What is the most overrated car manufacturer?
Discussion
What do you consider to be the most overrated car manufacturer? I think these would be my top three.
3rd place: Ford - the motoring press can't seem to say a bad word about them but I find them distinctly average at best, with the odd exception (mk1 Focus for example). I haven't got a problem with the Fiesta and the new Focus and Mondeo estates are very handsome. The Fiesta and Focus STs are probably pretty good as well (although I still haven't learnt to like the look of the Focus) and of course the Mustang is ace. However, they're not very cheap anymore, are poorly equipped compared to the opposition in my experience and the interiors are still pretty horrid both in terms of design and quality of plastics and in my experience rattly after a few months. I test drove a mk3 Focus recently with a potential view to purchase but found the boot disappointingly small compared to the opposition, the spec a bit basic and even the drive a bit underwhelming, which I thought would be its best feature. I have never bought a Ford and by all means, they are certainly not the worst cars in their class but I always find there is something "better" in my budget. However, I don't want to sound like one of those people who berate anything because it's not German, so that brings me to 2nd place:
Audi - Audi used to be a bit of an interesting, alternative choice and the B5 A4, C5 A6 and D2/D3 A8 were genuinely good-looking, well-engineered cars. However, I think Audi have sold out in terms of engineering and I don't even think the interiors are as special as they used to be. The RS models used to be decent driver's cars and well judged in the looks department with subtle, yet undersated aggression. Now they just look bling and are merely very fast and that's about it. Every A3 and A4 I have ever driven has not driven as well as the VW equivalent in my opinion, although I'm sure the bigger models drive nicer. Who wants an A8 though, when it just looks like a stretched A4? There's still the odd exception though. I love the R8 and I don't know how it drives but the B6 A4 Cabriolet is still a beautiful car in my opinion (hate the A5 Cab for some reason though).
However, most overrated car manufacturer IMHO has to be Toyota. They have an enviable reputation for engineering, quality and reliability and are one of the biggest (and wealthiest) car manufacturers in the world. There have been some greats: Supra, Celica, MR2, Landcruiser, AE86, LS400, LF-A, which to be fair I have not driven but most of my wife's family and in fact ourselves have Toyotas and they all have one thing in common, they're utterly dull to drive. Now to be fair, we bought ours (North American spec Corolla) because we liked the looks, it was good value, well-equipped and relatively roomy for the price.
To be fair, I wasn't expecting an exciting drive and the Corolla and its competitors pretty much all drove very similarly but I was expecting more comfortable seats, better NVH and better fuel economy. You would expect Toyota to be at the forefront of engine technology and indeed they were amongst the first manufacturers to have Twin Cam engines but 138bhp and 40mpg from a 1.8 and CVT gearbox isn't great, especially when you consider that my 10 year old Chrysler with a V6 and a 4-speed slushbox can do 35mpg, albeit not as consistently. The cabin quality isn't all that either. My wife would like a small SUV to replace it eventually and we may consider a RAV4 if they offer us a great deal but to be honest I prefer the look of the Honda CRV, Mazda CX5 or Hyundai Santa Fe. When we bought the Corolla, I really wanted one of these (Toyota Highlander)
purely based on showroom appeal. It had just come out when we were buying, so the dealership didn't have one to test drive and we decided to be "sensible" and get something cheaper but I actually had the opportunity to drive one recently and it was fine but just felt like you were driving a big estate car and didn't have the sense of occassion that our old Jeep had, so maybe that's just as well.
In addition, it seems that there have been quite a few quality problems recently, so maybe Toyota have been a bit complacent and are going through a quality dip like VW/Mercedes-Benz did in the late 90s/early 2000s. The way I see it, Honda has the quality aspect nailed, Mazdas are better looking, Nissans are more interesting and Hyundai/Kia offer similar quality and better warranty for less. Yes, you have the GT86, which is an excellent concept but from what I have read, the executions leaves a lot to be desired and it looks expensive compared to an MX5 or some of the more powerful FWD hot hatches.
So, what in your opinion is the most overrated car manufacturer?
3rd place: Ford - the motoring press can't seem to say a bad word about them but I find them distinctly average at best, with the odd exception (mk1 Focus for example). I haven't got a problem with the Fiesta and the new Focus and Mondeo estates are very handsome. The Fiesta and Focus STs are probably pretty good as well (although I still haven't learnt to like the look of the Focus) and of course the Mustang is ace. However, they're not very cheap anymore, are poorly equipped compared to the opposition in my experience and the interiors are still pretty horrid both in terms of design and quality of plastics and in my experience rattly after a few months. I test drove a mk3 Focus recently with a potential view to purchase but found the boot disappointingly small compared to the opposition, the spec a bit basic and even the drive a bit underwhelming, which I thought would be its best feature. I have never bought a Ford and by all means, they are certainly not the worst cars in their class but I always find there is something "better" in my budget. However, I don't want to sound like one of those people who berate anything because it's not German, so that brings me to 2nd place:
Audi - Audi used to be a bit of an interesting, alternative choice and the B5 A4, C5 A6 and D2/D3 A8 were genuinely good-looking, well-engineered cars. However, I think Audi have sold out in terms of engineering and I don't even think the interiors are as special as they used to be. The RS models used to be decent driver's cars and well judged in the looks department with subtle, yet undersated aggression. Now they just look bling and are merely very fast and that's about it. Every A3 and A4 I have ever driven has not driven as well as the VW equivalent in my opinion, although I'm sure the bigger models drive nicer. Who wants an A8 though, when it just looks like a stretched A4? There's still the odd exception though. I love the R8 and I don't know how it drives but the B6 A4 Cabriolet is still a beautiful car in my opinion (hate the A5 Cab for some reason though).
However, most overrated car manufacturer IMHO has to be Toyota. They have an enviable reputation for engineering, quality and reliability and are one of the biggest (and wealthiest) car manufacturers in the world. There have been some greats: Supra, Celica, MR2, Landcruiser, AE86, LS400, LF-A, which to be fair I have not driven but most of my wife's family and in fact ourselves have Toyotas and they all have one thing in common, they're utterly dull to drive. Now to be fair, we bought ours (North American spec Corolla) because we liked the looks, it was good value, well-equipped and relatively roomy for the price.
To be fair, I wasn't expecting an exciting drive and the Corolla and its competitors pretty much all drove very similarly but I was expecting more comfortable seats, better NVH and better fuel economy. You would expect Toyota to be at the forefront of engine technology and indeed they were amongst the first manufacturers to have Twin Cam engines but 138bhp and 40mpg from a 1.8 and CVT gearbox isn't great, especially when you consider that my 10 year old Chrysler with a V6 and a 4-speed slushbox can do 35mpg, albeit not as consistently. The cabin quality isn't all that either. My wife would like a small SUV to replace it eventually and we may consider a RAV4 if they offer us a great deal but to be honest I prefer the look of the Honda CRV, Mazda CX5 or Hyundai Santa Fe. When we bought the Corolla, I really wanted one of these (Toyota Highlander)
purely based on showroom appeal. It had just come out when we were buying, so the dealership didn't have one to test drive and we decided to be "sensible" and get something cheaper but I actually had the opportunity to drive one recently and it was fine but just felt like you were driving a big estate car and didn't have the sense of occassion that our old Jeep had, so maybe that's just as well.
In addition, it seems that there have been quite a few quality problems recently, so maybe Toyota have been a bit complacent and are going through a quality dip like VW/Mercedes-Benz did in the late 90s/early 2000s. The way I see it, Honda has the quality aspect nailed, Mazdas are better looking, Nissans are more interesting and Hyundai/Kia offer similar quality and better warranty for less. Yes, you have the GT86, which is an excellent concept but from what I have read, the executions leaves a lot to be desired and it looks expensive compared to an MX5 or some of the more powerful FWD hot hatches.
So, what in your opinion is the most overrated car manufacturer?
Edited by white_goodman on Tuesday 28th October 19:15
thelawnet said:
How can you say toyota are overrated for being boring. That's their selling point. You might as well say Bosch washing machines are overrated because they are boring.
Yes, I wanted a safe and reliable family car for my wife and on those counts the Toyota delivers so far (although it should be reliable at 6 months old and 8000km). If I refer you to my OP though, I would expect certain qualities to be better and surely it doesn't have to be totally dull to drive?"To be fair, I wasn't expecting an exciting drive and the Corolla and its competitors pretty much all drove very similarly but I was expecting more comfortable seats, better NVH and better fuel economy. You would expect Toyota to be at the forefront of engine technology and indeed they were amongst the first manufacturers to have Twin Cam engines but 138bhp and 40mpg from a 1.8 and CVT gearbox isn't great, especially when you consider that my 10 year old Chrysler with a V6 and a 4-speed slushbox can do 35mpg, albeit not as consistently. The cabin quality isn't all that either."
I must stand up for Fiat, as we had a 500 from new for 3.5 years and it was exemplary whilst being love it or hate it, much more interesting than anything else new at the same price. Reasonable performance and a consistent 50mpg from that 1.2 engine too. My only issue was above average servicing costs. Spark plugs as a first service item in this day and age. Wtf? I don't think the media overhypes Fiats but it's nice to have an interesting alternative, even if technically they are not perfect (i.e. the steering and ride on our 500 wasn't the best).
markcoznottz said:
Look the part, but that's easy for the price. Average tech, average dynamics, very good paint, average engines.
Disappointed that so many have said Aston, as an Aston Martin would be my dream car. They all look fantastic and average engines? Surely, they're all V8s and V12s and sound fantastic. What's average about that? Not a 4-pot diesel in sight!RyanTank said:
Agree here, Ford are on the right track with cars at the moment, they have a good engine base and can produce cheap, well designed cars that people are buying, that's good business no?
There's also a reason why the Fiesta ST keeps getting awarded the best hot hatch award over the RSClio & 208GTI.
Not only is it cheaper fully speck'd than its French rivals but it's got a proper manual box, the only constant criticism it gets is that its not available in 5 doors, and tbh is that really a bad thing for a sport little hatchback?
I stand corrected. In the UK at least, they are fairly cheap. I remember when Ford put their prices up a few years ago and in many cases, Fords were more expensive than the equivalent VW but I see now that Foci start at 14k and Golfs at 17k, which is a fair saving. all things being equal, I would prefer the Golf but 17k for a base-spec Golf with a 1.2 engine and torsion beam rear suspension? That's crazy! However, when I was looking at new cars here in Canada, for the same money as a base spec Focus manual in flat red, you could get a top spec Corolla, Civic or Kia auto with metallic paint and a lot more features as standard. Heck, even the base spec Golf is the equivalent of 14k here, has a 1.8 Turbo engine and has everything as standard. The only small cars more expensive than the Focus were the 2-Series and Audi A3!There's also a reason why the Fiesta ST keeps getting awarded the best hot hatch award over the RSClio & 208GTI.
Not only is it cheaper fully speck'd than its French rivals but it's got a proper manual box, the only constant criticism it gets is that its not available in 5 doors, and tbh is that really a bad thing for a sport little hatchback?
I can't agree on the other points though. It seems in general that Ford do make a more reliable car than VAG now and the new Ecoboost engines give good power, torque and emissions for their size but real world economy falls massively short of Ford's claims and reliability of the engines and their "infotainment" system has not been good. The mk1 Ka, mk4 Fiesta, mk1 Focus and mk1 Mondeo all offered the best in drive class when they came out and cabin quality was acceptable in the 1990s but I don't really think that Ford interiors have come on a long way since then. The mk3 Focus I drove had a horrid interior, as did the new Transit I hired last year. I test drove Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Chevrolet and Toyota cars last year in addition to the Focus and it drove no better than any of the others, was a worse overall package than all with the possible exception of the Hyundai and the interior was on a par with Hyundai/Kia in terms of plastic quality and noticeably worse than the others. I don't have anything against Ford but I have driven plenty of mk1 Foci over the years and they were significantly better than their contemporaries, the mk3 Focus is not. Having said that, I do like the Fiesta, particularly the ST and would happily run one of them as a second car, as I think they are better looking than and almost as spacious as the Focus but significantly cheaper. Funnily enough, the Fiesta and Fiesta ST is ONLY available as a 5 door in North America! I think Ford would like us to think that their cars are still better to drive than the competition but in reality, (ST models excepted), they are not any longer!
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. I've never had anyone discussing the handling merits of a Corolla such as yours.
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! 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.
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.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.
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?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff