Reliability

alias no.9

From another thread...

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Some people think they are "blandboxes" but they make some very interesting cars too, you only have to look at your mate's gt turbo thread to see this. Anyway Bland or not they do most things very well and unlike some European cars, at least they start every morning and don't brake your wallet with things breaking every 5 minutes :pac:

Also some seem to think a yaris is more ancient than a mk2 punto yet both came out the same year. One is fitted with an old 1.2 8 valve engine while the other has a much more modern and class leading at the time 1.0 16valve vvti unit. I know which one I'd rather

Back in the days of carburetors, manual chokes, etc cold mornings meant starting the car could be a roll of the dice. What is reliability these days, or more to the point, what is unreliability?

People still think of reliability in terms of cars not starting in the morning but the advent of engine management systems and electronic fuel injection, on every petrol car since the early '90s and on most diesels from the late '90s has pretty much meant that every car starts first time every time.

When was the last time your car didn't start on the first or second turn of the key and what was the problem? How old was the car?

The only reliability issue I've had with my current motor, a 14 year old Volvo which I've had for 18 months was the thermostat failing, it stuck shut. The temperature gauge shot way up very quickly and there was a warning on the dash to pull in.

dgt

It's biased uninformed muck talk like that, that keep peoples backs rubbed up the wrong way. It's disappointing that such carry on, still carries on to this day. More than likely, will continue to carry on

In my opinion, of course.

Reliable vs maintenance clearly are never looked in detail at very much by a fair majority of drivers.

Where does one draw the line? How does one define what's ample maintenance to provide decent enjoyable service? How does one foresee an unexpected mechanical failure?

166man

Reliability for myself is having a car that I know I can get into every morning and it will start. The suspension might squeak a bit or the door might be a bit stiff but in general I get into it I start it and I can drive it. Of course being a italian this means they take more maintenance to get them to this stage.

I now have two Alfas on the road both of which I believe to be reliable. I can get into them, start them drive them hundred of miles in a day and it's no problem to either of them. They're well looked after.

Quad on here has a near 20 year old Alfa GTV being used as a daily, he's done something mad like 14k miles in 7-8 months and his car has been fantastic for him. I honestly can't get over how reliable it is. Why? Because it was a well looked after car and got what it needed.

Im a firm believer in if you look after things, in general, they look after you. Unreliability is when you can't rely or trust in your car to get you from A-B.

Supergurrier

Volvo's are great

HardenendMan

For me, reliabile is a function of liklehood of failure and cost of repair.

I wouldn't mind a car that needed the O2 sensor cleaned regularly, or went through ball joints like there's more tomorrow.

But what really annoys me (and it happens mostly with german cars) is when an overly complex design/part is used to fix a minor problem. People get peeved when a repair costing thousands becomes inevitable due to over complicated design.

Bpmull

I personally think reliabilty is about a car being consistently dependable and starts stops goes as it should. Obviously the odd failure is expected with non service items but these shouldn't fail too often. When you think about how cars have gotten so complex through the years and they continue to get more and more complicated simply because people wouldn't buy them unless they have new tricks the old model doesn't have it's almost amazing that there isn't more problems with them.

I also think that although there are certain parts that fail due to bad design / quality the biggest effect on how reliable a car will be depends on how it is maintained and driven.

dgt

166man wrote: »

Reliability for myself is having a car that I know I can get into every morning and it will start. The suspension might squeak a bit or the door might be a bit stiff but in general I get into it I start it and I can drive it. Of course being a italian this means they take more maintenance to get them to this stage.

I now have two Alfas on the road both of which I believe to be reliable. I can get into them, start them drive them hundred of miles in a day and it's no problem to either of them. They're well looked after.

Quad on here has a near 20 year old Alfa GTV being used as a daily, he's done something mad like 14k miles in 7-8 months and his car has been fantastic for him. I honestly can't get over how reliable it is. Why? Because it was a well looked after car and got what it needed.

Im a firm believer in if you look after things, in general, they look after you. Unreliability is when you can't rely or trust in your car to get you from A-B.

Theoretical parallel universe this evening moment. What if someone were to come on and say despite all their efforts their "bulletproof don't make em lik they used to" corolla with low miles and fsh from day one, their engine has suddenly decided to mix oil and coolant for no reason...? You'd have some people in absolute uproar, shouting that that was unheard of/a liar/wanting to knock the best/making lame excuses etc.... I'm sure your good self has heard that nonsense too!

But every car has trouble. Just some moreso than others; D4D intake pipe, Avensis/Corolla Verso window regs, D4D boost solenoid, 4 pin injectors just to name a few of a long long list of commonly asked mechanical parts for Toyota alone. CRV wiper motors/washers in the bumper. Punto power steering unit. GM 1.7TD alternator

Some components are poorly made, others are cheaply made, others are a poor design. It's very interesting to see who does what

However from what I see reliability has a lot to do with the stigma associated with a car in this country. It's very sad tbh

Foxhole Norman

People knock French and Italians too much and for no reason, over the past 15 years we've owned 2 Laguna's, a Sei, Punto, 2 Clios, Mk.II Superb, Primera, 407, Mondeo, Fluence, an Ek Civic, Yaris and an E39.

The cars that broke down/hassle: Mondeo and the Primera. All cars are either serviced before it's needed or every year, whichever comes first, sure all 5 of us went to France for a week in the Punto, hilarious craic that.

Supergurrier

Yea Volvo's are definitely the best.

Great yokes altogether

unkel

Reliability is a non-issue these days. The least reliable car made today is far more reliable than most cars made 20 years ago. Even though it is more complex and safer. Did you all know ABS and traction control (both highly complex electronic systems) are standard and mandatory in all cars sold in the EU? None of these systems ever fail either really.

Don't tell this to the man in the pub though. He won't believe you

Duke O Smiley

I've got a 16 year old Corolla 1.3 with 145k miles on the clock. I got it last September with 137k on the clock and in the time I've had it it hasn't once failed to start or broken down or anything. I get a lot of people saying "ah sure that's Toyota for you / never need anything etc" but I don't think so. I've put a lot into the car; it's had a service, new tires, four new shocks, new cv joints, a few bulbs and new wiper blades. That all adds up, to more than I paid for the car actually but now I can depend on the car and I know it'll be reliable and it won't break down or fail to start.

I think 166man sums it up well though; if you look after a car, it'll look after you. You can't just fail to maintain it and then complain about it breaking down or needing money spent on it, it doesn't work like that. It can be a Punto or a Corolla.

quadrifoglio verde

unkel wrote: »

Reliability is a non-issue these days. The least reliable car made today is far more reliable than most cars made 20 years ago. Even though it is more complex and safer. Did you all know ABS and traction control (both highly complex electronic systems) are standard and mandatory in all cars sold in the EU? None of these systems ever fail either.

It's controlled by a computer....give it 20 years and that abs system will fail because the computer will decide feck this it's time for me to die.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see many of the 08 plus cars lasting to 20 years.
A dpf gets clogged on a 3 year old car, you'll fix it. When the car is worth 1k, very few will fix it.

Special Circumstances

unkel wrote: »

Did you all know ABS and traction control (both highly complex electronic systems) are standard and mandatory in all cars sold in the EU? None of these systems ever fail either really.

On the subject of volvos... anti skid service required...

CianRyan

I've seen enough Italian cars drive my friends into dispair to know that although I like them, I'm just not arsed buying them.

My MX5 will take dogs abuse and drove even better so why bother?
Not that I'm going to run it into the ground either but I could and unlike a similarly ages Alfa, it would still work this time next year.
The build quality and the parts quality is just in a different world.

unkel

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

It's controlled by a computer....give it 20 years and that abs system will fail because the computer will decide feck this it's time for me to die.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see many of the 08 plus cars lasting to 20 years.
A dpf gets clogged on a 3 year old car, you'll fix it. When the car is worth 1k, very few will fix it.

That's an open door, QV. Hardly any '88 cars lived to be 20 years old because they were long dead (phyisically just no longer working or rotted from rust). Hardly any '98 cars will still be around in a few years time because they are economically worthless as soon as they fail a test. You can buy a tested safe car for €500 so why spend any money on a failed car? Nothing is gonna change for '08 cars. They will be (economical) write-offs well before they are 20 years old...

Duke O Smiley

unkel wrote: »

That's an open door, QV. Hardly any '88 cars lived to be 20 years old because they were long dead (phyisically just no longer working or rotted from rust). Hardly any '98 cars will still be around in a few years time because they are economically worthless as soon as they fail a test. You can buy a tested safe car for €500 so why spend any money on a failed car? Nothing is gonna change for '08 cars. They will be (economical) write-offs well before they are 20 years old...

This is the problem in this country. Lets face it, you aren't going to get a great car for €500 and, lets face it, if your car managed to make its own way to the test centre, but it fails, it probably doesn't need €500 spending on repairs. Older cars could be kept on the road if people weren't so economically stupid.

Cheensbo

I think we,as enthusiasts (myself especially) take it too much to heart when someone talks down our chosen/favourite marque/model etc.

Reliability is what you make of it, as said, reliability is pretty much based on maintenance, some motors have massively different maintenance requirements - the definition of consumable parts varies massively across different makes, models and eras.

Some cars need a cambelt change every 100k, some need it every 30k, does this make the latter less reliable? no, it means they require a more proactive maintenance approach.

My current Pajero for instance, its a 92, has 375k kms on the clock, I'm regularly told "they're a savagely reliable yoke" - is it fuck, it's been poorly maintained and dogged for most of its life from what I can see, and it has suffered massively for it.

The starter regularly sticks so I've to park on a hill most of the time for fear I'll have to start it by; pressing my manual glow plug button, letting it roll, half releasing the clutch in gear and turning the key - all done simultaneously - :pac:

Reliability for me is not just the car starting in the morning, it's the overall car and all of it's components.


For example, I had a 2006 407. It took sometimes up to 5 goes to get it started on a cold morning. But it always started (eventually). However, broken fan flaps, a boot that decided it didn't want to open any more, an LCD screen that faded to black once in any heat, etc. so I would consider that to be an unreliable car.

Reliable to me, means that, not only will it start in the morning, but it also wont cost you money on repairs every week, due to non-service or electrical items 'just going' in it.

CianRyan

I always have to ask myself when thinking about reliability, "How would I feel driving this across Europe?".

Supra, dead happy to do that drive.
GTV6, terrifying.

unkel

Duke O Smiley wrote: »

if your car managed to make its own way to the test centre, but it fails, it probably doesn't need €500 spending on repairs. Older cars could be kept on the road if people weren't so economically stupid.

I admire your drive to keep cars on the road, I really do. None of those stupid scrappage schemes for me, scrapping perfectly good old cars just to buy new ones. But let's face it, economics are the only rational factor in deciding to chance / scrap a car. I applaud you if you take out your wallet to pay for something that isn't strictly worth it. Can't say I would do the same though

toastedpickles

Saabs, great reliable yokes altogether....


I'll see myself out

unkel

Good example

Bought my 10 year old Saab 9-5. Sold it 2 years later with a few small issues for €100 less than I paid for it. 100% reliability, always started. Nice car (not a drivers car though - I really wanted to go back to driving a refined petrol BMW) but a very nice luxury and comfortable car with good leather seats and much cheaper to own than all those terrible sh1tboxes sold new these days. I know they come with long warranties, but who needs warranties when all cars last decades? Those Hyundais and Kias are like rats infesting our roads imho

Duke O Smiley

unkel wrote: »

I admire your drive to keep cars on the road, I really do. None of those stupid scrappage schemes for me, scrapping perfectly good old cars just to buy new ones. But let's face it, economics are the only rational factor in deciding to chance / scrap a car. I applaud you if you take out your wallet to pay for something that isn't strictly worth it. Can't say I would do the same though

Part of it is down to my attachment to the car, I'll give it that. I like old cars, stuff that you just don't see anymore, and sometimes you get a comment along the lines of "I haven't seen one of those in a while" or whatever, it makes me grin Sad, I know but still..

But scrapping a car after an NCT fail is just something I wouldn't do because the money spent on another car could go on fixing the current car. If, and that's a big if, I had to scrap the Corolla its replacement will be just as cheap and cheerful, because I don't have the money to buy anything else. But I plan on seeing my Corolla to classic status so that isn't going to happen :P

166man

Deleted User wrote: »

Reliability for me is not just the car starting in the morning, it's the overall car and all of it's components.


For example, I had a 2006 407. It took sometimes up to 5 goes to get it started on a cold morning. But it always started (eventually). However, broken fan flaps, a boot that decided it didn't want to open any more, an LCD screen that faded to black once in any heat, etc. so I would consider that to be an unreliable car.

Reliable to me, means that, not only will it start in the morning, but it also wont cost you money on repairs every week, due to non-service or electrical items 'just going' in it.

With respect Kkv, you knew this was going to happen with the 407 even before you bought it. They do not have a reputation for being fantastically reliable those 407's and against nearly everyone's advice on here not to buy one you went ahead and bought one.

You went from a seemingly reliable car to a notoriously unreliable car and wondered where it all went wrong..?

Alanstrainor

The only time my 01 325ci has really let me down is with a burst rad. Any other times were due to my own stupidity when doing DIY jobs on it. Not reconnecting the battery terminals correctly, a coolant hose popping off when tearing up stocking lane and a few others. One of my keys is also a bit faulty.

My car certainly is not the most reliable of older cars, but it is easy to work on, and I keep it well. I can see why people would start to get fed up of their older cars. There would be a perception of the car needing constant work, and for most this would mean regular trips to a mechanic. Which would get annoying and costly fast.

My car has years of life left in it, but that doesn't mean I don't foresee some annoying or expensive jobs coming up. I'm certainly not ready to sell up just yet :cool:

jimmycrackcorm

Renault Megane is very reliable in that you know the window regulators will fail with regularity.

ShaunieVW

Reliability has much more to do with previous maintenance that it has to do with its inherent faults. My mother has a D4D avensis. Bulletproof they say, Absolute scrap Id say after a week of fixing a lot of things on it for her. However, It looks like it had a harsh unloved life. I have a 14 year old Audi. Should be a unreliable German thing as some say, Yet 2 years into ownership with a massive service history with receipts it hasn't given a days trouble and passed the NCT first time each time.

Foxhole Norman

Alanstrainor wrote: »

The only time my 01 325ci has really let me down is with a burst rad. Any other times were due to my own stupidity when doing DIY jobs on it. Not reconnecting the battery terminals correctly, a coolant hose popping off when tearing up stocking lane and a few others. One of my keys is also a bit faulty.

Funny enough, I had the exact same thing with my 525i :pac:

Only time it let me down so far, back up and going the next day though!

166man

Alanstrainor wrote: »

The only time my 01 325ci has really let me down is with a burst rad. Any other times were due to my own stupidity when doing DIY jobs on it. Not reconnecting the battery terminals correctly, a coolant hose popping off when tearing up stocking lane and a few others. One of my keys is also a bit faulty.

My car certainly is not the most reliable of older cars, but it is easy to work on, and I keep it well. I can see why people would start to get fed up of their older cars. There would be a perception of the car needing constant work, and for most this would mean regular trips to a mechanic. Which would get annoying and costly fast.

My car has years of life left in it, but that doesn't mean I don't foresee some annoying or expensive jobs coming up. I'm certainly not ready to sell up just yet :cool:

Your car is class though, the mods have been really tasteful that you did to it. Hopefully if you ever sell it doesn't fall into the hands of some gombeen who would just wreck it..!

ShaunieVW wrote: »

Reliability has much more to do with previous maintenance that it has to do with its inherent faults. My mother has a D4D avensis. Bulletproof they say, Absolute scrap Id say after a week of fixing a lot of things on it for her. However, It looks like it had a harsh unloved life. I have a 14 year old Audi. Should be a unreliable German thing as some say, Yet 2 years into ownership with a massive service history with receipts it hasn't given a days trouble and passed the NCT first time each time.

This is a key point. But with car maintenance very low down the pecking order of the regular irish public this is what happens.

Foxhole Norman wrote: »

Funny enough, I had the exact same thing with my 525i :pac:

Only time it let me down so far, back up and going the next day though!

Funny my BMW's both gave cooling problems too.... Notice a trend...?

Foxhole Norman

166man wrote: »

Funny my BMW's both gave cooling problems too.... Notice a trend...?

As reliable as they come :pac:

166man

166man wrote: »

With respect Kkv... You went from a seemingly reliable car to a notoriously unreliable car and wondered where it all went wrong..?

That's fair enough.. But I don't know how that'd affect my opinion or thoughts on what constitutes a 'reliable' car?

Without trying to sound rude or anything, I didn't say in my post I regretted buying a 407. I said that, even though it always got me from A-B, I'd still consider it an unreliable car... which is the topic of the thread..

166man

Deleted User wrote: »

That's fair enough.. But I don't know how that'd affect my opinion or thoughts on what constitutes a 'reliable' car?

Without trying to sound rude or anything, I didn't say in my post I regretted buying a 407. I said that, even though it always got me from A-B, I'd still consider it an unreliable car... which is the topic of the thread..

I guess I was speaking more in general. It hasn't much bearing on what you'd constitute a reliable car is, but if your preference is for something reliable to get you from A-B as it appears to be, it amazed me you went and bought a 407........

Toyotafanboi

Bpmull wrote: »

Obviously the odd failure is expected with non service items but these shouldn't fail too often. When you think about how cars have gotten so complex through the years and they continue to get more and more complicated simply because people wouldn't buy them unless they have new tricks the old model doesn't have it's almost amazing that there isn't more problems with them.

but why are failures with non serviceable items accepted by the consumer?

Even a cheap car is an expensive purchase in life.

Personally i have no problem maintaining my car and i agree with the trend of the thread that if you look after the car, it will look after you.

but take for example the BMW 2.0d known for timing chain trouble or the Rover K-series known for head gasket failure, these are an unreliable, inferior product and why anyone would want one is pretty much beyond me. Paying money for a car that cant be trusted to do 'car stuff' properly.

166man

166man wrote: »

I guess I was speaking more in general. It hasn't much bearing on what you'd constitute a reliable car is, but if your preference is for something reliable to get you from A-B as it appears to be, it amazed me you went and bought a 407........

Well when I was buying the 407, I was kind of under the impression that, although french cars in general have a few electrical issues, that a 9 year old car would have had it's problems sorted by now (I'd love to know how many previous owners, considering I was the 8th, went around with a broken heater!?).

I was also under the impression that although electrical issues may appear, the 407 engine will never really give any trouble, and the car will never really actually 'break down'. (And in fairness, it never did, but it did have trouble starting, even after a new battery and glow plugs went in).


I'd consider the 407 a learning curve. I'm only driving two years and I've had four cars. I like to try different things and although I did kind of know that the 407 had the potential to be a troublesome car, I didn't think it was going to cause so much aggro so quickly. I only planned to own it for a year at most, so figured I'd "get away with it".

... How wrong I was.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

i must admit , im not a fan of VAG reliability

my a3 is 13 years old 75 k miles on it
in the last year it has had


1/ alternator recondition for failed rectifier - maybe this can be expected as due to age .

2/ cluster meters ( temp and fuel ) are 30% off kilter ( regulator / diode issue i think ) not acceptable IMO

3/ alternator harness recon due to high resistance at battery end - not acceptable , and can cause fires IMO

4/ engine fuse box replace ( related to issue 1 and 3 ) - not acceptable , and can cause fires IMO

5/ air intake / pcv valve replace ) pipe is pvc and corroded to pieces - not acceptable IMO

6/ thermostat replace - probably expected

7/ hazard switch replace ( its on its third one now ) probably expected

8/ arb bushing replace - normal wear probably expected

Bpmull

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

but why are failures with non serviceable items accepted by the consumer?

Even a cheap car is an expensive purchase in life.

Personally i have no problem maintaining my car and i agree with the trend of the thread that if you look after the car, it will look after you.

but take for example the BMW 2.0d known for timing chain trouble or the Rover K-series known for head gasket failure, these are an unreliable, inferior product and why anyone would want one is pretty much beyond me. Paying money for a car that cant be trusted to do 'car stuff' properly.

I'll agree with you on this there is a non servicable part failing on the odd model and then there is a bad design and inferior products causing the same component to fail on every model. What I was referring to was that if for example you had a car for a few years and the altenator failed for example but that was the only thing that had failed I wouldn't consider that an unreliable car as overall it caused little trouble and sh!t happens.

Anyone that expects to buy a secondhand car and never have to change anything outside of service parts well they would be just foolish. In a system that has so many different parts it's only logical that something's will fail as it gets on in age even if they are well designed good quality parts.

unkel

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

the Rover K-series known for head gasket failure, these are an unreliable, inferior product

The head gasket only fails if the driver lets the engine overheat. This happens mostly to soccer mums in Landrovers and other people who have no idea about cars, but it never happened to me. I'm on my second car with this brilliant little engine and I truly enjoy (again) having paid next to nothing for it because Toyotafanboi the man in the pub says this engine is unreliable and inferior

nd

the 00 on, almera engine def has timing chain issues imo.

galwaytt

unkel wrote: »

Reliability is a non-issue these days. The least reliable car made today is far more reliable than most cars made 20 years ago. Even though it is more complex and safer. Did you all know ABS and traction control (both highly complex electronic systems) are standard and mandatory in all cars sold in the EU? None of these systems ever fail either really.

Don't tell this to the man in the pub though. He won't believe you

Look, I have an 03 911. Porsche regularly score well in ADAC ratings for reliability.
However, when they fubar, even seldomly, it's usually major. As in 5-figure major. So far, touch wood, it hasn't. But it is never far from my mind. And it encourages a type of parnanoia - " er, what's that ticking noise ? What's that rattle ? What's that hum ? "

But my 01 Audi had a litany of electronic faults for a year. And our 00 Seicento needed a head gasket.

So which is the most reliable - the one that has the litany of small, expensive stuff which may leave you stranded, the one with the big cheap repair, or the one that if/when it may go, will probably bankrupt you.

On the premise of the one we could all most easily deal with, the Fiat is the winner really.

166man

galwaytt wrote: »

Look, I have an 03 911. Porsche regularly score well in ADAC ratings for reliability.
However, when the fubar, even seldomly, it's usually major. So far, touch wood, it hasn't. But it is never far from my mind.

But my 01 Audi had a litany of electronic faults for a year. And our 00 Seicento needed a head gasket.

So which is the most reliable - the one that has the litany of small, expensive stuff which may leave you stranded, the one with the big cheap repair, or the one that if/when it may go, will probably bankrupt you.

On the premise of the one we could all most easily deal with, the Fiat is the winner really.

Head gasket on the Fiat was more than likely due to maintenance by pervious owner or lack of!

Plus how can you not love those little cars? Everytime I see one I picture it speeding along the outside lane of the motorway at 85mph urging those ahead of it to get out of the way. Call me sad but I love stuff like that!

C'mon gimme your best shot I'll take YA on....:D

chickenbone

I have an 05 Audi a4 estate with 180k kilometres on it, and a 00 seicento with 32k miles on it. I change the oil on each every 6k kilometres and neither have ever given me an ounce of worry. I was considering changing the Audi , but I've decided to keep it into classic years now. It really is about regular oil changes.

unkel

How's the Porsche going for ya?

Love those seicentos myself BTW. Brilliant little cars.

166man

chickenbone wrote: »

I have an 05 Audi a4 estate with 180k kilometres on it, and a 00 seicento with 32k miles on it. I change the oil on each every 6k kilometres and neither have ever given me an ounce of worry. I was considering changing the Audi , but I've decided to keep it into classic years now. It really is about regular oil changes.

Shows what can happen when you maintain these things instead of never doing anything to the car instead of petrol and tyres as some others would have you believe.

unkel wrote: »

How's the Porsche going for ya?

Love those seicentos myself BTW. Brilliant little cars.

Have had a hankering for a Porsche myself lately, driven a few and everytime I want to not like them but I always get out liking them....:o

The Seicento is one of the best small cars out there. I'd have one over a Yaris/Micra any day of the week as would a few others Id say. Mals one is an absolute beast!

Foxhole Norman

166man wrote: »

The Seicento is one of the best small cars out there. I'd have one over a Yaris/Micra any day of the week as would a few others Id say. Mals one is an absolute beast!

We had a silver Seicento Sporting with I think red decals on it back in 2000, hilarious little car, the mother loved it!

beauf

Things that have stopped my cars dead have been.

Batteries. Colder winters and cars not being driven much. And then for only short journeys. Hitting the batteries very hard

Alternators & Starters failures. Hairline crack in battery connector. All older cars 4-15yrs old. ABS failure. The ABS failure could still be driven though.

Flat tire. No spare, just a compressor and can of foam. Meant it had to be repaired before it could be driven far.

Back in 2000 a mates Porsche had engine failure at 20k. I've known people with newish turbo diesels having expensive repairs too. Something the older low tech petrol engines tend not to have.

Ded_Zebra

CianRyan wrote: »

I always have to ask myself when thinking about reliability, "How would I feel driving this across Europe?".

Supra, dead happy to do that drive.
GTV6, terrifying.

I used to think this too. I would have told you that I would have happily jumped into my Primera and driven it across Europe in the morning and I wouldn't even have had the cheek the oil. Thought it was the most reliable car ever and nothing would ever stop it, and then suddenly the gearbox exploded and left me 1/2 in a ditch.

I don't have a point to this really other than I've no real idea how to measure reliability... To sum up all I can say is reliability is predictably unpredictable:p

CianRyan

Haha, I think it's fair to say that all cars are unreliable because at some point, they all go wrong.
Some are just more unreliable than others seeing as they go wrong more often and more catastrophically.

Ded_Zebra

I think what I'll do is just stop worrying about reliability at all. I'll just drive whatever I want because of whatever reason (looks, colour, driving experience, comfort, smell) and just enjoy it. If it happens to be reliable too then great

CianRyan

Honestly for a second, reliability is not something that would cross my mind when buying a car.
And I like old cars, old cars break so often it's not even funny.

dingus12

Notable unreliable cars in my opinion
N47 520d and 320d dur to timing chain sprocket
Nissan Navara d22 due to shell bearing failure/ always end in a rod out of the block
Nissan Navara d40, timing chain stretch due to be a single row rather than the previous double row chain on the d22
320d e46, turbo failure is common on the 150bhp version much more than other cars with the same turbo due to a filter in the oil supply line which was since done away with.
1.0 corsa c, timing chain rattle
vw bora, electronics nightmare with window switches/alarms
Renult DCI engines, fuel pump/pressure sensors, doesn't seem to be a problem for other common rail diesels
MG rover ZR. probably the worst build quality you could imagine of any car built in the last 20 years
transit vans, they rust before you have them home from the dealership
Honda accord diesel, timing chain, in fairness it was there first attempt at diesel
Nissan almera, again timing chain stretch,
mercs from 00 to 08
rangerovers (mad air suspension setups which all go wrong at some stage)

Reliable engines/cars In my opinion
BMW M57 530d e60 engine, pre dpf model
Toytota carina/avensis up till 02
Landcruisers, apart from injector issues,
hilux (enough said)
hiace vans
Virtually any honda petrol engine, espiaclly vtecs
volvo's
mazda's not the mazda badged ford's though
lexus is200, no other car could be diffed/abused as long and drive home
petrol lexus engines

spiggotpaddy

The brothers Octavia with its 1.4 most derided engine on boards is just coming up on 200.000 miles. So unreliable them 1.4's.