Myth about former luxury car brands

[DoubleD]

g3org3y said:

DoubleD said:

g3org3y said:

Zetec-S said:

Stick a private plate on a well cared for E46 3 series and lots of non car people would have no idea it’s shed territory.

As a sheddy E46 330 Coupe owner, can definitely attest to that.

Non car people would just assume that it was something old.

Non car people generally can't see beyond the badge. BMW = fancy/expensive.

No-one at work believed my E46 shed was 20 years old and £900.

£900 is cheap for a car, that's for sure. People won't see an E46 as anything modern though.

[RB Will]

FA57REN said:

What 'tech' do you mean?

Surely any car these days offers Bluetooth connection for Android Auto or the Apple equivalent plus all the mandatory safety systems. What else is needed?

In the wider context, more 'tech' just means more bugs and points of failure. So why pay money for that in a car?

Edited by FA57REN on Sunday 19th January 09:18

As I keep saying you can't just list a few things and say they are the same. The quality / ability of those things matter.
for example one car might have cruise, the "better" car may have adaptive cruise, maybe partly self driving, lane assist whatever.
You cant (unless you spend a few £k putting one in yourself) have an audio system in a Skoda as good as an Audi. My Skoda had the optional top end audio (Canton) system and yes it was ok. I never felt it was terribly lacking while I owned the car. When I got my Audi with its optional B&O system I realised how much better things can be. Songs sound completely different and so much more enjoyable. Similar to swapping out the Apple earbuds from my phone for some good Sony over ear cans.
I dont know the current ranges well enough to list specific current examples but there will be plenty of things that are a bit crappier in VW, Skoda, SEAT that even optioned won't be as nice as the Audi equivalent.

[Shominy]

DoubleD said:

£900 is cheap for a car, that's for sure. People won't see an E46 as anything modern though.

I think you'd be surprised how many people would not be able to guess the year of a good condition and clean E46. As the above poster said, non-car people mostly have no idea about cars. A lot probably have no idea about the car they drive themselves. There's a woman in my office just ordered a new 330e on the lease scheme our place has and she has no idea what it is other than an electric BMW of some kind. Every time she mentions it to people she calls it the 3 series M-Sport like it's got go faster strips or something. She has no idea what M-Sport means, no idea what the spec is or what engine it has in it only that it's a BMW and it sounds good to people.

[Evercross]

lowdrag said:

Evercross said:

get inside a Jaguar from 10 years ago to feel what quality AND style looks and feels like.

I have had but one new Jaguar all my life, an X300 in 1996, and I kept it ten months. Gearbox failures, three sets of wheels where the lacquer fell off in chunks, a window that went down and didn't come back up; on it goes. But yes, the leather seat were comfy and the dash pleasing to the eye, so I guess that is more important than getting from A to B.

1996 was 24 years ago.

[Court_S]

Baldchap said:

I had a Golf GTI when my brother had an Octavia VRS - the Golf was a much higher quality interior and a generation ahead in tech.

After my Golf I bought an Audi. The interior/tech is better again.

It is almost as if the more expensive car is actually a better product, rather than just a different badge... But what do I know?

But the oily bits are the same; chassis, engines etc. My vRS discs had VW / Audi logos on them. There are also common interior parts; stalks, heater controls. That’s where VAG are clever; they share the oily bits that people don’t see and dress them in poster plastics etc.

Skoda do seem to have been held back in terms of tech, whereas Seat have been allowed the digital dash.

[Court_S]

RB Will said:

As I keep saying you can't just list a few things and say they are the same. The quality / ability of those things matter.
for example one car might have cruise, the "better" car may have adaptive cruise, maybe partly self driving, lane assist whatever.
You cant (unless you spend a few £k putting one in yourself) have an audio system in a Skoda as good as an Audi. My Skoda had the optional top end audio (Canton) system and yes it was ok. I never felt it was terribly lacking while I owned the car. When I got my Audi with its optional B&O system I realised how much better things can be. Songs sound completely different and so much more enjoyable. Similar to swapping out the Apple earbuds from my phone for some good Sony over ear cans.
I dont know the current ranges well enough to list specific current examples but there will be plenty of things that are a bit crappier in VW, Skoda, SEAT that even optioned won't be as nice as the Audi equivalent.

As far as I’m aware, Audi are allowed better stuff than the other brands (aside from the common oily bits like engines). VW, Skoda and a Seat are all very close though...the infotainment in my colleagues Passat was more or less identical to that in my vRS.

[legless]

Court_S said:

Skoda do seem to have been held back in terms of tech, whereas Seat have been allowed the digital dash.

The Virtual Cockpit is available as an option on the Octavia, Superb, Karoq and Kodiaq.

I've currently got a Superb with it fitted.

[anonymous-user]

av185 said:

Evercross said:

Baldchap said:

Even when I owned a Lexus I had to concede that Mercs and Audis had nicer interiors.

All very subjective. Merc interiors these days appeal to the 'bling' generation more used to costume jewellery than craftsmanship. Fair enough their interiors of old were quality-over-style, but get inside a Jaguar from 10 years ago to feel what quality AND style looks and feels like.

PS, Mercedes standard 'leather' feels more like rubber.

Or plastic:

If you know anything about classic Mercedes they're vinyl seats MB-tex is actually much more sought after than leather due to it's hard wearing nature.

Remember Mercs are (or were) engineers cars with just a hint of luxury. I wouldnt be bothered if my leather seats were plastic.

[MissChief]

YouTalkinToMe said:

av185 said:

Evercross said:

Baldchap said:

Even when I owned a Lexus I had to concede that Mercs and Audis had nicer interiors.

All very subjective. Merc interiors these days appeal to the 'bling' generation more used to costume jewellery than craftsmanship. Fair enough their interiors of old were quality-over-style, but get inside a Jaguar from 10 years ago to feel what quality AND style looks and feels like.

PS, Mercedes standard 'leather' feels more like rubber.

Or plastic:

If you know anything about classic Mercedes they're vinyl seats MB-tex is actually much more sought after than leather due to it's hard wearing nature.

Remember Mercs are (or were) engineers cars with just a hint of luxury. I wouldnt be bothered if my leather seats were plastic.

Would it bother you if your 'Leather' seats were plastic and you paid £2,500 (or more) for them as an option?

[Baldchap]

otolith said:

Baldchap said:

otolith said:

jakesmith said:

I'm not sure I agree with that, the appearance inside & out of Audi, BMW & Merc are far more appealing than most others. I had a look a Lexus & Volvo, and the interior and dash cluster / console really did look diabolical by comparison.

This is highly subjective, though. Have you considered that you have been conditioned to favour that Germanic style of interior by your prejudices about the prestige of German cars?

Even when I owned a Lexus I had to concede that Mercs and Audis had nicer interiors. If you were to detach from your argument for a moment, you'd agree too.

No, that style doesn't do anything for me. It looks too much like expensive office furniture. And Lexus have a history of aping it, with varying levels of success. Volvo plough their own furrow, though. Conceptually I would take a Tesla interior over anything the Germans are currently selling, albeit that the execution isn't all that. Current Mercedes interiors are hideously vulgar.

We swapped a Model X P100D for SWMBO's Audi and the interior and build quality is shocking for a 'premium' product.

Lexus build solid interiors, but the materials are cheaper than the Merc or Audi offerings, which are better quality regardless of your view on the styling.

[Court_S]

Baldchap said:

We swapped a Model X P100D for SWMBO's Audi and the interior and build quality is shocking for a 'premium' product.

Lexus build solid interiors, but the materials are cheaper than the Merc or Audi offerings, which are better quality regardless of your view on the styling.

A colleague has a Model 3 and it feels pretty cheap and nasty inside, especially for the price. I’m not a fan of the interior design, but stuff like the seats feel really low rent. BMW Dakota leather feels nicer and that’s normally slammed for being cheap.

[otolith]

Baldchap said:

otolith said:

Baldchap said:

otolith said:

jakesmith said:

I'm not sure I agree with that, the appearance inside & out of Audi, BMW & Merc are far more appealing than most others. I had a look a Lexus & Volvo, and the interior and dash cluster / console really did look diabolical by comparison.

This is highly subjective, though. Have you considered that you have been conditioned to favour that Germanic style of interior by your prejudices about the prestige of German cars?

Even when I owned a Lexus I had to concede that Mercs and Audis had nicer interiors. If you were to detach from your argument for a moment, you'd agree too.

No, that style doesn't do anything for me. It looks too much like expensive office furniture. And Lexus have a history of aping it, with varying levels of success. Volvo plough their own furrow, though. Conceptually I would take a Tesla interior over anything the Germans are currently selling, albeit that the execution isn't all that. Current Mercedes interiors are hideously vulgar.

We swapped a Model X P100D for SWMBO's Audi and the interior and build quality is shocking for a 'premium' product.

That’s what I meant about the execution not being all that. The concept makes the German interiors look fussy and inelegant.

Baldchap said:

Lexus build solid interiors, but the materials are cheaper than the Merc or Audi offerings, which are better quality regardless of your view on the styling.

You know how much the materials cost? Are they objectively less performant? Or just not the materials you associate with premium cars?

[anonymous-user]

MissChief said:

YouTalkinToMe said:

av185 said:

Evercross said:

Baldchap said:

Even when I owned a Lexus I had to concede that Mercs and Audis had nicer interiors.

All very subjective. Merc interiors these days appeal to the 'bling' generation more used to costume jewellery than craftsmanship. Fair enough their interiors of old were quality-over-style, but get inside a Jaguar from 10 years ago to feel what quality AND style looks and feels like.

PS, Mercedes standard 'leather' feels more like rubber.

Or plastic:

If you know anything about classic Mercedes they're vinyl seats MB-tex is actually much more sought after than leather due to it's hard wearing nature.

Remember Mercs are (or were) engineers cars with just a hint of luxury. I wouldnt be bothered if my leather seats were plastic.

Would it bother you if your 'Leather' seats were plastic and you paid £2,500 (or more) for them as an option?

If they were as durable and long lasting as there previous types, then no it wouldnt bother me.

[havoc]

Dave Hedgehog said:

jakesmith said:

That’s my view, What do people think, who is right?

franchise servicing on German cars is very expensive and out of warranty work can be mind blowing expensive at main dealers

£300+ for just an oil change, pollen filters being an extra over the service cost, 'inspection' services where they do no actual work but charge you to find faults they can correct (at least audi and VW do this)

and when you get to the high end stuff £1500 for a set of front discs and pads lol

Went into local MB dealer at the weekend as we were considering a GLA for the wife, (turns out the boot is the same size as Becs' Golf, despite being advertised at 480 litres (vs 380 litres for the Golf) - how they've got away with that lie for 5 years is beyond me).

Anyway, this is effectively an A-class on stilts with a posh frock, and in half the variants is 2wd...so servicing SHOULD be the same as any other hatchback. Except we were quoted ~£1,000 for 3 years from new, and about £1,500 for 3 years once second hand. Think we've paid a little over £600 for 3 years on a Golf GTi...and something Jap would be sub-£500...

[Rawwr]

Weekendrebuild said:

Every other story is how some rust heap Mondeo or fiesta is far superior to any German offering

Well, most people would say that <any car> is better than a <rust bucket any car>. A brand new Ford Fiesta is better than a rust bucket W208 CLK, for example.

I also don't believe anyone has ever claimed that a rusting Mondeo is better than a 911 GT2.

Those are my thoughts.

[RobM77]

Wooda80 said:

av185 said:

Could well be in the reliability stakes at least:

This graph is rather like looking at F1 qualifying times and concluding that the drivers at the bottom of sheet can't drive for toffee, when in reality the difference on the road between top and bottom is negligible.

Number of faults per single car on the best performing car = 1 ( to the nearest whole number )
Number of faults per single car on the worst performing car = 2 ( to the nearest whole number )

If the difference was any smaller it wouldnt be worth reporting.

Plus, as with any stats, it would help to understand some background behind the reporting. Is a BMW or Audi owner, for example, more likely to report a tiny niggle than a Kia or Suzuki owner? What is the threshold for reporting a problem and do manufacturers vary in why and how they report them? What percentage of each manufacturer's cars are used as company, hire and pool cars, so problem reporting may vary compared to a private owner who's forked out their own money for the car? The difference in the numbers, as you correctly say, is so tiny, so how does this variation from top to bottom compare to the variation in reporting? As an analogy, you couldn't measure a 100 metre sprint with a mechanism that had a total accuracy of half a second.

Another thing to look at is whether the numbers seem sensible. Is MINI really that different from BMW? Sure they must share quality control standards before cars leave the factory? Do Jaguars really have fewer issues than BMWs and Audis? I've only ever heard the opposite from owners. Are Honda really that much lower than Vauxhall?

[Limpet]

RobM77 said:

Another thing to look at is whether the numbers seem sensible. Is MINI really that different from BMW? Sure they must share quality control standards before cars leave the factory? Do Jaguars really have fewer issues than BMWs and Audis? I've only ever heard the opposite from owners. Are Honda really that much lower than Vauxhall?

All valid questions. I find it very hard to believe that Skoda and Audi, two brands that share engines, transmissions, platforms, and many of their components, can place at pretty much opposite ends of the table in a dependability survey. I would expect dependability to be pretty uniform across all the VAG brands.

[otolith]

Limpet said:

All valid questions. I find it very hard to believe that Skoda and Audi, two brands that share engines, transmissions, platforms, and many of their components, can place at pretty much opposite ends of the table in a dependability survey. I would expect dependability to be pretty uniform across all the VAG brands.

But;

Baldchap said:

I had a Golf GTI when my brother had an Octavia VRS - the Golf was a much higher quality interior and a generation ahead in tech.

After my Golf I bought an Audi. The interior/tech is better again.

It is almost as if the more expensive car is actually a better product, rather than just a different badge... But what do I know?

Tried and tested vs latest and greatest? The faults included in that J.D. Power rating are not just mechanical ones;

https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/20...

JD Power said:

The study, now in its third year, measures problems experienced during the past 12 months by original owners of vehicles in the UK after 12-36 months of ownership. The study examines 177 problem symptoms across eight categories: vehicle exterior; driving experience; features/controls/displays (FCD); audio/communication/entertainment/navigation (ACEN); seats; heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); vehicle interior; and engine and transmission. Overall dependability is determined by the number of problems experienced per 100 vehicles (PP100), with a lower score reflecting higher quality.

JD Power said:

Technology shows room for improvement: Technology problems continue to be common for owners after three years. Bluetooth phone/device frequent pairing/connectivity issues (3.0 PP100) and voice recognition not recognizing commands (2.2 PP100) are both among the six most common problems in the UK.

[RobM77]

The other thing we need to be careful of is what this data could hide - could brevity of reporting a single number be masking an underlying complexity? You often hear of "Friday cars"; cars which have no end of problems because they somehow slipped through the quality control net. Could these cars be skewing the data, or making it hard to compare between manufacturers? If manufacturer A builds 99 faultless cars and 1 car riddled with 20 faults, with the simplistic data reporting we have here, that manufacturer would appear worse in dependability than manufacturer B who builds 81 faultless cars and 19 cars each with one fault. Looked at as above, manufacturer A has 20 faults per 100 cars compared to B's 19, but looked at another way, they have 1 faulty car out of 100, compared to B's 19 out of 100. So which is better? Furthermore, faults can be linked; for example a duff battery could trigger countless faults in a single car.

I'm not saying the data's wrong, I'm just suggesting caution. Also see my comments above about reporting variations - that's a stats classic.

edited to add. I've just spotted Toyota next to Vauxhall? Really?!!

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 20th January 11:41

[Limpet]

otolith said:

Limpet said:

All valid questions. I find it very hard to believe that Skoda and Audi, two brands that share engines, transmissions, platforms, and many of their components, can place at pretty much opposite ends of the table in a dependability survey. I would expect dependability to be pretty uniform across all the VAG brands.

But;

Baldchap said:

I had a Golf GTI when my brother had an Octavia VRS - the Golf was a much higher quality interior and a generation ahead in tech.

After my Golf I bought an Audi. The interior/tech is better again.

It is almost as if the more expensive car is actually a better product, rather than just a different badge... But what do I know?

Tried and tested vs latest and greatest? The faults included in that J.D. Power rating are not just mechanical ones;

https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/20...

JD Power said:

The study, now in its third year, measures problems experienced during the past 12 months by original owners of vehicles in the UK after 12-36 months of ownership. The study examines 177 problem symptoms across eight categories: vehicle exterior; driving experience; features/controls/displays (FCD); audio/communication/entertainment/navigation (ACEN); seats; heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); vehicle interior; and engine and transmission. Overall dependability is determined by the number of problems experienced per 100 vehicles (PP100), with a lower score reflecting higher quality.

JD Power said:

Technology shows room for improvement: Technology problems continue to be common for owners after three years. Bluetooth phone/device frequent pairing/connectivity issues (3.0 PP100) and voice recognition not recognizing commands (2.2 PP100) are both among the six most common problems in the UK.

Ah OK, that makes sense. I must admit to being bit thrown by the inclusion of things like in car tech performance under the term dependability. Annoying as dodgy Bluetooth connectivity or a poor hi-fi might be, I wouldn't consider these to be dependability issues as much as whether the car has failed to start, or to complete a journey under its own steam.

Voice recognition technology is a bit of a joke in most applications, in my experience, not just in cars. Also BMW's woeful standard stereos (if you don't upgrade them from the options list) are probably bad enough to put the cars last on their own. Something akin to a £99 Alba midi system from the Argos catalogue in the 1990s.

Edited by Limpet on Monday 20th January 11:43