mmarshall

For decades, one of the factors that strongly (but not totally) determined how, and under what circumstances, I recommended vehicle-brands (or certain individual vehicles) to others was vehicle reliability. That was something that, in general, the Japanese, and more recently, the Koreans, and Opel-designed products, have excelled in. Toyota and Honda (particularly with Lexus models) dominated the reliability-ratings, with vehicles that (consistently) went 200K miles or more with proper maintenance and common-sense driving. Defects in design and/or assembly were generally few and far between, though not unheard of....though my own Lexus IS300 (and the 4Gen ES300/330) had some intermittent transmission shift and throstle-response quirks that even a factory ECU re-flash did not totally address. And, of course, there were the famous 3.0L Toyota sludge/gel issues and defective Honda/Acura automatic transmissions. But, by and large, a Toyota or Honda purchase was usually a pretty safe bet.

And, to a large extent, it still is....though a number of Hondas and Acuras are average or lower in reliability. But, since the days that Honda and Toyota have dominated he Consumer Reports and J.D. Power reliability surveys, three major forces in the market have occurred. First, cost-cutting affected the way that Toyota and Honda designed and built vehicles, although the two makes generally showed it in different ways...in different parts of the vehicle. Second, the rest of the industry, with few exceptions, has steadily caught up. The average number of defects per individual vehicle shrunk steadily for many years, though recently that has been balanced out some by an increase in the number of customers with complaints about multi-speed transmissions and electronic-screen features. But significant true defects in vehicle-assembly today are rare, at least those that are easily caught on an initial static-inspection. The only one I have seen, lately, that I thought was even worthy of mention in a write-up, was a sprung plastic dash-panel, on a new Toyota C-HR, that I couldn't fix myself with the limited tools I carry. Steering-wheel shimmies and/or left-right pulling from bad tire mount/balance/runout/alignment used to be fairly common, but quite unusual today...ditto with brake-pedal pulsation from bad rotors. Paint-jobs used to vary tremendously among manufacturers....today, all but some entry-level Jeeps are quite well-done, though orange-peel is sometimes present. Today, if at all, any defects are very minor, or almost unnoticeable. Often, the PDI people (pre-delivery inspection) at the dealerships forget to let the air out the tires when new vehicles are unloaded off the transporter (they are typically shipped at 40 PSI or more, to protect the alloy wheels as the truck-bed rocks). They are supposed to bring the tires back down to the recommended pressure on the driver's door-jamb (usually in the 30-35 PSI range), before the car is put out on the lot or in the showroom...but often forget. That, of course, is not the factory's fault.....and, perhaps, is more or less expected when you pay people at or near minimum wage LOL.

So, in effect, most of the new vehicles, today, at least from what I've seen in the American market, are simply not that far apart any more when it comes to how well they are built, or how likely they are to stay in or out of the repair shop. Even brands that were (or still are) at the bottom of the reliability-ratings....Fiat, Dodge, Land-Rover, Jeep, Jaguar, Mini, etc... seem at least reasonably well-built coming out of the factory. The fact that they are at the bottom of the list, with Lexus, Audi, and Buick at or near the top means a lot less today than it did years ago. China used to have a reputation of shoddily-made vehicles (which I couldn't personally verify because they weren't available in the American market)...but today, the Buick Envision mid-sized SUV, the only Chinese-made vehicle imported into the American market, seems as well-screwed together as anything I've seen from Japan, Europe or Korea. It's only "defect" is an odd smell to the interior, which is much different from that of any other new vehicle I've sampled. I haven't been particularly impressed with the way some recent Fords and Lincolns have been assembled, with a somewhat loose feel to them, but I can't say I've found any true defects in them on inspections test-drives....the closest thing was probably the quirky dual-clutch transmission on the Fiesta, which tends to bog down on starts and make the engine feel like its not getting enough gas. The Fiat 500L (made famous as the Popemobile when Francis visited the U.S. a few years ago) has a supposed reputation for shoddiness, but I found it reasonably well-made when I reviewed one brand-new.

So, IMO, the old practice of choosing vehicles heavily-based on reliability factors is becoming outdated. Indeed, if anyone today gives you value and quality for your money, it is the Koreans...once, less than 20 years ago, the butt of late-night TV jokes. Opel-based Buicks are also noticeably well-built, and Lincoln has really upped the ante on the job they did with the new Continental and Navigator...once, like the Koreans, two vehicles that were practically the subject of jokes. But the fact is that, though vehicles still differ in the level of interior plushness, equipment, and fit/finish, almost anything brand-new today is at least reasonably well-built IMO....and believe me, I remember the days when you got REAL lemons from a number of manufacturers.

Which brings us to the reason I started this thread in the first place. The rest of you folks in Car Chart, of course, are free to call it like you see it (you all deal with a fair number of car-buying folks, just like I do), but, when people come to me for advice, gone are the days when I automatically steer them first to something like a Highlander, Camry, Civic, Accord, Outback, Forester, ES, RX, etc....only because those vehicles formerly excelled in reliability. Like it or not, the rest of the industry is catching up (the Malibu is an excellent example, especially in refinement)...and if we do that, IMO, we are possibly eliminating a number of other good choices for them. More and more today, the wise and sensible person (and car-buyer) will simply look at what is available, and choose from whatever he or she likes the best, fits his or needs the best, and what he or she can afford....not the cache or former reputation of the logo on the grille.

And, as always.....Happy Car Shopping.
MM

ragingf80

Hyundai have come a long way for me. Having been forced to spend a week in a Hyundai while me wife's car was in the bodyshop, I was actually kind of impressed with the solid interior and design. As a former Audi owner, I found it to be unreliable and expensive to fix. I think they have recovered nicely since then. It's a shame VW hadn't come up with it. Subaru gets a black eye in my book for our 2011 Forester and the oil burning issues. I've been a diehard proponent for Subaru for a long time until now. We will have to wait and see how this current batch of Subies turn out.

mmarshall

Some of the so-called "oil-burning" issues are actually caused by today's oils being so good that the computers stretch out the period between oil changes notably longer than they used to be. Used to be that you changed the oil every few thousand miles, so, if the engine actually started using some in that period, you often wouldn't notice, as the crankcase would, of course, be re-filled fairly often. Now, with the oil-life monitors stretching out oil changes to the better part of a year and often 7000-8000 mies or more, the engine is more likely than before to actually use more oil in between changes, and require the customer to add some.

ragingf80

I burn about 2qts every 1000 miles. It's a known issue and there is a recall, unfortunately our Forester is above the mileage allowance.

Diesel350

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

ok, 3.

1, k

2, yup.

is this the third reason?

mmarshall

I mentioned some Ford and Lincoln products in my opening post here. But that seems to be more of a surface-finishing problem than that of actually producing a vehicle full of defects.

My basic point was that most new vehicles, today, are reasonably well-built, and true lemons, in the sense of the way that I remember them, are mostly a thing of the past.

mmarshall

Yes. There is also possibly a fourth and fifth reason, too. Fourth, the high cost of warranty repairs that automakers are stuck with....particularly from Government safety-recalls. Do it right the first time, and you save a significant amount of money down the road. Fifth, the fact that customers are simply not willing to put up with lemons any more....certainly not the kind I put up with in my driving-heyday. And big social-media auto forums like Car Chat, Edmunds, GM Authority, etc.....of course, also go a long way towards pressuring automakers by rapidly publicizing any problems that do occur with new vehicles.

mmarshall

Subaru settled a class-action suit on the oil-consumption issue...it may or may not affect your specific car. Suit-settlements, of course, are not necessarily limited to the regular warranty time/mileage restrictions.

I'm not saying that today's cars are all 100% defect-free...that would probably be impossible with anything designed and/or built by either humans and/or automation. But my point was that, today, one can spend five (or, in some cases, six) figures on a new vehicle with the reasonable expectation that it they will get what they paid for.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

mmarshall

With your high level of intelligence in this field, I'm sure you can also come up with some other reasons yourself.

Aron9000

I still **** on Nissan, despite them being our home team here in the Nashville area suburbs(big factory in Smyrna, corporate headquarters 20 miles away in Franklin). Brother in law was burned bad with his 2009 or 2010 Frontier pickup(same bodystyle still sold new today). Bought it with 70 or 80k miles, stack of dealer service history done on time. By the time it reached 90 to 100k about 18-20 months later, it had gone through an automatic transmission, a radiator(both those were under a class action settlement, his truck had too many miles for free replacement, cost him like 2 or 3k vs the 5-6k), then the a/c compressor quit, then the heat went out, then he traded it on a new Tacoma.

Its really a shame though, because that Nissan was a 4 door crew cab truck, nice SE trim level, V6, good looking truck, nice interior, man I see why he bought it, steering was super tight/responsive, the V6 had some serious muscle and torque, it paired nicely with that automatic transmission. The Tacoma he traded it in on was a then new 2016 model, base model, 4 cylnder, extra cab. More bed, less cab than his Nissan. That Tacoma drives/handles like **** compared to his Frontier, the horsepower is a sad joke, his old truck geniunely felt fast and sporty, the new Tacoma kind of drives like a dog in that base 4 cylinder trim.

mmarshall

...and that's one reason why today's cars routinely last 150-200K or more (probably even more with a good flushing), and engines and transmissions, back then, with the possible exception of the Chrysler Slant-Six, were lucky to get 90-100K. The benefits of a PROPER flushing were not known back then. I say PROPER because many people don't know how to do it correctly....too little pressure won't get all the dirt out, and too much can damage components.

It's not a good idea to flush out a transmission, though, that is too old, neglected, and starting to corrode inside. The strong cleaning solution and pressure can make holes in worn gaskets and seals, making them leak like a sieve.