Does reliability of one vehicle define the reliability of the marque?
 

I`ll make it simple, does reliability and experience of one vehicle of a brand, give enough insight to make a generalized statement of the overall quality of the entire brand??

Background:
Buddy of mine is on the move to get a brand new SUV BOF only since he does tow. Shortlisted BOF luxury and narrowed it down to GX, LX, Navigator, or QX. Hes ditching his Escalade, although a workhorse, just had alot of issues with with reliability.

Pricing: 18 GX/LX offers around 12% off sticker
Navigator: Sticker
QX 25% off on 17s 10% off 18s.

Delivery date:
Navigator wont arrive for a month
Everything else drive off the lot

Frugal in him, wants to go the QX, since 25% off is 25% off, but his experience with Nissans have been pretty bad (his first car out of grad school was a Sentra which was below average interior quality wise, but mostly reliable powertrain wise). Hes loves the Navi but pricing and availability have it out. The GX and LX are solid vehicles and basically on par reliability wise, and hes probably gonna end up with one of those just cause of the sour experience with the Sentra.

In my head, if I have been fooled once by a carmaker, its one too many, however is ancedotal evidence the ultimate decider?

If he can wait a little while for a new Navigator, it just might be worth it. True, one takes the chance on a first-year product, but that is generally less of an issue today than in the past. In fact, my last car (a Buick Verano) was in production five years in the American market and, according to Consumer Reports, the first-year version (2012) was actually the most reliable year.

I looked at a new Navigator at the D.C. auto show, and, though I have not test-driven one yet, to say I was impressed is an understatement.

The GX and LX, of course, are generally safe buys any time. If waiting for the Navigator is out, then maybe go sign for a new GX while it is still in production...its future in the American market may be in doubt. The LX, of course, is larger and more rugged, but he'll probably pay as much (or almost as much) for one as for a new Navigator.

It could, but there's just no guaranty. Even bulletproof brands put out a dud once in a while.

Perhaps so, but it is only human nature and so it is understandable.

By way of example, how many contributors to Car Chat have turned against the Lexus brand just because they found the single model they bought not fast enough? How many contributors have turned against Toyota because the doors don't slam shut with the thud of a bank vault?

So......is it their fault that Toyota uses lightweight door hardware? Let's not put the cart before the horse.

Also, don't forget that all side-doors, since the late 60s, bank-vault thud or not, have to meet Federal side-impact standards...which usually means case-hardened steel bars under the actual door panels themselves.

The doors on my SC300 slam shut like a bank vault. You really have to slam them though or else they won't latch.


As for variation in reliability, take for example my dealings with Cadillac. Always loved their big cars from the 40's/50's/60's/70's/80's, they just represented something of excess from those times. About 11-12 years ago, out of college, was sick of my Camaro Z28, it had like 120k miles on it, put 50 or 60k miles on it myself, wanted something smoother riding, quieter, spread out space, cushy. Did a bunch of research on 90's Cadillacs, as they were in budget, learned real quick you didn't want a Seville or Eldorado with the Northstar V8. Stuck to the old body on frame cars, a 1991 Brougham and 1995 Fleetwood, both had Chevrolet V8's from the factory, both were faultlessly reliable for 5 years and over 60,000 miles of driving between the two cars.