrong or alot of people on this forum are wrong

cozmik

galwaytt wrote: »

I think it's time to back to motorbikes - at least you can get performance and style for reasonable money...........and not much grief in the mechanical dept, either............long time since I saw a motorbike at the side of the road...........

If we all rode motorbikes our A&E departments would implode.

S.I.R

car relyablity vairyys per user/poll taker as not all of these people can drive cars correctly let alone maintain them...

the toyota is very good but isnt flawless

fiats are the worst cars on the road


as for eadverage fix costs , when im there... including parts it works out about 500 quid per fix though thats mainly engine fixing... but meh , thats life , why complain about prices when you should be just happy you have a car !

siralfalot

S.I.R wrote: »

fiats are the worst cars on the road

yawn.....:rolleyes:

L1011

S.I.R wrote: »

fiats are the worst cars on the road

Statement you frequently make and have never been able to back up. How about you stop making it until you can?

Max_Damage

S.I.R wrote: »

fiats are the worst cars on the road

I'd be more inclinded to say Renault's are the worst, however Fiat's are fairly bad too (with the exception of the Panda).

I worked in a FIat/Alfa garage before (not as a mechanic mind you), but the Grande Punto from what I saw was poorly built, plastic trimmings falling off, body panels not fitted properly and out of alignment, boot and bonnet release cables breaking, and so on. And it happened to more than one car too. And as for the Stilo, utter rubbish, electrics were constantly failing on them.

Biro

I'll say it again. Will people STOP equating good car = reliable car and bad car = unreliable car. It's the logic of a non-car person, and I would take their opinion on a car following that assumption with a pinch of salt.
F40's wouldn't be known for their bullet-proof half a million miles without a hitch reliability, but does that mean that an F40 is a far worse car than a Micra? Get some sense people. I'd rather drive a Punto any day over the hideous Micra that's dull to drive.
Actually, Fiat and Alfa are actually assembling their cars very well these days. Look up close at the new Bravo. Panel gaps like you'd expect to find on a car from today. The 159 seems devoid of problems 2 years into it's life.

mukki

Max_Damage wrote: »

I'd be more inclinded to say Renault's are the worst, however Fiat's are fairly bad too (with the exception of the Panda).

I worked in a FIat/Alfa garage before (not as a mechanic mind you), but the Grande Punto from what I saw was poorly built, plastic trimmings falling off, body panels not fitted properly and out of alignment, boot and bonnet release cables breaking, and so on. And it happened to more than one car too. And as for the Stilo, utter rubbish, electrics were constantly failing on them.

if renault only made the clio they would have a great rep, the laguna really drags them down.

E92

And FIAT diesels are supposed to be very reliable too.

As Biro says a good car can be very unreliable, while a bad car can never let you down. That said a car that will be reliable will definately interest me more than one that's not.

I'm surprised with the problems with the Grande Punto, they look very solid to me inside in them.

I've never heard about issues with the current Opel Corsa and that car and the Grande Punto share a common platform. You'd think that if there is something wrong with the nation's best selling supermini that we'd have heard about it by now.

I'm glad that the 159 is as good as people say it is too for reliability. A big problem for FIAT/Alfa is the dealers. I've no personal experience of them, but they certainily have a less than enviable reputation from what I've seen here on Motors.

L1011

Decent Fiat dealers are few and far between in the UK or Ireland because they've all been battle hardened from the 80s and 90s to refuse that theres anything wrong with then rust buckets they sold

I've changed which one I use for work a few times now, Rialto Fiat were probably the best - and are now gone.

A lot of Fiat dealers are also GM dealers from the era of the 'partnership'/potential merger. You don't hear much about GM dealers being bad though...

Henry Ford III

green123 wrote: »

going on this information a punto is more reliable than a fiesta No it's not. Punto scores 86 vs. Fiesta 50. Fiesta wins.........

For example. I didn't bother comparing the others. I think you are misinterpreting the stats.

ambro25

Looks like Top Trumps all over again

JHMEG

Biro wrote: »

I'd rather drive a Punto any day over the hideous Micra that's dull to drive.

I don't like needlessly wasting money, so I'd take the Micra.

zilog_jones

JHMEG wrote: »

Biro wrote:

I'd rather drive a Punto any day over the hideous Micra that's dull to drive.

I don't like needlessly wasting money, so I'd take the Micra.

I'd take a Fiesta (and I did) - not dull to drive, and not particularly unreliable either. However I don't really like the newer ones (2002 onwards) - the seating position is insanely high in comparison to the Mk. IV, and the thicker pillars between the windows and boot leave massive blackspots (that's "safety" fer ya :rolleyes:). It seems all newer superminis are like this though, so I guess I don't like any of them

astraboy

Biro wrote: »

I'll say it again. Will people STOP equating good car = reliable car and bad car = unreliable car. It's the logic of a non-car person, and I would take their opinion on a car following that assumption with a pinch of salt.
F40's wouldn't be known for their bullet-proof half a million miles without a hitch reliability, but does that mean that an F40 is a far worse car than a Micra? Get some sense people. I'd rather drive a Punto any day over the hideous Micra that's dull to drive.
Actually, Fiat and Alfa are actually assembling their cars very well these days. Look up close at the new Bravo. Panel gaps like you'd expect to find on a car from today. The 159 seems devoid of problems 2 years into it's life.

Well said! Some people that equate a car with a washing machine, ie it is there to do a job and get me from A-B and nothing else, will whine on about reliability and MPG, and never wash the car or look under the bonnet. My 156 may not be the most reliable according to common folklore, yet I have yet to have major issues in my 9 months of owning it and IMO it IS a great car, great to drive, great to look at, great to just sit in. If a "great" car is a toyota corolla that goes for 1M miles, shoot me, because I will never own a "great" car. I buy my cars with a combination of my heart and my head, others buy them like they buy a fridge.

The scoring of that survey may be a bit off, perhaps they should have done the average repair as a percentage of the original cost price of the car? Obviously a 3.6L engine on a porsche might cost more to fix then a 1.4 VW.

Actually, how did VW fair? Surprised at Subaru, though I would still not doubt their reliability too much. They have had to do a recall on certain Impreza turbo models in the US due to Turbo issues recently though.

cancan

There is no way that BMW's have better reliability than subaru.
I know of numerous BMW owners, one of who was chief of the local bmw club, who moved over to subaru's for reliability reasons alone.

In the US, BMW offer a free servicing packing for the first 50,000 miles as a way to try and placate owners who got sick of spending fortunes keeping them on the road.

Most bmw fans won't touch one once the warranty/free service deal is up, and shifting them second hand once this barrier has been broken is tricky without a big discount.

In club racing, every subaru owner I know never has issues, and these are heavily abused cars, while there is a litany of BMW issues from the same club members.
The only subarus that give trouble are normally when idiots start adding blow off valves and pointless rubbish like that, use the wrong fuel, or don't change the oil when they should. They are bulletproof when maintained properly, and can take plenty of abuse.

astraboy

I think the "chocolate pistons" stories on the Subarus came from import Impreza's mapped for higher RON fuel, the owners then tuned them or drove them hard on the wrong fuel and hence the melted pistons. I don't think I've even heard of much trouble on the imports once mapped correctly for 95Ron fuel.

JHMEG

It's funny that people are saying "I'd take great drive over reliable any day".

There are cars that are great drives and ultra reliable (tho I'm not gonna put any Alfas or Fiats in that category yet as I don't believe they are ultra reliable).

astraboy

Ya but then price plays a factor.

fast and cheap = not reliable
cheap and reliable = not fast
fast and reliable = not cheap

JHMEG

astraboy wrote: »

Ya but then price plays a factor.

fast and cheap = not reliable
cheap and reliable = not fast
fast and reliable = not cheap

Not true. There are good driver's cars out there that are ultra reliable and fairly inexpensive. Think Mazda, Honda, Nissan, and even Toyota.

Biro

astraboy wrote: »

Well said! Some people that equate a car with a washing machine, ie it is there to do a job and get me from A-B and nothing else, will whine on about reliability and MPG, and never wash the car or look under the bonnet. My 156 may not be the most reliable according to common folklore, yet I have yet to have major issues in my 9 months of owning it and IMO it IS a great car, great to drive, great to look at, great to just sit in. If a "great" car is a toyota corolla that goes for 1M miles, shoot me, because I will never own a "great" car. I buy my cars with a combination of my heart and my head, others buy them like they buy a fridge.

The scoring of that survey may be a bit off, perhaps they should have done the average repair as a percentage of the original cost price of the car? Obviously a 3.6L engine on a porsche might cost more to fix then a 1.4 VW.

Actually, how did VW fair? Surprised at Subaru, though I would still not doubt their reliability too much. They have had to do a recall on certain Impreza turbo models in the US due to Turbo issues recently though.

Hurrah for a true enthusiast! Few and far between on these pages!
If you look hard enough, you'll probably find a good car in every car make's history.

unkel

Recent reliability surveys that report the average number of faults show that the least reliable cars have about one fault per year or something like that. Not as reliable as other cars. But can we call that car unreliable in absolute terms? I think not. Ergo all modern cars are reliable...

Biro wrote: »

Will people STOP equating good car = reliable car and bad car = unreliable car. It's the logic of a non-car person

Well said!

green123

Originally Posted by green123
going on this information a punto is more reliable than a fiesta

Henry Ford III wrote: »

No it's not. Punto scores 86 vs. Fiesta 50. Fiesta wins.........
For example. I didn't bother comparing the others. I think you are misinterpreting the stats.

what are you talking about ?
dont tell me i am misinterpreting the stats .
you are the one who is wrong not me

i am looking at the overall positions in the top 100

punto is 50th
fiesta is 61st
corolla is one of the worst coming in at 91st

unkel

green123 wrote: »

punto is 50th
fiesta is 61st
corolla is one of the worst coming in at 91st

Those ratings are all very well. My point is that cars that have a fault every 3 years are as reliable in real life as cars that have a fault every 4 years. The former might come in 91st position, the latter might come in 50th position in that list...

congo_90

MYOB wrote: »

...and there are the words of someone who hasn't driven or in any way experienced a modern Fiat Auto group car...

Recenlty drove a fiat doblo... can say it was scarey to say the least a nightmare. poor brakes. poor electrics, ergonomics, owner reported engine problems twice, gear box felt like it was put together by somebody in first year metal work in secondary school along with brakes and just about every part of it tbh.

also drove a fiat punto (07) this was worse to say the least. Same as above but with worse consequences... gear box fell out and exhaust fittings near silencer fell off too. a real 'fix it again tomorrow.'

Please don't stand up for these cars. they're hit or miss at best :rolleyes:

Henry Ford III

green123 wrote: »

what are you talking about ?
dont tell me i am misinterpreting the stats .
you are the one who is wrong not me

i am looking at the overall positions in the top 100

punto is 50th
fiesta is 61st
corolla is one of the worst coming in at 91st

The stats you are quoting from refer to reliabilty claims over the last 10 years. Read the notes.

Go into the specific cars individually and you'll get an entirely different outcome.