Porsche and Bentley worst for reliability.

[Gripenfelter]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102592730

[gpomp]

[Cos]

.

[Mibz]

When asked by CNBC about Bentley and Porsche's results, Holder said that as "the average cost of repair is factored in to the index, it puts luxury cars at a disadvantage compared to more normal brands with lower parts costs."

"The survey shows that if reliability and servicing costs are a priority then there are some brands that have a far stronger record than others, and that you would be well-advised to stick to them," Holder added.

The Reliability Index was published based on the calculations of each vehicle's "reliability," which looked into each car's failure rate, cost of repair, age and mileage. It used 50,000 live insurance policies from Warranty Direct, analyzing cars that were between 3 and 8 years old.

No shit, if you want a car with low COO, don't buy a Porsche or Bentley.

Originally posted by Cos
So maybe I am reading this wrong but lexus is the only vehicle you can buy and not expect to have an issue with it? All the rest have 1 or more problems for every vehicle?

The way JD Power works is that each and every problem counts towards the total.

So if you have 99 flawless cars, but one person who complained about a slow power window, and a noisy fuel pump, and a clunk in the back, and it runs out of gas too quickly.... Well that's 4 problems per 100 cars. It doesn't mean 4% of their cars have problems, it just means 4 things went wrong in 100 cars.

EDIT: For shits and giggles, even if we perceived the JD Power survey like you say, it's not that you can expect to not have a problem with your Lexus, there's an 89% chance that you will. It's just the only brand that wouldn't guarantee a problem :P

EDIT 2: 1.5 problems per car as an industry average, if it's even mildly accurate, is pretty fucking sweet.
10 years ago the average was 2.4 problems per car.
In 2001 it was 3.8 problems per car.

We're getting to the point where you can't call any brand "unreliable" because they're all going to be more reliable than the cars from 5 years prior.

[Cos]

.

[Xtrema]

Honda came out on top for the ninth year in a row because of "low failure rates" and how affordable repairs are—for instance its cars cost less than half on average to fix at £335.87 ($501), compared to Porsche ($1,170) and Bentley ($1,012).

Well, no shit.

You can survive on $500 when you do 100s of those jobs a month vs only a couple.

And this is only for condition in UK, worst survey ever.

[Neil4Speed]

Originally posted by Mibz

Mibz, thanks for breaking that down, I had wondered how the study worked. It sure has some good marketing appeal (that I fell for... lol)

[Fly Fishin']

Most of the failures I saw at distinctive were electronic accessories like windows forgetting to do the quick down up when you open a door, or just flat out neglect for maintenence.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by gpomp

After all these years the Italians and Brits are still having a tough time with execution.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Mibz

We're getting to the point where you can't call any brand "unreliable" because they're all going to be more reliable than the cars from 5 years prior.

You can't even rely on a specific model reliability studies, because after 5 years, it's all new and redesigned, so not even the same car you're looking to buy brand new.

[JAYMEZ]

The worse car I've owned (Minus my FD) was a range rover.. I cant believe how many fucking problems it had.