A good point, teabelly.
What concerns me is that whenever I read a Which report on something where I have direct professional knowledge or a strong personal interest and knowledge, I myself criticising a number of aspects of the methodology or the interpretation. Thus, when (as here) I read a report on a subject where my personal knowledge is more limited, I am circumspect.
One concern that I have is that Which purport to cover ALL consumer products. They cannot therefore be expert in everything they do. This means that they cannot be expected to construct their surveys such that a meaningful and reliable answer is obtained.
I would thus be more inclined to give credence to reports from specialist bodies, such as the JD Power survey.
|
Mapmaker - spot on. A non-specialist organisation could easily be expected to separate the results of substantially identical cars and post significantly different results for them.
|
|
|
One concern that I have is that Which purport to cover ALL consumer products. They cannot therefore be expert in everything they do. This means that they cannot be expected to construct their surveys such that a meaningful and reliable answer is obtained. I would thus be more inclined to give credence to reports from specialist bodies, such as the JD Power survey.
I see your point with lack of specialisation, but in this case fail to see any way in which it makes a difference.
Since JDP's 'experts' surely have no bearing on the data sent in, they're in exactly the same boat as Which?, the data is sent in by the car owners.
The information which puts a TT bottom and Audi's & VW's generally low is not any kind of interpretation, it's straight info, from the punters, on whether their car has made it through the year without breaking down (with a breakdown being defines as a problem which stopped the running of the car).
|
|
|
Perhaps we should construct our own questionnaire? The variables we want removed are mileage, dealer failings ie taking more than one go to fix something, attentiveness to faults, driving style of driver and service schedule adherence
Serious problems are things like: failure to start, loss of engine power, loss of braking/steering etc. Niggles are things like trim failings and interior devices not working properly eg faulty windows and such like.
You could list all the possible faults and ask whether the car has suffered the problem. You would then ask how many times it went back to the dealer. The number of times you suffer the same fault shouldn't necessarily be counted as multiple faults.
We would also need to find out what sort of service schedule the vehicle had, who else drove it and what sort of driver they were.You would also need to find out whether they were the type to ignore strange noises or whether they took them to the dealer straight away. Did the noise ignorers have one catastrophic failure and the noise reporters have lots of little problems? You would also need to find out what sort of journey types they did. Do different personality types drive different cars and attract different problems and can you separate attentive owners out from the inattentive owners to remove the abuse factor?
We could just lean on the break down organisations to give us most of this as they would only likely be called out for serious problems and they would have a more professional opionion. Perhaps finding out the servicing regime for each broken down vehicle would show up whether it was a manufacturering failure or an owner failure for each breakdown incident. The chances of a manufacturer allowing this sort of information out is minimal I would have thought.
teabelly
|
|
|
|
Having seen the full report, it really doesn't make great reading for anyone with a Audi, the A6 and TT came near the bottom. The TT was actually bottom.
MG did well with the ZT having a 100% record. The 75 scored 94%, the same as the 3-series. I don't know why, ZT's and 75's come off the same line. Rover were held back by the Rover 25 which wasn't a great score at 90% reliability.
As for VW, it's all very mediocre, all their cars were in the bottom half of the survey results
Only BMW really held it's position as 'average'.
The bizarre thing was the Skoda cars all scored higher than the VW ones.
Imagine telling someone that 15 years ago.
|
I don't know why, ZT's and 75's come off the same line.
I do. Sample size. This gives us an idea of the variability in the figures - about +/-12.5% points as a rough rule of thumb.
So it could be 94 for the 75 and the 3.
Or it could be 81.5 for the 3 and 100 for the 75
Or 81.5 for the 75 and 100 for the 3.
Your guess is as good as mine. Or Which's, because a guess is all it really was.
Schools really do need to teach statistics. It is an essential skill yet outside University maths, biology and pharmacology departments there is very little understanding of it.
|
|
|
3500S: When I looked at it, the BMW was in poor, not average.
Others: If you look at the report, you will see that the difference between the MG and Rover 75 is just that the people in the sample with the MG suffered no breakdowns, the 75 did.
I don't see how this can be stated as a mistake by Which? There is no interpretation of results involved, it is a straight counting of breakdowns reported.
You can blame the sample sizes, but I seem to remember when the JDPower survey came out we had a similar argument, with JDPower having admitted that for a model to be surveyed, they had to get 40 or more replies. Not really such a hugely improved sample size, is it?
|
When you weigh it up it all boils down to the car owning experience of individuals - natually some are good and some are not so good.
I know of a lady Honda Civic owner whose suffered small, but annoying setbacks with it from new, whilst a friend (once a sales rep driving a Mondeo diesel) who bought a used W-reg 1.8 Rover 75, has since used his leisure time to visit southern Spain and large areas of France without it missing a beat so far.
He won't hear a word said against the 75 and relishes its ride and classy interior.
|
When you weigh it up it all boils down to the car owning experience of individuals - natually some are good and some are not so good.
This is precisely why these reports should be treated much more circumspectly than they are.
I clearly stated at the top of this thread that I give no credence to this poll or any poll for that matter.
Yet here we see people getting all huffy because their brand scores lower than another brand.
Those same people make all the same noises thta Alfa drivers make whenever a poll is produced that shows Alfa in a bad light.
"My example of brand X, has been as reliable as a reliable thing"
"That report has too small a sample, they are fiddling the numbers. It's only statistics you can make the number say anything you want"
Apparently,, judging by some of the responses in this thread it's perfectly acceptable to say these things about Which bt not Jd Powers. Both reports are compiled in the same way, they ask people their experiences.
If ( to illustrate a point) those views are treated with the same kind of contempt as mine have been in the past, people start getting even more huffy.
funny old world isn't it?
;-)
JaB
|
>>This is precisely why these reports should be treated much more circumspectly than they are.>>
Which is precisely why, just like you, I take exception to a marque's products all being branded reliable/unreliable just because of the good/bad experience of some of its owners.
If fact was reality we'd ALL buy Japanese.
But there would still be Which? and J D Powers reliability surveys.....:-)
|
|
|
Patently has pretty much asked the obvious already, but since we all know that the MG ZT and the Rover 75 are built on the same line, how can 100% of MG ZTs built in the two years before the survey be 100% breakdown-free while only 90% of Rover 75s were? Which? answered this itself in a convoluted way by stating. \"Out of interest we separated the results for MG and Rover cars, even though they\'re made in the same factories. The new range of MGs, including the ZR, ZS and ZT, has booseted the company\'s result and moved it from the poor category to average. We\'ll be watching closely to see whether it\'s a trend that continues, and whether the Rover models will follow suit next year.\"
What I think Which means is that the MGs tested were probably up to a year old and the Rovers tested were up to two years old and that explains the difference.
HJ
|
HJ,
I agree, it must be an age thing, it would be the same person who would fit the MG suspension or the Rover suspension.
Very odd.
|
|
I stand corrected Bazza, you are right, it must be Merc in 'average'. Don't know why, I get these two mixed up.
|
|
|
|
>>What I think Which means
That is the whole point. Who knows? We all can hazard a guess, but it is hazardous, and a guess is all that it is.
Patently. Engineering as well. The dear old Weibull modulus which some bright spark of an academic used to prove that 0.001% of £2 coins would self destruct.
|
For someone that has a qualification in statistics, to allow for a wide degree of variance, especially in terms of distribution of the mean (root mean squared), it is widely held that a sample of 30 is representative.
So for Which? to set their sample at 40 is statistically correct.
As for the 12.5% variance, never heard of it.
|
Presumably this is a self-selecting survey.
So you fill it in if you feel like it. So you only do this if you have something worth reporting. FWIW this is not a dig against any particular make of car - though I don't doubt that the Alfa-unbashers will be out in force...
So, say, if you have a Rover that hasn't broken down and you find that amazing, then you feel you have to report it.
And, say, if you have a VW that has broken down & find that amazing, then similarly you feel you have to report it.
A working VW, or a broken Alfa is so unremarkable that it isn't worth reporting.
And Rover drivers are mild mannered gentlemen who wouldn't dream of complaining. But will reward good service.
Whilst VW drivers are aggressive & so will punish bad service, but wouldn't dream of complimenting good service.
& cetera.
|
Presumably this is a self-selecting survey. So you fill it in if you feel like it. So you only do this if you have something worth reporting.
Interesting that you feel that to make the survey valueless Mr Cartographer, since the JDPower survey works on EXACTLY the same principle.
|
It's a fact, substantiated by some of the computer forums I visit, that the majority of threads on consumer issues including systems and retail and online outlets posted are in the form of complaints.
The vast majority of people who experience good service, excellent products and after sales care rarely think of offering praise - it is, after all, what they expected to receive in the first place.
But rest assured, once someone has complained for one reason or another many, many more spring to the defence of said system or outlet - just as in the case with the Which? survey.
My mate, who runs an independent audio/video/appliance store, detests the CA's reports as his experience doesn't match the survey's findings in the majority of cases for the products he stocks.
As he points out, if some brands were so unreliable as made out, why do his customers keep buying them and experiencing comparatively few problems overall?
|
The vast majority of people who experience good service, excellent products and after sales care rarely think of offering praise - it is, after all, what they expected to receive in the first place.
So true. Who, for example, was the last BR member to offer their thanks to the mods for providing their services, for free, to keep this site going?
|
>>Interesting that you feel that to make the survey valueless Mr Cartographer, since the JDPower survey works on EXACTLY the same principle.
The JDP survey (whoever they are) is another load of white-smoke-spewing Range Rover! Or radiator leaking Cit. Or whatever your (least) favourite thing is!
Self-selecting surveys are a load of complete cobblers [tyrefitters?]. The only reliable survey is a random selection of the population. Why do you think that Gallup don't include fliers in the Saturday Telegraph that say 'which way will you be voting, please return this reply-paid postcard for the chance of a free holiday in Blackpool during early October'?
|
>>Interesting that you feel that to make the survey valueless Mr Cartographer, since the JDPower survey works on EXACTLY the same principle. The JDP survey (whoever they are) is another load of white-smoke-spewing Range Rover! Or radiator leaking Cit. Or whatever your (least) favourite thing is!
ALL RIGHT THEN!!!!
Sorry :D
Have you ever had one of those arguments where halfway through you realise you're both saying the same thing? :D
My point during this thread, and I believe the point JaB and ND wanted to make when they started it, was that thes surveys are, basically, untrustworthy. Their entire system is biased. Admittedly there's no practical way of doing better, but how can you trust an entirely subjective survey, which only takes results from a particular section of society?
|
|
Not that I'm calling this an argument, coz I don't think it was, but it reminds me of that situation.
|
This thread illustrates how strongly some people react when faced with evidence which challenges their own lovingly nurtured prejudices.
It is unsurprising that a person who has paid a large premium for what he believes to be a superior product reacts badly when faced with evidence which undermines his purchasing decision and implies that, to some extent, he has been taken in by marketing.
German cars are bought primarily as status symbols and are therefore strongly linked to issues of ego and self-worth. When that is credibly challenged, the effect is bound to be similar to lighting the blue touchpaper.
|
the effect is bound to be similar to lighting the blue touchpaper.
TBH I did think that would be the result but also felt given the glee with which some people point out the failings of other marques it was only fair to give others a chance...
Turnabout is fair after all.
;-)
JaB
|
German cars are bought primarily as status symbols
I can't speak for any other German car drivers, but I can speak for myself.
I explained why I started buying BMWs earlier today - see above. As I said, I went into the process biased against BMW due to the reputation their drivers have. I had spent some years previously sneering at those (then) more senior than me who claimed they bought BMWs because of the excellent residuals and the reliability of the cars; hence they made very good business tools. Yeah right, was the reply muttered beneath my breath.
Then I looked at all the cars that were of an appropriate size for job in hand. Despite my initial intentions, I came out at the other end with a new BMW.
Three years later, the same exercise carried out with a variety of marques gave the same result. And then again this year.
Sneer at me if you wish. I don't care. I know why I buy them.
|
>>Sneer at me if you wish. I don't care. I know why I buy them.>>
Precisely the same reasons why I've bought three VWs in a row.
|
I explained why I started buying BMWs earlier today - see above.
My apologies. It's in the MG Rover thread - see 5/8/04 at 0912
|
Presumably this is a self-selecting survey. So you fill it in if you feel like it.
I remember once that they wanted opinions on the Fiat Bravo/a. I owned one at the time, & so e-mailed them saying I thought mine was jolly good (because it was, as far as I was concerned).
They wrote back, saying "Sorry, we've got all the info we need now".
The survey then came out and basically said that anyone who bought a Bravo or Brava was a drooling imbecile who enjoyed giving garages large amounts of money. Seemed a little harsh, but hey.
Reading the survey year after year, I get the increasing impression that a large number of the participants seem to be the sort of people who go back to the dealer to complain if the car's tyres need pumping up. Doesn't help the credibility of the exercise, in my view.
|
|
|
Patently. Engineering as well. The dear old Weibull modulus which some bright spark of an academic used to prove that 0.001% of £2 coins would self destruct.
You came across the Wibbles as well! Fantastic. I thought that my erstwhile best man and I were the only ones who remembered them.
Most of my £2 coins spontaneously vanish. Maybe that's why - the 0.001% always make their way to me.
----------------
P.S. - 12.5% was said to be a rough estimate, taken as the variance between two identical models (i.e. the known error), squared to take account of the distribution.
100%-94%=6%
6% equiv to 1.06
1.06*1.06=1.1236
1.1236 equiv to approx 12.5%
|
|
|
|
A lot of the German marques have been living on their past reputations too long. A quick look at www.c********.org/ paints a different picture, especially for VW which are inferior to models they produced in days gone by. No more 'if only everything in life was as reliable as a Volkswagen' in their advertising campaigns.
Even MB dropped the 'engineered like no other car in the world' probably because they didn't want to be done for false advertising!
Time and again, different independant surveys point to the Japanese as being head and shoulders above the rest.
|
|
Why is www.c********.org/ always filtered??? Other links are allowed, this is a fabulous independant site. www dot c******** dot org!!!
|
Use TinyURL (www.TinyURL.com) or split car and survey...
I had the same problem the other day.
|
|
|
Why is www.c********.org/ always filtered???
Because someone once flooded this site with that link. Easiest solution was to ban it.
DD.
|
This all gets very tedious.
The Which? survey is based on 80000 randomly sampled CA members. I think the results for VW were based on over 1000 cars - pretty good statistics I think!
The Which? survey is probably the best source of car reliability information were have in the UK and is not just based on breakdowns (minor faults and 'niggles' each account for 25% of the total). The latest results seem to mirror quite closely results from both the ADAC and DEKRA in Germany (which are not based on voluntary reporting - the organisations return figures based on their call-outs and inspections, respectively).
VW is acquiring an unenviable reputation for unreliability in the US - this may shock long-time VW fans, but as each new generation of car comes out with new technologies, new suppliers (many now based outside of Germany) and new assembly techniques it should be no surprise if 'past performance is not necessary an indicator of current performance'.
That BMW has problems is no surprise either - they have had more than their fair share of electrical maladies and, I believe (from a BMW-connected source) have been quietly changing quite a few gearboxes under warranty.
Looking at all manner of surveys across the globe, one thing emerges - Japanese reliability sits well above that of the others.
I am a long-time (30+ years) Mercedes fan, but I am pragmatic and mature enough to accept that things change.
(Coincidentally, my C-Class broke down about 1/2 mile from home today - complete electrical failure. The 6 month old Bosch 'Silver' battery seems to have undergone a complete internal collapse!).
|
It does seem to keep landing on Bosch's doorstep. Coil packs? Bosch. Faulty AFMs on VAG and Fiat Group cars? Bosch. Your battery? Bosch.....
I'm beginning to see a pattern.
|
It does seem to keep landing on Bosch's doorstep. Coil packs? Bosch. Faulty AFMs on VAG and Fiat Group cars? Bosch. Your battery? Bosch..... I'm beginning to see a pattern.
Thought the coil packs were BREMI ??
|
Were they? :: scratches head ::
I stand corrected. Sorry Bosch, it's just your AFMs that suck then.
|
Surely Which? exists to make money for Which?
I once succumbed to one of their try Which? for three months blah - blah. I came to the "unbiased" ! opinion that the magazine was produced for persons so lacking in self worth and confidence that they were unable to make their own buying decisions. Anoraks the lot of them!
I would treat any Which? report with the greatest care, especially when refering to cars!
Roger. (in Spain).
|
Which ? is published by the consumers association (makes them sound very official) and they state they are a none profit making organisation. These organisations pay the people that run them extremely good salaries, the same goes for many charities and in many cases are run for the workers rather than those they say they want to help/inform.
I have read Which? on the internet via their one month free trial. Last year they did a group test on Freeview boxes, two of the models were identical just the case was different, screens look the same even the remote is identical, one box scored 2 the other 4 and they were the same price.
Considering they are pro consumer they make it very difficult to cancel their free trial before you get charged for a second month. In fact it took me about 20 minutes to find out in some small print and you can?t do it automatically you have to email someone.
|
So much of a cars reliability is dependent on how often the owner lifts the bonnet and checks fluids,belts,hoses etc and of course how they service the car.Since 90% + of owners NEVER do any of the above the car can not really be blamed when it inevitably breaks down.
Case in point, my sister who owns a 1999 punto and never,ever,ever lifts the bonnet had a problem with overheating of the engine. I asked her if she had checked if the coolant was topped up.The reply - Cars have coolant?
Lo and behold opened the expansion tank and no coolant at all visible.Turned out to be a tiny leak by the bottom hose clip.
There are alot of people out there like my sis.
|
Which ? is published by the consumers association (makes them sound very official) and they state they are a none profit making organisation. These organisations pay the people that run them extremely good salaries, the same goes for many charities and in many cases are run for the workers rather than those they say they want to help/inform.
What an extraordinary and unpleasant slur!
I have the greatest of respect for the CA. When I used to work at MIRA - Motor Industry Research Association (many moons ago) I was contacted by the CA for some information about crash testing procedures. I had several meetings with them and visited their premises and test facilities.
They employ many talented and dedicated engineers, technicians, statisticians and the like. In many cases the test procedures they have developed are superior to those employed by manufacturers, and indeed, their techniques have often been subsequently adopted by manufacturers. For example, they worked with Southampton University to develop instrumentation to measure NVH (Noise Vibration Harshness) in cars - it was subsequnetly adopted by Jaguar.
I occasionally see CA jobs being advertised in trade journals and they do not pay 'extremely good salaries' - they simply pay the going rate. Being a charity I beleive many of their senior directorate are actually volunteers from amongst the 'great and the good'.
The CA has not far short of 1million members and has been instrumental in many campaigns that have benefited motorists in the UK - notably the 'rip off car price' campaign (they produced a pack helping people to personally import cars) and pushing through the NCAP programme with the support of other European consumer groups.
|
>>This all gets very tedious.
Yup!
>>The Which? survey is based on 80000 randomly sampled CA members. I think the results for VW were based on over 1000 cars - pretty good statistics I think!
Were all 80000 people required to return their forms - if so, then it is excellent. However if the choice of whether or not to return the form was down to the member, then it was a self-selecting survey & so tosh.
|
80000 randomly sampled CA members
Indeed, there are two stages of selection. First, they must be a CA member before they are even asked whether they wish to return the form.
|
I came to the "unbiased" ! opinion that the magazine was produced for persons so lacking in self worth and confidence that they were unable to make their own buying decisions. Anoraks the lot of them!
I would treat any Which? report with the greatest care, especially when refering to cars! Roger. (in Spain).
>>
Sorry, but that is nonsense.
If you want to buy, say, a new dishwasher and don't have the resources and time to test 20-30 models then how do you make your decision? Buy the cheapest; the one that looks nicest? Which? do the testing for you, they provide you with the information and you can then make your own decision. That's nothing to do with 'self worth and confidence'!
|
Quite agree. The surveys are one thing, but Which? do their own TESTS as well, and it's been my experience that my experiences with products have closely matched the findings of their reports.
Just because something is cheaper doesn't mean it's going to get a good rating; IIRC one of their favourite washing machines in a recent test was a Siemens or somebody's, at over £600. They highlight products as 'best buys' - offering good value.
For example, did Mapmaker actually try the C&A shirt, or taste the Romanian wine or the Kwik Save gin? I suspect not. So is he in a position to pooh-pooh the findings? These products may not beat the 'best', but they may very nearly match them whilst costing far less.
Carl_a, are you sure both Freeview boxes had RF outputs, or the same quantity of timer events?
There seem to be plenty of people here who feel acrimony towards Which? They're not perfect, and they're not cheap, but like Aprilia says, I don't think you can buy copies of "Freezer and Dishwasher Monthly" in WHSmiths, so who you gonna call if you seek supposedly-independent, backed-up-by-comparative-test-results, recommendations?
For the motoring relation, I note from the survey that Nissan appear to be slipping downwards a bit...
...as the models forge closer ties with Renaults...
|
>>Japanese reliability sits well above that of the others.>>
...of which many thousands of them are manufactured in the UK.....
|
In car by car breakdown I try to include the results of all the useful surveys. Go to any Japanese entry such as Mazda 323 and you will find it does consistently well. And that's part of the point of car by car breakdown. It enables you to look for consistently good or consistenly poor results rather than rely on a blip in a single survey. One word of warning, though. CBCB does show an unhealthy number of problems with some popular cars. That is sometimes due more to the total number sold than inherent problems with the models.
HJ
|
One word of warning, though. CBCB does show an unhealthy number of problems with some popular cars. That is sometimes due more to the total number sold than inherent problems with the models. HJ
Yes, this is true I'm sure. But note that Ford, presumably one of the biggest sellers in the Which? survey, is now doing very well. I think this reflects comments coming back from the trade that post-2000 Fords are generally very reliable (apart from a few common troublespots). I know from industry contacts that this coincides with the company adopting far more stringent quality levels from suppliers (down from several hundred faulty part per million supplied to about 70ppm now - for comparison, Toyota work on 5ppm. Renault don't have a figure....).
|
realtives rover 75 v6 - 75k since V plate form new - only problem was a speaker although replacement tyres where not cheap.
isnt a rover 75/zt just a bmw anyhow?
|
What happened to the Smart? Last year they were rated as "Excellent" (although the sample size was only about 32, but then again there are lots of sample sizes in the low thirties this year) If 80,000 mailees (my word) returned about 24,000 questionaires, it must have been about the same last year. Do CA members no longer buy Smarts? Why not? I think this might cast a shadow over the whole discussion.
|
I'm coming into this discussion very late, i know, but i'll try to summarise a bit. If it helps im a product design and manufacturing engineering undergraduate, and ive done a-level and university statistics modules, aswell as extensively using statistical analysis in my placement year.
It's clear that Which? isn't perfect. Yes its reports need to be taken with a pinch of salt. As teabelly and others said they do not state the normalisations that have been undertaken such as mileage, degree of 'breakdown' etc, and they have no way to remove the subjectiveness that is involved. I also believe that they should be grouping cars such as the Bora and the VW together due to the extensive sharing of parts.
To accuse Which? of being inaccurate in all their tests is a little unfair, as the single most difficult variable to control in this test is the subjectiveness. Everyone is correct in saying that a VW owner expects higher standards than a Kia owner, and as such may be more likely to complain if the car is not perfect. However i don't believe that the same image consciousness exists for most other consumer goods, or at least not to anything like the same degree. This means that presuming the Which? tests are carried out in a professional manner, they can be considered representative.
In order to gain objective data, the only way i can think of is to consult the breakdown organisations such as AA, RAC et al. If your car breaks down, it doesn't matter if its a Kia or a VW, you will need to call a breakdown service. Once you adjust for proportional ownership of different cars looked after by each breakdown company, you have fairly irrefutable data for actual 'breakdowns'. Of course this does not solve trim defects etc.
As regards the manner at which a car is looked after - again demographics could have a very slight affect. Lets just say Renault Clio's are bought by more women than men, and lets just say women are less privy to imminent faults with their car. This *could* be a factor. However, even a conscientious owner who notices the leaking radiator has still had a radiator fail on them, just perhaps not a head gasket blow aswell. For this reason i think we can discount this factor from the equation. Modern cars are expected to go the length between services with no attention at all. They *should* do this. If they dont, there is a problem with the car, whether it is caught early enough to avert damage or not.
In summary, i reckon that with a bit of moderation, the Which? report is probably fairly accurate. Larger samples would be nice, but are not absolutely crucial. Anomalies such as the Golf/Bora thing should probably be interpolated into one score, unless the Golf really does have a specific fault which the Bora doesn't. You will have to apply handicaps as you see fit to image related scores.
I would suggest VW and Audi moderated up slightly, Skoda down slightly. Any French/Italian manufacturer down slightly.
|
|
With all this mud slinging and rubishing makes of cars, why has no one mentioned Renault? It usually crops up!
|
Why don't we have a 'Back Room' survey as the one in question seems to be a similarly limited sample.
Owned one Rover- constant breakdowns and trim defects, worst car I ever owned other than a 2CV
3 VW's- Mk2 Golf Gti (owned this 7 yrs, 100,000 miles and no breakdowns or faults of any kind), New Passat- various trim problems, no failures, MKIV Golf Gti no problems whatsoever (pre coil packs)
Owned 2 Japanese cars, no problems of any kind with either.
Father owns Alfa GTV- it has some electrical problems and doesn't like hot starting.
|
I would suggest VW and Audi moderated up slightly, Skoda down slightly. Any French/Italian manufacturer down slightly.
A lot of what you said made sense, but I don't believe this does.
What this basically says is 'get the results, then if you don't really agree with them, change them a bit to suit what you THINK should be the truth.'
|
Hawkesy,
I think that actual tests 'Which' or their sister Consumer Associations carry out on all manner of consumer goods are excellent. However their reliability survey is something completely different.
You point out "the single most difficult variable to control in this test is the subjectiveness" . Whilst I would agree that the Achilles heel of this survey is that it is based on subjective opinion, it is a survey and not a test.
The discrepancy between the Golf and Bora findings cannot be dismissed as an anomaly. It illustrates perfectly why these voluntary surveys are IMO of little value.
C
|
>>Hawksey: Everyone is correct in saying that a VW owner expects higher standards than a Kia owner, and as such may be more likely to complain if the car is not perfect. However i don't believe that the same image consciousness exists for most other consumer goods,
I think he's probably right there. As a feelgood test it probably makes some sense. Are Audi owners as happy as they think they ought to be with their Audis - compared to Kia owners' happiness compared to their expected happiness.
But the Golf v Bora issue shows what a load of tosh it really is.
|
But the Golf v Bora issue shows what a load of tosh it really is.
I bet next year, at JDPower time, it gets pulled out in front of the backroom as evidence that all Italian and French cars are rubbish.
|
>> But the Golf v Bora issue shows what a load of >> tosh it really is. >> I bet next year, at JDPower time, it gets pulled out in front of the backroom as evidence that all Italian and French cars are rubbish.
Sorry, that wasn't the end of the sentence, should have been:
... again, regardless.
|
>>Hawksey: Everyone is correct in saying that a VW owner expects higher standards than a Kia owner, and as such may be more likely to complain if the car is not perfect. However i don't believe that the same image consciousness exists for most other consumer goods, I think he's probably right there. As a feelgood test it probably makes some sense. Are Audi owners as happy as they think they ought to be with their Audis - compared to Kia owners' happiness compared to their expected happiness. But the Golf v Bora issue shows what a load of tosh it really is.
What a patonising bunch you are. I currently own Nissan and Mercedes cars. In the past I have owned all manner of machinery - including BMW, Citroen, Audi, Alfa Romeo, Vauxhall, plus a few others. If I have a fault or a problem then it doesn't matter to me what the make is - there is still a problem.
I think that owners of Japanese cars (and probably Korean cars) would actually be *more* critical of poor reliability and minor niggles because these brands are sold on the expectation of high reliability. I note that Hyundai do very well whereas Daewoo (with a similar market demographic) do poorly - this is probably a result of the latters GM design heritage though.
The Which? survey may not be perfect, but it is probably the best source of reliability information we have. To call it 'tosh' is simply ignorant. Moreover, its results seem to correlate very closely with the German ADAC reliability results (which are compiled by the ADAC as a result of their call-outs as a percentage of members with the particular make/model, and are completely owner-independent). In the ADAC results, the Japanese come out on top, most German marques good-average, French, Italian and UK at the bottom.
|
In the ADAC results, the Japanese come out ontop, most German marques good-average, French, Italian and UK at the bottom.
Then the which results don't correlate with it so closely after all. Since a lot of the german marques came out as poor, while Alfa beat them, getting average.
The point is that all surveys of this type are highly subjective and therefore the results should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.
Unfortunately it required the shock of Alfa doing well before the majority of people realised this...
|
I would suggest VW and Audi moderated up slightly, Skoda down slightly. Any French/Italian manufacturer down slightly.
Bazza said:
A lot of what you said made sense, but I don't believe this does.
What this basically says is 'get the results, then if you don't really agree with them, change them a bit to suit what you THINK should be the truth.'
___________________________________________________________
In a word, yes! Assuming that the majority of BackRoomers reading this would agree with my earlier point of VW/Audi etc owners expecting perfection and then complaining if its not, then this leads onto the VW/Audi results being overly low due to the 'one little niggle but not at all happy about it' people taking part in the survey where owners of other cars wouldn't bother writing in about it at all. Therefore there is a correction factor involved before you reach the absolute 'true' values.
However the problem is that the correction factor due to subjectiveness is a complete finger in the air jobby, my suggestions were merely suggestions based on my observations of various manufacturers stereotypes, for both their vehicles and their target demographic.
|
Aprilia said:
I think that owners of Japanese cars (and probably Korean cars) would actually be *more* critical of poor reliability and minor niggles because these brands are sold on the expectation of high reliability.
______________________________________
Possibly, yes. So premium manufacturer Japanese cars perhaps also have a slightly lower score than is fair, due to subjectiveness. I would guess that whilst companies like Kia are undoubtably not the least reliable cars by a long way, the fact that they trade on excellent value for money probably lessens the reliability expectations.
However VW/Audi probably still carry around the same expectation of high reliability, aswell as adding a premium to their price, however they are still not in the same league as the Japanese.
Therefore, as you say, and i agree with you here, the breakdown companies have the best quality data (and surely the largest sample sizes too), and say its Japan best, Germans ok and French/Italian/Uk worst. If we tweak the Which? data for our suggested correction factors, we end up still pretty close to this, showing the Which? survey to be perfectly acceptable as a general guide.
Perhaps the best reading of them all would be to compare Which?/JDPower surveys from the last ten years, and look for the upwards or downwards trends from manufacturers as a whole, not just individual models?
|
However the problem is that the correction factor due to subjectiveness is a complete finger in the air jobby, my suggestions were merely suggestions based on my observations of various manufacturers stereotypes, for both their vehicles and their target demographic.
As I understand it the which survey simply takes a note of the problem ,the problem type, the car and the manufacturer.
There is none of this rate your problem from 1 to 5 that you have to do with certain other surveys
Hard to see how that is subjective TBH
JaB
|
In the ADAC results, the Japanese come out on >> top, most German marques good-average, French, Italian and UK at the >> bottom. >> Then the which results don't correlate with it so closely after all. Since a lot of the german marques came out as poor, while Alfa beat them, getting average. The point is that all surveys of this type are highly subjective and therefore the results should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Unfortunately it required the shock of Alfa doing well before the majority of people realised this...
The 'definitions' of 'poor' and 'average' are going to be different (because the ADAC survey only covers actual breakdowns, whereas Which? includes 'faults' and 'niggles'). The hierarchy is pretty much the same though.
I have just pulled out my 2003 copy of the German 'DEKRA-Hauptuntersuchung' which gives very precise details of all failure points for all the many hundreds of thousands of cars tested in Germany each year (MoT equivalent).
It makes intereting reading an very much backs the results of Which? (and other) surveys.
For example, 90.2% of 3-year-old Toyota Avensis presented for test without a single defect, whereas for the Golf it was only 71.7% and for the Sharan 74%. These cars are 'red flagged' as being substantially worse than average for defects.
For the older cars, for example, of 7-year-old BMW 3-series only 53.5% passed the test (19.6% of 3's had suspension defects and 33.6% had brake defects). For the same age Toyota Corolla, 70.3% passed first time, with the only 'worse than average' area being tyre wear. Only 39% of Alfas of that age were fault free; 39% had 'major defects' with 47.6% having faulty brakes.
For the Opel Omega (which comes out badly in Which?) the results are not pretty - with the car showing defects substantially worse than average in every area.
Go ahead and dismiss these surveys as 'tosh' if you must, but ignore the data at your peril because you'll feel it in your pocket and in the inconvenience of breakdowns and additional visits to the dealer.
|
>>For the older cars, for example, of 7-year-old BMW 3-series only 53.5% passed the test (19.6% of 3's had suspension defects and 33.6% had brake defects). For the same age Toyota Corolla, 70.3% passed first time, with the only 'worse than average' area being tyre wear. Only 39% of Alfas of that age were fault free; 39% had 'major defects' with 47.6% having faulty brakes.
This is not to rubbish that point, but merely to say that with my auditor's hat on I would wonder what other effects are coming into play that require adjusting for.
So this has nothing to do with 3-series ending up in sink estates at 7 years old with bling bling accessories - at which point servicing is something that is done after the MOT (if it passes cheaply enough) rather than before - which would eliminate the failure points.
Whereas people like my father drive the Toyota Corolla, so are more inclined to have it serviced before the MOT to make sure it passes.
The Omega is a notoriously poor car (poor thing)
I'd be fascinated to see a demographic breakdown of that survey, Aprilia. So what proportion of 7 year old cars put in by people earning over 100k fail the MOT. Or what proportion of 7 year old cars put in by people from the ABC1 social classes.
|
I'd be fascinated to see a demographic breakdown of that survey, Aprilia. So what proportion of 7 year old cars put in by people earning over 100k fail the MOT. Or what proportion of 7 year old cars put in by people from the ABC1 social classes.
Well, its a German survey and my experience from living and working in Germany is that they wouldn't even ask this question. They are much less snobbish and class-sensitive than we are (which makes it a much pleasanter to place to live and work, BTW). There are fewer people in (relative) poverty and the notion of 'sink estates' isn't quite so highly developed as in the UK (where we lead Europe, I believe). Again, from my experience of Germany, people tend to look after their cars rather better than we do and 7 year old cars *do* get serviced, even if the owner is not in the 'ABC1' social class.
|
Go ahead and dismiss these surveys as 'tosh' if you must, but ignore the data at your peril because you'll feel it in your pocket and in the inconvenience of breakdowns and additional visits to the dealer.
Really? That's very interesting because, as an Alfa driver, I have completely ignored this data, and I haven't felt anything as yet. I've owned the car for over 2 years, taking it from 60,000 to 90,000 miles.
At what point exactly will I be feeling it in my pocket?
|
Really? That's very interesting because, as an Alfa driver, I have completely ignored this data, and I haven't felt anything as yet. I've owned the car for over 2 years, taking it from 60,000 to 90,000 miles. At what point exactly will I be feeling it in my pocket?
Bit like your 90-year-old father who smoked every day of his life and never had a day's illness. Doesn't prove cigarettes aren't harmful, does it?
If you've had a reliable one then think yourself lucky - there are plenty of folks less fortunate. Believe it or not I am a great Alfa fan and owned several - I was even a member of the Alfa Romeo Owner's Club - but they were shockingly unreliable cars and that was one reason for their near-disappearance from the UK market. (I also owned a Lancia and they *did* disappear). Anyway, its good to learn that Alfa are gradually improving. Ditto Ford, whose 2000-on cars seem to be radically better than earlier offerings.
|
Ah, but your claim that by ignoring the data I WILL sufferm is plainly ridiculous. The differences are so small nowadays that the best you can say is that you have a slightly elevated chance of a problem, and in a lot of cases I would even argue with that.
To the other suggestion on here, that we should get the survey then change the answers to what we expected in the first place, I don't know what to say.
Why don't we just make them up from the start?
Let's see, everyone KNOWS that VW are reliable and Fiat are not, so that's what we'll say. Coz it therefore must be true.
I believe the government used a similar method when, at first look, the statistics said scameras weren't actually doing any good.
|
This survey was for 'breakdowns/niggles/faults in cars up to two years old, over the last twelve months'.
Maybe Alphas are good for a couple of years?
Anyway, may I repeat; Where have all the Smarts gone? If they were so good last year, why havn't all the CA members been buying them in their thousands?
|
>>To call it \'tosh\' is simply ignorant.
So the Golf is a completely different car to the Bora, and so justifies a completely different placing in the survey?
If that\'s true, then I unreservedly withdraw the accusation of \'tosh\'! Until then, I suggest that it is a large suggestion of subjective data, collected in a way that is far from adequate.
Similarly the Rover 75 is a completely different car to the MG ZT. (Thanks to HJ for explaining what that difference *really* meant.)
|
Is there any survey that anyone agrees is worthwhile!!! everytime a new reliability survey comes out, every man and his dog posts on here about how its good/bad depending on which side of the car fence they fall.
Howabout we realise that these surveys are just indicative of the particular batch of respondents they get rather than the market as whole. It seems that for every person who has had a bad experience with a manufacturer another has had a good one.
It seems that generally, and historically, Japanese cars are more reliable than any other nations, German cars arent as reliable as they used to be and British cars are reliable depending on the day they were built on a monday or at 4.30 on a Friday. I'm not trying to be scientific - just my observations. and thats probably about scientific as any of us are going to get!
just my opinion, thats all ;-)
|
Good call Phoenicks, thats what i was trying to say originally, then got a bit caught up trying to over-analyse the results!
It's trends that give the best indication, Jap's always best, Germans dropping down being the key points from the last 10 years.
|
Is there any survey that anyone agrees is worthwhile!!!
Well, the ADAC and DEKRA surveys from Germany should fit the bill because the data is returned by these organisations, not the owners. The DEKRA data also covers pretty much every car in Germany (from their annual test) - it is printed in Auto Motor und Sport as a 'Special Edition' every year. Costs 4 Euro on German newsstands and you could probably order it from Smiths - the results are in the form of tables, so easy to understand with a English-German dictionary, even if you don't speak German.
In terms of the reliability hierarchy it says pretty much what Which? says.
|
I would have to agree with Aprilia, the Dekra survey stats are collected in perhaps the most representive way possible.
You wouldn't expect anything less from our Germanic cousins. It's a shame their cars aren't quite as meticulously made as they used to be that's all.
|
>>the Dekra survey stats are collected in perhaps the most representive way possible.
Perhaps it isn't possible to collect these stats in a representative fashion. You often see broken down Jaguars at the side of the road - over 10 years old. Once they fall into the sub-£1000 price-range they cease to be serviced & so stop working. Does that show that Jaguars are unreliable (which they may be) or is that masked by the likelihood that Jaguars of that age are under-serviced?
|
& the results of an annual test don't necessarily indicate whether a car is problematic. A blown ecu wouldn't be picked up by this data set.
|
Sometimes cars are reliable due to good design. For example, my car burns a little oil. It's 13 years old, it's a 2.5 24v and it's got 120,000 miles on it. It's going to burn a little oil. But unlike most cars of its age, when the oil gets a bit low, it tells me. So even if I don't check the oil regularly, it won't come to any harm. When it needs a service it tells me. When a bulb goes it tells me. It performs its own preventative maintenance. This is a car that's so old it was built in West Germany - and it still does all this. Most cars back then were running on 4-star and had MW radios. Is it any wonder that BMWs of that age are considered reliable and good quality?
Has anyone considered the possibility that BMWs, Mercedes et al haven't got any worse, the rest of the field has caught up? German marques have sat on their reputation whilst other manufacturers have worked hard to improve theirs. Once upon a time there was a gulf of difference between a prestige German brand and a repmobile. These days we're reduced to talking about how hollow the dashboard sounds.
|
In response to RF's comment earlier, I think I should say that this survey really shows how terrible French cars are, and Renaults in particular.
Or if it doesn't show that, it should.
Small print: No, I don't actually believe that and I do rather like Renaults. I just thought that RF was right, and that someone ought to say it 'cos someone usually does, even if it's not true. Which it probably isn't
|
Sometimes cars are reliable due to good design. For example, my car burns a little oil. It's 13 years old, it's a 2.5 24v and it's got 120,000 miles on it. It's going to burn a little oil. But unlike most cars of its age, when the oil gets a bit low, it tells me. So even if I don't check the oil regularly, it won't come to any harm. When it needs a service it tells me. When a bulb goes it tells me. It performs its own preventative maintenance. This is a car that's so old it was built in West Germany - and it still does all this. Most cars back then were running on 4-star and had MW radios. Is it any wonder that BMWs of that age are considered reliable and good quality? Has anyone considered the possibility that BMWs, Mercedes et al haven't got any worse, the rest of the field has caught up? German marques have sat on their reputation whilst other manufacturers have worked hard to improve theirs. Once upon a time there was a gulf of difference between a prestige German brand and a repmobile. These days we're reduced to talking about how hollow the dashboard sounds.
I think you are spot-on here.
MB's, BMW's and VW's of old were bascially very straightforward cars that were thoroughly engineered and properly put together. Take a look at an old MB 190E - its basically the same design as a Ford Sierra, but using better materials and better put togther. A very simple car. Up until about 1995 MB didn't even have an electronic autobox (Honda were making them in '85) and had only just started using electronic fuel injection (as opposed to the electromechanical KE-JEtronic they's stuck with for so many years)..
That has changed radically over the last 10-15 years with the onward march of automotive electronics. So much of a cars performance and reliability now rests with the electronic control systems. The *mechanical* reliability of any modern car is almost taken for granted because mechanical design expertise has become a 'commodified' and all the car co's are using the same design software, same production process etc.
The design of the electronics (I include connectors, sensors, motors, switchgear in this) is less homogenised and the Far Eastern companies have vast experience in producing low cost but high quality electronics for the consumer market. The Europeans lack this expertise and, worse still, have sought to reduce costs by pushing production of these critical components into Eastern Europe, where there is even less expertise.
Frankly, I would still trust the reliability of an old 190E over that of a modern C-Class.
|
Also having lived in Germany for many years I would agree that the ADAC results are about as close to an objective survey of reliability as we will get.
However the resurrection of this thread was based on Hawksey's defence of Which's reliability survey(note: not Which's tests.)
For all the valid points made nobody has come up with a reason why(to quote Mapmaker) "So the Golf is a completely different car to the Bora, and so justifies a completely different placing in the survey?"
I think most people would agree that Toyota have an enviable reputation for reliability. If you were to carry out a mini-survey of comments posted in the Backroom about Toyota you would find a considerable number are negative about Toyota. It would take a closer examination to see that nearly all are posted by one individual who had a problem with a high mileage Corolla gearbox. Similarly the Backroom is full of posts praising the reliability of Alfas. We are free to volunteer comments on our cars in the BR and also Which - but I suggest neither lead to objective assessments.
|
For all the valid points made nobody has come up with a reason why(to quote Mapmaker) "So the Golf is a completely different car to the Bora, and so justifies a completely different placing in the survey?"
You would have to do a bit of research to answer that question. Having worked in the industry I can tell you that just because a certain car is similar to another model it doesn't necessary end up having the same reliability.
It may well be that Bora's are built on different lines, different location, older/newer assembly kit, less/better trained operatives, the list goes on...
Good example of this is Mercedes cars, where variants of one model can be built in different plants and even use different suppliers. For example a C-Class C200 could have either a Seimens or a Bosch engine management system - you wouldn't know unless you lifted the bonnet.
You could go back to he mid-90's when Vauxhall were fitting Delco engine management on some lines and Bosch on others. Same car comes out of the factory, but *radically* different reliability. I know, I was working as a consultant at Ellesmere Port at the time (the Delco stuff came in from the US in kit form and was put together here) - the warranty problems on the Delco-equipped cars were unbelievable.
>>We are free to volunteer comments on our carsin the BR and also Which - but I suggest neither lead to objective assessments.
Which? is probably a bit more objective since it relies on thousands of respondants rather than about 6....
|
"Which? is probably a bit more objective since it relies on thousands of respondants rather than about 6.... "
last football season as a Spurs fan I sat(very quietly) amongst Manchester City supporters at their new stadium. Thousands were un-objective in their opinion that the City goal was not off-side; 3 of us objectively knew the referee was correct - and TV proved it!
|
Aprilla,
"Frankly, I would still trust the reliability of an old 190E over that of a modern C-Class."
I usually enjoy reading your posts a lot and found you comment very interesting as it is very close to a dilema I currently have.
Could you clarify whether you feel you would trust an old 190 (with 6-figure mileage and wear & tear etc) more than a modern c-class, or only if there was a new equivalent of a 190.
My dilema is a wanting a/c in a large estate, and I am thinking of getting another w124 with a/c as our current one seems so good, but my brain says something like a newish mondeo has to be much better value and should be more reliable (... a test drive confirms it is far less serene). The idea of having a/c installed doesn't appeal too much on the basis that is has a fair chance of converting a car that works perfectly too rattly/unreliable etc. and we want to keep it whatever.
Any thoughts would be appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
