Most reliable cars. Shocker!

unkel

City car:

1. Opel Agila
2. Fiat Panda

Supermini:

1. Suzuki Swift
2. Dacia Sandero :eek:

Family car:

1. Dacia Logan :eek: :eek:
2. Toyota Auris

Small Executive car:

1. Volvo V40
2. BMW 3-series

Overall most reliable: Opel Agila :eek:
Overall least reliable: Renault Megane - phew at least we all got that one right

According to tests by Consumentenbond, a highly respected, powerful and independent consumer organisation in the Netherlands

colm_mcm

Any more info about the age of the cars etc?

ShadowHearth

In Fairness dacias using technology, which was already old 10 years ago. It is aither refined or its so simple, there is nothing to break in it.
Surprised to see volvo and BMW in the list though.

robtri

At first I was like fcuk me no way...
but I wonder because they are just so basic cars, engine and wheels really, does that help with reliability, so little to go wrong....

unkel

colm_mcm wrote: »

Any more info about the age of the cars etc?

It was part of a news item, very hard to get more info on it unless you are a paid up member of consumentenbond. It's definitely cars going back from a good few years ago until recent times though. The Megane was the Megane II ('02-'08).

Iirc from their surveys in the past, members (many thousands) keep track of all their costs of ownership and the data is collected and published by consumentenbond

unkel

robtri wrote: »

I wonder because they are just so basic cars, engine and wheels really, does that help with reliability, so little to go wrong....

They actually mentioned that in the news article

Not sure how true that is though. Every car sold in the EU (so including the high scoring but cheap as chips Dacias) must have ABS, traction control etc. And is there even a car for sale these days without electric windows, a cd player, etc.?

The Dacias remind me of the Skoda Octavia in the 90s. People laughed about them but they turned out to be more reliable than the Golf Mk IV and Audi A3 on which it was based. A bit like Dacia being more reliable than Renault today.

biko

Ok that list differs from others
UK http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/driver-power/64280/most-reliable-cars
IE http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/what-s-the-most-reliable-car-in-ireland-1.2073954
I guess it's all in how you build your stats.

That said, I think my next car will be a Panda :eek:

Guy:Incognito

The Agila won its category because the only one sold was to a 90 year old woman thats put 1000 miles on it in 10 years going to mass and back

bazz26

Wasn't the Agila a rebadged Suzuki Splash? Thought they stopped selling that here about 4 years ago because nobody bought them.

MuffinsDa

unkel wrote: »

It was part of a news item, very hard to get more info on it unless you are a paid up member of consumentenbond. It's definitely cars going back from a good few years ago until recent times though. The Megane was the Megane II ('02-'08).

Megane II and Megane III are completely different cars, and they have nothing really in common. Renault should have dropped the model name to shake off the bad reputation it earned with Megane II.

Also current volvo V/S40 is fundamentally different than previous versions.

Just to give an example: looking at Biko's link for UK - guess what's a real shocker: Audi A5, Zafira, and Subaru Forrester are all LESS RELIABLE than "Renault Megane", if you want to omit the variant number like you did in the original post.

road_high

The Agila is a rebadged Suzuki so has the Japanese reliability going on.
Those Dacias use old tried and trusted Renault parts that have been around forever so little new technology to go wrong.

Good to see Volvo slip in there. The previous S40 though a lovely car, was not noted for its reliability, mainly due to that 1.6d unit that gives frequent EGR, oil seal, turbo etc problems even if well looked after.

road_high

Which model Megane though? The 09 onwards model I'm hearing nothing but good reports on. Didn't it top the German TUV surveys?
The 02-08 was a heap.

unkel

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Megane II and Megane III are completely different cars, and they have nothing really in common. Renault should have dropped the model name to shake off the bad reputation it earned with Megane II.

Also current volvo V/S40 is fundamentally different than previous versions.

Just to give an example: looking at Biko's link for UK - guess what's a real shocker: Audi A5, Zafira, and Subaru Forrester are all LESS RELIABLE than "Renault Megane", if you want to omit the variant number like you did in the original post.

Indeed, I should have been more specific. In the news report, they specifically mentioned Megane '02-'08, so Megane II. They even showed a picture of one. As for the Volvo, they showed a picture of the current (new) model. The Agila was the second generation model. The Panda the current (new) model. Auris and 3-series also the current model.

I can only presume they showed the correct pictures for the models in their list

Henry Ford III

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Megane II and Megane III are completely different cars, and they have nothing really in common....

A ****e rep?

JohnBoy26

unkel wrote: »

They actually mentioned that in the news article

Not sure how true that is though. Every car sold in the EU (so including the high scoring but cheap as chips Dacias) must have ABS, traction control etc. And is there even a car for sale these days without electric windows, a cd player, etc.?

The Dacias remind me of the Skoda Octavia in the 90s. People laughed about them but they turned out to be more reliable than the Golf Mk IV and Audi A3 on which it was based. A bit like Dacia being more reliable than Renault today.

Were they though? The biggest issue with the mk4 golf was some of it's petrol engines weren't very good. The same engines were used in the Octavia and give the same problems and offer the same performance.

JohnBoy26

Henry Ford III wrote: »

A ****e rep?

The mk3 is a much better car than the mk2.

Leonard Hofstadter

Indeed, current model Renaults are every bit as reliable as anything else out there.

Sam Quentin

Ok so my 'assumption' on all this malarkey is>>>>people who drive these said cars are not psycho wannabe Raleigh Drivers. Tho that said 'BMW 3-Series'??? hmmmm

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Skylinehead

unkel wrote: »

Not sure how true that is though. Every car sold in the EU (so including the high scoring but cheap as chips Dacias) must have ABS, traction control etc. And is there even a car for sale these days without electric windows, a cd player, etc.?

That's all mature technology these days though, it should be fine.

Not like my ma's old 1990 Nissan Sunny with state-of-the-art for the time electric windows. Things broke every week.

Oafley Jones

draiochtanois wrote: »

says no one*

*except Renault owners

The only people who think the current Renaults are anything like the heaps of ****e from pre 07 are those that don't have clue about the current state of the car industry.

I don't own a Renault.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Oafley Jones

draiochtanois wrote: »

They aren't as bad as they once were but they are still below average & Dacia with a lot of the same technology are even further down the list

J.D Power survey 2015

But yeah what would J.D Power know compared to you!?

Ya they're only better than Honda, Audi, jaguar and Bmw etc according to your list. Which btw is extremely problematic as it's based on notoriously biased metric of user feedback. Doesn't really track with your point saying they weren't as reliable as anything out there does it.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Red Kev

German TUV (NCT) have their fail rates here, you can play around with it with cars going back to 1993.

http://www.anusedcar.com/index.php/tuv-report-year-age/2015-4-5/499



German ADAC (AA) stats for breakdowns are here for 2014. You have to flick through the different classes. Biggest faults in cars are for electrical faults. It used to be cars not starting, but as cars become more complex, running in emergency mode or shutting down altogether this is now the biggest fault area.

https://www.adac.de/infotestrat/unfall-schaeden-und-panne/pannenstatistik/default.aspx

For example: This is the table for lower mid size cars...

https://www.adac.de/infotestrat/unfall-schaeden-und-panne/pannenstatistik/pannenstatistik_detailergebnisse_2014/pannenstatistik_untere_mittelklasse.aspx

Oafley Jones

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hmmm...

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your own survey doesn't even back your point up FFS. Renault is a great litmus test on who to ignore on any motoring forum.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Most reliable?

Per year, is it?

Or per KM, is it?

Maybe Agila sees few kms per year but volvo is sales rep car and sees many?

Maybe NCT results are in ratio to cost of servicing also?

MuffinsDa

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Ya they're only better than Honda, Audi, jaguar and Bmw etc according to your list. Which btw is extremely problematic as it's based on notoriously biased metric of user feedback. Doesn't really track with your point saying they weren't as reliable as anything out there does it.

absolutely

+ Skewed averages from pre-09 models.

This really illustrates it:
https://www.adac.de/infotestrat/unfall-schaeden-und-panne/pannenstatistik/pannenstatistik_detailergebnisse_2014/pannenstatistik_untere_mittelklasse.aspx

biko

I see some claims with no sources so I assume it's either own experience from one car, or perhaps hearsay.
If people with strong claims could provide at least one source for their claims that'd be greeeeat

unkel

Red Kev wrote: »

German TUV (NCT) have their fail rates here

Interesting list. I have seen in other surveys that Porsches in general are extremely reliable in terms of number of times they break down (as shows in your TuV list), but I've also seen them low down the list in terms of break down cost

Presumably because when they do break down, it costs a lot to repair

The list in my OP is based on total cost of maintenance / breakdowns afaik, which obviously favours smaller and cheaper cars. Hence the high scores for the likes of the Agila / Dacias

And as others said, all of the above is fairly irrelevant if you do not take into account the likes of mileage (objective) and how hard the cars are driven (much harder to measure). Indeed there's not much to go wrong in a low end petrol car driven to mass once a week by an old lady!

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

JohnBoy26

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That link is totally meaningless to your argument.

MuffinsDa

:eek:

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are really verging on trolling now.
The most detailed and relevant list is the ADAC list I quoted a couple of posts above which specifies year, model etc. For starters, at the time of this report (2013), no post 2009 Renaults were even required to have NCTs. And everyone knows pre-09 they were pretty ****e. You are not proving anything beyond what we already discussed.

I am not going to waste any more time responding to your irrelevant nonsense.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

MuffinsDa

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

ad-hominem attacks won't win any arguments. They are one of the most commonly known forms of fallacious arguments.

1. The reason I pointed out that distinction was that I had personal experience and knowledge of that due to having an interest in it. I also mentioned Volvos as I've researched them too (but don't own one yet, going to buy one!). You brought this up by your throwaway comments after a few people making a point of making that distinction -which was acknowledged by OP- and you took on yourself to continue your Jihad regardless of how many hard facts and numbers thrown at you and how many times you are proven wrong.

2. From a statistical point of view, the 2015 numbers would have very little difference from 2013 in terms of skewed averages. I'm not even going to bother to explain it to you if you haven't got it so far you won't, but those who understand statistics will.

3. NCT data at best is aggregated across models/years. ADAC data is specific to model/year. Anyone with a modicum of logic would know which one is more pertinent to specific model.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

davycc

unkel wrote: »

City car:

1. Opel Agila
2. Fiat Panda

the agila is basicallly a rebadged suzuki wagon so no suprise there
cant beat the japs;)

unkel

davycc wrote: »

the agila is basicallly a rebadged suzuki wagon so no suprise there
cant beat the japs;)

That was the first generation Agila. Rebadged Suzuki Wagon R made in Japan

The one in this test is the second generation. The dual badged Opel Agila / Suzuki Splash. Made in Europe. Hence the superior reliability

BMJD

is there a link to this shocking survey so we can get some context to it?

JohnBoy26

unkel wrote: »

That was the first generation Agila. Rebadged Suzuki Wagon R made in Japan

The one in this test is the second generation. The dual badged Opel Agila / Suzuki Splash. Made in Europe. Hence the superior reliability

Both the wagon r and splash(Along with Opel's badge engineered version of the splash) were made at Suzuki's magyar plant in hungary. The second generation agila is also just a rebadged Suzuki.

CIP4

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you actually have any personnel bad experience with modern Renaults the way you are making them out to be unreliable. I mean no one is going to argue against a 2003 Megane being a sh!t unreliable car that had serious electrical issues. But I would honestly say the mk3 would be as reliable as its competition. Theres actually quite a lot of mk3 meganes 2009/2010 ex rep ones going on donedeal with fairly high mileage so they are well capable of putting up with heavy usage on a daily basis same as the competition.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

VeVeX

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He has a pole dancing parlour in the back of the dealership?

Leonard Hofstadter

This Renault bashing is getting wearisome. Yes, they made utter crap at one point, the Megane II and especially the Laguna II were the greatest steaming piles of **** of the noughties, but ever since about 2007-2008 Nissan's influence has started to pay off and the modern Renaults are as good as anything else you'll find. They're most certainly not my cup of tea, but they're fine cars for anyone who puts comfort and safety at the top of their shopping list in a car.

VeVeX

captainspeed wrote: »

This Renault bashing is getting wearisome. Yes, they made utter crap at one point, the Megane II and especially the Laguna II were the greatest steaming piles of **** of the noughties, but ever since about 2007-2008 Nissan's influence has started to pay off and the modern Renaults are as good as anything else you'll find. They're most certainly not my cup of tea, but they're fine cars for anyone who puts comfort and safety at the top of their shopping list in a car.

Some would say Renaults involvement with Nissan has been to the detriment of Nissan.

In my experience Renaults and Nissan's since the Renault involvement do not take mileage well. They get tired quicker than other marques with similar mileage.

JohnBoy26

VeVeX wrote: »

Some would say Renaults involvement with Nissan has been to the detriment of Nissan.

In my experience Renaults and Nissan's since the Renault involvement do not take mileage well. They get tired quicker than other marques with similar mileage.

In fairness Nissan models just before the renault take over didn't take mileage that well either. Mechanically they were very reliable but they were cheaply built and got tired at around 90-100k miles. The 95-00 almera and the 95-02 primera are examples of this.