Is it time to take Korean cars seriously?
Discussion
daemon said:
Because their cars are that good they dont need to offer long warranties to sell them? 
Tell that to my two friends, one who has put 2600 miles on his 991 GT3 (which he had to wait an extra 6 months for) which is now back at Porsche Silverstone waiting for a new engine, the other has a 2012 gen2 which has had an engine faliure after 38000 miles & is now fighting Porsche to get them to replace it.Selling on your name is one thing being reliable is another, there was a thread how many 996/7 no longer had there original engines, the answer was quite a lot & it's now making people question if they are a good buy.
ZX10R NIN said:
Tell that to my two friends, one who has put 2600 miles on his 991 GT3 (which he had to wait an extra 6 months for) which is now back at Porsche Silverstone waiting for a new engine, the other has a 2012 gen2 which has had an engine faliure after 38000 miles & is now fighting Porsche to get them to replace it.
Selling on your name is one thing being reliable is another, there was a thread how many 996/7 no longer had there original engines, the answer was quite a lot & it's now making people question if they are a good buy.
I think someone had a crack at working out the proportion of failures and it was very low.Selling on your name is one thing being reliable is another, there was a thread how many 996/7 no longer had there original engines, the answer was quite a lot & it's now making people question if they are a good buy.
It's hardly fair to accuse Porsche of selling on name when they remain easily the best all round propositions at the various price points.
Cayman wins every comparison test. 911 is generally regarded as always the best 2+2. GT3 is the best car under £200k, etc etc
ORD said:
ZX10R NIN said:
Tell that to my two friends, one who has put 2600 miles on his 991 GT3 (which he had to wait an extra 6 months for) which is now back at Porsche Silverstone waiting for a new engine, the other has a 2012 gen2 which has had an engine faliure after 38000 miles & is now fighting Porsche to get them to replace it.
Selling on your name is one thing being reliable is another, there was a thread how many 996/7 no longer had there original engines, the answer was quite a lot & it's now making people question if they are a good buy.
I think someone had a crack at working out the proportion of failures and it was very low.Selling on your name is one thing being reliable is another, there was a thread how many 996/7 no longer had there original engines, the answer was quite a lot & it's now making people question if they are a good buy.
It's hardly fair to accuse Porsche of selling on name when they remain easily the best all round propositions at the various price points.
Cayman wins every comparison test. 911 is generally regarded as always the best 2+2. GT3 is the best car under £200k, etc etc
Cant believe on PH we're having to debate which is the better car based on which has the longer warranty.
Edited by daemon on Saturday 9th May 13:14
daemon said:
Indeed, and that was my point but it seems to have washed over one or two people.
Cant believe on PH we're having to debate which is the better car based on which has the longer warranty.
Why?Cant believe on PH we're having to debate which is the better car based on which has the longer warranty.
Edited by daemon on Saturday 9th May 13:14
You actually started it by stating that the length of warranty was unrelated to how good the car was.
Just because people appreciate how w car drives doesn't mean that they can't also consider reliability as a measure of how good a car is.
A manufacturer offering a 2 year warranty speaks volumes about how they perceive the reliability of their products.
Also, you talked about caring how a car drove then mentioned a Golf. Surely if the driving experience is top of your list then you wouldn't choose a Golf
I do wonder who german manufacturers like Porsche continue to get away with sub standard reliability in the publics eye. No one argues that they are wonderful cars at the top of their game, but they should be pulled up short if there are engine failures etc. Lotus are still trying to shrug off the "lots of trouble usually serious" tag they gained, not unreasonably in the Chapman years, yet Porsche and others sail on with their teutonic build and reliability reputation even though independent reliability surveys show that they are anything but trouble free....
As for the Koreans they are no blander or generic than any of the major volume manufacturers, yet they do offer a very good warranty. As someone looking for cheap family wheels, the idea of being able to buy something like a 3 year old 90,000 mile Hyundai, which still has 2 years manufacturers warranty left, is very appealing and takes a lot of the risk out of buying second hand..and is a Hyundai i40 really any blander than a VW Passat/Ford Mondeo?
As for the Koreans they are no blander or generic than any of the major volume manufacturers, yet they do offer a very good warranty. As someone looking for cheap family wheels, the idea of being able to buy something like a 3 year old 90,000 mile Hyundai, which still has 2 years manufacturers warranty left, is very appealing and takes a lot of the risk out of buying second hand..and is a Hyundai i40 really any blander than a VW Passat/Ford Mondeo?
Warranty length doesn't make any difference in my car choice...
It is a clever marketing tool to finish a sale and perhaps to try to keep second hand value from dropping more. Also this so called warranties... Read the small print, it won't cover much after 4 years due to wear and tear classification.
All modern cars are reliable, some a little bit more than others and there is always a dog somewhere even a Toyota.
I would quite happy buy any modern production car with 2 year warranty. In fact a 991 may be on the cards soon. Not worried whatsoever...
It is a clever marketing tool to finish a sale and perhaps to try to keep second hand value from dropping more. Also this so called warranties... Read the small print, it won't cover much after 4 years due to wear and tear classification.
All modern cars are reliable, some a little bit more than others and there is always a dog somewhere even a Toyota.
I would quite happy buy any modern production car with 2 year warranty. In fact a 991 may be on the cards soon. Not worried whatsoever...
I'm not one to worry about warranties I've normally invalidated them within weeks of owning a car.
In terms of the OP's question if I were looking for some mass produced family transport would I consider an Optima as well as an Octavia Mondeo Passat & Insignia then yes I would.
Would the Price Equipment Length of Warranty & Servicing Packages influence my final purchase of course they would.
All the above are good cars they do nothing spectacularly but are good cars & in this company an Optima should be considered as on par with those around it.
In terms of the OP's question if I were looking for some mass produced family transport would I consider an Optima as well as an Octavia Mondeo Passat & Insignia then yes I would.
Would the Price Equipment Length of Warranty & Servicing Packages influence my final purchase of course they would.
All the above are good cars they do nothing spectacularly but are good cars & in this company an Optima should be considered as on par with those around it.
CrgT16 said:
Warranty length doesn't make any difference in my car choice...
It is a clever marketing tool to finish a sale and perhaps to try to keep second hand value from dropping more. Also this so called warranties... Read the small print, it won't cover much after 4 years due to wear and tear classification.
All modern cars are reliable, some a little bit more than others and there is always a dog somewhere even a Toyota.
I would quite happy buy any modern production car with 2 year warranty. In fact a 991 may be on the cards soon. Not worried whatsoever...
+1It is a clever marketing tool to finish a sale and perhaps to try to keep second hand value from dropping more. Also this so called warranties... Read the small print, it won't cover much after 4 years due to wear and tear classification.
All modern cars are reliable, some a little bit more than others and there is always a dog somewhere even a Toyota.
I would quite happy buy any modern production car with 2 year warranty. In fact a 991 may be on the cards soon. Not worried whatsoever...
Totally.
GreenArrow said:
I do wonder who german manufacturers like Porsche continue to get away with sub standard reliability in the publics eye. No one argues that they are wonderful cars at the top of their game, but they should be pulled up short if there are engine failures etc. Lotus are still trying to shrug off the "lots of trouble usually serious" tag they gained, not unreasonably in the Chapman years, yet Porsche and others sail on with their teutonic build and reliability reputation even though independent reliability surveys show that they are anything but trouble free....
As for the Koreans they are no blander or generic than any of the major volume manufacturers, yet they do offer a very good warranty. As someone looking for cheap family wheels, the idea of being able to buy something like a 3 year old 90,000 mile Hyundai, which still has 2 years manufacturers warranty left, is very appealing and takes a lot of the risk out of buying second hand..and is a Hyundai i40 really any blander than a VW Passat/Ford Mondeo?
Porsche does quite well in reliability surveys.As for the Koreans they are no blander or generic than any of the major volume manufacturers, yet they do offer a very good warranty. As someone looking for cheap family wheels, the idea of being able to buy something like a 3 year old 90,000 mile Hyundai, which still has 2 years manufacturers warranty left, is very appealing and takes a lot of the risk out of buying second hand..and is a Hyundai i40 really any blander than a VW Passat/Ford Mondeo?
A small number of catastrophic failures dont affect the stats very much.
Devil2575 said:
Why?
You actually started it by stating that the length of warranty was unrelated to how good the car was.
Yes. Exactly. Yet here we are still debating how "good" a car is based on length of warranty and spec.You actually started it by stating that the length of warranty was unrelated to how good the car was.
As has already been said, a warranty over and above what is deemed "standard" is a marketing ploy to help them sell cars that arent maybe as good as the competition, to generate footfall into the service department and to help protect historically weak residuals.
It does NOT make it a better car.
Devil2575 said:
Just because people appreciate how w car drives doesn't mean that they can't also consider reliability as a measure of how good a car is.
Yes. Exactly. However it doesnt make it a better car. Subjectively, some people may prefer a longer warranty or better spec over other driving attributes, but that is their choice. Also the length of the warranty should not be considered a measure of reliability. It is being used as a marketing ploy to generate more sales. OK, it might cost them a "bit" extra (but then no doubt the cars are cheaper to build in the first place), but really, whats going to fail on a 90,000 mile 6 year old car that most likely isnt going to be attributed to wear and tear? Wheel bearing? Clutch? Alternator? If any of those fail at those miles, its not going to be because of a manufacturing fault.
And another thing - who keeps a car 7 years? Most people tend to change every 2-3 years, so the 7 year warranty means very little - other than protecting the car from very weak residuals.
Devil2575 said:
A manufacturer offering a 2 year warranty speaks volumes about how they perceive the reliability of their products.
No. It doesnt. It again is a marketing ploy. The warranty length is not a statement of reliability. Absolutely no doubt the bulk of Porsche owners will pay £XXXX each year for an extended warranty OR consider changing their car because of it.You dont buy a Porsche for its warranty, you buy it because its a GREAT car. So why, with more humble offerings, would you choose differently when it comes to a Passat sized car? Why settle for a car that is quite weak and has a "one size fits all" engine option when you can have a much better car for very similar money?
Devil2575 said:
Also, you talked about caring how a car drove then mentioned a Golf. Surely if the driving experience is top of your list then you wouldn't choose a Golf
I never said that a Golf was a better driving experience, i said it was in the top group dynamically. The Focus is probably a better drivers car, but subjectively i'm not a fan of the extended wheelbase look the Focus has going, so hence i went for the Golf. Explained this already. Nor did i need the extra space of an Octavia.Overall a golf is generally considered to be overall best in class - and that "best in class" applies probably to several cars in the same group - like the Focus and Octavia.
daemon said:
Devil2575 said:
Why?
You actually started it by stating that the length of warranty was unrelated to how good the car was.
Yes. Exactly. Yet here we are still debating how "good" a car is based on length of warranty and spec.You actually started it by stating that the length of warranty was unrelated to how good the car was.
As has already been said, a warranty over and above what is deemed "standard" is a marketing ploy to help them sell cars that arent maybe as good as the competition, to generate footfall into the service department and to help protect historically weak residuals.
It does NOT make it a better car.
daemon said:
Devil2575 said:
Just because people appreciate how w car drives doesn't mean that they can't also consider reliability as a measure of how good a car is.
Yes. Exactly. However it doesn't make it a better car. Subjectively, some people may prefer a longer warranty or better spec over other driving attributes, but that is their choice. daemon said:
Also the length of the warranty should not be considered a measure of reliability. It is being used as a marketing ploy to generate more sales. OK, it might cost them a "bit" extra (but then no doubt the cars are cheaper to build in the first place), but really, whats going to fail on a 90,000 mile 6 year old car that most likely isnt going to be attributed to wear and tear? Wheel bearing? Clutch? Alternator? If any of those fail at those miles, its not going to be because of a manufacturing fault.
And another thing - who keeps a car 7 years? Most people tend to change every 2-3 years, so the 7 year warranty means very little - other than protecting the car from very weak residuals.
Clutches, wheel bearings and alternators and not major issue that people worry about on cars outside of the warranty period. An ECU going pop, a blown head gasket, a failed gear box. I'd also suggest that an alternator would not be classed as wear and tear.
daemon said:
Devil2575 said:
A manufacturer offering a 2 year warranty speaks volumes about how they perceive the reliability of their products.
No. It doesnt. It again is a marketing ploy. The warranty length is not a statement of reliability. Absolutely no doubt the bulk of Porsche owners will pay £XXXX each year for an extended warranty OR consider changing their car because of it.You dont buy a Porsche for its warranty, you buy it because its a GREAT car. So why, with more humble offerings, would you choose differently when it comes to a Passat sized car? Why settle for a car that is quite weak and has a "one size fits all" engine option when you can have a much better car for very similar money?
I disagree about the length of warranty being a statement of reliability. Please explain why they don't offer a longer one if it isn't to reduce the risk of warranty claims.
Kia and Hyundai offer an engine option that suits the target market. I suspect it is not much weaker than the engine in the majority of Passats/Mondeos/Audi A4s sold and it's more than sufficient to give them perfectly reasonable performance.
Devil2575 said:
I never mentioned spec. The rest is your opinion and I don't agree. The longer the warranty the more it will cost the manufacturer. If it was just a marketing gimmick everyone would offer it. Some car makers like Porsche don't because they have a very strong brand and their cars drive very well, but if they did I don't doubt they would sell more cars. The reason they don't is because they figure the of cost will outweigh the benefits. All IMHO of course
It costs money to do yes, and because the cars are cheaply built they can afford it. But how much more, once you take into account the fact that its keeping people in the dealer netowrk for longer, who knows? Dont forget residuals have traditionally been naff on Korean cars, so an extended warranty helps preserve residual value.Devil2575 said:
I'd say being reliable does make a car better, in terms of reliability. Given that most cars are actually designed to get people from A to B, even a mighty VW Golf, I'd suggest that being able to do it without breaking down is a pretty good measure of how good a car is.
Have you any evidence that KIAs are more reliable? Just because they have a longer warranty doesnt make them more reliable. Your translating longer warranty = more reliable, i'm translating it as a marketing ploy.In fact, heres an Honest John survey :-
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/miscellaneous/201...
KIA at number 18 - well below Ford, Skoda, Peugeot and even Citroen. Granted, marginally above VW, but then i'm not citing reliability as a reason to buy a VW.
So maybe not so reliable then.
Devil2575 said:
Plenty of people keep a car longer than 3 years. I don't know many people who change their car every three years.
Subjective view.RAC say average number of owners over a cars lifetime = 4.
http://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobilit...
Average lifetime of a car is approx 14 years. 14/4 = 3.5 years.
Devil2575 said:
Clutches, wheel bearings and alternators and not major issue that people worry about on cars outside of the warranty period. An ECU going pop, a blown head gasket, a failed gear box. I'd also suggest that an alternator would not be classed as wear and tear.
Ah right - like aircon units or sound systems? Oh. Sorry, no, not covered beyond four years with KIAAnd what does it really cost them to stick the odd ECU in?
Also, a head gasket failure is moreoften the symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself.
Devil2575 said:
Kia and Hyundai offer an engine option that suits the target market. I suspect it is not much weaker than the engine in the majority of Passats/Mondeos/Audi A4s sold and it's more than sufficient to give them perfectly reasonable performance.
Yes - one size fits all. Shame they dont offer the range that say, VW do in the passat - 105BHP to 240BHP.daemon said:
Yes - one size fits all. Shame they dont offer the range that say, VW do in the passat - 105BHP to 240BHP.
What proportion of Passats sold have anywhere near 240bhp though. A quick look at Auto trader at the less than 1 year old cars for sale and the vast majority are 1.6 and 2.0 diesels and very few the more powerful 2 litre. VW are still catering for a niche that makes up a very small proportion of the buyers. Kia have decided that it isn't worth their while. The Kia result needs to be taken in context....read the report. Kias cannot feature until they are at least 7 years old..by which time they are mostly in the 70-80K mile bracket when parts start wearing out...
Other reliability results normally show Hyundai and Kia fairly highly rated....
..but overall I don't understand why people are still wary of Korean cars. Korea is at the pinnacle of the technological age, look at Samsung for example...its no surprise that their cars have made such great strides. Even Top Gear gave over virtually a whole programme 3 years ago to trying Korean cars and they had a Kia C'eed as they're reasonable priced car..a car incidentally which lapped faster than the Astra which replaced it!!!
Other reliability results normally show Hyundai and Kia fairly highly rated....
..but overall I don't understand why people are still wary of Korean cars. Korea is at the pinnacle of the technological age, look at Samsung for example...its no surprise that their cars have made such great strides. Even Top Gear gave over virtually a whole programme 3 years ago to trying Korean cars and they had a Kia C'eed as they're reasonable priced car..a car incidentally which lapped faster than the Astra which replaced it!!!
firstly define better car? and by who's definition.
what is important to one person is not important to another.
is it dynamics? well Golf would probably win on that, but how many people actually buy on that and get anywhere near exploring its limits.
is it reliability or rather 'cost of ownership' - my money would be on the KIA.
is it equipment levels, kia wins again
Consumption - probably Golf
comfort - unless you go for a 5hr test drive there is no way of telling which will be best.
Interior quality, warranty, stereo, etc etc
The best car is the one that ticks the most boxes for you at the point of time of buying.
for me it was cost of ownership, size(class), looks, equipment (cruise and aircon mandatory). I also factored in the fact it didn't have DMF. I don't give a damn about dynamics as mine trundles up and down the motorway for pretty much 90% of the 30k I do and I have another car for fun. By the way, the Hyundai warranty is streets ahead of the Kia one, if you are doing high mileage.
what is important to one person is not important to another.
is it dynamics? well Golf would probably win on that, but how many people actually buy on that and get anywhere near exploring its limits.
is it reliability or rather 'cost of ownership' - my money would be on the KIA.
is it equipment levels, kia wins again
Consumption - probably Golf
comfort - unless you go for a 5hr test drive there is no way of telling which will be best.
Interior quality, warranty, stereo, etc etc
The best car is the one that ticks the most boxes for you at the point of time of buying.
for me it was cost of ownership, size(class), looks, equipment (cruise and aircon mandatory). I also factored in the fact it didn't have DMF. I don't give a damn about dynamics as mine trundles up and down the motorway for pretty much 90% of the 30k I do and I have another car for fun. By the way, the Hyundai warranty is streets ahead of the Kia one, if you are doing high mileage.
sparkyhx said:
firstly define better car? and by who's definition.
what is important to one person is not important to another.
is it dynamics? well Golf would probably win on that,
I have said from page 4 "dynamically better". So we're in agreement, dynamically the golf is the better car.what is important to one person is not important to another.
is it dynamics? well Golf would probably win on that,
sparkyhx said:
but how many people actually buy on that and get anywhere near exploring its limits.
The dynamics of a car are not about how fast it goes or how best it corners, its about how it drives and how it feels. Very important if you're doing big miles. No point in arriving at your destination drained or with back ache.sparkyhx said:
Consumption - probably Golf
Subjectively, my two highest requirements were dynamically the best car (which we agree is the golf) as i was doing 25K a year and wanted to do so comfortably, and fuel economy (which again we agree is the golf) and the golf average 66mpg over the 30,000 miles or so that i ran it (brim to brim). Like you, we have another car for fun.
So it was the correct choice for me personally.
Other peoples reasons vary but as you've just stated yourself, dynamically the golf is the best, however the Korean brands make up for their shortcomings with a longer warranty and a bit better spec.
I dont see why some people are getting in a flap about that. It is what it is.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff