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.
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.
Well said. Similarly, I had an Audi which was well engineered for performance but was really complicated - I maintained it religiously but I had to replace all those things you've mentioned above that were outside regular wear and tear items.
Engineering design can also apply to ease of maintenance and longevity. A car can have a fantastic performance, economy and looks but if the design allows water to accumulate in its rocker panels, that will often lead to rust.
I think it is more engineering than maintaining. I do the minimum needed to keep up my cars...that is, I just drive them and bring them in for oil changes and inspection stickers, etc.
Of course, a bad mechanic or other such things could mess up a well engineered product.
My 1994 Mercedes C Class blew a head gasket at 25K miles. The sunroof leaked and the electric windows broke. Poor engineering and/or assembly/parts.
Subarus tend to blow head gaskets - MANY of them - at 40 to 80K miles. Sometimes even sooner. Bad engineering....it's been happening for a couple decades now.
I currently have a VW Passat (2010) - nothing of any consequence has gone wrong in 110K miles. It rides like new and doesn't have a rattle or a squeak. Well engineered car, IMHO....the weak point may be the electronic transmission which sometimes seems slow going into certain gears but that may be able to be fixed in software.
There’s a difference between quality, durability and robustness.
“Quality” means good performance, high efficiency, fit-and-finish. A high quality set of valve-lifters in an engine would be at tight (but not too tight) tolerance, of high-strength but light-weight material, with a design that enables sustained high-rpm operation, opening and closing the valves without float. An example of quality would be the valve lifters in a NASCAR pushrod V8 engine.
“Durability” means that IF a component is properly maintained, it will last for a long time, without failure or degradation of performance. The aforementioned NASCAR valve lifter fits this definition too. But a quality component that’s not durable would be say butter-soft, exquisitely fine leather seats, that unfortunately fade upon lengthy exposure to sunlight, or perhaps the leather absorbs the driver’s sweat and eventually cracks or the stitches fray.
“Robustness” means that if the product is neglected, abused, operated outside of its designated performance-envelope, or otherwise maltreated, it will nevertheless be impervious to degradation. An example of this, is an engine that can be allowed to overheat (from loss of coolant that the driver never observes), but which nevertheless doesn’t warp the cylinder heads or blow head-gaskets.
An example of a durable, but NOT robust device, might be say a modern automotive turbocharger. So long as oil is fed to it, it might serve for hundreds of thousands of miles. But starve it of oil just once, and the bearings would seize.
The OP’s friend refers to robustness. Indeed, a WW2 Soviet tank was more robust than a German one, and in that sense, fussy German-style engineering is just less robust than that of various competitors. But the quality is perhaps even higher, in the sense of higher performance under demanding applications. And the durability might be higher, too.
Today's cars require very minimal maintenance. Reliability still are in the hands of the manufacturer and engineers. If they are using substandard parts or engineered incorrectly things will break regardless if you maintain the car to the exact specifications of the manufacturer.
If built like a turd, will always be a turd.
Notice how Lexus is generally top 1-2 in reliability ratings year after year. These are due to tight manufacturing tolerances and quality engineering without cutting corners, not due to their customer base maintaining their vehicles.
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.
well said. while proper engineering is important, proper maintenance is more so.
Today's cars require very minimal maintenance. Reliability still are in the hands of the manufacturer and engineers. If they are using substandard parts or engineered incorrectly things will break regardless if you maintain the car to the exact specifications of the manufacturer.
If built like a turd, will always be a turd.
Notice how Lexus is generally top 1-2 in reliability ratings year after year. These are due to tight manufacturing tolerances and quality engineering without cutting corners, not due to their customer base maintaining their vehicles.
I just sold a Hyundai Sonata with only 40k miles because I saw what was coming. Every time I went to the dealer for service there were always a couple in the back with seized engines, and then the lawsuits started, and then eventually a forced recall. If an engine has a bad design you can change the oil every 2k miles and it won't help, chances are it will live a short life.
Real world example: I had an Uber ride last week. Car that picked me up was a 2009 VW Jetta. Would have never known the car had 180,000 miles on it. I'd of said maybe 30,000. Inside was fine, outside was fine, ride was fine, shifted smoothly, accelerated and braked smoothly. I was totally impressed.
We sat behind a new style Honda Accord.....that was burning oil.
No amount of maintenance would prevent the heater core, oil leaks, and engine consumption of oil in a 4 year old car with under 100k miles. Or the transmission going on a new car under 20k miles. I have written off Chrysler/Jeep products forever as a result.
Hmm, maintained M5 versus never maintained Toyota Corolla is actually a good question. It'd be interesting to take a bunch of Corollas and see if they can make it to around 100k with no maintenace which is when M5s start needing the more costly "maintenance". Vanos tend to start going out, so that's about $2,500 each, engine get gunked up, $10,000, clutches on the manual... relatively minor compared with replacing an engine but then you could drop in a new engine in a Corolla several times before you got close to what it would cost to get an E39 M5 through the normal issues.
Alternatively, you could look at it the other way and assume proper maintenance. Corolla will probably get to 200k without a whole lot of major issues assuming it's maintained. An E39 M5 would not. Probably a good idea to budget a Corolla or two for the expected repairs that usually happen on properly maintained ones. I'd had to see how often they'd break things if you just drove it without ever doing any maintenance.
That's the correct answer. I'm a design engineer with 40 years of experience.
You design the product for a targeted reliability. But sometimes the company may force you to cut costs too much. WRT cars, just look at a large source of reliability data before you conclude a relative rank.
Maintenance is a must, although manufacturers have successfully been able to reduce the requirements through design. For example, cars in the 60s required a lot of maintenance. My 1962 VW required its 30W oil to be changed every 3K miles, and it required frequent valve adjustments, wheel bearing re-greasing, and chassis lube. Most modern cars have a much simpler maintenance requirement. Just do what is in the owners manual.
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.
