What car has the best ever build quality?

[Soprendo]

My penn'orth from my driving history, reiterating some of what has been said above....
1988 Saab 9000 beautifully engineered, reliable, tough as boots, and actually easy to get 40mpg in. Have things progressed much there?
More recently an honourable mention to the utterly boring but utterly dependable Toyota Avensis, and similarly a couple of early 2000s Hondas (Accord and FR-V). The newer ones aren't made to the same standard.

[psi310398]

Soprendo said:

My penn'orth from my driving history, reiterating some of what has been said above....
1988 Saab 9000 beautifully engineered, reliable, tough as boots, and actually easy to get 40mpg in. Have things progressed much there?
More recently an honourable mention to the utterly boring but utterly dependable Toyota Avensis, and similarly a couple of early 2000s Hondas (Accord and FR-V). The newer ones aren't made to the same standard.

I had a wonderful 9000SE and it was all you say. However, it would fail on the spannering criterion. I had a part fail in the turbo. Replacement part cost £.99, labour (with half the engine out) £890.00 IIRC. I chopped it in soon afterwards.

[white_goodman]

I think in general, with the exception of "premium" cars last better than their equivalents from the 80s and 90s? In the 80s, my dad bought a new car every 3 years because they were mostly junk after that time period. Surely the answer is something Japanese, probably Toyota. Land Cruiser or Hilux I reckon. We had a 2000s Corolla that was faultless, not even any rattles and my 2004 WRX was great too. No issues other than some consumables and it could be thrashed with impunity. I had a 2013 Civic recently, which had a number of issues (and rattles), so I wouldn't tend to put Honda in the same league any more.

[Truckosaurus]

V8RX7 said:

I think the 90's / early 2000's was the pinnacle really - enough tech to get decent reliability, economy and power but not so much that simple problems cost a fortune / need a main dealer to fix.

I'd tentatively agree, cars of that era had complex enough electronics to run reliably but weren't bogged down by overly complex emissions equipment or being involved in a power arms race. (mk1 LS had 250bhp from 4-litres, 80-series Land Cruiser 170bhp from 4.2l turbo diesel).

Also, vehicles like the old-school SAABs were much more expensive than 'normal' cars, and these days BMWs and Mercs are cheaper to buy (lease/PCP) than Fords or Vauxhalls, so of course the relative quality isn't going to be there.

Finally. The only 'recent' vehicle that seems to have been over engineered is the early marks of the Prius.

[Monkeylegend]

My 2003 E220CDi, 312k miles in 4 years, no breakdowns, original engine, gearbox, suspension components, no creaks or interior rattles.

My 2007 E220 CDi, again 312k miles in 4 years, no breakdowns, original engine, gearbox, suspension components, no creaks or interior rattles.

My 2011 E 220 CDi, currently on 304k miles, kept it when I retired, had one rear shock due to a top bush rubber, water pump, no breakdowns, original engine, gearbox, all other suspension components original, no creaks or interior rattles and still going strong.

I vote with my feet and say BMW.








Not really

There's a reason why the vast majority of high mileage chauffeur cars are Mercedes.

[mike9009]

My nomination is the K12 Nissan Micra (ours was 1993)

Just a shame most are scrapped off because the cost of two new tyres plus disks/ pads is worth more than the car. Ours was meticulously reliable with no rust at 20 years old. It died because of an accident and it was kept on the road with a liberal lashing of gaffer tape. It then failed its MOT due to the injuries sustained.... (this was out of our ownership but we had sold it to a work colleague) An absolute cockroach of a car.....

[Hashtaggggg]

Mercedes 600 grosser

It bust be the best quality ever built.

[Monkeylegend]

Hashtaggggg said:

Mercedes 600 grosser

It bust be the best quality ever built.

Can't be if it bust.

[Chestrockwell]

Monkeylegend said:

My 2003 E220CDi, 312k miles in 4 years, no breakdowns, original engine, gearbox, suspension components, no creaks or interior rattles.

My 2007 E220 CDi, again 312k miles in 4 years, no breakdowns, original engine, gearbox, suspension components, no creaks or interior rattles.

My 2011 E 220 CDi, currently on 304k miles, kept it when I retired, had one rear shock due to a top bush rubber, water pump, no breakdowns, original engine, gearbox, all other suspension components original, no creaks or interior rattles and still going strong.

I vote with my feet and say BMW.








Not really

There's a reason why the vast majority of high mileage chauffeur cars are Mercedes.

I doubt doubt what you’re saying for a second. All cab drivers use mercs and they never fault them. We’ve had a few Merc’s in my family, I’ve personally owned one and bar the 2 W126’s and 2 W124’s, they’ve all been extremely problematic.

Could it be possible that certain cars that don’t do high mileage end up being unreliable? Because I can’t get my head around it. My brother had a W211 E320 CDI and my dad had a W210 E430 and both were headaches, every time you start it, you brace yourself for a new light or noise. Yet cab drivers I’ve spoken to who have had both say it’s never given them an issue and they swear by them. We all ended up switching to BMW and touch wood, none have given us a problem. Both brother and dad average about 10k miles a year.

[Monkeylegend]

Chestrockwell said:

Monkeylegend said:

My 2003 E220CDi, 312k miles in 4 years, no breakdowns, original engine, gearbox, suspension components, no creaks or interior rattles.

My 2007 E220 CDi, again 312k miles in 4 years, no breakdowns, original engine, gearbox, suspension components, no creaks or interior rattles.

My 2011 E 220 CDi, currently on 304k miles, kept it when I retired, had one rear shock due to a top bush rubber, water pump, no breakdowns, original engine, gearbox, all other suspension components original, no creaks or interior rattles and still going strong.

I vote with my feet and say BMW.








Not really

There's a reason why the vast majority of high mileage chauffeur cars are Mercedes.

I doubt doubt what you’re saying for a second. All cab drivers use mercs and they never fault them. We’ve had a few Merc’s in my family, I’ve personally owned one and bar the 2 W126’s and 2 W124’s, they’ve all been extremely problematic.

Could it be possible that certain cars that don’t do high mileage end up being unreliable? Because I can’t get my head around it. My brother had a W211 E320 CDI and my dad had a W210 E430 and both were headaches, every time you start it, you brace yourself for a new light or noise. Yet cab drivers I’ve spoken to who have had both say it’s never given them an issue and they swear by them. We all ended up switching to BMW and touch wood, none have given us a problem. Both brother and dad average about 10k miles a year.

You have probably got it right re usage. Every day I started my car I would usually be travelling between 300 and 600 miles, mainly motorway miles with very few stops and the car was always running to temp apart from the first few miles which I drove/ drive very sedately.

The other things that have an effect are smooth driving and servicing.

Edited by Monkeylegend on Friday 9th November 19:56

[snowandrocks]

white_goodman said:

I think in general, with the exception of "premium" cars last better than their equivalents from the 80s and 90s? In the 80s, my dad bought a new car every 3 years because they were mostly junk after that time period. Surely the answer is something Japanese, probably Toyota. Land Cruiser or Hilux I reckon. We had a 2000s Corolla that was faultless, not even any rattles and my 2004 WRX was great too. No issues other than some consumables and it could be thrashed with impunity. I had a 2013 Civic recently, which had a number of issues (and rattles), so I wouldn't tend to put Honda in the same league any more.

Yep, proper Land Cruiser or Lexus LS.

Our '93 80 series LC is still in daily use with never a breakdown. Incredibly well built and over engineered. Needed a wheel bearing once and the springs/shocks are getting a bit tired but otherwise just routine servicing.

[V8RX7]

coppice said:

I think the early 90s was in fact the period that most of PH got its first car and started buying car magazines.

Your 90s was my late 60s when , of course everything was for the best in all possible worlds ...Except for build quality that is.

I started reading car magazines around 1984 and my Dad dealt in classic cars so I'm quite familiar with MGB, Spitfire, Jensen Healey, TR 4/5/6/7 etc and I can tell you that when I bought my MX5 in 1993 it was a revelation - it always worked, it handled, it didn't leak, it was great fun to drive and I still own it now - many other cars have come and gone but it has remained.

I'm not saying it's better built than a Mk3 or Mk4 but it's in the same ballpark unlike the cars before it.

In fact Dad recently bought a TR7 V8 - it sounded great so I went to have a closer look - yep they're still hideous

[njw1]

Chestrockwell said:

I have a 4 series and my brother has a E39 523i manual run around and I echo your thoughts.

Steering is weighty, almost tiring when doing a 3 point turn, the clutch is heavy but there’s something satisfying about it. I think the exact same thing as you every time I drive it, I literally give my brother the keys smiling, never fails to impress. If petrol was cheap, I would honestly give up my 4 series and find a clean 540i M sport in black, pay whatever it is, 10 grand if I have to and use it forever, nothing like them. E46’s are just as good but the 30i’s don’t cut it for me anymore in terms of power.

I drove a brand new 4 series a while back and found it a bit 'meh', I wasn't at all disappointed to get out of that and back into my e39. Also, having also owned an e46, they are nice cars but aren't in the same league as the e39 when it comes to 'feel'.

The only other car I've driven that had the same solid feel as an e39 was my old mk3 Granada (I'm sure someone will disagree with that!).

[unsprung]

ITP said:

LS400 or RX400h

belleair302 said:

Lexus LS 400

Roger Irrelevant said:

I thought the LS400 was the generally recognised answer to this question - it was when Toyota (who generally don't turn out shoddy motors), let their engineers and quality control bods get really obsessive. For example the 1UZ-FE engine is one of the few used in cars to also be approved for use in light aircraft by the US Federal Aviation Authority.

lowdrag said:

Judging by what certain members of the community have bought and run for starship mileages, the original Lexus 400(?) was hewn from rock.

ElectricPics said:

Iamnotkloot said:

a Lexus rx400

Mate of mine has an RX400h that's heading north of 230,000 miles in ten years and still feels as solid as the day it was delivered and has had no issues other than replacement of wear and tear items.

DJP said:

LS400.

tombar said:

Look, it's the LS400. I've owned 2. They are ridiculously dependable; the only 20 year old car I'd use as a daily driver (without breakdown cover for most of the time). Combined 145000 miles, not anything close to a breakdown, both drove as well when I sold them as when I bought them.

+1

Lexus, with a particular emphasis on the LS 400, has long proven the answer to this question

I share a small chuckle for some of the other choices offered in this thread: BMW? Porsche? Land Rover? (yes I know -- pre-JLR -- but no dice)

[finlo]

njw1 said:

I drove a brand new 4 series a while back and found it a bit 'meh', I wasn't at all disappointed to get out of that and back into my e39. Also, having also owned an e46, they are nice cars but aren't in the same league as the e39 when it comes to 'feel'.

The only other car I've driven that had the same solid feel as an e39 was my old mk3 Granada (I'm sure someone will disagree with that!).

Nope, my old Mk3 Scorpio was a tremendous piece of kit.

[Chestrockwell]

njw1 said:

I drove a brand new 4 series a while back and found it a bit 'meh', I wasn't at all disappointed to get out of that and back into my e39. Also, having also owned an e46, they are nice cars but aren't in the same league as the e39 when it comes to 'feel'.

The only other car I've driven that had the same solid feel as an e39 was my old mk3 Granada (I'm sure someone will disagree with that!).

Exactly, I literally think the same thing but in a different way.

After I drive his, when I get into my car, I don’t think, wow, this is so much better, I’m so glad to be here!

My cars been back to BMW for some minor problems and they’d give me a 116d or 118i for a few days, when I get back into mine, I’m relieved.

My car isn’t completely different to a 1 series, the interior is more or less the same but I think the redeeming factor is the power and the extra options my car has over the 1. Which brings me to my point, I think, cars like the E46 and E39 were made properly with ‘ultimate driving machine’ in the engineers minds. That’s what it was about. My 4 series now, take away the 3.0 diesel, take away the adaptive dampers and you have a car that isn’t that inspiring compared to the previous generations.

I’m not saying BMW’s are rubbish now, because they’re not, they’re still the ultimate driving machine compared to Audi/Mercedes, but they’re not compared to the previous generations, specifically the E36, E39 and E46.

[unsprung]

Pica-Pica said:

Sebring440 said:

Harji said:

these were designed by engineers.

Most cars, are, I think you'll find.

As an automotive engineer, I can confirm they are designed by the finance department.

Limpet said:

Every suspension fastener on my 2002 Focus looked like it had spent 15 years at the bottom of the sea,

[Shiv_P]

I'd vote to say absolutely nothing BMW should be on the list especially with the recent few years as they seem incapable of making bombproof engines a la 1.9 PD, mercedes 220cdi, LS400 V8 etc

[Klippie]

The MK2 VW Golf must surely be up there with cars of high build quality, I couldn’t believe how well put together my new 1988 GTi felt compared to the Ford’s I previously owned and positively tank like next to a mates Astra GTE.

[ruhall]

njw1 said:

The only other car I've driven that had the same solid feel as an e39 was my old mk3 Granada (I'm sure someone will disagree with that!).

Not necessarily, the Mk2 and Mk3 Granadas actually felt pretty solid cars when they were new, I might even say the Mk2s felt a little better than the Mk3, although it's difficult to remember after a number of years. They felt solid but were possinly a bit plasticky inside, ie switches etc.. Good cars,though.