Reliability Index - false information? - LukeMH
Those of you who have not seen the reliability index

www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/

Basically it is a system where every car is scored on its reliability, average mileage and age to breakdown, average cost of repair and average time to repair.

The car is then given a Reliability Index score and then the cars are ranked (top 10, top 100, worst 10 etc) Obviously this is good for manufacturers who apear at the top (free advertising) and bad for manufacturers that apear at the bottom (bad press)

Now what if the reliability index was a load of cobblers and doesn't bear any resemblence to how reliable the car is? I personally have been taking this site seriously in my choice of cars (I purcahse for our fleet)

I have discovered some glaring errors in the reliability index, which in my personal opinion discredit its accuracy. I will give you the information and let you decide.

The average score is 112, and lower is better, so a car os say 60 is very reliable whereas a car with a score of say 200 would be very unreliale.

Here is one example

1) Jaguar X-type

Reliability Index 67.04
Average Age 3.426111111
Average Mileage 36129.32667
Time off the Road 5.31799413
Average Repair Cost £521.09

2) Volkswagen Passat

Reliability Index 85.65
Average Age 4.088857323
Average Mileage 59494.9375
Time off the Road 2.075458258
Average Repair Cost £249.75


How can the X-type have a better reliability index figure then the Passat? The Passat
beats the X-type in EVERY SINGLE FIELD!

The Passat lasts longer till breakdown, has a MUCH higher average mileage to breakdown,
has a MUCH lower time off the road (less then half) The average repair cost is also LESS
THEN HALF.


So that places the Jaguar x-type at number 13 in the top 100, which is way above the passat.
Reliability Index - false information? - cheddar
To quote from the Reliabilty Index site:

"
The Reliability index takes into account all factors of a repair, the cost of the parts and the frequency of failures - Average is 112 which means that if the figure for the car you are looking at has a higher than average index (118) the indication is that that car is less reliable than the average, if however there is a lower than average index (60) the reliability is better. Separately to this figure you can also look at the average cost of repairs for a particular make or model, a car with a good index and a high average cost (£500) would imply that the frequency of failure is low however when it does fail the bill will be a lot more than the average.
"

The info missing from you post is the frequency of failures, the conclusion then is that the Passat suffer failures far more frequently than the X-Type.
Reliability Index - false information? - LukeMH
You are possibly right there, they don't give the frequency of failure, however the mileage is suposed to be the average mileage of the car making a claim so if a car is near 60k miles to its first breakdown I would assume it breaks less frequently then a car with 35kmiles to its first breakdown.

The reason that I spotted this quickly is that passats are the most reliable cars we have here with not one single breakdown ever on them (3 year contracts, end at 90-100k miles) and Jaguar come bottom of the JD power survey pretty much every year (as well as the fact that the x-type is modeo derrived and thus may be peugeot engine derrived and so I can't imagine them being reliable in the sligtest) but I had to lookup the X-type as one of the managers was interested in getting one. I have despite the lower score, read the 35k average mileage and £500 avaerage repair bill and told him to stick to a passat :)
Reliability Index - false information? - cheddar
as well as the fact that the x-type is
modeo derrived and thus may be peugeot engine derrived and so
I can't imagine them being reliable in the sligtest) >>


The X-Type is Mondeo derived though neither have Peugeot engines, the X-Type and Mondeo V6 petrols have Ford derived petrol engines where as the Mondeo 4 cyl petrol engines are based on Mazda designs. The X-Type and Mondeo both have Ford designed built chain cam diesel engines. The connection with Peugeot is that PSA and Ford have jointly developed diesel engines that are used in 1.6 and 2.0 ltr form is the new Focus, C-Max, S-Max and Galaxy (the 1.8 is a Ford unit) as well as various Peugeots, Citroens, Volvos and Mazdas. Although most Peugeots are as boring as hell these engines are no worse for the Peugeot connection.
Reliability Index - false information? - Westpig
>> and Jaguar come bottom of the JD power survey pretty much
every year (as well as the fact that the x-type is
modeo derrived and thus may be peugeot engine derrived and so
I can't imagine them being reliable in the sligtest) but I
had to lookup the X-type as one of the managers was
interested in getting one. I have despite the lower score, read
the 35k average mileage and £500 avaerage repair bill and told
him to stick to a passat :)


i've just looked up the 2005 JD Power figures via a Google search...and these were published in What Car

models......=46th (out of 124 models).... Jag X Type.............57th VW Passat

manufacturers.......11th (out of 32) Jaguar.................16th VW

i don't remember Jaguar being bottom of JD Power at all.........in fact with the above figures the S Type was 26th out of 132, which even my maths can work out is reasonably good

I've owned my S type for 4.5 years and wouldn't have done if there'd been loads of things wrong with it.. and similarly SWMBO has an X Type which we've had for 1.75 years with 2 extremely minor warranty type things (small split in gear lever gaiter and stiff opening of rear window of estate)

Reliability Index - false information? - Armitage Shanks {p}
You've lost me!

You say "How can the X-type have a better reliability index figure then the Passat? The Passat
beats the X-type in EVERY SINGLE FIELD!"

"The Passat lasts longer till breakdown, has a MUCH higher average mileage to breakdown,
has a MUCH lower time off the road (less then half) The average repair cost is also LESS
THEN HALF."


"So that places the Jaguar x-type at number 13 in the top 100, which is way above the passat."

You say the the Passat beats the X type in every field and then say that it comes in at No 13 which is way above the Passat. Is the where you put it or where the Reliability Index figures put it?

BTW, I think the reliability index figures are compiled from their data base of cars that are covered by their mechanical warranties. This isn't likely to mean a representative cross-section of all the vehicles on the road!
Reliability Index - false information? - cheddar
"The Passat lasts longer till breakdown, has a MUCH higher average
mileage to breakdown,


That is the OP's error, the mileage figure is not the mileage before or between breakdowns, it is the average mileage of all cars of that type surveyed.
Reliability Index - false information? - Armitage Shanks {p}
Thank you Professor Cheddar for lighting my darkness!
Reliability Index - false information? - Dalglish
..I personally have been taking this site seriously in my choice of cars (I purcahse for our fleet) ..


lukemh:
i.m.o - as a professional purchaser for your fleet, you owe it to yourself and your employer to get a thorough understanding of statistics. for a start, you need to gt hold of the underlying raw data.

Reliability Index - false information? - cheddar
>> ..I personally have been taking this site seriously in my
choice of cars (I purcahse for our fleet) ..
lukemh:
i.m.o - as a professional purchaser for your fleet, you owe
it to yourself and your employer to get a thorough understanding
of statistics.


And if I may say so without causing offence a better understanding of alliances in the automotive industry.
Reliability Index - false information? - LukeMH
> That is the OP's error, the mileage figure is not the mileage before or between breakdowns, it is the average mileage of all cars of that type surveyed.

You may be right and I may be wrong .... hmmm
Reliability Index - false information? - Dalglish
... You may be right and I may be wrong .... hmmm ..

>>

no "maybe" about it. cheddar is right. it says clearly on the average mileage "i" information pop-up:

"Average Mileage
This shows you the average mileage of all the cars included in our information for your specific selection, we would expect claims to increase with mileage - The maximum mileage we accept for a car to come onto cover is 100,000 miles the maximum mileage are car can remain on cover is 130,000 So if you are looking to buy or own a higher mileage car expect the cost to go up in line with the mileage."

Reliability Index - false information? - jase1
I have the fact that proves this survey's bogusness.

The Hyundais in the survey apparently have an average age of around 4 and a half years.

I call BS on this. Why would an owner take out an extended warranty on a car that is still under warranty from the manufacturer?
Reliability Index - false information? - DP
I might be being incredibly stupid here, but even if this is average mileage rather than mileage between breakdows, the average Passat has covered 20,000+ more miles than the average Jag in the survey, and still has a lower failure rate. Doesn't that strengthen the Passat's case rather than weaken it? One would logically expect a higher failure rate with higher mileage.

I'm obviously missing something.
Reliability Index - false information? - DP
Sorry - I meant time off the road, not failure rate.
Reliability Index - false information? - cheddar
I might be being incredibly stupid here, but even if this is average mileage rather than mileage between breakdows, the average Passat has covered 20,000+ more miles than the average Jag in the survey, and still has a lower failure rate. Doesn't that strengthen the Passat's case rather than weaken it? One would logically expect a higher failure rate with higher mileage.


I'm obviously missing something.
>>

Yup, the Passatt breaks down much more often than the Jag though each Passat incident is cheaper to repair than each Jag incident and the Passat is off the road for less time *per incident* than the Jag, not in total.
Reliability Index - false information? - DP
aaahhhhhhhhh (click!) Thank you!
Reliability Index - false information? - Dalglish
>> ..have the fact that proves this survey's bogusness. The Hyundais in the survey apparently have an average
age of around 4 and a half years. I call BS on this. Why would an owner take out an extended warranty on a
car that is still under warranty from the manufacturer?


jase1 - so can we have this fact from you please? - when did hyundai begin to offer 5 year warranties on the hyundai cars in the survey?

Reliability Index - false information? - v0n
1st September 2002.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
Reliability Index - false information? - cheddar
1st September 2002.


Jase / Von.

WD figures encompass 2000 to 2003 approx however re Hyundai's 5 year warranty, many owners will invalidate the warranty via late/non franchised servicing/parts etc, also cars coming off fleets that have been in house serviced will not be under the manufacturers warranty so WD will still sell warranties to Hyundai owners via 2nd hand dealers selling these cars.
Reliability Index - false information? - Dalglish
.. 1st September 2002..


v0n - thanks for that. so just four years ago. which means that hyundai cars bought 4 years ago or more will feature in the index as those owners are likely to have taken out the warranty. so maybe jase1may wish to withdraw his statement "..I have the fact that proves this survey's bogusness.." ?

Reliability Index - false information? - Aprilia
The other thing that no one has mentioned is that these stats relate only to breakdowns/repairs that WD actually paid out on. We don't know how many cars broke down with faults that WD refused to pay out on (remember they are 'mechanical breakdown warranties' and do not cover failure due to 'wear and tear'). My own past 'trade' experience with warranty companies (not WD, by the way) is that faults which result in a payout are few and far between. Of course WD may be better in this respect than the rest - but I don't know.
One of the most frightening prospect for a small garage owner is the sight of customer coming through the door clutching his 'warranty' booklet. Inevitably its the garage owner who has to call the warranty call centre (can take a while to get through!) be informed that claim is not covered because blah blah blah and then has the unpleasant job of informing the owner who gets irate and takes it out on garage owner. If they DO meet the claim then they expect to pay minimal labour rate. In the end we had a sign up saying no warranty company repairs.
Reliability Index - false information? - jase1
>> .. 1st September 2002..
v0n - thanks for that. so just four years ago. which
means that hyundai cars bought 4 years ago or more will
feature in the index as those owners are likely to have
taken out the warranty. so maybe jase1may wish to withdraw his
statement "..I have the fact that proves this survey's bogusness.." ?


Fair comment, I will withdraw. Although, with that said, Hyundai dealers were offering free upgrades to 5-year warranties for around 18 months before September 2002. My car had this applied, and it's that that made me forget that this wasn't official policy until 2002. From what I can gather most cars of this period will have had the extended warranty -- so why are enough of this age of car being included here to skew the average age to 4.5 years?

And in addition, if the effective minimum age in the vast majority of cases is 4 years and 2 months (as any newer than this and 90% of cars will be still covered), how come the average age is 4 years and 6 months? It still seems highly dubious to me, if not out-and-out rubbish.
Reliability Index - false information? - jase1
Well OK if you didn't like the Hyundai example, how about these:

Ford Scorpio, last manufactured 1999, WD states average age of Scorpios on their books 5.17 years.

Daewoo Nexia, last manufactured 1997, WD states average age of Nexias on their books 5.83 years.

Skoda Felicia, last manufactured 1999, WD states average age of Felicias on their books 5.08 years.

Either they're neglecting their database and not updating regularly in all cases (in which case their figures are inconsistent and hence unreliable) or they're making things up as they go along.
Reliability Index - false information? - Dalglish
... if the effective minimum age in the vast majority of cases is 4 years and 2 months ..


afaik, wrong again.
the survey results are not for data collected in november 2006.

as far as i can make out, they do not tell you when the last data set was collected.

in fact, on their site you can find different results, eg.

www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/trends7.html?apc=311234...2
www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/man_index_2.html?search...2
www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/trends8.html?apc=311234...2

where you will find these conflictiong statements:

"Experts at Warranty Direct, the leading independent automotive warranty provider, made the award after scrutinising the reliability, repair bills, parts costs, labour rates and annual service charges of four-year-old vehicles (either Y or 51 plate models) with an average of 40,000 miles on the clock. "

or

"Warranty Direct's annual Reliability Index (www.reliabilityindex.co.uk), which looks at 30,000 vehicles from twenty-seven leading manufacturers, combines the number of faults a car suffers alongside the actual cost of repairing them. With an average of 46,500 miles, the majority of the vehicles ..."

or

"Reliability Index offers free in-depth analysis of 32 car manufacturers, ..."

as i have stated in an earlier post above, these statistics are meaningless unless you have access to the full data set. remember "averages" can be very misleading. for example, assume this scenario:
you can have 10 jaguar x types out of which 9 never go in for a repair but then you have the tenth one which goes in every other week and is a troublesome beast to put right. the cost and time and number of visits of that one rogue jaguar x type will bring the otherwise perfect score of the remaining 9 cars down with it.

Reliability Index - false information? - jase1
> the survey results are not for data collected in november 2006.

In the case of the Nexia, the results are at least 3 years old, and probably a lot more.

If the other results are of a similar vintage, then little useful information can be derived now. If not, then the ages of the individual car summaries must therefore differ and therefore the data cannot be usefully compared.

Whichever way you look at it, this survey has more holes than a Tetley tea-bag.
Reliability Index - false information? - Dalglish
as far as i can make out, they do not tell you when the last data set was collected.

>>

ok, i have done some digging nad found that their last set of figures was issued to the press on 17 may 2006.

note that their own web site fails to mention the date. in fact on their page "latest trends", ( www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/trends.html ), you have this statement:
Every quarter we will produce an update on our stats detailing the prime movers on the previous report.
Simply click on the summaries to the left to read about the changes


then on the left there, you find that their past "quarterly update" was
www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/trends8.html?apc=312833...1
which is dated 8 march 2005 !.

not very reliable for a reliability index site, is it?

Reliability Index - false information? - jase1
Nope :)

Going back to the Hyundai comment, I fully expect that in 2 years time they'll still be referring to the Hyundais as average age <5 years, at which point we'll definitively be able to put the thing to rest, as whatever the reasoning about there being cars outside the scope of the warranty these will never amount to more than a small fraction of the cars on their books.

Regular as clockwork Wh*tCar release new WD figures, which then don't tally with what is displayed on the Reliability Index website. Bit of a farce really.

It's the sort of site that gives the proper surveys (JD Power etc) a bad name.
 

Ask Honest John

Value my car