diamondgeezer wrote:
andyh wrote:
My point is that all cars reliability boils down to either whether the owner is a mechanic or he/she has very deep pockets and keeps it regularly serviced and is a quality driver.
Thats all there is to it tbh.
I disagree with that andy.
Some makes of car are clearly more reliable than others.
The owners servicing/maintenance of the vehicle is a factor of course, but so is its build quality, obviously.
The only cars with any real build quality as such are way beyond the pocket of the average joe and they're not made in japan

I've seen a near brand new toyota rav4 with a knackered clutch before it even got to its first MOT.
Needless to say the driver was bloody useless but that just goes to emphasise what I said before.
The main variables are environment it gets driven in, quality of driver, how regularly and WELL it is serviced.
Ignore a jap car and it will break. The only litmus test would be to try out various makes from brand new with the exact same driver in exact same conditions and with no services whatsoever and see how long each one lasts.
To date, no such test exists. Therefore it is impossible to prove that any makes are 'clearly' more reliable than others.
Even then, such a test would be only on one car from each make so you'll still have the probability of the odd bad production run to deal with
You could also then perhaps look at how much spares cost, which parts break first, fuel efficiency etc etc to get some kind of reliability vs cost scenario which again I've never seen done.
If I've come to any conclusion, its that a lot of the older cars are in fact more reliable than the new ones, if you discount stuff like points replacement, condensor etc that go often in the older motors.
I would agree a rolls royce is perhaps far more reliable than most but jesus I wouldn't want to have to pay for it lol, also ferrari tend to be bloody unreliable as hell yet cost just as much as a rolls.