This link was sent through to me this morning. Makes interesting reading and well worth a look to confirm your reliability predictions.
www.reliabilityindex.com/
Charles
|
|
Interesting. Some suprises and some knowing smiles - Land Rover :-) Mazda so far out at Number 1. I wonder how representative their sample is? I'm considering turning Japanese and had the Mazda 6, Toyota Avensis and Nissan Primera on my Passat replacement list. Reading this maybe the Mondeo should replace the Primera?
|
|
Interesting. However, knowing how many things are usually excluded by such warranties (anything that may wear out), does this really give a true indication of reliability?
|
Just a few pointers:
Ford Focus 20
Citroen Xsara 22
Fiat Brava/a 30
Daewoo Nexia 43
VW Golf 50
Renault Megane 50
Vauxhall Astra 53
Toyota Corolla 70
Alfa 145/6 83
Pud 306 Below 100
Some surprises here, Focus is top as Ford say, a suprising showing for Fiat and Daewoo, VW quite low, and thank goodness that not everything in life is as reliable as a VW. Corolla and 306 shockingly low. Unsurprisingly, the Xsara shows a good balance of reliability and excellent second hand prices (for buyers).
|
Hold on everybody. Before we all treat this data as gospel lets have a look at it. (Long post ensues...)
There are indeed some surprising so-called "facts" contained in this database "brought to you by Warranty Direct" - Fiat [1] has a higher "reliability index" than Toyota (3rd and 7th best respectively) and Mitsubishi are the third worst manufacturer.
Within a couple of minutes of browsing my suspicions had been raised. Clicking the information icon for a detailed explanation of Reliability Index (RI) I found a spelling mistake [2] and the phrase "compare this car with BMW 4 series". Not a good start.
And why is Mitsubishi, to take a random example, languishing at 22nd out of 24 manufacturers? So I took a look at the detailed data for Mitsubishi which has a manufacturer's RI of 134. They list only three models: Carisma, Shogun and Space (sic). No Colt, no Galant.
Click on the original link above to open up another browser and follow me on this one ;-)
Carisma: has a commendably low reliability index of 42 (100 is average, the lower the better). 40% of failures were Axles & Suspension, 20% were Engines and another 40% were Fuel systems with no failures in any of the other categories. This could mean a sample of just 5 cars.
Shogun has a slightly worse than average rating at 107 and again the failure figures point to a sample of 27 cars.
The Space (is this Space Runner or Space Wagon or both?) has a dreadful RI of 197 but again the failure figures point to a small sample of possibly just 7 cars.
So, based upon these tiny samples, which are collected from claim pay-outs, Warranty Direct then suggest they bring "you the most comprehensive overview of cars on the road today...Now you can see the information the manufacturers don't want you to see."
What about the tens of thousands of Mitsubishis not included? How do they measure the cars without faults/ claims?
Now, I don't have a degree in statistics but I would suggest there are some serious statistical anomalies contained in this data.
"Car Reliability - the facts made clear". Laughable.
Perhaps, BRers with a better grasp of stats would care to expand on this?
CMark
[1] Fiat, that company well known for teaching the Japanese how to build reliable cars. Or: they breakdown more but only cost 2 lire to fix.
[2] the incorrect use of "bit" where they mean "but".
|
CM,
You're on the right lines. This isn't likely to be a fair cross section of vehicles. It is possibly a small(ish?) sample of vehicles which carry one brand of warranty, it may also be true that their owners have taken out the warranty because the vehicle source/condition makes it appear a wise move.
Also the repair details are based on the claims submitted by the garages involved in repairs. The nature and extent of the actual fault may well differ from that on the repair paperwork.
And on top of all that they are trying to sell you something at every turn so might be just as biased as a tyre fitter promoting new discs and pads.
MM
|
|
Having had a quick browse I couldn't see how claim free cars figure in the statistics i.e. if 90% of Mitsubishi owners never make a claim; but the remaining 10% need expensive repairs, then presumably this gives Mitsubishi a poor rating?
|
I think you have all missed the point - they have used claims paid against the total number of policies on the books. ie those which have not has claims.
They state that they only take cars where they have a reasonable number - JD Power accept a minimum of fifty.
They dont have a wear and tear exclusion in their policies which means that they must get a better look at the claims.
The index seems to be based on facts and they must know more about cars than most petrol heads in this forum!!
|
|
|
|
|
I contacted them - and they said they had a minimum sample of 50 cars - which is the same as JD power - this must be better than say JD power which gives satisfaction and therefore only gets those who are very happy or very unhappy.
|
Dunc,
You have to be so careful with statistics, particularly where the sample may be biased.
These results are not a reliability index for any particular car as such, they are a reliability index for a particular car that is covered by this warranty and relying on the claim accuracy from the garages.
It is a little like taking the results from Mondeos registered only in London or Xantias owned only by Vicars.
You get these stupid stats from time to time that, for example, folks who drink two glasses of wine a day are 5x less likely to suffer a heart attack than someone who doesn't have any. The next week it'll be those who drink more than one glass of wine a day are 5x *more* likely to suffer a heart attack....it's all in the sample profile.
Statistics can mean everything and nothing.
MM
|
MM - Agreed.
I once read 'Statistics are the opiate of objectivity'.
Matt35.
|
|
|
|
Hello Dunc,
now that you have revealed yourself to be the MD of Warranty Direct on another thread [1] perhaps you would be so good as to give us a detailed response to the issues raised here
[1] www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?m=161652...e
|
|
see my note in that thread also.
|
Ahh so you're involved then Duncan. Well here is why the warranty business, and the dealers that use them, worry me.
Basically because the whole system is based on extracting cash from the buyer/owner to repair faults after they happen...with little regard to proper preventative maintenance. Overall this has the effect of actually diverting cash away from the maintenance pool to feed the fallout of major failures. In turn this means that the stats are quite likely to show up a distorted view of a car's potential reliability compared with one properly looked after.
True example (note updated version of post made on a previous Xantia thread)....
Xantia here a couple of weeks ago for front sphere change to improve ride. Purchased at top retail a few days before from a large town dealer (non-franchise). Seller made it quite clear they would do the major 80K service that was due plus change the timing belt. Car delivered with service book stamped for this work.
A check by myself reveals none of the fixings to do the timing belt had been touched since the car was built! Also I find that the fuel filter and air filter are the old ones, there is doubt if the oil has been changed, plus the transmission oil level plug has never been touched and the very important hydraulic fluid change (with filters cleaned) missed. The coolant is due at this interval but again no evidence of any change. It appears the service comprised of stamping the book!!
Perhaps worse of all the radiator is in its earliest stages of failing in the typical Pug/Cit way at this mileage.
So had it not been for a coincidental visit here the new owner could have happily taken this car to the next service interval with all these important items wickedly overdue.
Just think about it....
Engine wear from old oil/filter. Cooling system, heater matrix and head gasket faults from old coolant. Possible running faults due to blocked fuel filter/old air filter. Snapped timing belt. Expensive hydraulic system faults from dirty fluid and blocked filters. Severe coolant loss from radiator failure possibly leading to head/gasket failure. And of course all the safety related items that should have been checked.
Yep and you've guessed it this car was covered by an insurance based warranty.
I see far more cars affected like this that you would believe.
And here's the crack.....When the owner reported the radiator leak the dealer gave a date over two weeks away to book it in. "That's a bit daft he said, what if the thing dumps its coolant on the motorway and the head gasket goes". "No problem the salesman says, it'll be covered by the warranty".
So there'll be another Xantia head gasket in the stats that was absolutely the fault of the whole dealer/warranty system.
M.M
|
|
There's also the issue of how old the cars are. They appear to disregard any car less than 3 years old - there are no A2s or smarts on the list. Therefore any model which is 4 -5 years old i.e. Focus should get better results than a model which has been around for years - i.e Ford Escort as there are fewer of them with such a warranty.
|
|
|
|
