I think the problem is that the word 'quality' has so many different meanings. In layman's terms I guess it means 'superior'. As in, 'that's a quality car'.
In engineering terms it can mean conformance to specification (so a part can be poorly specified, but if a supplier produces them all to spec then that's 'quality'). It can mean 'impact on society after production' (Taguchi), 'products which exceed customer expections (Kano), 'specification meets requirements' (ISO9000) - and so on and so forth.
Motoring journalists (who by and large seem to have what could loosely be described as an 'arts' rather than 'engineering' background) interpret quality as whether the ashtray runs on ball bearings or whether the door handles are a two-shot moulding with soft-feel etc etc. I suspect few UK journalists look under the bonnet, and if they do, they don't get much further than the big 'keep out' moulded engine cover. It doesn't matter though, because most car buyers don't have much knowledge of automotive engineering either.
Reliability is more straighforward and I guess its the number of things that go wrong divided by the elapsed time or mileage (MTBF, or thereabouts). The What Car/Warranty Direct reliability listing is nonsense - presumably just a form of advertising for Warranty Direct.
It essentially is a measure of the repair cost (on breakdowns only that Warranty Direct have approved a payout) over a small sample of 3+ Y.O. used cars of which the owners were persuaded to buy a warranty...
|
|
Well I guess quality/reliability should work hand in hand. If a car manufacturer uses all good quality components to build a car then that car is going to be more reliable than a car that was built with not so good quality components. Now its a different matter all together where some manufacturers use good quality materials on the outside and really poor quality materials where it matters the most like under the bonnet etc..
|
>>Well I guess quality/reliability should work hand in hand.<<
The missing factor is the basic design of the thing. A conrod, for example, may be made exquisitley, of the finest materials but if the design is wrong then it won't work for long.
|
|
|
At the risk of upsetting some folk, I think it was VW that started to really fudge the lines between quality and reliability. People now talk of perceived quality which to me is where the likes of VW actually set out to almost con the public by dressing up poor quality with something that feels good. We have all spoken of the thin rubber coating they put on door handles that falls off after a while. Or the gas struts on the bonnet that feel great but underneath you have plastic bits holding the timing belts in place that break unless you change them at 40K.
In engineering terms, reliability is the ability of a system or component to perform its required functions under stated conditions for a specified period of time.
But car makers can design cars to last for different periods of time.
If it does not perform then it is unreliable.
Then the balance between maintenance and durability comes in to the debate.
If you need to service your car every 6K to keep it reliable then you may choose to look at a car that is equally reliable but can be serviced at 12K. But what owners don't really consider very often is the long term reliability because we only keep a car for 3-5 years usually. So taking long life service intervals from say VW again, well the chances are that if you sell the car after 50-60K then you will not notice that it will probably have low long term reliability.
The publics perception of reliability is funny though. I recall a similar debate on here where someone thought reliability was the ability of the dealer to fix his car 1st time when it went wrong.
|
My Suzuki van is a properly engineered vehicle BUT the interior would make your average Audi convert squirm with all the hard black plastic and doors that clang shut.
However, absolutely nothing, in 19,000 miles has gone wrong, fallen off or deteriorated.
Even the door handles inside look as new, unlike many Audis of similar ages ive cleaned. The only fault is the rather flimsy elasticated door pocket has split slightly as I put too much in it.
A customer of mine however has a £60,000 Range Rover that at 6 months old ground to a halt with a loud bang the other week, so that would make my £6k old-tech van more reliable than what is supposed to be the best 4x4 on offer. Id say that for Land Rover, thats disappointing, despite the lovely trim they use inside :-)
Sometimes, infact often, tried and tested is far more reliable than new tech because so often, new tech in cars just doesnt seem to become reliable until its been around a while.
|
Reliability - something you get when you buy Japanese.
I wish I had listened to the missus. She was right.
|
I think quality can only be achieved with reliability.
All the soft feel fabrics and clever gizmos means squat if the motor is not reliable.
And by reliable, i dont mean will it just scrape past the warranty expiry before falling apart at the seams.
I agree with many that a lot of car buyers perception of quality begins and ends at the badge. And many others wouldn't have a clue whats going on under the thing.
What really amazes me is the icon status given to certain motoring pundits, it seems as if the verdicts of them are viewed with a religious solemnity.
Thats not to say that i dont find them mildly amusing in small doses.
Mind you i was appreciative of JC's arctic trip in the Hilux for example, cos he's virtually guaranteed the resaleability, but makes you think, what if he had slated it?
|
>>Mind you i was appreciative of JC's arctic trip in the Hilux for example, cos he's virtually guaranteed the resaleability, but makes you think, what if he had slated it?<<
I doubt he would have done - it was chosen because it wouldnt let them down, not to see if it would or not. The Hilux is one of the very best, both old and new.
I have customers with vast country estates, populated by yes, you guessed it, every variation of Hilux you can think of. Country folk absolutely adore them for very good reason - buy one and you will never need another.
My customer with an unreliable VW said to me the other day that if she could afford it, she would dump the VW for a double cab 2wd Hilux in an instant. Its her ideal transport and shes not the only one.
|
|
The Hilux may be perceived as reliable but I have suffered for hours as a passenger and driven several of the older types and I rate it as the second-most unpleasant car I have ever been in (LR Series III being the worst). Redeeming features: it arrived at the destination. Reliable 1 - Quality 0.
|
The Hilux may be perceived as reliable but I have suffered for hours as a passenger and driven several of the older types and I rate it as the second-most unpleasant car I have ever been in (LR Series III being the worst). Redeeming features: it arrived at the destination. Reliable 1 - Quality 0.
Ive also been in a LR III and your quite right that they are unbeliveably awful comfort wise, but I wouldnt rate the Hilux anywhere near it. I rode in one at 80 on the motorway and it was quite acceptable for a commercial vehicle ( P reg 2wd ).
My Suzuki van is appauling really, but you get used to it. If its a choice between getting there in some comfort or sitting by the roadside in total comfort, id rather get where im going me thinks.
|
The point about Stu's Suzuki van is that it does exactly what it was designed to do - clearly very well. That's where Japanese-designed cars and vans succeed: they may have less showroom appeal than some other makes but the money has gone on the bits that matter. which are put together to last and not to go wrong.
Volvos used to be like that, and going back a bit so were Austins and Rovers in the 1950s, before BMC / Leyland brought them down by cost-cutting in the wrong places.
|
|
|
|
As I have mentioned before, my Seat toledo TDiSE has been an incredibly reliable car and still runs superbly at 150,000 miles. I bought it new at the end of 1999. All the pages and pages of included free extras still work. The only down side is the quality of the left hand interior plastic door handle. That started flaking ( the plastic) early on. The lovely soft leather steering wheel is still in good condition with a few marks on it. My late father's 2nd hand VW Polo which is a 1995 model is still going beautifully.It has much better interior plastic quality, even though the Toledo is light years ahead of it with it's driving ability.( it has incredible free extras.It was a good buy).
Mega SNIPQUOTE!
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 28/11/2007 at 01:13
|
Nor exactly on the line of the topic, but, back in the dim dark ages when I was at Engineering school, we were given a page of "Philosophical Engineering" points, one of which was - "Believe no more than 50% of the brochure claims and 25% of the Salesman's claims". I tend to practise that for my own purchases but have also experienced clients who are beguilled by glossies and "The Badge" as mentioned above.
In terms of reliability, I have found, regrettably including some unfavourable events, that, if the last of the old model will do the job, it is better to install that rather than be a final development guinea-pig for the latest model. It is not only the latest model of cars that are sold with the idea of letting the customer find the last 10% of bugs.
|
Audi often boasts that they have taken more patents on their cars than what NASA took designing their space shuttles!
Now I don't understand whether that is a good or bad thing ;) If you introduce so many "gizmos" without thorough testing, they tend to go wrong.
One big difference with German and Japanese technologies is that Japs usually don't really experiment with commercial products (sold to public). Japan hardly scores on proper inventions (most inventions were done in Britain, Germany and USA) yet their products (not just cars) are superb. Now even China is catching up first. Although I consider German engineering is actually one of the best in the world, I'd still prefer a Japanese product any day.
If you look into the rest of the world, you'll see that Japanese cars dominate the world. You name any country - Afghanistan, Indian sub continent, Australasia all are dominated by Japanese cars. Outside North America and Europe, French/German/Italian/American cars have very poor performance records.
Edited by movilogo on 28/11/2007 at 09:40
|
|
Patents may be an indication of the extent to which AUDI is innovating, but it doesn't mean they have our best interests at heart, or that they are great innovators. Many patents are taken out to protect market share rather than any real commitment to innovation and as such they are drafted in very general terms--just take a look at what Amazon, Microsoft and Apple are doing in this area. In the long run patents on daft things like 'a device for restricting the flow of electrons in an circuit' (I jest, but only just) can hold back innovation as much as they encourage it. In a perfect world the implementation of ideas, rather than the ideas themselves, would be the most prized. But if a company has a patent on a great idea then lashes up the implementation, or can overcharge through a monopoly position (as with pharmaceutical companies and anti-AIDS drugs), the patent system can prevent anyone else doing it properly and can cause real harm.
|
|
|
Audi often boasts that they have taken more patents on their cars than what NASA took designing their space shuttles!
Most NASA work was based on WW2 German technology - a bit difficult to patent !!
|
|
|
|
|
Charles
I used to work as a VMS Systems Manager from 1989-95 - nothing has ever come close to it's quality or reliability all these years on.
Unfortunately, todays success is based on marketing & style, hence Ipods, Minis, MS Windows
MVP
|
An image of quality and reliability - when did your voice phone line last have a fault, BT have 26 million running 24x7x365.25 and it works whenever you want it to (almost without exception).
The equipment generally betters 99.999% availability and huge MTBFs.
Now there is a target - even for Lexus and Honda!
|
|
The motoring media should replace their current useage of the term 'Quality' by the term 'Feelgood Factor', which would be used to indicate the car's specification compared to its rivals, the perceived quality of its interior, and its brand status.
|
You can have quality and reliability in the same car. My 2000X Audi A4 TDi 115 is now over seven years old and has covered 88k. I t has never broken down or failed to start. Only slight faults have been a coolant temperature sensor (replaced under warrnanty at just under 3 years) and Air Flow Meter (£200) to cure imtermittent turbo a few months ago. It still does 50mpg, uses no oil or water, has original exhaust, battery etc, no rust, paintwork that looks less almost new (and alloys), upholstery that looks immaculate. One hole in driver's side mat from my heel, and my son broke one hinge on the passenger side sun visor. Not bad IMO. A quality vehicle that I have no intention selling for some time yet.
Oh, how I'm tempting fate.......!
|
>>The motoring media should replace their current useage of the term 'Quality' by the term 'Feelgood Factor'<<
That is a point well made actually because you can have good quality hard plastic and poor quality soft plastic.
It's interesting that PatL thinks his Audi is reliable with the 2 faults above because I would be disappointed if I had 2 failures like that - even in 7 years.
If you take the older Toyota's for instance (I would be very cautious of buying a new one now) you could expect better than that. In the family we have a 14 year old carina with average mileage for year and it has had one rear light bulb blow - end of story. I hear many stories of Toyota and Honda cars where that is typical.
I am always wary of these It's been very reliable except for.........stories.
Edited by Pendlebury on 29/11/2007 at 20:45
|
I take your point Pendlebury, but neither fault prevented me from using the car. The sensor just meant that occasionally the gauge would read eratically and the AFM affected full turbo boost on occasions. Oh, and I've replaced one headlight bulb.
And I'd rather have a couple of faults like that AND the quality of build of an Audi than no faults and the tin-can feel of most Japanese cars! A friend has recently bought a Mitsubishi Carisma (?) and it is so flimsly feeling, just like his previous Nissan Almera where the interior door panel came off when I closed the door. Also Japanese cars 'date' more quickly which affects residuals. Indeed, I just don't the style of them even when they're new!
I had a Nissan Cherry a few years ago, and that was incredibly fragile and very unreliable.
Horses for courses, but I know where my hard-earned is going.
|
I think different people have different expectations as well. I certainly wouldn't be disappointed with two failures in seven years, the most expensive of which being £200. To my mind, that's a trivial amount compared to the overall running cost of a car during that time and if neither caused a breakdown, it's hardly a huge inconvenience either.
I do believe Japanese cars are in a different league altogether though. My cousin has a Japanese import Celica GT-S which has done over 250k and is still on its original engine, gearbox and clutch. It's driven hard, used daily and outside of servicing has only needed a CV joint and rear suspension bushes in his ownership (3 yrs).
A previous employer also ran an R-plate Honda Accord 2.0i LS as a pool car. I last drove it at 170,000 miles and it was still going strong, again on all its original mechanicals. Even at idle with the bonnet up, the loudest noise was the ticking of the fuel injectors. Mechanically, it was still near perfect. It had only needed servicing (in fairness, still done on time at the local Honda dealer), plus tyres and a couple of bulbs. It had never had a single non-service related part replaced. The fact it was a pool car tells you all you need to know about how it was driven. It was a bland, forgettable car in many ways, but better made and engineered than any other car I've seen that originates from Europe.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
DP - one of brothers has an R reg Accord, and yes it's very bland and eminently forgetable. Not sure of the mileage (not that high, though) but it feels tired and rattly, and gives zero ownership pleasure (even he admits that!). But then he buys a car for a grand or two every couple of years, which suits his approach to motoring but I wouldn't want to be driving round on second-hand tyres, topping up radiators and not having a decent stereo!
|
Abuse most cars and they will have a few rattles.
That said, My 11 year old Rover doesnt have any rattles at all BUT it is closely linked to the Honda Civic and it shows. With older Rovers, you get the less bland dressing on what is essentially a very well engineered japanese hatchback.
Ive spent a fortune fault finding on mine, but its finally sorted, but not through any fault of the car I might add. The oil cooler failed but because this gives HGF symptoms I had the HG done - huge expense and for no good reason! Not that a new oil coooler is cheap either!!
About the only real fault it has, altho not isolated to this make according to a diesel specialist, is that the EGR solenoid is knackered, but all you do is disconnect it and that was solved.
I would never own a Rover designed car, but my Rover Civic is an exceptionally well built car that feels almost as tight as when it was new. Quiet on a long run but beautifully comfortable aswell.
Jap cars are the best at this moment in time and I dont see that changing - they would have to get pretty bad to even come close to some of the main car makers.
|
So you have driven an R Accord thats cost less than £2000? I guess they are all like that then.
With regards to tyres, How do you manage to keep you tyres new, I mean after say 3000 miles do you get new ones cause these are now worn? I really don't think you need worry about tyres just because you didn't purchase them yourself.
Using this logic you only buy a new becuae your worried about second hand seats, radio, windows, exhaust, brakes.. the list is endless.
|
|
|
Everyone is has a very subjective opinion about quality and reliability. I think we should best take the advice from the motor trade and breakdown companies as they deal with all types and cars often find a trends emerging about models.
Of course we need to look at how many particualr cars are out there compared to how many breakdown. Also bear in mind that most breakdowns are caused by ignorance of the owner and not necessarily the fault of the maker.
Most repairs required are known about before they happen and booked in. Also M.O.T.'s usually find a few faults and this mostly is affected by age.
People don't usually worry as much about problems when the car is under warranty compared to when they are personly shelling ou too.
I think we can take it as a given that Jap cars are less likey to breakdown repeatedly than other makes but I'm sure if you own (whatever make) and it doesn't breakdown then you'll swear they are the most reliable.
Pat.. comparing a nissan cherry to an A4 is bit unreasonable, I would suggest that a cherry comapred to the same year fiesta or corsa would be much more reliable.
Also I wonder if any of the manufactures use thicker metal or better quality metal than other brands I mean essentialy the are all tin cans really.
|
A2B - my observation on the Accord is juct that - an observation. They may do a high mileage (most cars do theses days) but the Japanese high milers I've been definitely feel like they've done every mile, compared to BMWs, Mercs, Audis oer VWs of similar mileage. In my experience, of course.
And I didn't directly compare the Cherry with an A4 - it was, again, an observation that Japanese cars are not all infallible and this one was very cheaply put together and felt flimsy and lightweight. Certainly compared to a Fiesta or Escord for example.
And my comment about second hand tyres refers to buying a second hand car - unless you change the tyres you're using second-hand tyres and have no idea of their 'history'. Once my tyres hit (as you say) 3000 miles they don't become second-hand because they're still mine! They just become a bit older, which is different.
It seems like some Japanese car fans don't like the slightest criticism of their wondermobiles!
|
|
Oh, and compare shutting the boot lid on an A4 or Passat with that of a Mitsubishi Carisma! You'll see what I mean by build quality.
|
My dad owned a 1983 Cherry is a vile metallic red with beige interior.
He did however swear by the thing as he bought it at 3 years old, stuck 150k on it in 4 years and it never went wrong, ever. He thrashed the hell outta it but it would sit all day at 85 without a mumour.
It was the car that convinced him to have almost 20 years of japanese car ownership and its something that he has never regretted.
So what if the trim was a bit cheap, it started everyday and always got where it was going - something that the Fords he had as company cars in the years before never did although he did like the MK1 Cavalier 2.0 auto which he always maintains was the best rep car he ever had.
|
Jap cars arent that great
1982- My Chrysler alpine was reliable but everything fell off it (engine fell out) & rust
1984- My Vauxhall cavalier sportshatch was reliable and nothing fell off
1987- My Lancia HPE was unreliable and things fell off (ceiling fell on me)
1989- My Daihatsu charade was reliable and nothing broke or fell off
1992- My Belmont sri was reliable and nothing much fell off, it just rusted
2000- My Mondeo was reliable but bits fell off
2002- My wifes Clio was totally unreliable but nothing fell off
2003- My Vectra was totally unreliable and things fell off
2004- My Mazda 6 from new was reliable but things squeeked
2005- My wifes Hyundai is reliable but not quality.........
2007- My Lexus has had new rear shocks,new front shocks,new ball joints,new clutch,new flywheel...and im kidding myself that this is quality :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
