Lexus is reported as the brand with the least problems. BMW's Minis had the most problems, as reported by owners.
Automakers are having two problems: 1) trying to meet increasing fuel efficiency standards without a loss in performance and 2) trying to out-tech the competition. Most new vehicle problems stem from these issues. Back in 2008, Honda and Toyota let quality control slide as they looked to move profits by cutting production costs (the old GM strategy of bigger profits by switching to cheaper and less reliable materials). But both brands have changed course as this allowed the US manufacturers to gain back market share.
All in all, cars are so much more reliable today than they were 20 years ago that it really is nothing to be concerned about. Cars are evolving to meet new demands and new designs take time to perfect.
Great post. I agree with what you said, especially about the challenges of meeting increasingly-stringent fuel efficiency standards.
stri wrote:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/12/autos/jd-power-vehicle-dependability/index.html?iid=HP_LNLexus is reported as the brand with the least problems. BMW's Minis had the most problems, as reported by owners.
Some of the complaints are stupid. For example, hummer owners complained about the poor fuel efficiency of their vehicles. You get a Hummer, of course you will have poor fuel economy. Those subjective "problems" should not be included.
Or if I don't like the volume control knob because it is too "loose" and it is hard to change radio stations. The "problems" should be limited to issues that prevent proper functioning of a car component for "most people." Like a jacked up transmission, brakes that fail 30% sooner than other models, or electrical systems that simply don't work.
Surprised about Hyundai's bottom position here, considering it's the fastest growing car company right now. Or maybe that is the reason behind the lack in quality as of recently.
Downsizing has its problems, a V8 from the 1960's may still run strong these days but a four cylinder car from 2014 will not be on the streets anymore 50 years down the road. No way.
Most complaints about four-cylinder engines had to do with them being too noisy or having disappointing acceleration, not that they wouldn't run. The survey doesn't separate out those two sorts of issues.
What they're describing (in this instance) sounds more like consumer satisfaction with their purchase than an "automotive problem". If the car is working as designed it isn't the fault of the vehicle or its manufacturer.
Nutella1 wrote:
Downsizing has its problems, a V8 from the 1960's may still run strong these days but a four cylinder car from 2014 will not be on the streets anymore 50 years down the road. No way.
Any V8 passenger vehicle from the 60s that still runs well today has either been completely rebuilt or was kept as a museum piece by a collector for several decades. There is no contest between carburetors and fuel injection for reliability. The engines on Civic, Corollas, etc. go forever. I just got rid of a 2001 Civic with just short of 200k miles on it. The engine was still solid. No V8 from the 60s would go for 200k without needing to at least be rebuilt.
You guys are both sort of wrong.
Nutella1 wrote:
Downsizing has its problems, a V8 from the 1960's may still run strong these days but a four cylinder car from 2014 will not be on the streets anymore 50 years down the road. No way.
The mechanical components of modern cars are far better than cars from the 60s. For example, due to advances in metallurgy and manufacturing techniques, tolerances on moving parts are tighter, and materials/coatings have allowed us to have pieces with less wear. A classic example of this is cylinder wall wear, which is generally much less on modern engines, especially those with hard coatings on cylinders. Most of the moving parts of a modern car will wear slower than those on an old car.
Some reasons for longevity of older vehicles is simplicity. For example, in most cases, a properly maintained engine will not be the limiting factor in a car's demise. Most cars get scrapped as a result of a collision, or the failure of some part of family of parts whose value is greater than the vehicle itself. With all the computerized controls and emissions systems (which I think are a good thing overall), this type of scenario is more likely. A four cylinder car may not be on the road in 50 years, but it will not be because the engine wore out.
Precious Roy wrote:
Any V8 passenger vehicle from the 60s that still runs well today has either been completely rebuilt or was kept as a museum piece by a collector for several decades. There is no contest between carburetors and fuel injection for reliability. The engines on Civic, Corollas, etc. go forever. I just got rid of a 2001 Civic with just short of 200k miles on it. The engine was still solid. No V8 from the 60s would go for 200k without needing to at least be rebuilt.
It's very common for particular old engines to last well over 200,000 miles, and upwards of 300,000 is not unheard of (for example, the Ford 300 ci I6 in F150s). Part of the reason for this is (as I mentioned above) simplicity. A "complete rebuild" of a modern engine is expensive, because there are so many parts. A pushrod V6 or V8 from the 60's is really simple, easy to work on, and parts are cheap. So, doing a basic rebuild (rings, bearings, bore, and pistons) costs the same (and is about as difficult) as replacing a catalytic convertor on your Corolla.
A properly cared for engine can last a LONG time, and those old engines are really easy and cheap to rebuild.
Precious Roy wrote:
Automakers are having two problems: 1) trying to meet increasing fuel efficiency standards without a loss in performance and .
That goddamn Obama!