What is the most overrated car manufacturer?

[DoubleSix]

If your individual expectations are realistic in the first place it's hard for something to be over-rated.

[chrispmartha]

It's a strange topic anyway, I mean, most over rated car, might make more sense, but the whole manufacturer, surely most car manufacturers make a fairly large range of cars, some will be better than others and some will be rated higher than the others.

[RobM77]

kambites said:

f1nn said:

I don't think a car manufacturer can be criticised for making what people obviously want to buy.

No, they can't.

This thread shouldn't be about criticising manufacturers, anyway; overrated does not mean bad. A car can be the best car in the world and still be hugely overrated.

Precisely. BMW, along with most other manufacturers, give a range of engine and transmission options to suit different tastes and useage. You can have a 6 speed manual with a revvy sonorous straight 6, or a sluggish auto with a low powered diesel - same chassis, but the engine and gearbox are up to you. I don't think that's over and under rated, that's just a choice and it's one offered by most manufacturers. I don't think the Focus RS is rubbish because I don't like the 1.6 diesel Focus

[TWPC]

DoubleSix said:

If your individual expectations are realistic in the first place it's hard for something to be over-rated.

Oooh: those in the marketing department are going to hate you!
Perish the thought that we remain rational (though that is most unlikely - plenty of evidence in this thread ).

[white_goodman]

Harji said:

How can Toyota be overrated for their drive when they've never really been rated for it in the first place? It's not like they scream out "we've got the best handling car".

I've never had anyone discussing the handling merits of a Corolla such as yours.

If you actually read my post, I didn't actually criticise the handling, I just said it was dull to drive. My main criticism was high NVH for a new car, poor ride and seat comfort, some cheap feeling plastics and disappointing fuel economy. Other manufacturers achieve more power and comparable if not better fuel economy from the same displacement. I would have expected Toyota (manufacturer of well-engineered Hybrids) to be better in this respect but their non-hybrid models are merely avaerage and slightly off the pace in terms of power and fuel economy. Having said that, handling may not be the biggest priority in this class of car but it's not impossible to make a small family car fun to drive and Toyota should certainly have the financial backing to do this and have shown that they can do this in the past (Celica, MR2, Supra, 1980s Corolla coupe etc). In terms of space, styling, reliability etc, I have no complaints so far but it's my first Toyota and so far, it hasn't really encouraged me to have another. I have owned lots of different makes: BMW, Mazda, VW, Fiat, Subaru and would happily own them again but not really bothered about owning another Toyota. I can confirm that of those other makes, the VWs (with the exception of a new 2008 Polo TDI) were by far the worst in terms of reliability but I liked the cars and enjoyed driving them, so wouldn't rule out another VW.

[unpc]

RDMcG said:

(3) Rolls-Royce. When I was a kid the brand meant refinement, discretion, elegance (Yes,yes..there was John Lennon), but now it seems quite vulgar and flashy.

If you go back though history, Rolls Royces have always been vulgar and flashy. Particularly the pre-war stuff. Take a look at the stuff they sold to the maharajahs. Bling-tastic.

[shoestring7]

unpc said:

RDMcG said:

(3) Rolls-Royce. When I was a kid the brand meant refinement, discretion, elegance (Yes,yes..there was John Lennon), but now it seems quite vulgar and flashy.

If you go back though history, Rolls Royces have always been vulgar and flashy. Particularly the pre-war stuff. Take a look at the stuff they sold to the maharajahs. Bling-tastic.

Excellent point from someone whose motoring knowledge goes back further than a decade.

SS7

[loose cannon]

V.A.G

[white_goodman]

jhonn said:

Allow me to offer up another generalised, subjective opinion - this time based on info from Top Gear and some practical experience.

This time not just a manufacturer, but a whole motoring corporation - the culprit?..

Renault/Nissan/Dacia

Nissan were great, when they were primarily Japanese, then Renault brought them down to their basically crap levels - Nissan now vastly overrated.

Dacia - wow, were they hyped up by TopGear (particularly James May) - what's all the fuss about? - it's a dreary econobox built (if you're lucky) to the same crappy levels as Renault/Nissan; Dacia - vastly overrated.

All part of the Renault group.

Just out of interest (because I don't actually know), how much Renault engineering goes into Nissan and which company is propping up the corporation these days? I know some Nissans have Renault engines but Nissan does have its own European product development centre in the UK. I know that Nissan is probably the least reliable "Japanese" brand but do the Japanese made cars still have engineering input from Renault and Infiniti for instance? I would be very surprised if there were any Renault parts in the GTR!

[vikingaero]

Jaguar.

When I grew up in the 80's and 90's they were, and still are, fawned over by the British press for being British - not good but British. They launched countless concept cars and you just knew that none of them would ever make production - yet the concept cars attracted a disproportionate amount of column inches and photos. The problem now is the same journalists are still writing about them.

[white_goodman]

TWPC said:

Good point but a different era.

VW has struggled in the US since the '80s. Even now and with the benefit of new, non-unionised factories in the South the VW brand still loses money. VAG only manages to make money in the US thanks to Audi. Overall their operating profit margin there is 2%, compared to the >10% made by Toyota.

I'm not so sure. VW seems to have a bit of a "cult" following in the USA/Canada, mainly because they are the only affordable manufacturer to offer diesel-engined cars. The demand for diesel isn't as high due to cheaper fuel but there are still people who do a lot of miles and want diesel fuel economy. The Jetta seems to do pretty well, as does the Passat and Golf to a lesser extent. North Americans don't have the choice of engines with any car really that we have in the UK. With the Golf for example, you have one petrol engine, one diesel engine, a GTI or a Golf R. Traditionally, the mainstay petrol engines have been a bit limp in terms of performance and economy, the old 2.0 8 valve and more recently a 2.5 5 cylinder. However, the mk7 Golf now comes with the 1.8 turbo 4-pot that you can get in some Audis. The base model is well-equipped: AC, alloys, cruise etc and only costs the equivalent of 14000 pounds, so they aren't priced at the premium VW charge in the UK. I'm surprised that they don't yet sell the Polo, Scirocco and Transporter in North America, as the small car market is expanding. Petrol may be cheap and emissions irrelevant but people still want good fuel economy. I actually thought that it was Audi that struggled in North America due to issues with "unintended acceleration" on the Audi 5000 (100/200) in the 1980s that damaged their reputation.

[white_goodman]

John D. said:

Always thought the MG cars of the last 15yrs were the biggest pile of cack too.

A little bit unfair. MG Rover's reputation was already on the floor anyway thanks to stuff like the Metro, Maestro and Montego, so I don't see how they could be overrated. Underrated maybe. I sold MG Rovers near the end and they weren't all that bad. Inconsistent build quality and the K-series engines were getting a bit long in the tooth and had developed a bad reputation, yes but they still gave good fuel economy and the ride and handling balance was pretty good too...and they were cheap. Audi could certainly learn a few things from Rover about ride and handling balance. Also, introducing MG badged versions of the 25/45/75 was a stroke of genius for a skint car company trying to flog a good but dated design. You could have the looks but still have a pocket-friendly engine. Isn't that exactly what BMW/Audi/Mercedes are doing now with M-Sport/S-line/AMG?

[Debaser]

white_goodman said:

Just out of interest (because I don't actually know), how much Renault engineering goes into Nissan and which company is propping up the corporation these days? I know some Nissans have Renault engines but Nissan does have its own European product development centre in the UK. I know that Nissan is probably the least reliable "Japanese" brand but do the Japanese made cars still have engineering input from Renault and Infiniti for instance? I would be very surprised if there were any Renault parts in the GTR!

There's basically no engineering input from Renault. Some parts (even engines) are shared though.

Infiniti is Nissan. There's a team of development engineers working on various programmes: some end up with Nissan badges, some with Infiniti badges.

[anonymous-user]

white_goodman said:

John D. said:

Always thought the MG cars of the last 15yrs were the biggest pile of cack too.

A little bit unfair. MG Rover's reputation was already on the floor anyway thanks to stuff like the Metro, Maestro and Montego, so I don't see how they could be overrated. Underrated maybe. I sold MG Rovers near the end and they weren't all that bad. Inconsistent build quality and the K-series engines were getting a bit long in the tooth and had developed a bad reputation, yes but they still gave good fuel economy and the ride and handling balance was pretty good too...and they were cheap. Audi could certainly learn a few things from Rover about ride and handling balance. Also, introducing MG badged versions of the 25/45/75 was a stroke of genius for a skint car company trying to flog a good but dated design. You could have the looks but still have a pocket-friendly engine. Isn't that exactly what BMW/Audi/Mercedes are doing now with M-Sport/S-line/AMG?

Very true. The ZR, ZS and TF got slated for their interior, for their ageing aesthetic design, their poor 'packaging' and the bad points about the K-series, and generally quite rightly so. BUT they didn't get the recognition from the mainstream that they really deserved for their driving ability. The ZS is still widely regarded by those in the know for its great chassis. The TF still has one of the stiffest open top chassis going.
So not overrated but actually underrated in my opinion.

Overrated? Volkswagen. I seriously believe they are now surviving on the power of marketing and badge snobbery. That doesn't go to say they are actually particularly bad cars, far from it, but what I mean is that they offer very little these days that cannot be had better or at less cost elsewehere.

[MGJohn]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Hmmm ... interesting comments above and throughout this thread. One thing is a certainty, most UK home product is hugely under rated within car consumer circles here in the UK. Not to be confused with car enthusiasts who appear to be an endangered species in recent years with their numbers in steady decline.

Over the past two decades, I have helped owners of MGs and Rovers in many parts of the world obtain parts difficult for them to obtain. Without exception, all have been delighted to be able to keep their cars in good shape and continue running them. These cars are much more highly regarded almost anywhere in the world except in the country of their origin. The land of the ever increasingly self-inflicted.

We're all doomed.... Unless that Nige really has all the answers ... ..

There again, that VAG, well worth double the asking price in the land of the self-inflicted .. Just like a Golf.. If only everything was as reliable as a VW .... well known fact ...

My friendly Boxster driving neighbour has for years castigated me about my choice of means of getting about. Incessantly going on about superior German engineering, quality and reliability. He never does that now, not since his Boxster burnt out its engine leaving him stranded on the M5's hard shoulder. He did not volunteer that information. all was quietr but his son came over and told me the sad tale. Mind you he was right about one thing, he's convinced the reason my MG ZS drives so well and has been so reliable in the eleven years I've had it since is because of it's ... wait for it ... Honda engine!

His Boxster has a superior engine location and rear wheel drive configuration apparently... I remind him just like my MGF ... Who knew? He didn't.

Now where's those BMW details. I fancy an ultimate driving experience my MGs and Rovers can never provide .... Brainwashed me ... never ...

Funny old game folks and their choice of cars and their reasons for those choices. Oh yes, there are far more unreliable car users than unreliable cars. AA/RAC and other rescue services call out stats confirm this time and again...Could you open the bonnet for me Sir ... err... How do I do that ?... You've had the car over a year ...

When I take my cars to my friendly MoT tester some of the tales he tells me about over rated cars are a real eyeopener. Boy oh boy, can he destroy some myths about ovver rated cars. Big surpises to even cynical me .. By the way, my Rover 620ti failed the MoT today. It needs a replacement off side track rod end. Another twenty quid down the drain... that's twice this decade ... My son's 210,000 mile 620ti also failed for the same O/S TRE. I blame those pesky traffic calming devices and so does my friendly MoT tester who finds at least one broken suspension spring every day .. Sometimes rather more each day. He only does MoTs so if he finds things wrong with any of my or my family's cars, I know he is not being shall we say "creative".

to avoid such harmful damaged, I'll have to get one of those 4be4 jobbies with wide track and high ground clearance which enables these vehicles, some of near Monster Truck proportions, to traverse those traffic calming devices as though they are not there. Precisely the size and weight of vehicles that really need to check their speeds in key areas. More self-inflicted ... there's no end to it.

Does you good to have one occasionally ... mild rant that is...

Hmmm ... Funny old game indeed.

[daveofedinburgh]

VAG, but VW really. Perceived as offering great build quality/ solidity, but that USP has been eroded recently by other manufacturers closing the gap, and Koreans upping their game hugely. Not sure this applies as much to Skoda...

Audi, particularly overrated by Joe public take the #1 spot for me. They are not the quality product they are perceived to be, imho ofcourse. I have several friends with new and new-ish Audis, from Q7s to A5s and TTs. All have been borkier than equivalent age BMWs that Im aware of.

A friends A5 in particular has been stunningly shonky, the E36 318is I was running at the same time was bulletproof in comparison. My neighbour leaves his 3 year old TT at home in favour of his white van for most drives. Having to pull the windows up by hand, with no fix from Audi after numerous visits is enough to put me off.

I do wonder if Porsches, and 911s in particular are overrated by performance journos like EVO. To read what they say about them, they can do no wrong. Haven't owned one, so I reserve judgement.

New Mercs look very chintzy and blingy to my eye, but not sure if that makes them overrated, perhaps just a question of poor taste/ design.

[jamieduff1981]

Morningside said:

cslwannabe said:

Actually Jaguar - based on my sample size of 1 (having only ever owned 1) our XF got worse and worse as the miles racked up (owned it from new to 55k miles in just under 3 years) and it frequently broke down, consumed a dozen headlights in the time we owned it, spent weeks in the dealer with electrical issues (never resolved), got through 2 sets of rear brake pads and 1 set of fronts in the time we owned it, yet the British motoring press never say a bad word against Jaguar.

I agree with Jaguar. I was following one yesterday and it reminded me. A friend of mine had one in the late 80s and I have seen better electics on a Rover.

I heard BMW and Daimler Benz made engines for the Nazis!

No seriously though - most of this thread is picking on current model cars which disappoint in some way or another, and you reference something that even if brand new at the time happened a minimum of 25 years ago when the manufacturer was welding together major body panels from numerous parts and lead-loading the joins. Since then, they were bought by Ford who implemented their quality management systems who since sold out to an Indian chap who has been investing heavily. The products now are unrecogniseable to those from the 1980s.

That's not that remarkable and most manufacturers have come a long way since the 1980s, so that isn't anything especially praise worthy, but it does highlight how daft it is to hold an opinion of a manufacturer that is several decades out of date.

Out of curiousity, what era of Rover are you using as the electrical benchmark? I ask because they too went through numerous eras since stone clad houses were in fashion including one of using Honda platforms and electrics (Honda looms, Honda labelled boxes of electrickery etc etc) and then BMW ownership where it evolved some more. Rover got slated mostly because they're British and the British prefer to masturbate over the German nation in some perverted "we wish we lost the war" fantasy - or alternatively because some K-series engines needed head gasket improvements and because the styling wasn't young and aggressive enough for the aspiring-towards-Teutonic market. Electrical issues are not high on the list of valid MG Rover criticisms in the past couple of decades.

You may as well stick the boot in to current-day Rolls Royce while you're at it since their Vulture and Peregrine engines didn't work out very well. Unless you've just awoken from a 30 year coma in which case I'll let you off

[FeelingLucky]

Beer Man said:

Errrrm, because they're overrated maybe? And every a****le in a one series or 3 and 5 series X20d thinks they're in an //M (seriously, wtf is the "//" in type all about???) car.

As mentioned before, I was unfortunate enough to have a 320d dumped upon me as a punishment company car and it was utterly dreadful. My old man has an X3 which is, quite probably, THE worst car in the world. My younger bro bought a 2005 M3, new, which spent more than two thirds of its short life at the local rip off merchants (dealer) and over the last few years travelling over 100k miles per year I saw more broken down BMs on the hard shoulders of our motorway network than ANY other make of car. Reliable? Well built? Well engineered? My arse.

As for the "i" cars, now if they're not overrated then I don't know WTF is.

I felt confident that given the rope you'd reveal yourself as "hater" with an axe to grind.
Congratulations.

I won't go into the defence of the i series or //M here, because I'm conviced you're not somebody who can participate in reasoned discussion. Suffice it to say that both i and //M get pretty much rave write ups the world over.

[bennyboysvuk]

Beer Man said:

THE most overrated?

BMW.

to be fair, their marketing department must be staffed entirely by genius types as their cars are f****** awful

I think their lower level models are set up terribly un-inspiringly from the factory, but they make several RWD models with over 400hp, a limited slip diff and RWD...and you think they're more overrated than Toyota?

[jhonn]

Some great posts in this thread and I've enjoyed it immensely - this however is the stand-out line for me and is worth repeating - pretty much a LOL moment right there.

jamieduff1981 said:

.. Rover got slated mostly because they're British and the British prefer to masturbate over the German nation in some perverted "we wish we lost the war" fantasy...