I was pumping gas into my WRX this morning when a man in a Ford F-350 yelled, "I had a 1983 Subaru GL. I drove it until 1992, sold it to a friend who drove it for another 5 or 6 years. Then he gave it to his son. Still on the road, with over 400,000 miles.Your car will never die." I responded that in the 160,000+ miles I'd put on my two WRXs I've replaced a battery and a headlight (though a buddy of mine burnt a clutch — let's not count that). Then there's my girlfriend's 2001 Ford Focus. She barely drives it. At 73,000 miles we replaced the radiator puke tank, thermostat housing and cooling fan and then discovered that all the engine mounts are shot. And those are just the iceberg tips in terms of crap that's malfunctioning. I give the transmission 5,000 more miles, tops. And we're not alone. Google "Ford Focus Radiator Overflow Tank" to meet our compatriots. And my question is why are some makes (or even some years within a make) so very much more reliable than others?
65 Comments on “Question of the Day: Can Anyone Explain Reliability?...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Reliability to me means not developing rattles and squeaks in the first 2 years that are louder than the car’s stereo and also not having a complete mechanical meltdown at 80K miles like my ‘92 SHO did.
Some car makers simply put more engineering and testing effort into their designs than others. While an exciting new car design gets people into the showroom, long term reliability is what keeps me coming back to the same brands.
Small sample size?
Do a study of suppliers. The transplants spend a lot of time working with suppliers and will pay more for quality parts versus the D2.8 who pressure their suppliers for lowest cost 99% of the time. In some cases the same part will be on a Toyota and a GM but Toyota pays more for the part and has a higher quality expectation versus GM pays less and often gets the parts that Toyota rejects or would reject.
Also D2.8 are companies run by accountants and used car salespeople and focus less on the engineering of the vehicle but on profits, marketing and styling.
Subjectively, I’ve owned 3 GMs 2 Dodges, 5 Hondas, 1 Mazda, 3 Porsches…all older models that I would treat fairly and maintain myself. I rank Honda #1 b/c they hardly break unless abused or improperly maintained (yes Honda has some problems but they also do recalls outright instead of hiding the defects, or provide extended warranties). 2nd I’d rank Porsche…for the price you pay you’d expect them to be the most reliable but they are built to be driven and driven hard yet still get you where you want to go. 3rd I’d rank Mazda/Nissan – they start having lots of problems when they do get older. Last I’d rank my GM and Dodges (even a 2005 model). Things just stop working or plastic breaks b/c it was brittle or seat cushions wear out in just 10k miles. The quality of the products they use are Wal-Mart grade and it shows so quickly. Soon has you hit warranty things start going wrong…They seem to engineer the cars to just last the warranty rather than make an impression on you.
I thought this’d be a simple question?
Certain makes are more reliable than other makes because each marque has a different focus.
Toyota and Honda built their reputation on functional cars with reliability as paramount focus.
Alfa Romeo doesn’t care too much for reliability (and neither do their customers), but design and soul is standard is Alfa Romeos.
Ford and Volkswagen built their reputations on being “The people’s car”
but recently lost focus.Volvo and Renault have safety as its brand vales.
Hyundai and Skoda have value pricing.
Which bring me to branding. As long as you stay true to your core values, there’s no harm in expanding your brand logically.
Some brands have reliability as it’s core value, some have styling, some have the “everyman” quality about it and some have safety as its core raison d’etre. That is what draws customers to your brand. Reliability is still a “value” which people either wants or don’t. I mean, people don’t buy an Alfa Romeo because they want a reliable car, do they….?
I think a lot of this has to do with design.
Not in the traditional automotive sense, but in the sense of design of development.
Some things are designed to be sexy, and performance focused and the durability is a second rate requirement.
It isn’t that BMW can’t design (and them build) a car as reliable as Honda – it is that they design to make cars more sexy and perform better.
They understand that they will not lose sales if the X6 has horrible reliability after 6 years, because the people who can truly afford BMWs will not be concerned with repairs.
They may be thrilled with latte in the service department and the free loaners, or they may just move on to their next lease.
The Honda owner on the other hand will have quite a different reaction.
Reliability is the ability of a product or system to perform as intended (i.e., without failure and within specified performance limits) for a specified time, in its life cycle application environment. Relaibility in automotive typically deals with the 99.5 percentile driver, in other words 99.5% of drivers operate the vehcle within the specified performance limits. The other 0.5% are SOL.
Honda and Toyota validate their products well and apparently have a better idea of what 99.5% of drivers expect out of their cars, thus more relaible cars in the customers eyes. Some have no clue.
Reliability is something Japanese cars appear to have more of!
I will get all crazy and say Reliability is best represent by Mean Time Between Failures. The severity of the failure can be captured in Time to Repair and Cost to Repair.
Maintainability can be measured in the time to conduct repair. Small times equals easier to maintain. This of course does not measure cost.
I have owned 2 Chrysler products, 1 Mitsubishi, 1 BMW, 1 Mercedes, 1 Hyundai, and 1 Buick.
Order of reliability I have observed from best to worst.
1. Hyundai- burnt out bulbs and scheduled maintenance only.
2. Buick- tie-rod ends and speaker fixed under repair. Scheduled maintenance otherwise.
2. Mitsubishi- 2 failed axles under warranty. Scheduled maintenance, flat tires, and Oil Pan punctured by my bad driving.
4. Mecedes- Engine cylinder replacement and power window motor replacement.
5. BMW- Got is used drove it for a year. Repairs to keep on road cost way more than car was worth. Turned it in to junk yard.
Lots of things change based on sample size and personal experience.
The domestics have to cut corners to make a price point. GM just sucks at reliability, Ford is apparently hovering around in the middle of the quality race, neither great nor horrible.
Toyota/Honda/Subaru can use their reputation to charge a premium that covers the cost of superior parts and engineering.
Hyundai/Kia are still learning.
This is comparing apples to apples. Trying to hold BMW up to Civic reliability isn’t fair; they are using expensive and complicated tech to create a top end ride. It’s only reasonable to conclude they are going to have more problems than the meeker cars.
I think KatiePuckrik pretty well nailed it. You don’t buy an Alfa for reliability. BUT you would expect a Ford to be a reliable car. I figure the more exotic the more prone to break. Each car does something better than the other guy (or should). I would put up with a less reliable car if it was an Alfa — Citroen or Ford not so much
for what it’s worth, i put 89k miles on a ‘95 dodge spirit, then had a ‘99 taurus that i put 98,000 almost trouble free miles on before a recent college grad totaled it with her grad present. replaced with a ‘02 taurus bought used w/12k miles; around 89k needed $1200 worth of work to stop oil, trans, coolant leaks that i suspect were somehow caused by a local shop that coincidentally changed all three of those fluids a week earlier. then drove it to 102k until nagging engine light that wouldn’t go away. now driving ‘07 accord trouble free at 21k. so who knows. i haven’t known anyone with an “unreliable” honda or toyota. 2 friends with much less than reliable passats (one needed new engine at 40k miles). my dad put 250k on a ‘78 ford fairmont. i guess this doesn’t really help to answer the original question, does it?
They understand that they will not lose sales if the X6 has horrible reliability after 6 years, because the people who can truly afford BMWs will not be concerned with repairs.
Think about that for a few minutes. The Cadillac, Lincoln and the Chysler brands used to operate under the same princple when Mercedes Benz began to eat their breakfast, lunch, and dinner in the 1970s and we know just how synonomous these brands are today with “luxury”!
Luxury = Quality = Reliabilty. Once people no longer precieve a product as being of “high-quality” the luxury cache value drops very quickly. Lack or quality leads to a lack of reliabilty leading to a reputation of being “cheap” Once the majority of people view a product as being cheap they will NOT pay top dollar for it anymore.
It all comes down to trying to squeeze money out of suppliers. When it comes down to it, it is worth it to pay another 50 cents here, or a dollar there and the car will last longer, but to a bean counter, that is 50 cents or a dollar more profit. Don’t worry about the reputation your car has of shedding parts like my dog does hair.
I worked for a small computer company in college that sold key tracking and security systems to car dealers. Someone had the idea that they could save money by sourcing the logic boards to a cheaper company. It saved about $15 per board. Despite the fact that QC said the test boards we got were pieces of shit, they decided to work with it. After about 2 years, and numerous headaches, they finally got the kinks worked out. The new boards had a fail rate of about 35% compared to about 5% on the old ones. Not to mention they all had to be hand modified by our people when we received them to even make them work to begin with (one fix required a dremmel!). Some times it just is not worth being cheap.
I own an 1998 Isuzu Rodeo with 200,000 miles on it. I have had to replace the fan clutch, power steering pump, timing belt, plugs, and radiator hoses other then normal wear and tear. It still drives great and there isn’t a single leak. I read about horror stories online about them but I haven’t had any problems. So there is an element of chance in it too. Some makes just give you a better chance than others. Also, had a 1988 Subaru Justy 3cyl. Never even changed the clutch on it. Timing belt and oil changes only. Sold it in 2002 with 258,000 miles on it for $500. The AC was still cold as ever. Ride was terrible because I never changed the shocks, but the thing was bulletproof, so ya, it’s hard to kill a Subie.
Three or four decades of dead-solid-reliable vehicle production, where the average buyer does little more than change the fluids as scheduled, and maybe replaces a burned-out lightbulb or two.
This is why Toyota is becoming #1 on the planet, while the Detroit junk peddlers are heading towards very well-deserved bankruptcies.
Anecdotal stories can be found all across the spectrum, but it’s not too difficult to comprehend what is truly reliable, and what is not. I sure can’t fathom, though, how some people manage to ignore all of the information floating around, and get their asses stuck with some of the least reliable crap on the planet.
The Toyotas, Honda and Acura I’ve had all went 100K+ with nothing, (besides wearables, like brakes and tires), replaced. All components worked as designed without parts needing to be replaced. That’s what I consider the basis for good reliability. A Ford I owned had the paint peeling off at 50K. When I dumped the POS at 70k it needed an exhaust system, the power steering leaked like a sieve, the heater controls were broken and I had 1 fan speed, the radio broke, knobs fell off, turn signals broke, wiper arms broke, oil leaked from the valve covers and oil pan, real main seal leaked, a wheel bearing went bad and the windows squeaked horribly while lowering, shocks were kaput. That is at the other end of the scale for reliability. Ford’s MTBF needs real improvement. For modern cars 100K with nothing failing is a minimum.
ditto what barberoux said re: 100k with nothing failing. that i think is a good rule of thumb for “reliability.” the fusion may be one of the better ford offerings in a couple decades, but there’s really not much empirical evidence re: reliability for a car that’s only been on the road for 2 or 3 years.
Reliability has two different meanings…
Some products will perform great when properly serviced. Take some OLD Detroit iron, tune it up, service it with proper parts, change oil every quarter, lube the chassis every year and take care of the rust – you’ll have one of the most reliable cars out there. Or take a Porsche, take it to the dealer for a gazzilion dollar maintenance every oil change, and you’ll have the world’s most reliable daily driver supercar. That kind of reliablity is rather old-school these days.
Some products, on the other hand, will take anything you throw at them. Take an early 90’s beat-up Sentra with 150k miles, change oil once, and then top it off every time the pressure light begins to flicker. Drive it like that for 100K miles until someone runs into it and his/her insurance will give you $1500 for it. Then just get another one. That’s a whole different kind of reliability, one that Toyota and Subaru built their reputation on.
Finally, there are cars that won’t stand up to abuse no matter how much money you throw at them. Surprisingly few of those exist, actually. New VW’s are a good example, though.
Every manufacturer designs their cars to perform to at least 150K miles without a failure. I would consider that to be the benchmark for a reliable vehicle. Certain parts are considered consumable during that time frame, of course, ie. brake pads, shocks, clutch, etc. Unfortunately, the ability of the vehicle to actually perform to this level depends on the accuracy of the testing/modeling as well as the manufacturability of the design, and capability of the supply base. Throw in factors like bad roads or extreme weather, not to mention extreme negligence inflicted by owners and most cars will not meet this benchmark without extreme over-engineering.
Most of the time, the first model year is going to be the most problematic. However, in later years the finance group starts pushing for material cost reductions, and the parts are cheapened, usually to the detriment of reliability. And then you have the manufacturers who are happy relying on more calculations than actual testing (Chrysler, cough) and wind up with truly unreliable designs. Or others (Alpha), who just don’t care about reliability. Then there are the BMW’s who try to be at the bleeding edge of technology/performance so they run a high risk of being unreliable.
Toyota and Honda can be reliable because they incrementally improve their designs with each generation rather than scrapping the whole thing and starting over like is done in Detroit.
Jonny,
Those engines are fine until folks turn the boost up. Transmissions are fine sans hooning. The engine should last quite a while, but the timing belt change is quite pricey and needs to be done at 110k. I have 118k on mine with countless wheel bearing replacements and other little things…but all are caused by quite frequent autox/track usage. Standard wear. It’s also on transmission #6. Most folks eyes pop when they hear that one. All of them were quite reliable until broken during some sort of botched launch attempt (and 1 dealership drain but not replace fluid incident.)
Squeaks and such have been there initially…but the car itself should run indefinitely. :)
This is comparing apples to apples. Trying to hold BMW up to Civic reliability isn’t fair; they are using expensive and complicated tech to create a top end ride. It’s only reasonable to conclude they are going to have more problems than the meeker cars.
What a bunch of market hype!
That would make sense IF the 3 series did not list for a base price that is a good $15,000 more than a Civic. By the same token I such expect my Craftman/ Black and Decker power drill to fail long before a no name discount store special would!
At the end of the day a 3 series is a basic RWD car equiped with a McPherson strut front suspenson and a 5 point multilink in the back. The body might be built a bit stiffer than a Honda but as engineering goes I would say that there really is not much difference that should lead to one car having much higher reliabilty than the other. The stuff that “goes” on a BMW but does not fail on a Honda is simply due to Honda actually using BETTER engineering than BMW.
Everyone in this game is trying to maximize their profits BMW is no different so yes even the great BMW is cutting some serious corners ensure that their cars are PRICE competitive with those of MB and Audi let alone Lexus. When trim pieces start falling off and the power windows stop working on your BMW go right ahead and believe it is due to “superior” engineering.
That arguement used to hold water when regarding Italian exotics when each marque was independently owned and those car were essentailly hand built “kit” cars. The only reason people put up with that was because there was NO alternative.
Reliability is a couple of things to me:
1. No problems that demand immediate attention.
If I didn’t break it, but I have to tow it in, then you have failed me as my manufacturer.
2. No problems that demand an extended stay at the dealership.
I don’t care if it’s a whole transmission, the entire front clip, a switch, a lightbulb, or a floor mat. Okay, okay…I might not expect ‘em to have a front clip in stock.
But for the most part, if I made an appointment a day or three before, and then brought it in at my appointed time (usually before 9 am) and I still have to leave it overnight, then the manufacturer AND the dealer have failed me.
Sorry the stink is on both of you, because the dealer and manufacturer are in partnership with each other. Pay attention to the business, and keep things in stock!
3. No return trips for the same problem, or for new problems caused during the “attempted fixing” of the original problem.
When I bring my car in, I expect it to be fixed. And it should be fixed correctly the first time. I should NEVER have to bring it back because somebody forgot to reset the engine warning light, the wrong part was installed, or the right part was installed wrongly.
And I should NEVER NEVER EVER EVER find “spare parts” like screws, plastic dashboard pieces, wires, levers, knobs, switches, door-coverings, or other trim pieces, that I know for sure were removed but never re-attached!
That burns me the most of all, and it was a sin committed most often by Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile dealerships in all the time I’ve been driving and caring for my cars. Never had this happen at the BMW, Toyota, or Mazda service deparments.
Design, manufacturing AND service all contribute to the not-so-intangible “reliability factor” for me.
I can give an example of reliability.
We once borrowed a car from a friend, while our car was in the shop. The borrowed car was a 10 year old Corolla. I thought it would be a nice gesture to check all the fluids. When I checked the oil, it was full, but the dipstick looked as if it had been thrust in and out of a litter box several times.
Returning the car, I asked our friend when was the last time the oil was changed?
She replied – Changed?
The car still ran like a top with 10 years worth of grunge in the crankcase.
I have to disagree with the BMW/Alfa can be less reliable school of thought. Reliability may not be everyone’s top priority, but there is absolutely no one who doesn’t like it.
If an Alfa was as reliable as a Honda, they’d sell more of them. No one would reject it as too reliable.
In the future, reliability will be standard. Any car maker that can’t deliver it will not be in business. This is a problem for Toyota and Honda (assuming any other companies survive) because their brand is all about reliability. When every brand has that kind of reliability there will have to be some other way of differentiating brands.
Is it just me, or does every QOTD these days start with Jonny buying gas?
hitman1970 wrote:
Maintainability can be measured in the time to conduct repair.
This statement only captures part of the meaning of maintainability. The other part consists of the time and cost to perform the necessary routine preventative maintenance.
Some cars can hold up when you ignore the routine maintenance (like Toyota), some cars suffer greatly without it so you must keep to a strict schedule (e.g. Alfa).
Owners of inexpensive cars tend to ignore routine maintenance, those with more expensive cars not so much making comparisons between different classes of cars very difficult.
mxfive4,
I don’t buy the notion that there is a trade-off between reliability and performance. Otherwise, explain LeMans. Or S2000.
The thing that really annoys me with modern cars is that minor electric glitches render the car absolutely useless. It may well be a five minute fix but it is impossible to fix on the roadside without model specific equipment. So it needs towing to a garage.
I know it is totally possible and realistic to build electronics that do not break in normal use, but it would mean having much smaller tolerances and using better quality parts which gets a lot more expensive really fast.
Quite soimply manufacturers choose to build reliable cars, or choose not to. I would be really surprised if not all manufacturers count how many failures per amount of cars they are willing to accept for a given amount of costs saved.
‘Reliability’ and ‘durability’ are often confused. Reliability is what alex_rashev listed first. The ability of a part to perform to spec when maintained to spec. Durablity is the ability of a part to withstand abuse/exceed spec.
Performance cars are often ‘reliable’ but expensive to fix/often in the shop due to precision parts with precise specs. Just ask anyone who was replace a timing belt or multi-link suspension component.
Honda’s are an example of durability, they are generally undertuned, and according to a previous discussion ‘under-engineered’ but this allows them to withstand abuse.
For the average passenger, A to B vehicle, reliability and durability are synonomous. For specialized application (off-road, forextreme weather, performance, etc) one may be traded for other considerations.
Just my $.02.
Dynamic88 says I have to disagree with the BMW/Alfa can be less reliable school of thought. Reliability may not be everyone’s top priority, but there is absolutely no one who doesn’t like it. . We all wanted our Alfas to be more reliable but then, we were willing to put up with it because there as no alternative to the Alfa in taht price range. Today? Hmmm in the BMW price range how would Alfa do in the US? My guess is not well unless it was both sexy and reliable
Hmmm – Reliability
It is what makes a Subaru, a Subaru.
Biased? Yes, but very truthfull too.
First of all this is 2008 not 1960. With very few exceptions, automotive technology, at least the technology that affects reliability is fairly static for most cars. We aren’t seeing big advances in the efficiency of the i.c.e. due to tech. So why should there be ANY straglers at this point? All the components are available to build a reliable car. It has to come down to accounting.
whatdoiknow1 is dead on. Anyone whose owned a BMW/Audi and excuses the plague of problems because of it’s superior technology is deluding themselves with market hype. Maybe a 3-series has a few more gizmos than a Civic but overall it should be roughly just as reliable. Check engine lights, radio malfunctions, transmission locking into 2nd gear, simply inexcusable for a premium luxury car.
And that’s why Lexus/Acura/Infiniti have carved such a market share for themselves – because their cars won’t make you pull your hair out after 10,000 miles. I’ll never buy another luxury car from BMW/Audi after the problems they’ve given me. But they’ve got great lease rates and free maintenance so they’re perfect for lease and release.
When your FWD automatic transmission doesn’t blow up at 60,000 miles (do you hear me Chrysler?).
“Reliable” is when you don’t think the car is a pain in the ass.
My friend claimed his Volvo 740 was reliable. He cautioned me not to use the seat heaters, because it might catch the seats on fire.
A Toyota Supra, that after three plus years, and after I sold it, had needed no repairs of any kind.
I think it’s kind of funny that most people these days will not put up with a car that breaks down once a year but make numerous trips back to the store to repair/replace malfunctioning cell phones, computers, TVs, etc. that depreciate at a rate that makes a Chrysler product look like a wise investment. And that isn’t even getting into software issues…
The fact is that these things cost most people far more lost time than an “unreliable” car. Of course they won’t get you left on the side of the road, but how many people do you really see on the side of the road these days unless it’s for a flat tire? In the cell-phone age it’s just an inconvenience, you will probably be riding the hook in under an hour.
I own a beater GM product that I paid $400. for and have 160K on it. I put 20k miles on it in the past year. It has needed a radiator and a water pump (at different times), and it really needs a tie-rod end. But it has never left me stranded anywhere and has been dirt cheap to fix. Some people may call it unreliable but I say it’s plenty reliable enough. And if the engine blows up I’ll leave it on the side of the road and go get another one, and laugh all the way to the bank.
Alfa’s are no less reliable than the Detroit junk, at least the one I owned was.
Here’s my reliability experience:
Honda Prelude(first car) – total lemon, engine rebuild at 90k miles (probably not Honda’s fault since I think the previous owner abused it, and I think the odo rolled over, hey it was my first car) gave it to a friend when we moved with carb trouble.
Alfa Spider – 10 years and 185k miles as my daily driver and I drove that car hard every single minute. And it got abused pretty bad for the last 60,000 miles(50,000 miles without and oil change), the engine was rock solid when I parked it because the original clutch went, yep I got 185,000 miles out of the original clutch, actually it was the throw out bearing not the clutch that went. Replaced U-joints, mufflers, valve cover gasket, tie rod, axle bearings, more mufflers, 2 rims(both my fault), window regulator, all after 100k miles. Sure it had little issues and its interior door panels made of card board, rust in spots and a cigarette hole in my new top but the drivetrain was solid if maintained.
Eagle Summit($300 car my brother gave me) – ran great for 3 months and a few thousand miles than electrical gremlins and leaky brake lines forced me to junk it, but fun for the tin can it was.
Mercedes 300D(I dearly miss that car) – 285k miles 40k I put on. No mechanical problems until I threw a rod. Climate contol was a bitch and A/C lines started to leak at 260k. One hell of a cruiser, an easy car to do 12 hours of non stop driving in.
Pontiac Grand Prix (My fiances I got after we bought her the Caddy) – 166k miles, alternator(S), starter, water pump, power windows, engine mounts, and those were the things that we could fix. Would shut off when ever it pleased including merging on interstate. Transmission had a mind of its own and didn’t have much life left. Had the car crushed so I could have at least one day of ownership joy.
Cadillac DeVille (still own this a$$hole collecting dust) – 96,600 miles as I type this. 3 of 4 window regulators are shot, torque converter sensors are bad, A/C compressor quit, refrigerant lines leak, engine leaks and SPRAYS oil, tranny feels just like the Pontiac, little life left, electrical problems, wont run smooth to save it’s life more on that in a minute. That is what is wrong with it right now, this post will last forever if I list all the repairs I paid for before I decide not to put one more penny into that car. I figured I could have owned a nice used Porsche for all the money I have put in the sh*tbox, engine main seals, manifold, CV’s, etc. It’s days are numbered I am either going to use it for target practice or blow it up for GM’s centennial, I need that one day of joy again.
Subaru Legacy GT(had to get my wife and dughter something more reliable thatn that Caddy to ride in since the car stranded them 300 miles from home) – 40k miles and going strong, 2 injectors replaced, rear axle bearing and ECM replaced under warranty. Other than the warranty repairs the car has been 100% reliable and damn fun to drive.
I would say the preception gap is more like a chasm, and it’s very real.
how reliable a car is can have a lot to do with the owner. I’ve seen a lot of examples of cars taking a crap because the owner didn’t give one. Just because something is designed well doesn’t negate the fact that it is a machine that requires regular maintenance. I’ve seen countless Toyotas on flatbeds that all have the same problem: the owners.
In 96 I bought an 88 528e with 150k miles on it. After 4 yrs of relatively trouble free ownership, I bought a pair of 86 528es.
I put nearly 200k miles on the 88 before I retired it last Dec. Just normal wear items. I didnt get further into the engine then routine timing belts and a set of used injectors. The 86s were just as trouble free. All 3 cars were maintained by me in my driveway. None of them ever needed to be towed. One could be regarded as a fluke, but 3 has convinced me to stay with BMw 528es as long as possible.
Expectations! A friend who is an awesome auto mechanic changed a water pump on my GMC Safari at 120000kms and while I was whining about the failure of the pump he was more accepting of it saying that 120K was about right for that pump to fail. To me the Safari was unreliable (half a hundred other expensive things broke on it as well) but to him it was normal for things to break at different KMS. Imagine me expecting everything to last the lifetime of the vehicle sheeesh! OTOH I once owned a Dodge Aspen. To say it was a beater would be kind. I could not drive it at night (no lights), nothing worked except the engine and brakes. On sub-zero mornings I had to tie the door closed with the seatbelt until the car warmed up enough to thaw the door lock. I had absolutely zero expectations of the car and so when it started it was a bonus. It was without doubt the worst car I ever owned but yet I have fond memories of it. I put it down to having low expectations. My current car is a Toyota and I have had it for 3 years since new with zero problems so far but this is what I expect from a Toyota.
Well, reliability is all about using proper maintenance to factor out confounding factors to determine how well a car holds up properly maintained. I, for one, own a Honda Civic and Ford Focus. The Civic has been complete crap (transmission, electrical – some under warranty, some not) and the Focus bullet-proof for over 50k miles. I would say my Focus is more reliable (although statistics of failure plays a role – they are probably equal under equal conditions), but I can’t say it is more durable. Let me explain…
Growing up and in my post-sheltered life, I have seen my family buy many vehicles. Our VW and Chevy were the worst. Our 2 Toyotas were good. My Honda has sucked. Of the eight Ford’s that have been in and out of the family since the late-80s, only one has been an issue. The rest went or are still going far beyond 100,000 miles (some 200,000 miles) before ever needing attention.
Why? How is it that someone can get so much more out of vehicles that are supposed to all be crap? Is it about the maintenance? Is it poor service versus good service? Bad parts?
Here’s my theory: lower tolerances created by penny-pinching coupled with poor dealer service, customer ignorance and customer driving behavior would cause the premature death of a GM or Ford product. However, in my family where cars were well cared for, we only had to deal with defficiencies in design and manufacturing. So, our tranmissions didn’t fall apart because we wouldn’t allow dealers to “flush” them, forcing high-pressured solvents through the wrong direction and then failing to seal the transmission properly. Our engines generally held together because we’d change our oil and keep our coolant filled and our injectors cleaned. Our power steering pumps didn’t break because we made sure to replace the fluid. We’d replace tires and inspect suspensions. It’s like preventative medicine. Even someone predisposed to illness can live much longer with proper care.
I’ve noticed that the tolerances of at least Ford’s products have improved – probably close to the tolerances of my Civic (it does suck, but not because of how it’s engineered!). My brother bought a 2006 Fusion and has put about 60,000 very bad miles on it (poor maintenance, bad driver, etc), and I’m not aware of anything breaking yet besides an interior electrical problem that was fixed under warranty. Amazing considering the color of his power steering fluid and transmission fluid when we changed them last year. I’m still not convinced he’s out of the woods.
So… I agree with an earlier post. There is durability and reliability. If you maintain your vehicle, it will be reliable under most circumstances from all makes. However, the durability of, say, a Ford car (truck is a different story) could not be included in the ranks of Honda or Toyota until recently – and even then its position is not guaranteed for at least a few years as we observe the new models in the real-world.
This questions and all the responses are interesting. Thank you for selecting this as the question of the day.
The question on my mind is whether people think that reliable cars are boring. My perception is that many people consider so-called “driver’s cars” to be less reliable than what folks here call “Personal Transportation Appliances.” I see no reason why one can’t have a reliable “driver’s car.” A “driver’s car” is not a Formula One race car. A “driver’s car” is a mass produced vehicle. Furthermore, in my opinion most vehicles today are reasonably reliable. All this makes me wonder if an exceptionally reliable car (say a Toyota or a Lexus, or an Acura or a Honda) is thought to be boring because it is exceptionally reliable. I don’t think it would be impossible to build a BMW or a Mercedes (for example) to be just as reliable as a Toyota or a Honda. But if they were just as reliable would people be less interested in them? In other words, is finickiness part of their appeal?
I have a Toyota Camry V6 bought new in 1997, now with 140,000 miles.
It has been amazingly reliable.
And I still enjoy driving it as much as on the first day, so why buy a new one?
I just did the very first brake maintenance (change brake pads and rotors).
I never thought a car could go this far on its original brake pads, but it did! There also was a small oil leak somewhere, the mechanic told me, and some front wheel suspension parts had to be renewed. Total cost of the job $900.
The only expensive work before this: change timing belt (that cost $279) and spark plugs at 120,000 miles.
Reliable is when a car can do 100,000 of severe police use…and then go on and do another 200,000-400,000 miles as a Taxi.
God bless the Crown Vic!!!
You want reliable?? How about my wifes old ‘72 Capri.
We bought it off the original owner for a paltry $700.00
It had 195,000 miles on it. It continued to run until
295,000 miles, and continued to get an average of 24MPG
until the rear end failed at highway speed, basically
locking the rear end up, doing a few 360s, and hitting
the Armco at about 50mph, 6 or so times. There wasn’t
a straight corner on the car. Herself cried when the
insurance said its a write off… I miss that car…
SteveL
1996 Honda Civic CX hatch = reliable.
All original at 290000kms ‘cept for upper and lower rad hoses.
Dist. cap and rotor and ign. wires.
Brakes up front done twice, rears still good.
Exhaust and both O2 sensors original as well as rad, starter and alt.
I will only ever buy Honda as they have shown me what reliable is all about.
BTW, have only ever changed 2 bulbs, both tail lights.
As someone said earlier, reliability is a car that does not piss you off. If it’s maintained, it will run well. Most cars are like this.
From spring to the fall I drive a 1987 BMW 325is.Dead reliable, probably do to the fact that it comes from an era where BMW/Mercedes were on top. It has never given me an issue.
My mom has a 1991 Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.6 that has 335,000km on it, and runs perfect. Just rountine Maintenece and wear and tear items in the 11 years that we have owned it.
In the winter I drive an 1985 Subaru GL-10 Turbo Sedan, with 369,000km on it, I did the Clutch last year, otherwise all the electronics still work and drives with no incident.
The above are all examples of what proper maintence will do, but some cars are awful no matter what, which brings me to my previous beater, an 86 Jetta Carat.KM:296,000, pretty low in my book.
I bought it for 800 dollars. In one winter, the following happened;
-Overheated to to thermostat faliure. Replaced the Thermostat, and THE OEM THERMOSTAT FAILED AGAIN.
-The Starter went. Replaced that.The starter was only 3 years old.
-Left CV axle boot ripped. Replaced it.
-Right one went about 2 weeks later.
-Fuel pump failed. Replaced.
-Started Clashing when going into second gear.
-Then, it started burning oil.
-The electrical issues were as follows; Both rear power windows failed. Then, the driver’s side on gave up.Radio stopped working(OEM,didn’t bother fixing.). Dash lights burnt out.Hazards stopped working(switch). Signals stopped working(switch).
-The straw that broke the camel’s back is when the heater core started to leak. I did not scrap this car, my friends and I took it out to a field and set fire to this piece of shit.
Most cars are reliable when maintained. VW’s/Audi’s are not, no matter what. I am sick of hearing praise being heaped onto these vehicles, they are among the WORST cars ever built. Anybody who buys one of these voluntailry should have their license revoked.
Some brands are more reliable because those brands choose to spend their money on items that make the car more reliable.
Take Subarus. They cost as much as other brands and have standard awd but have cheap, low quality interiors, the thinnest paint, and very old school powertrains that have been around forever. However, they run forever because Subaru engineers and buys good-quality parts.
Anyone whose owned a BMW/Audi and excuses the plague of problems because of it’s superior technology is deluding themselves with market hype.…
Complexity should not be used as an excuse, which is common for the Benz people. However, common sense would tend to make one think that a complex system would be more troublesome when compared to a basic system. I had a Lincoln Mark VII LSC with the air suspension system. I was concerned that the suspension would be troublesome because when you looked at surveys like Consumers, the suspension was listed as much worse than average. But that data is based on averages to other cars. In the late 80’s almost all suspensions were simple mechanical systems with very little to go wrong. Compared to air bags, computers, sensors, etc, there was no way this type of system would rate as reliable compared to the basic stuff found on most cars. I never had any problems, but the aftermarket was full of parts to retrofit away from the air system to make repairs more affordable as the cars became older.
Regarding overall reliability, for every case of “that car was a POS” you will find others who were very satisfied. The only car our family ever had that was truly unreliable was a 1984 Chrysler New Yorker with the Mitsubishi “silent shaft” engine. Parts that should never fail did, like seat frame welds, the radio, numerous Mikuni carb parts, the battery, the electronic dash. For 17 months this car saw monthly repairs. Then, all was well. The car became completely reliable all the way up to 150K or so. We gave it to a relative. He used it for a year then something broke in the engine. I think it was a chain that drove the “silent shaft” which was related to the oil pump.
We have had many different brands in our family and this was the only “lemon”. And most of our cars are kept for the long haul – 12 or more years is typical, with 150K minimum mileage. Maintain your car and it will take care of you. Don’t ever let a modern engine overheat; change the belts and hoses (all of them), be diligent with the oil changes and the engine should outlast the car.
I frequently travel to places that can fairly be characterized as “the middle of nowhere”.
Reliability means that before I put the key in the ignition, I know that as soon as I turn the key the car will work, and I can choose to put myself somewhere other than “the middle of nowhere” by means other than my feet. If I take care of the car it takes care of me, no excuses.
I, too, like my Subie.
I put 80k on a 2000 Focus (never buy the first of anything) with ZERO problems. Then we traded it in on the Irish lease program (crash your car every three years). The second Focus is pushing 100k, other than self-induced problems (brakes, tires, rims) it’s been tip-top (touch wood).