Surprising (and not so surprising) Reliability Index results

Mr Benevolent

Interesting stuff!

Lower numbers are more reliable, average reliability is 112. The VAG results are particularly interesting.

stealthyspeeder

What a find!

It certainly highlights the higher build quality in the Jap cars!

Victor_M

Confab wrote: »

Interesting stuff!

Lower numbers are more reliable, average reliability is 60. The VAG results are particularly interesting.

Am I missing some thing obvious? There are hardly any cars lower than 60 so how could the average be 60? If you read the little I icon it claims that the average is in fact 112 (which seems to make more sense) VW are 84, which is lower than average which makes it more reliable than the average. The Audi numbers are a bit unusual, at 142 that puts it way worse than average reliability.

.Longshanks.

Anything under 112 is better than average, anything over 112 is worse than average

Mr Benevolent

My mistake, I took the default help text as the average. Still shows that the Asian cars are far more reliable though.

R.O.R

Sorted by reliability for ease of reading:

SUZUKI 31.13
HONDA 33.17
MAZDA 53.5
TOYOTA 56.22
SKODA 58.87
SMART 66.4
CITROEN 66.61
HYUNDAI 66.97
NISSAN 70.02
FORD 70.71
LEXUS 72.53
PEUGEOT 74.02
SUBARU 77.57
VAUXHALL 80.77
MITSUBISHI 84.1
VOLKSWAGEN 84.75
MCC 87.18
KIA 89.55
MINI 91.07
SEAT 91.53
FIAT 93.79
DAEWOO 94.32
BMW 97.47
ROVER 100.63
VOLVO 106.19
RENAULT 110.83
SAAB 126.12
MERCEDES 129.89
MG 131.08
AUDI 142.35
JAGUAR 146.13
CHRYSLER 155.61
ALFAROMEO 158.4
LANDROVER 213.73
PORSCHE 221.39
JEEP 231.09


I think the top 4 tell a story, but I'm surprised the Korean's weren't next.

I think a lot will also depend on owners expectations. Looks like Porsche drivers will call for any minor issue, whereas Skoda drivers will live with small niggles.

peasant

SUZUKI 31.13

Whoa !

roosterman71

Is anyone else surprised that the likes of Suzuki, Citroen, Peugeot are more reliable than a BMW/Audi/Merc?

And that Suzuki is the most reliable car?

And why is Audi so crap when the rest of VAG (Skoda, VW and Seat) are better than average?

EPM

Come on mid table mediocrity:D

.Longshanks.

But isn't reliability very subjective? You buy a 100k Porsche and if the boot rattles then you'll be pi$$ed off. But buy a €500 Suzuki and you'll soon ignore the rattling boot....?

Mr Benevolent

Longshanks100 wrote: »

But isn't reliability very subjective? You buy a 100k Porsche and if the boot rattles then you'll be pi$$ed off. But buy a €500 Suzuki and you'll soon ignore the rattling boot....?

A brand new Suzuki for €500? That's some bargain The index is based on in-warranty repairs AFAIK.

The average is skewed too high by Landrover, Porsche and Jeep.

EPM

Longshanks100 wrote: »

But isn't reliability very subjective? You buy a 100k Porsche and if the boot rattles then you'll be pi$$ed off. But buy a €500 Suzuki and you'll soon ignore the rattling boot....?

Thats very true

.Longshanks.

Is that survey on new cars only??.....me bad

voxpop

The UK Reliability index takes into account all factors of a repair, the cost of the parts and the frequency of failures

So premium brands will alway have a poor performance because of the cost of repair. Its a bit misleading to call it a reliability index - should be a cost of ownership index

ARGINITE

Go Rover

Mr Benevolent

voxpop wrote: »

So premium brands will alway have a poor performance because of the cost of repair. Its a bit misleading to call it a reliability index - should be a cost of ownership index

Not true. Look at Lexus and BMW.

2 Espressi

I'm not that surprised that Suzuki is at the top. They are rather simple uncomplicated beasts, there's not a lot that goes wrong with them. A lot of the design is well engineered, tried and tested over the past few years.

The interior may look like like something from a 90's Corolla, but 90's Corollas tended not to break very much. The only thing I ever had trouble with in the Ignis Sport was that the gas strut that held up the tailgate sometimes slipped in cold weather.

voxpop

Confab wrote: »

Not true. Look at Lexus.

I dont know what it costs to repair a lexus but Im guessing that a porsche and Jag cost a hell of a lot more.

My point is that its skewed.

Zube

Longshanks100 wrote: »

But isn't reliability very subjective?

No, these are not opinions, these are real numbers.

However, thay are not reliability numbers, they are cost of unreliability numbers. If you divide the overall index by the average cost of repair, you get something closer to a reliability measure, "how reliable is it?" as opposed to "how much does it cost in repairs?".

Doing this, you'll see that VW and Skoda are tied (as you would expect, since they are made from the same parts) at 0.297 and 0.276 while Mercedes is vastly more reliable at 0.089.

voxpop

voxpop wrote: »

I dont know what it costs to repair a lexus but Im guessing that a porsche and Jag cost a hell of a lot more.

My point is that its skewed.

Lexus and Jag would be similar enough in terms of repair cost, Porshe would be a different story.

PaddyFagan

R.O.R wrote: »

Sorted by reliability for ease of reading:

SUZUKI 31.13
HONDA 33.17
MAZDA 53.5
TOYOTA 56.22
SKODA 58.87
SMART 66.4
CITROEN 66.61
HYUNDAI 66.97
NISSAN 70.02
FORD 70.71
LEXUS 72.53
PEUGEOT 74.02
SUBARU 77.57
VAUXHALL 80.77
MITSUBISHI 84.1
VOLKSWAGEN 84.75
MCC 87.18
KIA 89.55
MINI 91.07
SEAT 91.53
FIAT 93.79
DAEWOO 94.32
BMW 97.47
ROVER 100.63
VOLVO 106.19
RENAULT 110.83
SAAB 126.12
MERCEDES 129.89
MG 131.08
AUDI 142.35
JAGUAR 146.13
CHRYSLER 155.61
ALFAROMEO 158.4
LANDROVER 213.73
PORSCHE 221.39
JEEP 231.09

Here's the average cost of repairs (again sorted, by cost this time).
SKODA 215.94
SUZUKI 218.51
CITROEN 228.32
RENAULT 249.51
PEUGEOT 251.34
FORD 256.03
SEAT 266.15
HYUNDAI 268.86
VAUXHALL 269.1
VOLKSWAGEN 285.41
HONDA 295.42
FIAT 296.2
DAEWOO 304.12
ROVER 314.25
SMART 320.47
SAAB 329.18
KIA 344.61
BMW 344.71
LEXUS 348.91
MINI 355.32
VOLVO 367.52
NISSAN 371.77
MCC 378.16
TOYOTA 380.35
MAZDA 388.69
MG 400.98
ALFA ROMEO 401.29
AUDI 414.74
LANDROVER 438.38
MERCEDES 447.73
CHRYSLER 450.23
MITSUBISHI 454.22
SUBARU 479.67
JAGUAR 484.46
JEEP 541
PORSCHE 793.05

The combination of the two is interesting - to me it would suggest that the french makes in particular are showing up too well in the "reliability" numbers because the cost of repair is low - But some of the jap brands are obviously seriously strong given the high cost of repair and still having good "reliability" scores.

Paddy

kodute

PaddyFagan wrote: »

The combination of the two is interesting - to me it would suggest that the french makes in particular are showing up too well in the "reliability" numbers because the cost of repair is low - But some of the jap brands are obviously seriously strong given the high cost of repair and still having good "reliability" scores.

Paddy

Maybe you should factor in the average number of visits a car would make to the garage to eliminate the cheap frequent repair element.

colm_mcm

But hang on. what are these figures actually based on? warranty direct are a independant warranty company that sell extended warranties. I would say the results are a bit skewed for various reasons.

Jip

Yaay, go Skoda, 4th in reliability and cheapest for cost of repairs, despite alot of spare parts that I've seen also being for VW and Audi.

Anan1

Doesn't mileage also have to be taken into account - FIATs seem to have going on for twice the average mileage of Suzukis?

galwaytt

Fiat being more reliable than BMW is a surprise, but I reckon Fiat's have been under-played for a long time anyhoo.....

As for the cost's to repair the Porsche, and the likelihood of it - well, neither surprise me. I know enough people with them, and imho, it's about right. The owners do complain more, are more perkickety, but there again some of the things that go wrong, shouldn't (like, hello,...engines ?? ffs....), and the likes of the Cayenne is dragging them down.........I saw comment from someone in the trade in the UK that you'd never get one in with 'no faults' on the ECU when it's being serviced. On average it'd always display 4 or 5. Ignore those at your peril. Which probably explains why I saw an 05 Cayenne for 39k in Liffey Valley last Monday. Good God that's a big drop for someone............

stealthyspeeder

Mazda are 3rd in the overall index yet their parts are relatively more at the expensive end of the list. Which would indicate that quality parts are used and put together with high precsion.

This does make sense as all Mazda's are built in Japan and manufacturing standerds would be higher.

galwaytt

UNKEL will like this, nothing like a good hijack !

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

Mazda are 3rd in the overall index yet their parts are relatively more at the expensive end of the list. Which would indicate that quality parts are used and put together with high precsion.
This does make sense as all Mazda's are built in Japan and manufacturing standerds would be higher.

......oh dear, I think not !

PaddyFagan

kodute wrote: »

Maybe you should factor in the average number of visits a car would make to the garage to eliminate the cheap frequent repair element.

Sorry - trying to give a better insight based on the figures from the orignal site

The UK Reliability index takes into account all factors of a repair, the cost of the parts and the frequency of failures - The Average of all cars is 112 which means that if the figure for the car you are looking at has a higher than average index (118) it indicates that that car is less reliable than the average, if however there is a lower than average index (60) the reliability is better.

Separately to this figure you can also look at the average cost of repairs for a particular make or model, a car with a good reliability index and a high average cost would imply that the frequency of failure is low, however when it does fail the bill will be a lot more than the average. Toyota, for example, has a high average cost of repair but quite a good index rating - which means that the car fails infrequently but when it does you will be in for a larger than average bill. Overall however, Toyota is a very strong make of car to buy.

So I re-posted an ordered version of the cost lists to help people make sense of the orignal list posted. The figures are all true - but it helps to understand the breakdown (number of claims v. cost of claims) when judging the orignal list.

Paddy

Padraig Mor

Citroen 2nd most reliable European manufacturer? Maybe someone will buy the car in my sig now!

Biro

galwaytt wrote: »

UNKEL will like this, nothing like a good hijack !



......oh dear, I think not !

Looks like you're wrong after all!! Facts are there, plain to see!!

stealthyspeeder

galwaytt wrote: »

......oh dear, I think not !

Ah touche, the pre 2008 diesel...

not a great engine and the source of most of Mazda warrenty oproblems I would think!


I totally forgot about that thread, If I read the word "diesel" too many times, I get so bored and cant continue reading the thread!

junkyard

ARGINITE wrote: »

Go Rover

And they did thankfully...........:D

Henry Ford III

Not sure how relevant that all is tbh.

JHMEG

galwaytt wrote: »

Fiat being more reliable than BMW is a surprise,

BMW are in the bottom half...

JHMEG

colm_mcm wrote: »

But hang on. what are these figures actually based on? warranty direct are a independant warranty company that sell extended warranties. I would say the results are a bit skewed for various reasons.

But the jist is probably correct tho.

The Recliner

Alfa have a terrible rating despite the current quaility being good

smcgiff

The Recliner wrote: »

Alfa have a terrible rating despite the current quaility being good

I bought my 159 in 08 and it had a few annoying problems. Most small, but compounded by the dealer relationship.

The Recliner

smcgiff wrote: »

I bought my 159 in 08 and it had a few annoying problems. Most small, but compounded by the dealer relationship.

I am sniffing around buying an Alfa at the moment but haven't had the best of starts with dealers not being too helpful (I suppose having a trade in doesn't help)

How have you found servicing etc?

Blitzkrieger

Did someone point out already that it's an index, not a survey? It measures how often they break down and the average cost of repair. So Hyundai might break down more often than Porsche, but be way cheaper to fix.

T-Maxx

57.4% of all statistics are made up.

C.D.

If you look at the individual car data there are no results from cars ~>2003. I'd assume as the data will be collected on a car-by-car basis that the difference between calculating manufacturer/model specific data is trivial.

So we are really looking at the reliability of the cars circa 2003.

Guy:Incognito

junkyard wrote: »

And they did thankfully...........:D

Not very far though if they are still getting in to a new car reliability survey.

I assume their position is based one new Rover registered last year.

Redsoxfan

The Recliner wrote: »

I am sniffing around buying an Alfa at the moment but haven't had the best of starts with dealers not being too helpful (I suppose having a trade in doesn't help)

How have you found servicing etc?

Buy privately/in the UK and take your car to Gerry Campbell in Stoneybatter for servicing.

pburns

galwaytt wrote: »

......oh dear, I think not !

galwaytt, you're like a dog with a bone, you and yor Mazda diesel bashing:)! In fairness thy fingers were burned pretty badly but this engine is one low point of an otherwise extremely reliable marque. It'll be interesting to see how the new 2.2 fares in a few years time.

I'm surprised Jag is quite low - the current XJ was exemplerary, although I read one of the mags had some issues with a long-term XF.

It's quite funny - I think there are some thinly disguised fan-boys in the thread a little miffed their favorite brand is beaten by humdrum Jap-boxes ... It's funny also how some marques beloved of car journos do badly in virtually any type of reliability survey - Land Rover or Audi for example...

Speakling of Audi:eek:..yeah that's a real surprise innit:D:p?!?

emurphy

Sorted by reliability for ease of reading:

SUZUKI 31.13
HONDA 33.17
MAZDA 53.5
TOYOTA 56.22
SKODA 58.87
SMART 66.4
CITROEN 66.61
HYUNDAI 66.97
NISSAN 70.02
FORD 70.71
LEXUS 72.53
PEUGEOT 74.02
SUBARU 77.57
VAUXHALL 80.77
MITSUBISHI 84.1
VOLKSWAGEN 84.75
MCC 87.18
KIA 89.55
MINI 91.07
SEAT 91.53
FIAT 93.79
DAEWOO 94.32
BMW 97.47

---

Go on the Mazda!!! ... After having numerous problems with a passat and before that a Seat Cordoba moving to the Mazda 6 was the best move I've made car wise. Although I'm still tempted by the RX8. What a car. Only for recession etc I think I'd probably be mad/stupid enough to go for it too! For now the 6 will have to be the safe sensible choice. Saw the new accord recently too. Nice. Moral of story once you go jap.. etc etc...

Zonda999

I always find it amazing how skoda manage to punch above their weight in reliability and satisfaction surveys like this, i mean the engines are not made uniquely by skoda, there made in the same plant as the engines that are put into vw's. You'd think reliability because of that would then mirror that

BrianD3

A "league table" of manufacturers can be misleading. Anyone who bothers to dig down into the warranty direct data will find big variations amongst different models from the same manufacturer. But people don't bother to do this, all they see is the league table and a manufacturer's entire output gets stereotyped as "good" or "bad"

If someone sees Honda 2nd from the top of this warranty direct league table, that might encourage them to buy a current model Civic for its reliability. But as already stated, the warrantydirect data does not cover cars from the last few years. And in both the ADAC and Which? surveys, the current Civic has been found to be at or near the bottom of its class for reliability since it was introduced.

colm_mcm

Put it this way, maybe the type of Hyundai driver that buys an extended warranty is different from the type of Alfa driver that buys one?

Hyundai driver overly cautious
Alfa driver driving the stones out of the car and wants extra cover

huge generalisation I know....

P.C.

colm_mcm wrote: »

Put it this way, maybe the type of Hyundai driver that buys an extended warranty is different from the type of Alfa driver that buys one?

Hyundai driver overly cautious
Alfa driver driving the stones out of the car and wants extra cover

huge generalisation I know....

That is why I am too scared to buy a second hand Alfa.
And the depreciation on a new one means that I probably won't ever own an Alfa.

C.D.

P.C. wrote: »

That is why I am too scared to buy a second hand Alfa.
And the depreciation on a new one means that I probably won't ever own an Alfa.

Meh, you only live once. I hope to take the plunge in a few years and buy one. I'm aiming for nearly new- 2 years with 50% depreciation but low enough mileage that I need not worry too much and 1 year warranty left. Vast majority of cars on Irish roads (including everything I've owned) simply don't inspire any emotion in me.

I've never understood the people who aspire to own entry level, base engine, base spec Golf's, A3's, 316's. I'd take a car that I actually makes me feel something when I look at it and drive it anyday.

As I said, you only live once.