I would go shopping for a 4-5 year old car with about 100K (not really true in my case, I don’t like anything newer than about 20 years old) for about half the price of a new car. Buying a two year old car isn’t much better than buying new, you will still pay too much for what you’re getting. You will still have at least 5 years of reliable use and you can put the cost difference twords the next car.
The gap has certainly narrowed. The best have, on average, gotten better, and the “average” has gotten much better.
The difference between a vehicle in Consumer Reports with “average” ratings and one with excellent ratings is well within their statistical margin of error. Yes, they have the largest sample size of any survey. However, no survey is perfect, and they still don’t have large enough samples to narrow error down to a smaller amount than the difference between average and excellent.
It’s just like if you looked at surveys of Ohio before the 2004 election. If you took those numbers as fact, then Kerry would be president. The % gap there was larger than Consumer Reports is reporting as the difference between even excellent and “below average”. And the sample size was significantly larger.
But the numbers are presented in a way to make them look far more significant than they are. They focus on “twice the problems” and statements like that. Those things remind me of Dilbert (April 19th - 
). The average rate of failure per Consumer Reports is so small that this is very similar to how things are presented in their studies.
Besides, it isn’t like their recommendations are perfect. Their top pick for a gas grill is made by Charmglow, and you should look at some of the consumer reviews about how horrendous those have been. I’ll stick with Weber, thanks.
But they’re certainly useful… Just find a car that you like, that isn’t significantly worse than average, maintain it, and odds are you’ll be fine with any vehicle, regardless of manufacturer.
(btw, Ford had a higher % of their models get average or better ratings for reliability than did Toyota this year - that certainly doesn’t imply Toyota is junk)
Craig58,
If someone is interested in a car with Bluetooth, MP3 Jack, Navigation, you’re not going to get it in many if any cars from 2003 or earlier, and those that you could are outdated at this point. Jedward didn’t say he needs those things, but a new car brings with it a lot of options and accessories that cars of even 5 years ago couldn’t like voice activation and nightvision, not to mention safety advances. The past 5 years has seen some major developments and advancements in auto technology. A car is more than just a way to get from point A to point B now. You really seem to like older cars, but you may want to try something newer-they’re much nicer to drive than you think. Besides after 14 years of driving a 318 I’d want something new haha.
JMHO, but I don’t think much faith should be put into J.D. Power, Consumer Reports, or any customer survey organization.
The reason is that none of these groups really know, or even care to know, what the entire story is behind a problem.
There are certain biases or actions at work and this is not reflected in those surveys.
Take a 100 turbo SAABs and a 100 Toyota Camrys and see which one gets the most complaints. The SAABs more than likely because many SAAB owners will tend to be more nit-picky and disgruntled than a Camry owner. The driving habits will also differ greatly because the SAABs are going to suffer more from what one could call “spirited driving”.
My opinion is that on average one car will last just as long as any other if maintained properly and not abused on the road. The majority of cars fit into that less maintenance/more flogging category.
Look at the bashing that Ford Taurus and Sable models have taken. My 87 Sable was still running/driving well and getting 24-25 MPG when I sold it a couple of years ago. This poor old thing had 420k miles on the original engine and cold A/C to boot. While sitting down one evening thinking about how much I put into that car over the years, other than purchase price, it came up to less than 2000 dollars total.
I would consider that a dependable car and 2 grand in parts over that time frame and mileage is pretty darned good.
(And for what it’s worth, J.D. Power got caught taking some money about 15 or so years ago to skew their opinion a bit.
If I remember correctly they were on the take from Subaru. (Remember the “Subaru No. 1 in customer satisfaction awards”?) Power fired a few sacrificial lambs when it made national news and IMO it’s probably still going on today; with a little extra care to avoid getting caught of course).
Well stated. While there are differences, the difference between one driver who takes proper care of his car and the next who does not is far far greater. Get the car you want and take proper care of it. With luck (as I have had for over 40 years) you will come out far ahead.Consumer Reports, JD Power, and TrueDelta all provide long term dependability information, dating from 3 to 8 years. TrueDelta provides the average numberof trips to the shop, whereas the other two provide only a ranking. Take a look at them and see if they have data on the cars that you are interested in. I believe that the gap has been narrowed between Asian cars and tradional domestic cars. Cadillac and Buick rank near the top in dependability, as does Porsche and Lexus. I suspect that just about any car you buy today (except for a Jaguar) will be fine. Even the Jag will be better than a new one 10 years ago.
ok4450,
Saabs have an awful rap because they’ve been AWFUL. No, not the old ones like the classic 900 or 9000, but the cars made from the mid-1990’s on. A Toyota Camry and a late-model Saab are on different planets from a design and reliability point of view.
I want to point out that I have owned European, Japanese and American vehicles and I am very open minded about purchasing any of them, but that said, there are clear differences between them in general. The idea that it’s more how they’re treated than who makes them is a reasonable point, but at the end of the day there are differences.
I think owners of any make of car are quick to defend them, especially folks who have had good luck with them, but personal experience can’t play too big a role in opinion. I do have a strong fondness for BMW’s and while I’d like to say they can be every bit as reliable as a Honda, it’s not really true. They’re prone to bad water pumps, A/C issues, window regulator failures, etc, but no one likes to acknowledge it, and owners will insist that properly maintained they’re excellent cars like a Toyota or Honda, but it’s not really true. I speak from experience as someone who has worked on them and had family who’s owned them. Wonderful when working, but…
My brother purchased a really nice 2003 Saab 95 Aero in 2006 loaded to the hilt for $14k with only 40k miles. It has been flawless in his three years of ownership thus far.
Sigh…Once again, personal experience MAY vary. Believe it or not, every car ever made has at least one fan who’s had great luck with their car. I’m sure for a select few people that a Yugo was the most reliable car they ever owned.
I think ok4450 has hit the nail on the head again. I think it is important to know the story behind a problem rather than just stating, for example, that the car has transmission problems. Did the transmission have to be removed from the automobile, or was it an external component? This makes a big difference to me. I subscribe to Consumer Reports and fill out the questionnaire. Sometimes it is difficult for me to decide whether something is a real problem or just an annoyance.
I think one should keep in mind the Consumer Reports sends its questionnaires to its subscribers. This population may treat a car differently than the population of people who don’t subscribe to Consumer Reports. Furthermore, I’ll bet Consumer Reports doesn’t get a 60% or higher return on these questionnaires. If the number of returns is less than 60%, the results must be looked at critically. The people that didn’t respond may have different opinions than those who did.
Consumer Reports is a good starting point. I ask the mechanics at the independent garage where I have most of my service work done. They have seen enough different makes to know about the trouble spots. One of my vehicles is a 2006 Chevrolet Uplander which, according to Consumer Reports, has a poor repair record. I had the gasoline sender replaced under warranty and that is the only problem that I’ve had. I read Consumer Reports, but the price was right, so I bought it. I haven’t been sorry about my purchase.
Dave, I’ve driven plenty (too many) of new cars with all those toys. They are cute, but no reason to buy the plastic car that surrounds them. I have a perfectly adequate GPS that will work in any car (including bluetooth, voice, etc) that only costs about $500 and can be upgraded in 5 years when it breaks or is outdated. I can also install whatever sound system I want in an old car. Personally, I’ll pass on the “safety equipment” that is more trouble/expense than it’s worth. The last BMW I really liked was the late 60s 2002 and the first generation 6-series (late 70s sometime). If the OP wants a new toy, they should buy one.
The truth is the bulk of owners have GOOD LUCK on all makes if they do the basic maintenance and driving normally. I think its a small subset that have the problems that people focus on.
My opinion for what it’s worth:
10 years ago you could buy a vehicle that would run relatively maintenance free for 200,000 miles. I did that with 3 consecutive F150’s in the 90’s.
Back then, the trucks were relatively simple and a monkey could maintain one. The last one I had I ran 295,000 before selling, and it’s still on the road today. The truck had a 300 6 cylinder engine 5speed manual tranny. About every 100,000 miles you had to put spark plugs, new coil, cap and rotor on it. That was the extent of a tune up. I went 200,000 miles before the timing gear broke. About every 80,000 miles I had to put brushes on the alternator. About every 50,000 front brakes, and in 295,000 I changed the rears once. I did have an AC compressor go out right around the time I sold it, and never did put a clutch in it. Other than that, I didn’t do a thing to it but put oil, filters, and gas in it. I changed oil every 5,000 to 7,000 miles, so no I didn’t baby it. By the time I sold it, the bed was beat up pretty bad, seat ripped and the red paint had turned pinkish. I never did find much that went wrong with either of those 3 trucks that common sense couldn’t fix or understand.
That said, 10 years later, they (the manufacturers, all of them) have engineered early retirement into these vehicles. If you look at Ford’s progress on their diesels, I know of several 7.3 IDI’s with in excess of 500,000 miles on them, relatively trouble free. The 7.3 Powerstrokes were a bit more complex, but still there are many still in service 300,000 to 400,000 miles later. Having owned a 6.0 liter and knowing several people that have one, you would have to be insane to voluntarily own one of those bastards past the 100,000 mile warranty period. Why? There’s way too much garbage on the engine and the only people that can service them is a dealer. The new 6.4 liter Ford is even worse.
With the 7.3 IDI and 7.3 Powerstroke, any competent diesel mechanic and most guys with reasonable mechanical skills could work on them and parts are fairly reasonable save for injector pumps on IDI’s and HUII injectors on 7.3’s. Even still, you could send either off to the diesel shop and have them rebuilt reasonable in cost.
The 6.0 is a pain in the but to work on mainly because Ford shoved the thing up under the cowl then proceeded to ad 40,000 hoses, pipes, wires and assorted junk that wasn’t on previous engines. For many repairs on these things, the recommended procedure to get to the engine is to remove the truck’s cab. Removing a cab is a half a day’s job at best and then you have to put it back not to mention if you need to start it up and check for leaks, then find one and have to remove and replace the cab yet again. Basically this kind of garbage added hundreds of dollars in labor to the simplest repairs like changing glow plugs or pulling injectors to install new O ring seals. It went from a situation where you could take your 7.3 to the dealership and pick it up that evening, to a situation where you had to make an appointment 2 weeks in advance, then wait a week to get the truck back. If I’m taking my truck in, it’s because it’s broke, I don’t plan 3 weeks in advance on it breaking, and I need it back ASAP not next month. It wasn’t uncommon for my 6 liter to be in the shop 3 weeks to a month at a time although the first time I took their loaner Taurus through a strip job and back I did start getting it back a little faster.
The new gassers are no different. Where my 300 6 cylinder was easily servicable, my wife’s Expedition with the 4.6 V8 isn’t. Changing spark plugs has went from a $100 job to a $400 job and instead of a coil, distributor cap and rotor, there’s an ignition control module and 8 coil packs on it. Yeah, a computer will tell you, but before I didn’t need a computer to know my coil had gotten weak and I wasn’t getting a hot enough spark out of it. Today I have to know which one. Things as simple as the old $12 air filters are now $60 items because they are some odd ball fancy shape that’s unnecessary.
The long and short is it would take an idiot to own a 6.0 liter F250 past the 100,000 mile factory engine warranty knowing that a glowplug job that used to cost a couple hundred bucks and you could do it yourself for $70 will now cost you $1500 because the cab has to come off to get to the last 4 cylinders. The newer 6.4 version is actually designed for “Easy” cab removal. What they ought to have done is put the dang engine in front of the cowl so you could get to it and that kind of garbage wouldn’t be necessary. Then there’s that $2000 particulate filter on these newer trucks to reduce emmissions. The 6 liter Ford costs so much to work on that as I and a lot of other owners found out, Ford wasn’t willing to bear the cost of fixing them correctly under warranty, yet they expected us, the owners to pay their unreasonable maintenance prices post warranty. If Ford can’t/won’t pay to fix these things, what makes them think I can or will?
The long and short is, IMO, we have reached a point with new vehicles that when the service bills become the responsibility of the owner and not the manufacturer (warranty runs out) it’s about time to get rid of the hot potato before it burns your hands. When it gets to the point that every other month you are putting a couple grand into repairs and maintenance, it’s no longer economically viable to continue owning the vehicle. That’s sad, but it’s the way vehicles are and have been heading for some time.
The idea is to shutdown independent shops and drive all the business to the dealers. The problem is, to a big extent, the dealer mechanics aren’t significantly better than the independents, it’s just they have the tools necessary for these more complex machines that are designed to stop you, me, and Joe’s Garage from repairing our own.
A buddy of mine and I were discussing this in a round about way today. His wife had hit a turkey and knocked a headlight out. The headlight was in excess of $900 to replace. Anybody remember when there were 4 different headlights for every car on the road? There were round and rectangle light and in each there were high/low or single filament bulbs. They cost $10 or so. I remember having a boat that’s trolling motor stuck out in front enough that in some odd turn angles it would knock the tail light out of my truck. You could buy a new lense at Napa for $15 and a bulb for a couple dollars. Today the tail lights are LED light and the lens is a module thing that costs several hundred bucks.
Honestly, this kind of thing is making leasing more attractive by the year. If it’s going to come to the point that a tune up costs $3000, then IMO, we’ll very soon be dollars ahead to lease it, let them take car of repairs during the lease and give it back to them at the end of the lease and let it be someone else’s problem.
Skipper
Well, my perspective is as a tech who has been a predominantly “foreign car” mechanic. I’ve been offered a few jobs at a GM dealer and turned them down.
My experience has been with SAAB, VW, Fiat, Subaru, Honda, and Nissan multi-line dealers and everything else when running my own shop.
I can tell you that I have not seen one make any more problematic than another and if I had to pick one car that I absolutely love from a mechanic standpoint then it’s a Subaru hands down. Why? Because of high maintenance and labor intensive problems. What’s not to like when the flat rate time (spelled M-O-N-E-Y) is accruing?
(And I’m not a Subaru hater; I’ve owned 3 of them.)
My best paychecks were courtesy of Subaru and Nissan.
My point about auto complaints (even ones made to the BBB) is that 99% of the story behind the complaint is missing. You would be surprised at how many people will trash their vehicle at a young age and point the finger at the car maker/dealer/mechanic rather than themselves.
We had a guy with a 17k miles VW who had it towed in with 2 rods sticking through the side of the block. We had changed his oil at 5k miles so ergo, it was our fault. After much screaming and questioning our ancestry over several weeks he admitted he had not raised the hood since we had done the oil change. In a nutshell, the oil level had dropped dangerously low and that was it.
Wonder how this guy responded to a customer survey? (Got a million of those)
" If the number of returns is less than 60%, the results must be looked at critically."
CR would love it if they had a 60% return rate. Last numbers I saw showed a response rate closer to 10%…
One should use these publications as just ONE of the sources to buying a car. They all have problems. Neither of them gather enough data to be statistically accurate. CR for example has reported one car made by GM as having high marks…but the EXACT SAME CAR MADE IN THE SAME PLANT BY THE SAME WORKERS WITH THE SAME PARTS but under the Pontiac badge as having below average. That is statistically IMPOSSIBLE…UNLESS their sample rate is too small.
Magazines like Motor Trend…those are NOT tests. They are bought and paid for by the car manufacturer. The manufacturer with the MOST advertising in these magazines will ALWAYS get the car of the year reward…dating as far back as 1973(or 74) when the Chevy Vega was picked as MT’s car of the year. And…trust me the Vega was one of the WORSE vehicles ever made by ANY manufacturer. Then in the 80’s Renault was picked as car of the year…and the Isuzu pickup as truck of the year…All of these vehicles were among the WORSE cars ever made.
I gotta agree with Rocketman (I think it was rocketman), you need to write a book, ok. Something like “tales from a tech: America’s love/hate relationship with the automobile”…and you could make predictions on where the automobile is going, etc…anyway, I’d buy it. 
CR for example has reported one car made by GM as having high marks . . .“but the EXACT SAME CAR MADE IN THE SAME PLANT BY THE SAME WORKERS WITH THE SAME PARTS under under the Pontiac badge as having below average”.
My graduate work was in applied statistics and I had the same question some years back. I couldn’t understand why the Ford Maverick had much lower marks than the Mercury Comet when the two vehicles were the same cars except for nameplate. I wrote to CR and the answer I received was “this is the way the data came out”. Well, then, why did the data come out this way?" I finally found the answer while reading Popular Mechanics in the barber shop while I was waiting for a haircut. Popular Mechanics surveyed owners opinions of a particular car. In the article I read, PM had surveyed owners of the Ford and corresponing Mercury vehicle. In the demographics of the owners, the Mercury owners were 7 years older than the Ford owners for that particular pair of twins. My guess is that the same the was true for the Ford Maverick/Mercury Comet pair. The younger owners bought the Maverick and probably drove them harder and didn’t have the money to spend on maintenance. This age factor, IMHO, contaminates the results.
One of my vehicles is a 2006 Chevrolet Uplander which has a poor repair record according to CR. The only problem I have had was with the sending unit for the fuel gauge which was replaced under warranty. Maybe the reason that I’ve had good luck with this vehicle is that I am an old geezer, drive reasonably and follow the maintenance schedule.
Out of several million readers, that is still a lot. I just filled out my survey (on line now)and my only complaint is that on cars, they ask you to check whether there were any non-warranty problems in the various equipment categories, and what I spent. I conpleted the whole thing, including appliances, etc. in about 10 minutes. Agree that there should be an areas to describe the problems in detail.
However, their observed problems, especially on older cars, run exactly parallel to what my trusted mechanic tells me, even though he prefers Detroit Iron and drives a GMC truck.
I have all the April car issues going back to the early 1970s and it’s hard to imagine a Gremlin having a higher rating than a typical import at that time, but imports, except the Beetle perhaps, were not very good then. The Toyota Corolla blew head gaskets and rusted quickly and the Honda Civic was almost bio-degradble.
It certainly is a lot. The problem is that they’re also trying to measure a LOT of different models/years/options, so many that they end up with sample averages of 200-300 per model, which are not sufficient to determine very small differences even if the survey is well designed and executed.
And what Triedag subtly hints at is that when you have a survey with a low % of respondents, it immediately causes problems with your results. It doesn’t matter if you have a million responses if your response rate is 5%. The low response rate alone causes large errors.