Pug 207 most reliable European car

Stevie Dakota

According to Warranty direct...3 French in the top 5...so much for that stereotype.

Top 10 most reliable European cars
Reliability Index Rating / Incident Rate / Average Repair Cost (£)
1. Peugeot 207 (2006 – ): 22 / 6% / £331.92
2. Fiat Panda (2004 – ): 28 / 14% / £195.95
3. Peugeot 206 CC (2000 – 2007): 32 / 17% / £185.40
4. Volkswagen Polo (2005 – ): 35 / 18% / £190.48
5. Renault Clio (2005 – ): 36 / 21% / £173.40
6. Volkswagen Beetle (1999 – ): 39 / 20% / £198.25
7 Smart Forfour (2004 – 2007): 48 / 25% / £194.67
8. Volvo S40 (2004 – ): 51 / 23% / £223.13
9. Peugeot 107 (2005 – ): 54 / 21% / £248.46
10. Mercedes SLK (1996 – 2004): 55 / 18% / £296.73

Top 5 least reliable European cars

Reliability Index Rating / Incident Rate / Average Repair Cost (£)
1. Mercedes SL (2002 – ): 349 / 47% / £742.10
2. Range Rover (2002 – ): 264 / 53% / 499.43
3. Renault Espace (2002 – ): 264 / 54% / 491.26
4. Mercedes S-Class (2006 – ): 239 / 47% / 505.22
5. BMW 7 Series (2001 – 2008): 232 / 45% / 514.40

Bigcheeze

Interesting. Other half has a 207 from new in 07 and has never had a single problem. It feels pretty solid and well put together.

Stevie Dakota

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

According to Warranty direct...3 French in the top 5...so much for that stereotype.

Top 10 most reliable European cars
Reliability Index Rating / Incident Rate / Average Repair Cost (£)
4. Volkswagen Polo (2005 – ): 35 / 18% / £190.48

.....................
10. Mercedes SLK (1996 – 2004): 55 / 18% / £296.73

I'll take a large grain of salt with that survey please.

Polo breaks down as often as the SLK (and we don't know how many of either are on their books), Polo is cheaper to fix so is therefore more reliable. Total arse biscuits

Also the average repair costs of the 207 are more than the SLK, I would like to see how many of each car they are basing their data on. Unless it's several thousand it's not what I would call a representative sample.

EPM

+1

And a few people buy those warraties on expensive motors when they know there's a chance of expensive problem. Bit like the satisfaction surveys which are only a measure of smugness for the most part.

Leonard Hofstadter

RoverJames wrote: »

I'll take a large grain of salt with that survey please.

Polo breaks down as often as the SLK (and we don't know how many of either are on their books), Polo is cheaper to fix so is therefore more reliable. Total arse biscuits

A massive +1 on that.

How the hell can the Polo be the fourth most reliable car and the Merc the 10 most reliable car when they both have the same propensity towards having problems?

The Merc is more reliable than cars 5-9 inclusive.

The Merc probably costs more to repair because you'd pay more money for Merc parts than for VW parts anyway.

By the logic of this survey, if a Skoda Octavia and an Audi A3 had the exact same propensity for giving trouble, then the Skoda Octavia would be deemed to be a lot more reliable than the Audi A3 because the Skoda would obviously cost less to repair, between lower parts prices and lower dealer labour. This survey would make a Skoda seem a lot better to buy even though the Audi is just as likely to provide trouble free ownership.

alias no.9

RoverJames wrote: »

I'll take a large grain of salt with that survey please.

Polo breaks down as often as the SLK (and we don't know how many of either are on their books), Polo is cheaper to fix so is therefore more reliable. Total arse biscuits

Age is not on the SLK's side either. Mileage and condition is unknown.

That said, if reliability is a measure of risk, then both severity (cost to repair) and frequency of occurrence must both be taken into account, you can argue about how they're weighted but they both count. The real problem here is sampling, cars should probably be grouped by age and segment or price. I doubt anyone is torn between a 1996-2004 SLK and post 2005 Polo.

Zubeneschamali

The survey doesn't control for age of cars either. The 207s listed are 06-08 cars only, while the SLK is 96 to 04, so the Mercs are 2-12 years older than the Pugs.

Nonsensical comparison, really.

Cionád

It does, partially.

The Mercs must have been only 2004 models because...
"Warranty Direct analysed more than 20,000 live policies on European cars aged 3 to 7 years"

The 207's would be 2006-2008 only.

alias no.9

alias no.9 wrote: »

Age is not on the SLK's side either. Mileage and condition is unknown.

That said, if reliability is a measure of risk, then both severity (cost to repair) and frequency of occurrence must both be taken into account

Severity and occurence would indeed be the factors that would determine what the risk is. Many would rate if the customer was stranded due to the warrantly claim or not ahead of cost in a reliability survery.

Absurdum

so far behind the Japs that they need their own sector now?

Absurdum

Absurdum wrote: »

so far behind the Japs that they need their own sector now?

Daft isn't it.

Stevie Dakota

And I thought this thread would bring consensus to the motors forum at last.

Daegerty

So the 207 has the highest average repair cost, not surprising from Peugeot. It's grand for 5 years and then the repair bills really start clocking up, overpriced parts and all

alias no.9

RoverJames wrote: »

Severity and occurence would indeed be the factors that would determine what the risk is. Many would rate if the customer was stranded due to the warrantly claim or not ahead of cost in a reliability survery.

Indeed, as I said, you can argue as to how you would weight them, to deal with frequency of occurrence on an individual car i.e. a car that has a problem once is hardly inherrently unreliable where a car has multiple problems really is, you have to have a greater than linear increase with frequency. You also want to have an even greater increase with frequency in cases that leave you stranded than ones that don't.
An example of how you could do this would be to square the frequency and multiply it by the average repair cost for each individual car where the owner isn't left stranded. This really penalises the cars which have multiple failures.
Where the owner is left stranded, you use an exponential function i.e. e^x where x is frequency of being left stranded and again multiply by the average cost to repair, this absolutely batters cars that have multiple failures leaving the driver stranded. Below are the x^2 and e^x values for 1 through 10, so using this measure.

x . x^2 . . e^x
1 . . 1 . . . 2.72
2 . . 4 . . . 7.39
3 . . 9 . . .20.1
4 . .16 . . .54.6
5 . .25 . . 148
6 . .36 . . 403
7 . .49 . .1097
8 . .64 . .2981
9 . .81 . .8103
10.100 . 22026

Comparitively, 1 breakdown where the owner is left stranded is considered 2.72 time worse than a fault where the owner isn't. 10 faults where the owner is not left stranded is 100 times worse than 1. 10 breakdowns where the owner is left stranded are 220 times worse than 10 faults where the owner is not left stranded. All of this is just to illustrate the point, you could tune the relative severities by adding a multiplier to the x in either or both of the calculations.
What an index like this would really do is show that most cars are inherrently reliable and for all the talk about electronics etc... they're actually the reason most cars now start first time every time, regardless of weather conditions. You'd get a few bad models that would stand out like a sore thumb, but for most reliability is a given, very few drivers get stranded compared to what they used to.

Stevie Dakota

My brain just went into limp mode.

alias no.9

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

My brain just went into limp mode.

Sorry, in my defence, I'd just had some strong coffee.

cadaliac

alias no.9 wrote: »

Comparitively, 1 breakdown where the owner is left stranded is considered 2.72 time worse than a fault where the owner isn't. 10 faults where the owner is not left stranded is 100 times worse than 1. 10 breakdowns where the owner is left stranded are 220 times worse than 10 faults where the owner is not left stranded. All of this is just to illustrate the point, you could tune the relative severities by adding a multiplier to the x in either or both of the calculations.
What an index like this would really do is show that most cars are inherrently reliable and for all the talk about electronics etc... they're actually the reason most cars now start first time every time, regardless of weather conditions. You'd get a few bad models that would stand out like a sore thumb, but for most reliability is a given, very few drivers get stranded compared to what they used to.

Where on the original survey do they use multiples to exagerate the figures?
Of course they could massage the figures but I think myself that they generally are just picky with the figures they qoute.
On a side note - I wouldn't trust ANY survey, at all, of any discription.

Alias no 9's posts do explain rather well that the Warranty Direct league table in reliability is total arse biscuits

cadaliac

cadaliac wrote: »

Where on the original survey do they use multiples to exagerate the figures? .

They don't, all they have is number of claims and cost to fix for each model. Number of claims is a % of a number that we have no visibility on.

Is the index rating the actual position overall, as in the 207 is 22nd? So there are 21 non European yokes above it :eek:

Cionád

RoverJames wrote: »

Is the index rating the actual position overall, as in the 207 is 22nd? So there are 21 non European yokes above it :eek:

Yes.

Corolla still number one on their website.

Absurdum

RoverJames wrote: »

Is the index rating the actual position overall, as in the 207 is 22nd? So there are 21 non European yokes above it :eek:

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/what-is

What is Reliability Index?

It's really quite simple. The higher the Reliability Index score, the worse the car is - the lower the score, the better.
As a guideline, the average RI number on the 250 models we compare is 100.The Reliability Index figure is calculated as a combination of:
the number of times a car fails,
the cost of repairing it,
the average amount of time it spends off the road due to repairs
the average age and mileage of the vehicles we have on our books.
So it's not simply a case of recording how often a car breaks down - it's much more comprehensive than that and the data is constantly updated.

the top 100 is interesting...

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/top-100

No French stuff in the top 10.......

1.Toyota Corolla
4.00£148.622.Suzuki Alto
7.00£96.203.Honda HR-V
8.00£213.624.Ford Fiesta
14.00£111.095.Honda Jazz
16.00£195.106.Volvo S40
18.00£134.807.Mazda 2
20.00£114.588.Mitsubishi Colt
21.00£316.909.Lexus IS
21.00£393.8010.Toyota Yaris
22.00£169.60

KingIsabella

I've a 2004 206 and i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

BigEejit

But surely this survey is pointless unless you took data from equal numbers of each car type? For instance compare the USER reliability rating to the headline survey rating (though I suppose unsatisfied customers are likely to be more vocal, the squeaky wheels looking for some attention)

Zubeneschamali

"only when we have data for at least 50 vehicles will we display the results"

Some of these may be small samples, so.

VolvoMan

That survey is a load of bollocks. Even I'll admit that the S40 doesn't deserve to be up there.

THall04

So as I understand it , this survey is based on data about cars that break down and need to be repaired.

So what about cars that don't break down?
I had a Nissan Primera (00 reg) for 6 years , never broke down or needed repair, just a regular service once a year.

Can't see the Skoda Superb in the top 100.......does this mean its really bad.....or that they don't have enough data to put it in the list 'cause it never breaks down?