2007 reliability ratings


Let’s have an arguement!

J.D. Power issued their annual reliability ratings for 3-year old cars. THE most reliable brand is… Buick! And Lexus. Both tied at 145 problems per humdred cars. The next 3 were Cadillac, Mercury, and Honda, respectively. How 'bout that?


You can see this coming. :slight_smile:

To be honest, I’m not a believer in J.D. Powers; or for that matter, Consumer Reports, Motor Trend, Car and Driver, or Ole Bob’s street corner pamphlets.
The reason, as I’ve often stated, is that none of them know the details behind a particular complaint and whether it’s justified or not.

I do think Buick builds a great car; one of the best on the road.


Interesting, of course, but not to be taken too seriously. I would have no qualms about buying a car not at the top of such lists if it met my particular needs.

I also detest that horrible term “reliability.” So misleading! ?If a particular car must make numerous visits to the dealership for non-driveability problems (squeaks and rattles, stereo must be replaced), such visits count as separate black marks in the reliability ledger. But if a Toyota’s engine is destroyed by sludge, that is only a single negative report. Hence the Toyota is rated more reliable. Go figure.


GM seems to be working hard to right the ship and they must! We have a 2 year old Malibu with 30,000 miles and have had absolutely nothing go wrong. If Chevrolet can do it for us, then Cadillac and Buick can do it too; have more money to spend on quality.

It will take a while for GM’s improved quality to sink in to the public’s perception.


Actually CR weights the larger maintenance issues, such as engine and transmission problems, so that the overall reliability is impacted proportionally. An engine problem will cause a greater reliability reduction than a cranky window motor. There goes your argument against CR’s rating system.


Economy is global now, so are cars. The Malibu if it is the Max version is actually based on Opel Vectra, a somewhat reliable European make/model. Now when you put the name Chevy on it some in US would say it is not a reliable car even before they see the car or know anything about it. I think most of these assessments are flawed one way or the other.


It is always good to know the statistics. Small problems are small, but they are annoying. If you have squeaks and poor fit in your interior, you wonder too much about the workmanship. If I wanted it crooked, I’d build it myself.


Just about anything should last 3 years without major problems. Reliability over 10 years, or even longer, means more to me.


That is really good. Going back to the dealer within the first few years of ownership is quite annoying for any problem big or small. A pure time sink.


Just about anything should last 3 years without major problems. Reliability over 10 years, or even longer, means more to me.

I can’t agree more. My brother-in-law who’s a Ford Lover…After years and years of buying Fords and putting THOUSANDS of dollars in them…he finially found a way to avoid those heavy repair costs…He now Leases new Fords and only keeps them 2 years. His repair costs have dropped drastically.


I’m still waiting to see their ratings for 30 year old cars.


Or even 10 year old ones. :slight_smile:


Yup, “reliability” data on 3 year old cars is silly. It sells magazines, but it’s worthless in the real world. I mostly tells you which costumers are the least likely to go back to the dealer and complain about the little stuff.


My 42 year old Chevelle has had no major mechanical problems. Just rust from being an Ohio car it’s whole life. Little things here and there, but nothing I can’t live with. Original engine and tranny are still going strong, while the car’s been replaced around it. :stuck_out_tongue:


While I’m more interested in the reliability over the long stretch, I have to acknowledge that a 3 year reliability rating at least identifies models to avoid, those with design problem up front. It also at least provides some data on recent designs, valuable to have.

Buick does seem to be doing something right. Or maybe it’s just that Buicks rarely get driven hard. Or far. The demographics of the Buick buying public do tend to be on the more mature side. I’ll bet the mileage of the average Buick after three years is no more than 1/3 of the mileage of the average Corolla.

Hey, if you like Buick you should buy Buick. I have no qualms with that.


I disagree. It can be useful for someone buying a two or three year old car. If a car has been unreliable during the first three years we might reasonably assume that it won’t get any better. That can narrow the list quite a bit. Oh, and Power’s actual words were “long term dependability”. It seems the same to me, but others might disagree.


The head of quality assurance for GM said a year or two ago that Buick wants to compete with Lexus. She believes that quality, both at delivery and long-term, are important in making that strategic goal a reality. It appears that they are serious. Good for them. Everyone should try to emulate the best in their chosen field. Just as Cadillac wants to take on BMW as the best sports sedans. Neither has made it yet. But reviewers like C&D and MT say that Cadillac, for instance, is getting close. And at a very attractive price. They still need to improve handling.


My question would be what the reliability figures are if you do it by company.

Of course Buick is going to be more reliable than, say, Honda because its only a narrow cross-section of GM’s total offerings-- and pretty much all conservative sedans with no real cutting edge technology to go wrong on them. Whereas the rating for Honda includes most of their whole range (excluding Acura) from economy cars to sports cars to SUV’s. I’m sure if Honda had, say, a seperate brand for the Accord and Civic, it would probably do better in such a ranking.


I have a pretty good example of the buick demographic, both my mom (75 years old) and my aunt (85 years old) have been driving midsize buick sedans (whatever they’re called these days) for decades. They always go to the same dealer and buy basically the same new car every few years. They aren’t comfortable driving older cars, so they trade them in after a few years.


Until each and every complaint made about a car is investigated and the entire story can be dragged out, with the associated kicking and screaming, CR, Power, and all the rest are just laying out a pretty sketchy opinion based on some thin information.

Those who have not worked for car dealers should do so for about 5 years or so and you’ll see what I mean.
Take a 100 Hondas and a 100 Benzs and see which one has the most complaints; obviously the Benz. Some of the complaints will be legitimate; others not. Often the number of complaints are related to the MSRP of the vehicle, and in some cases, the inability of the car owner to stomach the monthly payment they just waded into affects the quality of the car.
(Yes, I’ve had people flat come out and admit after carping for months about their car being a hunk of junk that the problem is really not the car at all, but the affordability.)

I doubt very seriously that CR, Power, etc. is getting any info like this.