Back Roomers seem to complain far less about problems with Ford cars in the "Technical" posts than they do about other makes. Or am I just imagining this because I am a long-standing Ford fan?
--
L'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
|
I was just thinking that there are alot of technical issues with Peugeots ... is that because more backroomers drive Peugeot's than Ford's ?
|
|
Maybe it's time for an updated What Car do you Drive thread...or even a poll?
|
|
My experience of two recent Fords over a total of about 150,000 miles is that they are admirably reliable and well made (and good to drive). Certainly in a different league to the shoddy repmobiles that they churned out a few years ago.
|
|
Yes, recent Fords seem very good. Maybe it something to do with the fact that a number of recent engines (the 'Mazda' Duratec and the 1.25l Yamaha) were designed in Japan?
|
|
Could well be true - certainly the Japanese have caused everyone else to raise their game.
|
I have driven Mercs for the past 6 years and have never been let down, but before that I drove Fords and again I was never let down.
An awfull lot of people seem to ridicule Fords but they are very reliable. My company runs a fleet of Escort vans and over the last 15 yrs the only breakdown has been down to a gearbox problem. Not bad considering overall the vans would have covered well over a million miles between them.
|
This should liven up the thread! We have owned Citroens for the last 16 years - 2 BXs, 2 Xantias and a Berlingo. Between them they have covered nearly 500,000 miles and we have had one breakdown - a broken throttle cable suffered by my wife about half a mile from home. And I'm sure I could have got it back on tickover! So for reliability go for a Citroen!
PhilW
|
During the last world war there is a well documented case of a member of an RAF aircrew who jumped from a bomber at 20,000 feet without a parachute and survived. So this proves:
You do not need a parachute if you jump from an aircraft at 20,000ft and in the same vein "for reliability go for a Citroen!"
|
Spot on answer Cardew - I have owned both marques and I have to say the BX19TRS I owned was by far the WORST car I ever had the misfortune to own. It was a complete money pit,slow even with a 1.9 twin carb engine , handled like a narrow boat, and was very expensive to run fuel wise (was also an auto.)
Now I own a 97 Mondeo that just is at the opposite end of the scale - I love it.
I would never buy a Citroen again but would buy another Mondeo tomorrow.
|
Which? magazine has recently published its 2003/4 car guide.
This independant, un-biased - no ads taken - organisation shows Honda, Hyundai, Lexus, Mazda, Nissan, Smart and Toyota as BEST for reliability. With Alfa Romeo, Citroen, Fiat LandRover,MG, Peugeot, Renault, Rover Vauxhall, Volvo and VW as POOR.
Ford has moved up to the GOOD grouping. The number of cars from which results were taken varies from 51 for the Smart to 4,173 for Ford.
The bottom line (at the end of the day?) is; was it reliable for you/me? I owned a Vauxhall Cavalier some time ago which was totally reliable - contrary to most peoples experience, it seems.
Some years ago, I stopped trying to be patriotic and I now buy for reliability and residuals - which often go together - so I now own an MB and a Toyota. Although MB's reputation has been dropping recently - it seems.
Regards Don drbe
|
|
Every few months (weeks?) a thread starts on this topic, and ends with a group of people reporting their findings on what amounts to a statistical sample of 3 or 4 cars, all of which were either perfect or lousy. Even if one buys according to true statistics, one gets a sample of 1 car, which may be perfect or lousy. At the end of the day, every manufacturer occasionally turns out a bad one and someone is unlucky.
|
Yes, of course, but, as my old grannie used to say,get the law of averages on your side!
Don drbe
|
|
It does not appear obviuos that the aircrew guy used skill or judgement when he jumped out of the plane. Like car reliability there is an element of luck.
|
I think most makes nowadays have come on in terms of (potential) reliability. There are very few cars with serious design faults. On the other hand, a lot depends on the way a car is driven - eg a mechanically unsympathetic person can do frightful damage to even the best.
Alternatively, a car can be driven by several different drivers - a local tyre dealer told me that in his opinion this was far harder on a car compared to a vehicle driven by the same driver all the time.
Then there is the question of servicing - good servicing is vital - and this doesn't necesarily mean a fsh from a main dealer!!! On top of this, there is the issue of driving conditions - eg long trips/ short trips, good road surfaces / poor B roads.
Of course much depends on the definition of reliability. Do we mean a car which has odd bits of trim coming off, yet starts first time and never, ever breaks down - or one which is built like a battleship yet conks out repeatedly with the same, sometimes untraceable fault?
Human nature being as it is, some people make a great deal of fuss out of nothing while others overlook all sorts of deficiencies when set against a single, often outstanding redeeming feature (gem of an engine eg)
Finally, as already mentioned there is the element of luck - you can just land with a real lemon!
Graeme
|
|
Did that bloke who jumped from an aircraft at 20,000 feet survive the whole 20,000 feet or did the last inch or two kill him?
|
