Also with after-market warranties, they don't take into account the amount of manufacturer warranty repairs/replacements (including recalls after the original warranty expired but were deemed sufficiently serious enough to warrant [pardon the pun] a recall) have been carried out before the after-market warranty has started - effectievely meaning several parts are either brand new or nearly new, giving them (in theory) an advantage over other manufacturers that have more reliable cars (and that aren't subject to multiple recalls) whereby some components just wear out through age/usage after their warranty period.

Such factors, and, as you say, the length and items covered in warranties, mileage and the condition of the car at the start of the cover (e.g. has it a FSH as per the manufacturer's requirements, etc) are, I believe, not allowed for in the calculations for (for example) Warranty Direct's 'Reliability Index', mearly (as I understand them to use) raw claims via them over the period of the insurance cover. I also presume that the cost of cover is also not factored in as well, nor the number of people taking out the insurance (I wonder what constitutes a 'representative sample', especially for cars/makes that are rare or whom few people take out after-market warranties.

I personally can't believe that that many people use such a service across all makes/cars/areas to be able to do so across the board. Some cars (some of whom have been out of production for a reasonable amount of time and sold in reasonable numbers) don't even feature on the 'Reliability Index', at all!

Such 'surveys' to me are only a very rough guide and no more, as often (as has been said) many other factors not taken into account can easily (and probably do) distort the result to a reasonable, if not greater degree. I actually wrote to WD to ask about this and why (if such things weren't factor in) they did not state that the results were only a rough guide for these reasons, and they declined to say why.

I also agree with comments about general ratings of cars by owners, as people who are either very satisfied or unsatisfied (biased towards the latter, especially for those people with company cars who have little or only a limited choice), and, again does not take into account the age of the buyer, length of time they expect to keep the car and expectations (people who keep them longer tend to buy for reliability, practicality, comfort and customer service and care less about performance, handling and looks/gizmos than short-term owners).

I had an Audi many years ago. Build was second to none. Then about 15 years ago became a Mercedes man.

Recently decide to change our C class 320 sport which I've had for a few years. So me and my wife went looking for another car.

We liked the looks of the Q5 but never been in one.

Audi showroom - sat in A4, A6, as top specs though great and build quilty was superior to my C class and my dads S Class. However, sat inside the Q5 S line, build A1 but very dated inside and gadgets. So put depsot down on GLE/Suv many weeks ago.

The Mecedes have never let me down as yet, but nor did the Audi years ago.

I wonder, given the likely huge fine and lawsuits in the US and possibly elsewhere (to a lesser extent), VAG may not have the funds to be able to keep up with the opposition in terms of R&D, and may have to consider reducing their ranges and substantial options list considerably to reduce costs.

It seems to have worked for Mazda after their 'divorce' from Ford a few years ago, for example, on the current Mazda3, you get the choice of 'any trim/colour as long as its black cloth' on every model except the Sport Nav, which you get the option of black or two-tone leather seats (at extra cost). I haven't seen the number of variants on the A3, but on the Golf there are 16. I personally would like a bit more choice for the Mazda (say 3 no-cost options in the range generally plus the two leather options on the Sport), but 16? C'mon guys!

It would also be nice if more VW, Audi and SEAT dealerships (and the UK arms of the makes themselves) earned themselves a better customer service reputation (admitedly Mazda can be variable on that score, although still better than those three, and besides, if [apart from some diesels] most contact is limited to dropping off/picking up your keys and paying for the annual service [all ok], then its not so bad!), then people and governments might warm up to them again if they thought they were taking the reliability/dieselgate issues seriously in both the short and longer term.

Maybe they could learn from their stablemate Skoda (as well as the Japanese makes) about how to improve their reputation in that regard - they appear to do far better in customer satisfaction surveys as regards the dealership/after sales experience. That's why, despite some recent big faux-pas, Toyota still rank very highly in that regard with the public.