Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had an interesting conversation with my boyfriend about cars. He said just about any car, with few exceptions, can be a reliable car as long as you properly maintain it. He added, that some cars are able to take more abuse such as lack of proper maintenance and still run well some models can't take the abuse. The ones that can take the abuse are the cars that get the reputation for being "reliable." But that if you take a car, any car, and properly maintain it, it will run well and be reliable for you. Of course, barring some very unusual engineering problem.
The reason this came up, is because I told him I wanted a reliable car for my next vehicle. And I was looking into reliability statistics because of it. He said the statistics are misleading because so many people don't take proper care of their cars. He said if you take for example, a Honda owner and a BMW owner who don't take good care of their cars, the Honda owner will see his car is more reliable because it can take the abuse more than the BMW. But if you had a Honda owner in a BMW owner who both properly maintain their cars, there really wouldn't be any difference in reliability.
It was his opinion that I should look at other factors in getting a car with reliability being a secondary attribute to look for because he says I maintain my car very well. I think it's his opinion that I should look into safety first. And then maybe comfort.
It kind of makes sense to me. I've never had an unreliable car, then again I've always taken care of them. I was just curious of others find this to be true. It's hard for me to really be objective about it because I haven't had that many cars to compare. Maybe I've been lucky.
It depends. If your car has a steering knuckle made of nylon, nothing will make it last.
If you are referring to brands generally, then yes, maintenance will generally be more important as long as you do not get a model with a specific problem that will end its life. Choosing a car based on the urban legend of brand reliability is foolish IMO.
Best bet, get a car from a close relative who will be honest about repaired problems, pending problems and maintenance history. And don't be afraid to say no to your moms car if she tells you she religiously changed the oil every 15,000 miles.
Lack of maintenance is just neglect, which of course won't be as reliable. But for a car to car comparison with the same owner(you) who follows the maintenance schedule reliability is all about the engineering.
I don't know how you "maintain" something like a window switch or an a/c blend door and things like that.
Not true. I've had very unreliable cars that I took very good care of.
I had things that failed for absolutely no reason, like coil packs, gaskets, switches, sensors, window motors, and other components that aren't really maintenance related.
In general the more complicated the car the more reliable as there are fewer things to break. If something has 1 million parts and you have 99.9% quality you still have 1000 parts that will fail. Thus a BMW will see more failures than a Honda just because there's more "stuff" in a BMW.
Its also important to distinguish between reliability and quality. Precision built machines are high quality, but not necessarily rugged nor reliable. Take a Ferrari for example. Its fast and well tuned and the leather is top notch, but don't expect to drive it to 200K on unpaved 3rd world roads. For that you want a Toyota pickup that you see 3rd world militants riding around in.
Modern cars have gotten much better at reliability. For one they require less maintenance cycles. Its my experience that more maintenance is more of a chance to screw up something. I've had transmissions fail within 10K miles after somebody did a "transmission flush". Modern cars have sealed transmissions and so far I've seen them last longer than ones that required frequent filter and fluid changes.
But your boyfriend's right in that reliability surveys can be misleading. Ford for example dropped several spots several years back on JD Power when they introduced My Ford Touch which was just a glitchy touchscreen. Huge difference between transmission failure and freezing infotainment systems.
Both. A poorly designed component is still poorly designed regardless of maintenance. A well designed component still requires maintenance to meet expected performance / life. You can be lucky but you can't count on luck.
modern cars are much better then older ones and even the bodies are better to avoid rusting out but they should all be properly maintained to get the best life out of them.
A friend has a Subaru and I had heard that they are notorious for leaking oil at around 100,000 miles, the head gasket I think. The last time her car was out the garage sure enough there were oil spots on the floor and she confirmed that the car is leaking oil and guess what she was just hitting that 100,000 mile mark.
It is amazing when you look on the road at all the newer cars that are on it. I mean cars that are less than 5 years old. It was not always like that. I remember the time when there were many clunkers out there because people couldn't afford new ones.
There are cars out there that will be very reliable for you OP, you just need to find a brand/type that is really abundant and is popular such as a Camry or a Ford Escape.
I don't know how you "maintain" something like a window switch or an a/c blend door and things like that.
Exactly! There are lots of little things that can fail. Individually each may not be a big deal, but if one experiences a dozen of them over a year or two it becomes a real headache plus a large expense.
Parts that are junk and constantly failing is not a maintenance problem. If you are is made mostly of bad parts no amount of maintenance in the world can improve that.
At the same time, if a part lasts a standard amount of time, you you don't replace it because (I have other things to do/buy) and keep driving it, that's bad maintenance - and on the owner.
I had an interesting conversation with my boyfriend about cars. He said just about any car, with few exceptions, can be a reliable car as long as you properly maintain it. He added, that some cars are able to take more abuse such as lack of proper maintenance and still run well some models can't take the abuse. The ones that can take the abuse are the cars that get the reputation for being "reliable." But that if you take a car, any car, and properly maintain it, it will run well and be reliable for you. Of course, barring some very unusual engineering problem.
The reason this came up, is because I told him I wanted a reliable car for my next vehicle. And I was looking into reliability statistics because of it. He said the statistics are misleading because so many people don't take proper care of their cars. He said if you take for example, a Honda owner and a BMW owner who don't take good care of their cars, the Honda owner will see his car is more reliable because it can take the abuse more than the BMW. But if you had a Honda owner in a BMW owner who both properly maintain their cars, there really wouldn't be any difference in reliability.
It was his opinion that I should look at other factors in getting a car with reliability being a secondary attribute to look for because he says I maintain my car very well. I think it's his opinion that I should look into safety first. And then maybe comfort.
It kind of makes sense to me. I've never had an unreliable car, then again I've always taken care of them. I was just curious of others find this to be true. It's hard for me to really be objective about it because I haven't had that many cars to compare. Maybe I've been lucky.
Reliability is one thing, ease and price of maintanance is another. Both Honda and BMW might last a long time, but when it's time to replace say...a starter...well...the starter in the BMW designed and intended to last way longer than that of the Homda will have you replacing the Hondas $80 starter and saving some paychecks and contemplating a GoFundMe for the insanely expensive BMW starter.
I had an interesting conversation with my boyfriend about cars. He said just about any car, with few exceptions, can be a reliable car as long as you properly maintain it. He added, that some cars are able to take more abuse such as lack of proper maintenance and still run well some models can't take the abuse. The ones that can take the abuse are the cars that get the reputation for being "reliable." But that if you take a car, any car, and properly maintain it, it will run well and be reliable for you. Of course, barring some very unusual engineering problem.
The reason this came up, is because I told him I wanted a reliable car for my next vehicle. And I was looking into reliability statistics because of it. He said the statistics are misleading because so many people don't take proper care of their cars. He said if you take for example, a Honda owner and a BMW owner who don't take good care of their cars, the Honda owner will see his car is more reliable because it can take the abuse more than the BMW. But if you had a Honda owner in a BMW owner who both properly maintain their cars, there really wouldn't be any difference in reliability.
It was his opinion that I should look at other factors in getting a car with reliability being a secondary attribute to look for because he says I maintain my car very well. I think it's his opinion that I should look into safety first. And then maybe comfort.
It kind of makes sense to me. I've never had an unreliable car, then again I've always taken care of them. I was just curious of others find this to be true. It's hard for me to really be objective about it because I haven't had that many cars to compare. Maybe I've been lucky.
Engineering plays a big part. I had a 1997 Dodge Ram I bought new, and it had multiple emission control sensor failures (and the module was inside the fuel tank), went through 2 automatic trannies, the dash board top cracked in it's 4th year.. Worst vehicle I had ever owned even though I did everything by the book.
Our other car was a 1996 Subaru Impreza wagon which we bought new. 1 crank position sensor failure. We put over 300,000 miles on that car and the repair costs were literally $50. Everything else was maintenance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
