Porsche most reliable !!
Discussion
Long list of reasons why these surveys do not return results that are well correlated with actual reliability.
Just as a for instance, expectations will skew the results. People will generally have different expectations if they've paid a lot compared to paying a relatively small amount for a car. That will have an impact even if the questions being asked are ostensibly quantitative.
Customers likewise generally do not have a good grasp of the severity of a given fault. Perceptions will also be skewed by the dealer experience. A car with several faults swiftly and efficiently dealt with may be viewed as similarly reliable as a car with just a few faults that are painful to resolve due to bad service.
So much depends on what you ask and how you ask it. Even then, asking customers is ultimately so far removed from the actual data you really want. You'd want access to something like Hertz' database to really get a grip on comparative reliability (one would expect the likes Hertz to track this kind of thing), but that limits you to only a relatively small range of models.
Reliability isn't a monolithic, objective concept, anyway. It has to be subjectively defined for the purposes of any survey. What if you mainly want to know about core powertrain and critical functionality that prevents the car from being used, but have a higher tolerance for other failures? There might be a car that generally suffers from very few faults, but one or two it does have are exactly the kind you want to avoid. But the survey may not weight faults according to your preferences - or really weight them at all. It may just be a survey of how often a car had to go into a dealership to fix a fault. The survey may be cleverer than that, but ultimately, it can only be survey of owner opinion, not actual reliability.
Just to underline how ultimately useless this kind of survey is, if you do a search, you can find Porsche doing well in surveys of new model reliability smack bang in the middle of the M97 era. Car was fixed under warranty in those days, so a failed engine is no worse a fault than any other that takes the car off the road for a bit for a customer that isn't paying. A failed MAF combined with sluggish service and a temporary shortage of replacement parts could give a similar overall experience to total engine failure in that context and have a similar impact on this kind of reliability 'data', whereas by any reasonable measure, one is a major mechanical fault and one is a minor technical glitch.
Just as a for instance, expectations will skew the results. People will generally have different expectations if they've paid a lot compared to paying a relatively small amount for a car. That will have an impact even if the questions being asked are ostensibly quantitative.
Customers likewise generally do not have a good grasp of the severity of a given fault. Perceptions will also be skewed by the dealer experience. A car with several faults swiftly and efficiently dealt with may be viewed as similarly reliable as a car with just a few faults that are painful to resolve due to bad service.
So much depends on what you ask and how you ask it. Even then, asking customers is ultimately so far removed from the actual data you really want. You'd want access to something like Hertz' database to really get a grip on comparative reliability (one would expect the likes Hertz to track this kind of thing), but that limits you to only a relatively small range of models.
Reliability isn't a monolithic, objective concept, anyway. It has to be subjectively defined for the purposes of any survey. What if you mainly want to know about core powertrain and critical functionality that prevents the car from being used, but have a higher tolerance for other failures? There might be a car that generally suffers from very few faults, but one or two it does have are exactly the kind you want to avoid. But the survey may not weight faults according to your preferences - or really weight them at all. It may just be a survey of how often a car had to go into a dealership to fix a fault. The survey may be cleverer than that, but ultimately, it can only be survey of owner opinion, not actual reliability.
Just to underline how ultimately useless this kind of survey is, if you do a search, you can find Porsche doing well in surveys of new model reliability smack bang in the middle of the M97 era. Car was fixed under warranty in those days, so a failed engine is no worse a fault than any other that takes the car off the road for a bit for a customer that isn't paying. A failed MAF combined with sluggish service and a temporary shortage of replacement parts could give a similar overall experience to total engine failure in that context and have a similar impact on this kind of reliability 'data', whereas by any reasonable measure, one is a major mechanical fault and one is a minor technical glitch.
julian987R said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You need to study the results again. You are looking at it like 1 on the right would be next after 10 on the left. You are coming at it all wrong. Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff