Reliability survey 2011 -Land Rover,Alfa&Renault ..worst
Discussion
russell_ram said:
Which if the results above would have you believe is going to fail instantly on your drive (if it even makes it that far). However, our 2006 facelift 40K mile example has performed perfectly in it's three years with us with NIL costs outside of standard service items.
And . .
my last two company cars have been Freelander Td4s which have spectacularly failed to let me down in any way what-so-ever.
How lucky must I be. Saturdays lottery here I come.
You are the daily mail reader ain't you ? To put it in perspective the average is calculated , which in LR case one in every two cars breaks down . If there are 100,000 LR cars on the road it means 50,000 have NOT broke down . However , if you had a honda then the % is much lower ie: 90,000 cars didn't need repairs . It ain't rocket science And . .
my last two company cars have been Freelander Td4s which have spectacularly failed to let me down in any way what-so-ever.
How lucky must I be. Saturdays lottery here I come.
Edited by russell_ram on Thursday 28th July 10:31
Btw , I agree with LR and Alfa standings
Parrot of Doom said:
Good to see Lexus is still riding high. Even though I've just had to spend £140 on a fecking spring for mine 
I'm (pleasantly) surprised to see the LS430 at No.1, considering it's been out of production for 8 years now - and up against much newer rivals.One will replace my 400 someday for certain now.
No2's a fine result too for the X308 Jag.
The other thing about Warranty Direct is that it's a limited demographic. How many people in your workplace have third party warranties on their cars? Policies aren't cheap so it's likely to be people who expect expensive failures and think it will offer value for money.
This probably doesn't change the comparative failure rates between manufacturers because it's not set against total volume sold, but it probably does rather inflate the 'X% of this car break down' figures. If you're not already paying a lot of money for covered wear & tear, why would you pay £400 to insure against it?
This probably doesn't change the comparative failure rates between manufacturers because it's not set against total volume sold, but it probably does rather inflate the 'X% of this car break down' figures. If you're not already paying a lot of money for covered wear & tear, why would you pay £400 to insure against it?
hora said:
kambites said:
It's based on the average payout of Warranty Direct policies taken out on the cars in question.
Ah, I get it. So based on one aftermarket product/companies experience. trashbat said:
Policies aren't cheap so it's likely to be people who expect expensive failures and think it will offer value for money.
The only person here who got an aftermarket warranty is the guy with the total lemon Mk5 Astra. It broke constantly in manufacturer's warranty, so he took an aftermarket warranty when the car hit 4 years old. So, it's likely that those who buy a Warranty Direct warranty are expecting failures, which makes the figures pointless.
I think its a good survey and indicates the actual long term reliblity of a brand. I am mystified by the one that come out about cars that are less than 12 months old. I think pretty much any car that is less than one year old should be fairly trouble free. No surprises here really except how well the tacky 300 did. Pretty much sums it up if you want a trouble free car as your daily driver make it a Honda or Toyota. It also helps to explain the very strong resale value as well.
I suspect the survey results actually tell you more about the owners and drivers of said vehicles than the vehicles themselves!
For example, most of the people i know who drive something like a picasio or a picanto wouldn't actually notice if one of the rear wheels fell off, whereas drivers of say a 5 series BMW are likely to pick up the phone the moment there is a small squeek from a bit of trim etc.....
I'm also suprised at all the "axle / suspension / brakes" claims?? What ARE people doing to there cars?? I suspect people are simply not looking where they are going and hitting things like large potholes / kerbs etc (especially in cars with big wheels and low profile tyres. i.e. not the superminis etc!)
Reliability wise, tbh, all modern cars share the same parts (for example, 75% of CR diesels have the same basic BOSCH injector etc) so differences in reliability are more likey to be differences in usage/care of said car than due to the "part failing" directly.
And, of course, the more parts you have on a car, statistically with say a 99.9% reliability rate, the more failures you will have. So again, a Picanto, (with a total of 3 moving parts, 2 of which you have to crank yourself ;-) is going to be more reliable than say a well spec'd Mini.
IMO, just buy the car you like, look after it properly, drive it properly and you'll be fine !!
For example, most of the people i know who drive something like a picasio or a picanto wouldn't actually notice if one of the rear wheels fell off, whereas drivers of say a 5 series BMW are likely to pick up the phone the moment there is a small squeek from a bit of trim etc.....
I'm also suprised at all the "axle / suspension / brakes" claims?? What ARE people doing to there cars?? I suspect people are simply not looking where they are going and hitting things like large potholes / kerbs etc (especially in cars with big wheels and low profile tyres. i.e. not the superminis etc!)
Reliability wise, tbh, all modern cars share the same parts (for example, 75% of CR diesels have the same basic BOSCH injector etc) so differences in reliability are more likey to be differences in usage/care of said car than due to the "part failing" directly.
And, of course, the more parts you have on a car, statistically with say a 99.9% reliability rate, the more failures you will have. So again, a Picanto, (with a total of 3 moving parts, 2 of which you have to crank yourself ;-) is going to be more reliable than say a well spec'd Mini.
IMO, just buy the car you like, look after it properly, drive it properly and you'll be fine !!
Max_Torque said:
I'm also suprised at all the "axle / suspension / brakes" claims??
Knowing Alfas, it will be suspension bush related. But the thing is, it's not a breakdown is it? You don't call the RAC because you've got a knock from the anti roll bar. It's just something which gets done at the next service or MOT. I'm not entirely sure this survey is very useful really.I had a 2003 156 2.0JTS and it never went wrong. Alfas had a bad image, but we are talking about old alfas, 6-10 years into ownership, of course things will go wrong!
The mito/giulietta have not had any problems so far and I expect them to take alfa up the table in 2-3 years.
As for the Land rovers etc - good to see them down the bottom. Ageing cars bought by people who don't know what they want. Why anybody would buy one is beyond me - the most uphill climb they ever do is parking on the grass at Ascot.
The mito/giulietta have not had any problems so far and I expect them to take alfa up the table in 2-3 years.
As for the Land rovers etc - good to see them down the bottom. Ageing cars bought by people who don't know what they want. Why anybody would buy one is beyond me - the most uphill climb they ever do is parking on the grass at Ascot.
LR are fun and capable cars but they are woefully unreliably but I have to agree with the previous posters comments I understand their purposes in the snowy and rugged areas of the country but shockingly I saw more in Los Angles than anywhere else its more about image prestige etc with some owners who never really know what they are driving the same can be said about 90% SOcal Ferrari and Porsche owners I suspect the same holds true on both sides of the pond.
PaulFontaine said:
LR are fun and capable cars but they are woefully unreliably but I have to agree with the previous posters comments I understand their purposes in the snowy and rugged areas of the country but shockingly I saw more in Los Angles than anywhere else its more about image prestige etc with some owners who never really know what they are driving the same can be said about 90% SOcal Ferrari and Porsche owners I suspect the same holds true on both sides of the pond.
The man makes sensePaulFontaine said:
LR are fun and capable cars but they are woefully unreliably but I have to agree with the previous posters comments I understand their purposes in the snowy and rugged areas of the country but shockingly I saw more in Los Angles than anywhere else its more about image prestige etc with some owners who never really know what they are driving the same can be said about 90% SOcal Ferrari and Porsche owners I suspect the same holds true on both sides of the pond.
I bet some of the urban LA yuppies would sh!t themselves if they were shown (as passengers) what their discos and rangies could really do 
But would they want to get their gucci loafers dirty and I can guaruntee they would piss themselves as a 45 degree angle especially sideways. that's okay I need the dentist and spoiled houswives to keep buying these cars so that the few that can appreciate the performance envelope of these amzing but eccentric cars can continue to do so. The shame is the terrain especially out in the Western US is so well suited to offload forays.
Caulkhead said:
I'm a bit confused here. All the cars are pre-2008 but it's a a 2011 reliability survey?
So it's telling us how reliable 2008 and earlier cars are in 2011, ie after the manufacturers warranty has run out?
How is this useful?
Because most people buy used cars, that's how it's useful.So it's telling us how reliable 2008 and earlier cars are in 2011, ie after the manufacturers warranty has run out?
How is this useful?
If anyone on PH mentions buying a new car they get slated for wasting money, then the second a survey of used cars reliability appears it's knocked as being useless. It's impossible to win around here!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff