rudyH

In the sixties, Pontiac had a division wide goal named "Zero Defects." Not brilliant but it made the point. The example they used as to it's being possible is, believe it or not, cigarette manufacturing. They talked about the infinitesimal failure rate of the machines rolling cigarettes. I don't know how they got the idea that designing and building cars could be compared to rolling tobacco but there it is. Quality did improve dramatically but it didn't last long. That's when the push began for computers and robots. Ford had a program as well but I can't recall what they called it.

Jacket

I appreciate that you don't have to spend $25 at the dealer to reset a maintenance indicator (Audi). There are still people out there that can work on there own vehicles ya know.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Nice little bit of history right there

Pamperme

More cars would be more reliable if the buying public took a stand and refused to purchase cars that had an unreliable track record.

rudyH

I don't think the info is out there for us to make a decision based on that. Consumer reports is certainly no gauge but a lot of people go by that. JD Power can't be used because generally, every "defect" carries the same weight. A rattling glove box is the same as failed transmission. They push the satisfaction index but that isn't even specifically about reliability. A low score can be ergonomics, which is subjective, or just out and out ignorance of how something functions. Ford took a huge hit but the Sync interface was confusing. It was unreliable to a degree, but customers couldn't figure the thing out and dealers weren't explaining it well if at all. The government is not going to put any kind of rating on the sticker. The metric is too complicated and would never be accurate. The real reliability index would be warranty repairs. Try getting that number from a company. Warranty work doesn't cover long term. So we end up with personal experience and anecdote.

Pamperme

All excellent points. At the same time I do think that if BMW owners made a fuss about the horrid reliability, and vowed not to buy them until they improved, you'd suddenly start seeing more reliable BMW's.

rudyH

The people that buy BMW own them under warranty I bet. I had 4 and they all were. Still, they were in the shop so much why own them? Another thing is, most BMWs are damn nice drivers cars.

LexBob2

A good point, but some consumers put reliability at the top of their list of priorities on a car. Others might have reliability lower on the list behind another attribute or two. It's certainly very important but there are different priorities for different buyers.

Sulu

"The relentless pursuit of perfection"

"Quality is Job 1"?

There is a branch of science and engineering called Human Factors (and Ergonomics), the goals of which are maintaining occupational health and safety, and productivity (so, it is not entirely subjective). It has long been involved in the design of aircraft cockpits and pilot interfaces, but has not yet had great influence on automobile-driver interfaces. I suspect that it will become more and more involved in the design of future infotainment systems, though.

rudyH

I absolutely agree. I am cured of German Car Desire Syndrome. Never again. They really just aren't worth it to me at all.

Sulu

A good example is buying a used car. Some people do not mind paying a bit more to buy the more reliable Toyota Corolla, while others do not want to (or cannot) pay the premium and so choose the cheaper (but less reliable) Chevy Cobalt instead.

mmarshall

I agree that the public should not tolerate junk (certainly not like they did 30 years ago from American manufacturers). But let's look at the issue objectively, for what it actually is. Today, even the most unreliable vehicles by 2015 standards, from brands like Land Rover, Jeep, VW, Dodge, Jaguar, and Fiat, are probably better-built and more reliable than the best brands were decades ago. If one is going to b***h about an unreliable new car, in general, there a lot less to b***h about today than back then. (believe me............I know)

Pamperme

Not always. Consider how much more reliable this older 1995 model is compared to the newer 2004 model
1995: http://www.carsurvey.org/reviews/nis...5/single-page/
2004: http://www.carsurvey.org/reviews/nis...4/single-page/

It's like night and day. Newer doesn't necessarily mean better in terms of reliability. Many times, reliability isn't a matter of proven technology, but rather a series of business decisions. Consider this horrifying statement by an automotive exec for Renault/Nissan:

"While durability and quality are ciritical, Pelata says Nissan needs to be cautious of "overquality." "Does it matter if the door handle lasts 10 years or 20?" Pelata says. "No it does not, because the person will not have the car after 10 years." -Patrick Paleta. . Taken from- http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthrea...4612-Purchased. And only a few months after that statement rolled out the 2004 model now hated in the link above.

mmarshall

OK, I'll agree with that to some extent. Many of us, for example, saw Mercedes go seriously downhill, quality-wise, in the 1990s, from where they had built cars like tanks in the previous decade. But, in general, outside of a couple of manufacturers, that is not indicative of the industry today as a whole.

Pamperme

True. Which is why I saw fit to start this thread thanking Toyota/Lexus for their efforts. I'm a Reliability ****. I'll heavily promote car brands when they do good, but by the same respect I will royally rip them a new one when they manufacture junk. But like u said, on the whole, the industry is improving.