worst car manufacturer for reliability

pburns

AudiChris wrote: »

I'd be kind of surprised too, they have had some issues alright. Although, seeing as they're a niche brand (as all premium manufacturers are), there's probably less boards contributors who have experienced them than Ford or Fiat.

But also, they're not the worst, and seeing as you can only vote for one manufacturer, only those with a specific personal experience would use their vote for Merc.

I think there's possibly a certain Boards 'demographic' - in very broad terms say computer-literate under 40 professionals So for the prestige brands most peoples experience here will be for BMW or Audi. Total conjecture on my part but I've noticed Merc owners are a little under-represented here in comparison with the other prestige brands.

This poll is pretty useless I think, just people reinforcing their own prejudices. Think I'll go and vote for Renault:D

minxie

citroen

AudiChris wrote: »

FFS MYOB, can we get this back on topic? If you want, disregard minxie's submission to the poll and coallate your own results...

i did say it was going off topic on earlier posts, i took poll like it said and all hell broke loose after that....:(

E92

mazda

I voted Renault, after their recent past with the Laguna, Espace and Mégane I think they well deserved this dubious accolade.

I was tempted to vote for Peugeot after the 307 but I keep hearing good things about the reliability of their HDi engines, and that's quite an important thing in a car to be reliable.

FIAT escaped for the same reason : their Multijet diesel engines have a great reputation for reliability too.

While VAG have an exaggerated reputation for reliability, I wouldn't say that their cars are the worst out there, but then again maybe my preference for German engineering is clouding my judgement.

Same goes for Merc.

Apparently Jaguar and Land Rover are much more reliable since Ford took over, in particular Jaguar seem to do extremely well in any of those customer satisfaction surveys.

As for BMW; given that they are SO "unreliable":rolleyes: according to some, how come my 15 year old BMW with 172k on the clock can achieve the remarkable feat of starting first go every time, and in my few month's ownership has only had one small problem and that was the rheostat failed?

You'd have sworn going by some posters that I'd have had to replace half the engine by this stage and that the electric windows and central locking would have a mind of their own:rolleyes:. Even more surprisingly:rolleyes: I know people who own 3, 5 and 7 series BMWs from various years and only one person had trouble and that was that the classic overheating problem - a quick thermostat change sorted that one out very quickly.

Mind you the real statistics show a different story: they were the second best marque in this year's JD power survey in Germany(they consistently do very well in the UK one too), and even the used car reliability index has their engines up there with the Japanese for reliability.

Now I wouldn't ever claim that it's all merry and trouble free ownership with BMW - we all know that 320ds between 02 and 04 like to blow turbos, they all seem to suffer from overheating in their old age, the M60 V8 and M52(but NOT the M52TÜ which entered production after week 10 in 98) straight 6 had the Nikasil problem(how they managed that God Only knows since their motorbikes used and still use Nikasil without any trouble at all) but they are by no means anywhere near as bad as some people claim they are.

VH

fiat

I voted on personal experience - not what i read or heard down the pub

CrowdedHouse

toyota

VH wrote: »

I voted on personal experience - not what i read or heard down the pub

+ 1

-Chris-

mazda

pburns wrote: »

I think there's possibly a certain Boards 'demographic' - in very broad terms say computer-literate under 40 professionals So for the prestige brands most peoples experience here will be for BMW or Audi. Total conjecture on my part but I've noticed Merc owners are a little under-represented here in comparison with the other prestige brands.

That's a very good point and should be factored in if you were taking these results seriously, the demographic is either older and techie, or younger (and therefore techie by default, young whippersnappers). No fuddy-duddys allowed!

pburns wrote: »

This poll is pretty useless I think, just people reinforcing their own prejudices. Think I'll go and vote for Renault:D

And there I was thinking you were taking this seriously, for shame!

VH wrote: »

I voted on personal experience - not what i read or heard down the pub

+2

PattheMetaller

VW has went downhill recently. I've had vw's for 10 years and the last few bought from new all had paint defects (sorted by local dealer without a problem).

My current model passat 1.9tdi has had a new fuel pump and turbo. Other new model passat owners i've talked to have had one of these plus gearbox or handbrake.

alias no.9

fiat

E92 wrote: »

As for BMW; given that they are SO "unreliable":rolleyes: according to some, how come my 15 year old BMW with 172k on the clock can achieve the remarkable feat of starting first go every time, and in my few month's ownership has only had one small problem and that was the rheostat failed?

You'd have sworn going by some posters that I'd have had to replace half the engine by this stage and that the electric windows and central locking would have a mind of their own:rolleyes:. Even more surprisingly:rolleyes: I know people who own 3, 5 and 7 series BMWs from various years and only one person had trouble and that was that the classic overheating problem - a quick thermostat change sorted that one out very quickly.

Mind you the real statistics show a different story: they were the second best marque in this year's JD power survey in Germany(they consistently do very well in the UK one too), and even the used car reliability index has their engines up there with the Japanese for reliability.

Now I wouldn't ever claim that it's all merry and trouble free ownership with BMW - we all know that 320ds between 02 and 04 like to blow turbos, they all seem to suffer from overheating in their old age, the M60 V8 and M52(but NOT the M52TÜ which entered production after week 10 in 98) straight 6 had the Nikasil problem(how they managed that God Only knows since their motorbikes used and still use Nikasil without any trouble at all) but they are by no means anywhere near as bad as some people claim they are.

For your experience of a 15 year old BMW with 172k on the clock, there are equivalent experiences for every other brand out there, with similar aged and similarly well travelled motors running like clockwork. I've said it here before and I'll say it again, there is **** all practical difference between the most and least reliable cars out there. All cars are reliable these days.
As recently as the 1980's you crossed your fingers on a cold or damp morning hoping the damn thing would start. Since the early 1990s, from which time almost every car on the road was fitted with electronic fuel injection and electronic ignition allowing the ECU to adapt the fueling and ignition to suit the conditions, those days are over. That's not to say that there aren't some lemons out there but you have to be quite unlucky to get one and if you're buying second hand, getting the car thoroughly checked over will seriously reduce your chances of being unlucky.

@minxie1, your car is sitting in the garage for 2 weeks and you don't think that makes it unreliable? Is reliability only about the badge on the bonnet? If you're waiting on an upgrade part, the car should have been perfectly drivable with the standard part until the upgrade part came in. If it's a remap, then that's done by plugging a computer into the ECU, no parts necessary and it should drive perfectly well in the meantime. Neither of these things have anything to do with a warranty unless something has failed?
Your explainations have as much credibility as Steve Staunton has as an international football manager.

craichoe

Wheres Lada ??!?!

Biro

merc

alias no.9 wrote: »

For your experience of a 15 year old BMW with 172k on the clock, there are equivalent experiences for every other brand out there, with similar aged and similarly well travelled motors running like clockwork. I've said it here before and I'll say it again, there is **** all practical difference between the most and least reliable cars out there. All cars are reliable these days.
As recently as the 1980's you crossed your fingers on a cold or damp morning hoping the damn thing would start. Since the early 1990s, from which time almost every car on the road was fitted with electronic fuel injection and electronic ignition allowing the ECU to adapt the fueling and ignition to suit the conditions, those days are over. That's not to say that there aren't some lemons out there but you have to be quite unlucky to get one and if you're buying second hand, getting the car thoroughly checked over will seriously reduce your chances of being unlucky.

@minxie1, your car is sitting in the garage for 2 weeks and you don't think that makes it unreliable? Is reliability only about the badge on the bonnet? If you're waiting on an upgrade part, the car should have been perfectly drivable with the standard part until the upgrade part came in. If it's a remap, then that's done by plugging a computer into the ECU, no parts necessary and it should drive perfectly well in the meantime. Neither of these things have anything to do with a warranty unless something has failed?
Your explainations have as much credibility as Steve Staunton has as an international football manager.

Most sensible post in here. Completely agree. Everything is reliable now a days, with a few exceptions - exceptions that no brand are immune from. There are plenty of over done electrionics in cars, that lead to various lights and sensors failing, the problem is that they cost money to fix as it seems to take ages for any garage to find out which sensor is the problem, but at the end of the day the components in these cars aren't made by VW or Fiat or Honda or whoever, they're made by third party companies all over the world, same components going into different brands.
All this crap of "Oh, my Golf has to be reliable - just listen to the sound the door makes when it closes!" and "Oh, you can hear the engine..." So a lack of a bit of sound insulation makes a car worse in a crash and less reliable? What muck. If you think sound insulation makes a car safer then you should wear ear plugs and you'll survive any crash!

Henry Ford III

mazda

Cars are indeed much reliable than they were, but they are also way more complex. There's
more to go wrong.

Some brands are better than others however, and some models buck the trend within an otherwise below average manufacturers range.

E92

mazda

alias no.9 wrote: »

For your experience of a 15 year old BMW with 172k on the clock, there are equivalent experiences for every other brand out there, with similar aged and similarly well travelled motors running like clockwork.

I think you may be missing my point somewhat.

I for one, am not surprised in the slightest that my E34 does all what I said it does. Nor am I surprised to hear a Toyota or something with a reliable engine being able to achieve a similar feat. Indeed any well maintained car should be capable of 150k without any fuss IMO and a quality engine will do 250k no bother at all if it has been cared for.

My point was if you believed everything the naysayers and begrudgers say around here then you'd think it would have died long before it even saw 100k never mind 172k. I think sometimes people are inclined to exaggerate and rumours tend to travel very quickly on the internet - like you say most modern cars do last a lot longer and I'm around long enough to remember carburettor engines having a mind of their own, especially when they were cold. Fuel injection is easily the single biggest improvement made to the design of petrol engines, as big an advance as common rail in the diesel engine was. Modern cars start first go no hassle at all irrespective of how warm or cold the engine is or what way the weather is.

Cue all the rolleyes in my previous contribution to this thread;)!

I do think that we are heading towards the end of a golden era for reliability - I really don't see these new generation of super duper diesel engines with over 100 bhp per litre having the durability of even the standard common rail diesel engines(and while there is a lot to hate about old fashioned diesel engines they were extraordinarily reliable) being able to do the distances that modern engines are capable of. There is no physical way possible that they can have the durability of the single turbo less powerful diesel engines on which they are based. The only hope would be the large capacity ones which are very unlikely to be asked to deliver all of the performance they can offer.

Similarly there are stories about injector trouble in common rail diesels and a lot of cars, even from brands with a reputation for reliability and them having expensive repairs as a result.

I think that direct injection petrol engines may be similarly troublesome, but I've only heard of Mitsubishi's GDI engine going wrong - I've certainly never heard of any trouble with VAG FSI engines and there are loads of them around at this stage, though again I don't see the 1.4 TSI in large, heavy cars like the Superb and Passat being very good either as they will be asked to work hard very frequently because these cars are so big and heavy. Similarly the 1.4 TSI 170 bhp with the turbo and supercharger is bound to give trouble IMO, after all anything that has it is a sports version so it will be asked to give high performance time and time again - that and the fact that VW reckons this engine is only good for 300k km or 186k miles means it is really bound to give trouble later on IMHO. I don't know about you, but I'd certainly rather have the 1.8 TSI with 160 bhp than the 1.4 TSI with 170 bhp. The bigger engine will be under less stress because it has a much lower bhp per litre ratio and thus won't get as stressed out in its life.

Quint

mazda

All modern cars are reliable nowadays. Except Renaults. Come on, how often do you see a car brake, and it's indicator comes on and it's a renault.
1 or 2 year old ones are grand, but french cars (and fiats) seem to turn into such heaps of ****e much quicker than any other car.

Guy:Incognito

honda

Quint wrote: »

All modern cars are reliable nowadays. Except Renaults. .

Yet they dont come bottom of the surveys (warranty repairs or customer satisfaction) .How does that work?

Quint wrote: »

Come on, how often do you see a car brake, and it's indicator comes on and it's a renault.

I had that happen on the missus 00 Scenic. The cause? the worng bulb was in (cheap halfords one). Changed to a proper branded one and the problem vanished.

SV

mitsubishi

Quint wrote: »

All modern cars are reliable nowadays. Except Renaults. Come on, how often do you see a car brake, and it's indicator comes on and it's a renault.

Wahey!
Another one with no idea what they're talking about.

Suppose you're one of those people who think VWs are the most reliable cars that exist yeah?

Quint

mazda

Stekelly wrote: »

Yet they dont come bottom of the surveys (warranty repairs or customer satisfaction) .How does that work?

From the top gear survey:
Which cars are fighting a losing battle against reliability? You guessed it: they're French. Eight out of the ten least reliable cars come from across the Channel, with the Peugeot 807 propping up the table.

The dismal people-ferrier is joined by two further Peugeots (the 307 and 407), a pair of Citroens (C3 and C8) and a trio of Renaults (the Megane, Espace and Scenic), with only the Range Rover and Ford S-MAX preventing a Gallic whitewash of the bottom ten.

In fact, the highest place Peugeot can manage is a miserable 134th for the now-defunct 206, while the highest-placing French car is the Renault Modus in, erm, 88th spot. As unreliable as une voiture Française? Malheureusement, oui.

Stekelly wrote: »

I had that happen on the missus 00 Scenic. The cause? the worng bulb was in (cheap halfords one). Changed to a proper branded one and the problem vanished.

I've seen plenty

Guy:Incognito

honda

Quint wrote: »

From the top gear survey:
Which cars are fighting a losing battle against reliability? You guessed it: they're French. Eight out of the ten least reliable cars come from across the Channel, with the Peugeot 807 propping up the table.

The dismal people-ferrier is joined by two further Peugeots (the 307 and 407), a pair of Citroens (C3 and C8) and a trio of Renaults (the Megane, Espace and Scenic), with only the Range Rover and Ford S-MAX preventing a Gallic whitewash of the bottom ten.

In fact, the highest place Peugeot can manage is a miserable 134th for the now-defunct 206, while the highest-placing French car is the Renault Modus in, erm, 88th spot. As unreliable as une voiture Française? Malheureusement, oui.

So your way of provign your point that alll manufacturers are reliable except Renault is to quote the top gear survey that has a Peugeot as the bottom car?


If you look at the surveys Renault there is usually only 3 or 4 % in the difference of faults between the so called "heaps" like Renault and the likes of Ford and Audi who have great reps but dont seem at all effective in the "man down the pub" public heresay polls.

Quint wrote: »

I've seen plenty

What has that got to do with me telling you the easy fix for it?


I've seen a load of Transits that have the same issue btw.

Quint

mazda

Has boards got a record for the most pedantic posters ever?

Stekelly wrote: »

So your way of provign your point that alll manufacturers are reliable except Renault is to quote the top gear survey that has a Peugeot as the bottom car?

You said Renaults never come bottom of reliability surveys.
Sorry, it wasn't bottom, they had 3 in the bottom 10 out of about 150 cars. But the renault wasn't actually last, so you're right!:rolleyes:

Guy:Incognito

honda

Quint wrote: »

Has boards got a record for the most pedantic posters ever?


You said Renaults never come bottom of reliability surveys.
Sorry, it wasn't bottom, they had 3 in the bottom 10 out of about 150 cars. But the renault wasn't actually last, so you're right!:rolleyes:

Most pedantic? You made a very definate statement singleing out Renault and then backed up your point by provign yourself wrong.

How does that make me pedantic?

Quint

mazda

You're actually being pedantic about being pedantic!
http://www.carpages.co.uk/news/reliability-02-08-05.asp
http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=63b58a15-e512-458e-bfb1-f6f46a058686
http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=222866&EL=3180706
I said renaults are heaps, you disagreed. End of

L1011

peugeot

Quint wrote: »

All modern cars are reliable nowadays. Except Renaults. Come on, how often do you see a car brake, and it's indicator comes on and it's a renault.
1 or 2 year old ones are grand, but french cars (and fiats) seem to turn into such heaps of ****e much quicker than any other car.

I've seen the indicator problem on Nissan (mostly owned by Renault I know) and Ford's also. Saw it on a quite new C-MAX on the way home last night, left indicator came on each time it braked.

And again, Fiat are in the top ten of the Top Gear survey these days. This isn't the 1990s, you can't compare an old Fiat group car to a new one anymore.

alias no.9

fiat

E92 wrote: »

I think you may be missing my point somewhat.

I for one, am not surprised in the slightest that my E34 does all what I said it does. Nor am I surprised to hear a Toyota or something with a reliable engine being able to achieve a similar feat. Indeed any well maintained car should be capable of 150k without any fuss IMO and a quality engine will do 250k no bother at all if it has been cared for.

My point was if you believed everything the naysayers and begrudgers say around here then you'd think it would have died long before it even saw 100k never mind 172k. I think sometimes people are inclined to exaggerate and rumours tend to travel very quickly on the internet - like you say most modern cars do last a lot longer and I'm around long enough to remember carburettor engines having a mind of their own, especially when they were cold. Fuel injection is easily the single biggest improvement made to the design of petrol engines, as big an advance as common rail in the diesel engine was. Modern cars start first go no hassle at all irrespective of how warm or cold the engine is or what way the weather is.

No I didn't miss your point, I was making that exact same point. People talk as if there is a massive gap between reliable and unreliable as defined by reader surveys or with some people just defined by the badge on the bonnet. There is not.
Peoples obsession with number plates and more specifically the first two numbers on the number plate makes the value of older cars so little that many are consigned to the scrapper for want of major service items such as the replacement of a the clutch, the timing belt or even a new set of brake disks and pads. People fail to see the utility value of the car so if the resale value is down around €1k, they're reluctant to spend €300 or €400 to keep it on the road for another year or two. That's the main reason you don't see many older supposedly unreliable brands on the road, their value falls faster and they become economic write off for the want of servicing sooner.
Because of this phenomonon people think cars implode when they go over 100k, and it becomes a viscious circle. A car is worthless if it's over 100k, so there's no point is paying a few hundread to keep it on the road so send it for scrap. All those models from that year are ending up in the scrapper so people think they must be unreliable, they're even more worthless and probably become an economic writeoff if they get a puncture.

E92 wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I'd certainly rather have the 1.8 TSI with 160 bhp than the 1.4 TSI with 170 bhp. The bigger engine will be under less stress because it has a much lower bhp per litre ratio and thus won't get as stressed out in its life.

I'm with you on this one. I'd rather have the power in reserve for when it's needed instead of having to thrash an engine to within an inch of its life in everyday driving.

laurak265

citroen

MYOB wrote: »

Has ANYONE thats voted for Fiat owned a less than five year old one? Not driven, actually owned one?

I worked with a guy who got a brand new punto and it broke down numerous times. The wipers went as well and it cost him like €300 to get a new motor to fix them when it wasn't even 3 yrs old!

I had a peugeot 206 and the brakes are shocking on them! :eek: Bought a vw golf after that and nearly had whip lash everytime i touched the brakes in comparision! Loved that little car...had a bmw after that and i swear my golf was faster and quicker off the mark and right now i'm loving my new toyota auris!!

L1011

peugeot

laurak265 wrote: »

I worked with a guy who got a brand new punto and it broke down numerous times. The wipers went as well and it cost him like €300 to get a new motor to fix them when it wasn't even 3 yrs old!

And it can't have been a recent one as they've had a 4 year full warranty since 2004. Meaning its a Mark 2, which is a 1999 design, which is an *OLD* Fiat from when the company nearly went bankrupt... different era, virtually a different company.

pburns

Stekelly wrote: »

Most pedantic? You made a very definate statement singleing out Renault and then backed up your point by provign yourself wrong.

How does that make me pedantic?

You're really grasping at straws old mate:D!!

I'll admit I'd fall into the anti-Renault brigade based on EXPERIENCE of a family car (and friends' and neighbours' Meganes/Lagunas). Absolute ****heaps during 90's/early 00s at least. You seem fanatical in your defence of them which I'd understand if it was a marque like Alfa. But Renault? - French Fords since the early 80's. French Toyotas even (without the dependability obviously).

In general Renault have an appalling record (over the last 10-15 years in particular). Most other manufacturers made strides forwards in reliability but Renault moved backwards if anything - putting underdeveloped surprise-and-delight electronic gimmicks on their cars. Reliability surveys, the man in the street, the dogs in the street - everyone knows it. Your convoluted interpretations of reliability surveys is very funny (and pedantic!)

BTW I drove one of the new Lagunas and quite liked it. Loved the interior - high quality for the market sector without resorting to Germanic sameness. I really hope they can pull up their socks.

Zube

laurak265 wrote: »

right now i'm loving my new toyota auris!!

Good lord!

laurak265

citroen

Zube wrote: »

Good lord!

Whats wrong with that?

Bluefoam

peugeot

I don't mean to sound patronising but:

laurak265 wrote: »

I worked with a guy who got a brand new punto and it broke down numerous times.

I know a guy who owns a golf that breaks down constantly... :rolleyes:

BTW, if the wiper motor was broken it would have been replaced under warranty...

laurak265 wrote: »

I had a peugeot 206 and the brakes are shocking on them! :eek: Bought a vw golf after that and nearly had whip lash everytime i touched the brakes

Was it a second hand 206 were the breaks maintained. Were they drum breaks on the 206 as opposed to disks on the golf - was the 206 in a much lower price bracket than the golf and therefore had less powerful breaks.

I once drove a Porsche Boxter and the brakes were better than a Ford Focus... I had a 1978 Mk1 Ford Fiesta and the breaks weren't great...

If you want uprated equipment on a car, you pay for it.

laurak265

citroen

The peugeot was bought from a garage, serviced in that garage and called back once for the brakes as were all 206's at the time!! They were still shocking...i never crashed it but by god you would want to be awake driving it!!

Zube

laurak265 wrote: »

Whats wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with it, it just sounds weird. My fridge chills things efficiently, it doesn't break down and it's big enough for the family, but I don't love it. It's just an appliance.