I don't know if this is actually representing the rates of failures. Does this include factory warranties ot just those extended warranties they try to sell you when you buy a car or those warranties I see being hawked in infomercials?
I don't know if this is actually representing the rates of failures. Does this include factory warranties ot just those extended warranties they try to sell you when you buy a car or those warranties I see being hawked in infomercials?
I see nothing in there that surprises me in the least, honestly. Major German and British marques at the back of the pack, Major Japanese at the front of the pack in reliability, and I guess the American brands are somewhere in the middle.
I did chuckle a bit at "despite its reputation for rock-solid reliability, Volkswagen came ninth from bottom." I've never heard anyone say that VAG cars have a reputation for "rock-solid reliability." Ever.
All that said, it's also worth noting that (most of) the cars with the higher engine failure rates are marques that tend to have much more powerful engines in their lineups, while (most of) the more reliable ones are marques that have lower power engines optimized more for economy than performance. Though Benz and especially Jag being up so high is somewhat surprising.
A long time Honda dealer by my work recently moved, and an Audi dealer took it's place. The first thing they did was add on to the service department, making it at least double to triple it's size.
Not surprised.
In reply to Boost_Crazy:
The percentage of Audi customers that take it to the dealer are probably highter than Honda. Plus anything more than an oil change probably means taking the front end off to get to the problem so more labor for more cars being brought in.
Boy, there's a meaningless survey!
What's an engine failure ?. Is that a catastrophic failure, or does it include lesser failures? Is that engine replacements?
Are we lumping together the Prius engine with the Toyota Cavalier, AND a Toyota GT-One?
So MINI has a 3% failure rate. Or, I guess we could say 97% of all MINIs do NOT fail.
Only 36 brands? What about the other 250?
No link to the full study? (Turns out that is a study of the most reliable engine manufacturers in the UK market). Very deceptive presentation. Does it even include US manufacturers??
Does MG Rover actually replace 1 out of every 13 engines in their entire product line, or is that a particular model, model year range, or geographic area?
Apparently, the authors also don't know how to count to 10, since both the "10 best" and "10 worst" lists include only 5 cars each.
Overall, that is truly E36 M3ty journalism. Auto Express fail.
I am not too surprised by some of the results.
That said, my old 318ti was the most reliable and rock solid (at least drivetrain and suspension) car I have ever owned
In reply to SVreX:
Correct, I've found that, once you look into the methodology of most "car reliability studies" they fall apart rapidly.
irish44j wrote: </cite I did chuckle a bit at "despite its reputation for rock-solid reliability, Volkswagen came ninth from bottom." I've never heard anyone say that VAG cars have a reputation for "rock-solid reliability." Ever.
If you ever read or watch anything from Europe they refer to VW as being as reliable as an anvil or the sunrise, it's as written into automotive lore as 'Every Boxster will eat it's IMS', or 'every WRX will eat it's ring lands' etc is over here.
iadr wrote:ShadowSix wrote: In reply to SVreX: Correct, I've found that, once you look into the methodology of most "car reliability studies" they fall apart rapidly.One reason I felt this was an interesting source of info. Self-reporting, as practiced by the much loathed, Nader-esque Consumer Reports, is a ridiculously inaccurate way to get information.
Meh, for all their selection bias, the CR numbers actually correspond pretty closely with what I see on the ground. I've yet to find a study that really impresses me from a methodological perspective.
iadr wrote: I'm not defending the statistic integrity of the study per se (though I do firmly believe the relative rankings are meaningful), BUT Since Vauxhall was on the list and the domain is a UK one, I think claiming to feeling somehow "tricked" that the survey took place in the UK is silly. I saw no need to point that out, assuming readers could note it.
I didn't feel "tricked".
But since others had already mentioned American cars, and Canadian methods, I don't think I can agree with your suggestion that readers would recognize the difference. It's a UK study, with limited applicability, and may not even include US manufacturers. Nothing wrong with saying so. THIS is a US site, with a lot of US readers.
Good point on the buyers of Audis, etc.
Don't forget that that seems to be a listing of only people who bought the "extended warranty" thingy. I haven't ever bought one, but if my wife insisted on a VAG product I might consider it. Spending $3k for something I hope to never use on a $14k Mitsubishi wouldn't make sense, but on a $40k VW or Rover it might. That means to the company selling the stuff VWs would be disproportionately represented, and by owners who thought the cars were going to fail.
Also, does having that "extended warranty" make someone drive their car or maintain it more or less like a rental car?
oldopelguy wrote: Don't forget that that seems to be a listing of only people who bought the "extended warranty" thingy. I haven't ever bought one, but if my wife insisted on a VAG product I might consider it. Spending $3k for something I hope to never use on a $14k Mitsubishi wouldn't make sense, but on a $40k VW or Rover it might. That means to the company selling the stuff VWs would be disproportionately represented, and by owners who thought the cars were going to fail. Also, does having that "extended warranty" make someone drive their car or maintain it more or less like a rental car?
I would say in most cases, third party extended warranties are a bad deal. That would mean the survey would only capture data from people who think otherwise - giving it a significant selection bias on what owners would be included.
Ooh, a random anecdote thread! I know a guy who bought an extended warranty for a TDI Touareg which ended up paying out $27k while he had the car. 
In reply to Vigo:
One of my customers squeezed about $12K out of the extended warranty of his B5 Passat. Best $2K he ever spent.
As an Audi tech, the high failure rate doesn't surprise me one bit.
In reply to mad_machine:
Those bimmers ran forever as long as you did a few cooling system replacements(could be done for cheap without going to a shop) whereas, VAG stuff from the same era is overly complex and almost always requires a trip to a dealer.
Don't get me wrong, this report/article is a load of bullE36 M3 worthy of being a feature presentation on CNN/FOX/MSNBC/etc
Edit: I bought an extended warranty when I bought my former Ion Redline.....that ended up paying 2 fold what I did in the end(I even got some back as GM recall reimbursment)
I'll add my little anecdote... bought a warranty with my used 6 year old MINI with 92k km on it. I only considered it because it was, after all, a MINI and the policy covered some convertible parts and a bunch of silly things like oil leaks. Paid $2700 for 3 years and 60,000 kms. The first week I claimed strut tops for about $450. Second week I claimed $1500 for a new valve body. Valve body redone one year later. Covered a $450 oil pan leak. So I am ahead by at least $200 and still have one year of coverage left. Not bad. You have to be insane to sell aftermarket warranties on old MINIs and VAG products. The used car dealer does my regular maintenance and warranty work and deals directly with the warranty company. Never had a decline.
I don't doubt the premise of the article. My experience with BMWs has been that the more modern cars are prone to cooling system issues, which easily lead to overheating, which easily damages the all-aluminium engines to the point where it's more efficient to replace the engine than to repair the damage. The comments I've heard from mechanics suggest that BMW's widespread move to turbo engines has amplified this effect.
On the flip side, it wouldn't surprise me at all if cars with cheaper, iron block engines and looser mechanical tolerances would stand up better to abuse.
German cars are pieces of crap? Who knew!?
In other news, the sky is blue.
I wonder if some of VWs reliability in Europe has to do with the fact that any fault in a US spec car triggers the CEL?
When I bought my new bike, BMW k1300s, I asked how much warranty I could get over the 3/36. I walked out with 8 years total, unlimited miles, and no deductible. I ride a lot, so really think this will pay off. I had to replace the ecu on my k1200s and that alone cost more than this extended warranty.
I think this may be the source that Auto Express is quoting: http://www.reliabilityindex.com/
Note, the top ten lists actually do have ten cars in them, and you can even check how the claims were distributed.
Re MG Rover, I bet that the "engine failures" include tons of headgasket and head replacements. The K series engine as used in various Rovers, the MG TD/TF (the new one, not the old one) and for example the first generation Lotus Elise is notorious for blowing head gaskets if you haven't got the the updated ones fitted and if the engine also overheated, more often than not the head gets soft and is only fit for scrap.
Re the VW problems, keep in mind that the Euro models often have different engines - especially the Diesels - and aren't directly comparable to the US models in most cases. But at least VAG is consistent across continents.
In reply to BoxheadTim:
Yeah, I found that too.
That's not the source info either. I was interested in seeing all the brands- they've shown us the top 10 and the bottom 10, but not the middle 16.
I did learn that the study was of last year, so I don't think it includes too many 1st gen Elises.
I never found anything defining "engine failure", or the remaining marques.
If they're listing MG Rover then the survey covers a lot of older cars (which it does, some of the cars are early 2000s like the 996). BTW, I was referring to this 1st gen Elise:
In reply to BoxheadTim:
I agree that that study may be the same one, but the data disagrees. One has Mercedes in the top 5, the other has Mercedes in the bottom 10 (among other things).
Assuming they are the same study, they are a significantly different presentations. The link you posted includes both make and model. The Auto Express one is only make.
If your link is right, it only reinforces my earlier statement that the Auto Express link is misleading.
Saying that Honda engines only fail once in every 344 times is significantly different than saying the engine in the Honda Jazz fails infrequently.
You'll need to log in to post.
