bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

no one wants to have a car literally break down, where it cannot go, and be stuck at the side of the road, waiting for a tow truck or ride. that plain ol' sucks. but how often does it happen? i would say with vehicles of any brand less than say 10 years (?) hardly ever. i'd guess most cars stopped at the side of the road are because of a flat tire or they're out of gas.

on the other hand, vehicles that are say 15, 20 or more years, probably more likely to break down - the electronics and electrical systems are ancient at that point, and even mechanical systems can break, even things like carburetors (should a car be that old) can fail, a tie rod breaks, etc. but no matter what the brand, that's not really surprising.

it's also probably the case that vehicles that came out 20+ years ago, that were horribly made or had terrible reliability are no longer on the road! they may have gone to the big junk yard in the sky or crushed in the 'cash for clunkers' absurd government program that eliminated a vast number of cheap used cars for people in need, but i digress.

so what does it mean for a vehicle to be unreliable? if there's a squeak in the dash, is that 'unreliable'? wouldn't seem to be so because the vehicle is still fully functional.

is anything that requires a trip to the dealer or other place for service a reliability issue?

riredale

Not sure of the purpose of the question. "Reliable" to me means never having to get the car repaired or a tow truck summoned. All that I should need to do is to go at periodic intervals to a service provider for regular maintenance. No surprises.

In my case my concern for reliability has varied over time. As a young man I took care of an older Vette. I expected issues and I fixed them myself. Now that I am considerably older, a broken crankshaft balancer or failing A/C compressor clutch is a major hassle. It's why I bought a Lexus.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Short and sweet

Johnhav430

There used to be an expression, "five 9's." That's reliability.

Having purchased a 1998 Nissan Maxima brand new in March 1998, I consider it reliable. Since March of 1998, there were only three times that it didn't start, when the original starter failed. Then, when the replacements failed, twice. I would expect that many Lexus models would do the same. Perhaps there is someone with a 1990, purchased in Sept. 1989, who can say their car has never failed since new. Would not be a surprise.

edit: agreed, being reliable means never being placed on a flatbed

p.s. amazing on Doug's review of a brand new Range Rover Velar, the screens froze on him, and turning off and on 3X did not fix it. I guess even though that's not a flatbed, that would imply unreliable

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

well those two quotes are quite different, which is the purpose for the question. you don't need to put a car on a flatbed if there's a squeak in the dash or even if a power seat stops working, or any number of other things.

a recurring 'annoying' thing (a light goes out, a wiper isn't wiping right, and on and on) that requires repeated visits to a dealer could certainly and likely would be considered poor reliability even though it doesn't need a flatbed.

JDR76

I would define reliable as every function of the car working as intended. Such as car starts and drives, radio plays, HVAC works, etc.

Things like rattles and squeaks would not, for me, fall under "reliability" but rather "build quality".

It's all very, very important to me. I don't have time between work and family to deal with these issues, large or small. I frequently read on here where people say it doesn't matter as long as it's under warranty. I disagree. Just because I don't have to pay for a repair doesn't mean I'm okay with it.

jrmckinley

I like the "regular maintenance no surprises" statement. For me, I'd even include warning lights popping up on the dash as an indicator of not being reliable. I experienced this with an Audi S5 I had for about 10 months- it had 45k miles on it and spent more time getting diagnosed or fixed with "minor" issues (although the cost wasn't minor) than my LS430 which was 6 years older than the S5 and had 250k miles on it. I only drove that car about once/week and I swear I was nervous to start it up for fear of a beeping sound and flashing light on the dash.

I also agree with JDR76 - to me, it's irrelevant if I have to pay for the repair or not. I don't want the inconvenience of going to the dealer/shop any more than I have to. Life is too busy and moving at a fast pace for everyone at this point.

My experience with Toyota's reliability is the #1 factor that keeps me buying Lexus products. I have exclusively driven Toyota's as my main car (excluding having a "fun" 3rd car like the Audi or BMW) for the last 14 years. Tesla could be the only company that truly entices me to veer away.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

ok i see your distinction.

i agree, but build quality issues can be really annoying too and eat time going back to the dealer even if they don't fall under your major item reliability.

mmarshall

My definition of reliability, in the automotive sense, is the same as that of (probably) most drivers.....something working or functioning, as long as possible, the way it should, or was meant/designed to.

When I was growing up (and first learned to drive), in the 1960s, there were generally two more-or-less accepted standards of reliability in those days. One was the rugged Plymouth/Dodge in-line Slant-Six engine, originally developed for the military and adapted for civil use, deriving its nickname from the slanted (off-vertical) cylinder row that allowed it to fit under lower hoodlines. It routinely, even with minimal care/maintenance and what would today be considered abuse, lasted 150-200K or even more, in an age when the average motor was lucky to get 90-100K miles....and often needed major work to replace worn rings or valves before that. The second was the Checker Marathon taxi (some were also built for regular private use), which used several different engines, but the most noted being a Chevrolet "Stovebolt" in-line six and GM transmission....again, often going well over 100K. It basically kept its early-1950s styling until the early 1980s, when production ceased.





Today, autos, in general, are so reliable that it is much harder to find real standouts, like with the Slant-Six and Checker of yore. But, if I had to pick what are the best examples today, I'd probably choose the Lexus LS, Toyota Land Cruiser, Buick Verano/Opel Astra (same car), and Toyota 4Runner.

Kense

There are too many auto reviews and blogs that call cars unreliable because of their infotainment systems. Which I think is complete BS. I care more about the mechanics of the car than whether or not my back up lines show up late or not.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Funny thing is most of the time its just user error. They write how horrible these systems are, and while they're not perfect, a few hours doesn't tell the whole story always. Sometimes there are adjustments in the settings menu, sometimes its just how the person is using the controller etc..

Htony

I just try to keep all vehicles in my family to stock condition as possible as I can. Between service intervals(10K Km to 15K Km) I don't remember we suffered break down on the road. Only on such case was when I was towing our small camping trailer in early '80s, 1 ton Ford van I was towing with had a drive shaft steady bearing
failure in no man's land. Still drivable at very low speed. by the time I reached nearest town it was close to midnight.

bagwell

I agree with this.

I've taken cars in for squeaks and rattles (under warranty) but only when I was bringing it in for something else, like regular maintenance something more serious.

arentz07

That's mainly Consumer Reports, IIRC. It's pretty obvious too, in their "most unreliable" lists, that user frustration with the systems plays into their ratings. Usability != reliability... But, it could be seen as a quality measure. And even there, quality is not reliability. A Nissan Versa might be dead reliable, but I won't pretend that it is a high-quality product in all areas. No offense, but come on it's a $12,000-ish car.

pman6

when a car gets old, my definition of reliable = engine starts and runs smoothly with no leaks or overheating.
basically mechanical is all I care about.