ML, GL, R are all derived from same basic platform and none are especially reliable.

 

Its upsetting to find that even when you drop big money on a car/suv you are still immune from the issues found in a low end econobox

 

For the owners of the high-end mostly European brands, it's not that big of surprise. I've seen a 996 model 911 engine blow at 100K and a new 7-series so crippled with electrical problem that the car was bought back by dealer from the owner.

 

i really liked the XF, too bad it has a lot of reliability issues.

 

I've watched the debuts of the last dozen or so new Jags and every single launch they say the same thing, "...we've worked on the electronics to address the problems." Then in a few months, car mag long-term tests start saying the same problems crop up. It reminds me of GM's thirty year song and dance over their Cavalier/Cobalt/Cruze segment. "With the next one, we'll get it right..." After all these years, it's just words and nothing more to my ear.

 

History has shown that reliability often has little to do with price. And the idea that low-end "econobox" cars have issues is not necessarily correct either. Entry-level Toyotas, Scions, Hondas, Mazdas, 90's vintage Saturns, and, to an extent, late-model Hyundai Accents and Kia Rios, have ranked as some of the most reliable vehicles on the road.

 

The 7-series, according to Consumer Reports, has had serious reliability issues for several years.

And if you want to see some REAL repair $$$$$, just check out what a replacement engine runs for that 911 you mentioned.......particularly a 911 Turbo.

 

Suprisingly, the Lexus GS AWD is on the Consumer Reports "cars to avoid" list. Are they wrong? Is it a clunker like the other cars mentioned ? (Yes we no it's not Consumer Reports here) but, as an avid reader of Consumer Reports & your vast car knowledge, what are your thoughts Marshall?

 

The AWD versions of the GS, acording to CR, have clearly not had the same reliability that the RWD and hybrid versions have.....though, as I understand it, they have improved somewhat since 2006-2007 when they were first introduced. CR, of course, bases its reliability findings by the Annual Surveys that are sent out to well over a million paper and on-line subscribers, so, in general, they have a pretty good database to work with.

You ask.......would I call the GS AWD a clunker? Personally, no, I wouldn't. The GS, overall is an impressive car to drive.....refined, sophisticated, library-quiet, smooth, and with silky drivetrains. But I probably would have some reservations about buying a conventional (not hybrid) AWD version, because of the reliability question. CR is usually pretty accurate in its reliability findings, and I have a lot of respect for them. I take their reliability findings very seriously when I find myself in the position of recommending vehicles to other people, when they ask.

As far as car-based AWD systems go, Subaru probably does the best, simplest, and most reliable ones for everyday driving and a reasonably low price, but some of the Toyota/Honda systems like those in the RAV4, Highlander CR-V, Pilot, Matrix, etc.....have also been quite reliable. The AWD system in the Suzuki SX-4 is a huge bargain for the price, offering a 3-position FWD/AWD/LOCK switch and starting around 16-17K. The Acura SH-AWD system is superb in its driving/road manners, and has also been reliable, but it is complex, and comes at a price. So does the Audi Quattro system, which is also excellent in its road manners but has not had the same reliability as the better Japanese systems(GSAWD excepted).

 

Mike, this article is about NEW vehicles, not older ones.....we should then call out ALL old vehicles as clunkers.....sigh.....

 

Again in attempt to bring facts here and not just common internet knowledge:

Actually replacement engines for 911's cost less than the replacement engine of most European brands because Porsche stocks and supplies remanufactured engines for Boxsters and 911's. The need for these water-cooled replacement engines is far more common than most non-Porsche enthusiasts know.

 

Well the 1st problem is that they use reliability ratings from Consumer Reports as a base, its all down hill from there.

 

Was hoping the Jag XF's reliability would do at least some justice to its appealing looks. Wishful thinking.

 

That's true, but, don't forget, brand-new vehicles don't have any reliability data to go on...just the results of CR's review/road tests and (sometimes) the NHTSA crash data. For reliability, it takes at least a year (sometimes more) to get significant reliability data.....even for a big organization like CR.

And, my answer was directed at DASHOCKER's question if I would rate the GS AWD as a "clunker", based on CR and reliability data. I did my best to answer it, based on 3 or 4 years of accululated data since that vehicle was introduced. I gave him a generally high opinion of the GS (which, I'm sure you yourself share, as you own one), but, assuming I would spend 45-50K on a car, I would be a little apprehensive about springing for the AWD version.

 

I wasn't just going by my own opinion. One of my friends (and ex-co-workers) has had a number of older Porsches (including 911s and 928s) and has showed me how expensive getting parts for them can be.....and, in his case, he did much of the actual work himself.

And the prices, of course, can be different for an engine, depending on if it is overhauled, rebuilt, remanufactured, or an actual brand-new engine from the factory.

You are correct, BTW, that Porsche engines need repairing or replacing more than some people think. For one thing, Porsches, in general, tend to be driven hard, with stress put on them.