Most and least reliable car brands revealed

It seems to be the OP, and general opinion has moved from "Premium Cars are worse quality than cheaper cars" To "Land rover cars are worse quality than Toyota cars"

Which is good, because unlike the original post, the second thing actually makes sense.
 
SmallTown said:
Glad you changed the tune. It's still utter, utter rubbish though.
Click to expand...
I haven't changed my tune. I just copied and pasted what I'd already stated :LOL:

Ironops said:
That’s rubbish - most wouldn’t agree.

Cheaper brands might be better value but certainly not better quality
Click to expand...
It's not really up for debate. The evidence is there to say that some of the more reasonably priced brands are indeed better quality. By better quality I mean they work as they should without breaking or needing to be fixed regularly. I see where some people might perceive quality in a different way, i.e. leather seating or the interior, etc. But the quality of a car has to be linked to its functionality and how well it works for its intended purpose.
 
JustTheGent said:
I haven't changed my tune. I just copied and pasted what I'd already stated :LOL:


It's not really up for debate. The evidence is there to say that some of the more reasonably priced brands are indeed better quality. By better quality I mean they work as they should without breaking or needing to be fixed regularly. I see where some people might perceive quality in a different way, i.e. leather seating or the interior, etc. But the quality of a car has to be linked to its functionality and how well it works for its intended purpose.
Click to expand...
It surely IS up for debate. You have asserted that most people think some cheaper cars are better then premium cars. Not ONE person has agreed with this assertion so far. It honestly sounds ridiculous what you are saying.
 
Last edited:
SmallTown said:
It seems to be the OP, and general opinion has moved from "Premium Cars are worse quality than cheaper cars" To "Land rover cars are worse quality than Toyota cars"

Which is good, because unlike the original post, the second thing actually makes sense.
Click to expand...
I've owned 2.land rovers, again no issues but I would agree my Toyota is amazing in terms of reliability but no where near as nice to drive.
 
Surely people who have had bad experiences are more likely to complain?

I wouldn’t swap my 3 Series GT for anything, it’s the best car I’ve ever owned. Done 50,000 miles since getting it and bought one set of tyres. It’s not a looker but It’s perfect for my fishing and I’m 6’6” so need the leg room. My son is 3 and already up to my hip, it’s the only car I know where I can have the seat all the way back and he still has leg room in his car seat. I had a Alfa before that was ridiculous fun but so unreliable, I was able to do most the work myself otherwise it would of cost a fortune.
 
Yes, the 3 series GTs are nice vehicles. A neighbour has one and he said it's very practical compared to his previous similar type cars.

Obviously everyone has their own opinions and may like a particular thing. The big brands don't spend millions on advertising and marketing for nothing. Rolex are one of the world's greatest for selling an inferior product and achieving an inflated price. But let's take a look at some further evidence by way of the driver power survey (see underneath). The only premium brand to appear highly is once again Lexus. And the top positions are dominated by brands such as Mazda, Skoda and Toyota. These are the same brands that generally perform better than the established premium brands in reliability studies, so the evidence is certainly concrete. There's a correlation and it's backed up. But if one prefers anecdotes, take note of a Peugeot 3008 Mk2 owner who was interviewed as part of the survey; they say “Overall build quality is better than that of cars I’ve owned from various brands that are supposedly more premium.” Now I'm not saying Peugeot's are of greater quality than say a BMW or Audi because of that. It's just what someone thinks. We can all think different things, but it's wise to stick to the best evidence available.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/driver-power/95238/best-cars-to-own-driver-power-results
 
Last edited:
What is a Rolex inferior too?

Sorry mate it really does sound like you are trying to drive down the importance of making a quality product because you want them and can't afford them. Your original post sounded like that and you're working hard to cement this idea.
 
SmallTown said:
What is a Rolex inferior too?

Sorry mate it really does sound like you are trying to drive down the importance of making a quality product because you want them and can't afford them. Your original post sounded like that and you're working hard to cement this idea.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows that the OP is a discerning individual who probably wears a Patek Philippe or a A. Lange & Söhne, to go with his Margaret Howell clothes and fit nicely with his vintage Porsche that he drives home to meet his Dr friend.

Rolex, BMW's and Prada are beneath him, for those less cultured sorts, the type of person who buys a Peloton no doubt.
 
SmallTown said:
Sounds like someones jealous of people who can afford premium brands! It's always a skewed thing because premium cars simply have more things on them to go wrong.
Click to expand...
Last time I compared equipment levels in a Toyota against an Audi there was more tech in the Toyota as standard and fully loaded there was very little difference. Climate, touch screen, head up, leccy windows, seats and mirrors, pan roof, etc. I would struggle to think of a toy that isn't available on a Toyota c.f. an Audi. Difference was that the Toyota stuff would be less likely to go wrong. Same with Mercs and Beemers, same toys just more expensive and less reliable.

The price differential is not the tech it is generally materials. Nicer leather, better plastics etc. the cabin is a nicer place to be.

Sounds like someone bought a nice car and is astonished that braggadocio isn't cool...
 
Muttley said:
Last time I compared equipment levels in a Toyota against an Audi there was more tech in the Toyota as standard and fully loaded there was very little difference. Climate, touch screen, head up, leccy windows, seats and mirrors, pan roof, etc. I would struggle to think of a toy that isn't available on a Toyota c.f. an Audi. Difference was that the Toyota stuff would be less likely to go wrong. Same with Mercs and Beemers, same toys just more expensive and less reliable.

The price differential is not the tech it is generally materials. Nicer leather, better plastics etc. the cabin is a nicer place to be.

Sounds like someone bought a nice car and is astonished that braggadocio isn't cool...
Click to expand...
Sounds proofing too. Nicer cars have better sound proofing
Also it's a question of what type of tech you really want and or need. For example the land Rover Discovery I had had amazing off-road capabilities. Yet the one I had which was new at the time did not have a comparatively decent screen for the navigation Etc
So I would struggle to get to the beach at saltburn but once I was at saltburn I have no problems driving up and down the bank and on the beach (hypothetically of course because I live in the US)
 
Been happy with most of the modern cars I've owned or leased, including premium brands. But last time out I got a Honda CRV with a higher spec instead of going for the premium alternative. I've not noticed any real difference in the quality of materials, but the price of servicing and parts seem a lot less, and it has been a fabulous tool for moving the offspring around the country for work and university.

I wouldn't knock the premium brands as I've had some cracking motors, but I think decent Japanese tech is as good as the German variety.
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
Everyone knows that the OP is a discerning individual who probably wears a Patek Philippe or a A. Lange & Söhne, to go with his Margaret Howell clothes and fit nicely with his vintage Porsche that he drives home to meet his Dr friend.

Rolex, BMW's and Prada are beneath him, for those less cultured sorts, the type of person who buys a Peloton no doubt.
Click to expand...
:LOL:
SmallTown said:
What is a Rolex inferior too?
Click to expand...
Rolex are a basic common watch which is mass produced. People buy them because of the brand - not because of the actual watches. I have two watches, a Grand Seiko which I picked up from a second hand store and a Journe which I was given. The GS is quite sporty and the Journe a bit more dressy but I wear it as a casual piece as it has a blue dial.
 
JustTheGent said:
:LOL:

Rolex are a basic common watch which is mass produced. People buy them because of the brand - not because of the actual watches. I have two watches, a Grand Seiko which I picked up from a second hand store and a Journe which I was given. The GS is quite sporty and the Journe a bit more dressy but I wear it as a casual piece as it has a blue dial.
Click to expand...
They aren't though
 
Muttley said:
Last time I compared equipment levels in a Toyota against an Audi there was more tech in the Toyota as standard and fully loaded there was very little difference. Climate, touch screen, head up, leccy windows, seats and mirrors, pan roof, etc. I would struggle to think of a toy that isn't available on a Toyota c.f. an Audi. Difference was that the Toyota stuff would be less likely to go wrong. Same with Mercs and Beemers, same toys just more expensive and less reliable.

The price differential is not the tech it is generally materials. Nicer leather, better plastics etc. the cabin is a nicer place to be.

Sounds like someone bought a nice car and is astonished that braggadocio isn't cool...
Click to expand...
Oh, you didn't read the but where i admitted the quality on my new car was lacking. Something I know beforehand. Also something I knew I'd noticed because my last 3 cars have all been from the big German manufacturers and whether people who don't own them want to deny it or not, you can definitely feel the difference between a premium brand and a run of the mill vehicle. Still if the OP is happy to think they are worse because he drives an insignia or whatever then fair play to him. He's happy. Doesn't make him correct though
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
Everyone knows that the OP is a discerning individual who probably wears a Patek Philippe or a A. Lange & Söhne, to go with his Margaret Howell clothes and fit nicely with his vintage Porsche that he drives home to meet his Dr friend.

Rolex, BMW's and Prada are beneath him, for those less cultured sorts, the type of person who buys a Peloton no doubt.
Click to expand...
I'm a Richard Mille man myself but, to each their own!
 
The_Lizards_Jumpers said:
Richard Mille are by and large hideous, designed pretty much with the sole intention of rappers and sports stars to show how much money they have.
Click to expand...
I actually like them. Probably due to their connection with motorsports and Le Mans. Yeah, they are not subtle though, I have a Baume and Mercier for that!

Actually bringing the thread back round, When I picked up my previous Merc I was in the showroom and someone was in there with a RM watch. Looked to me like the White RM-055 Bubba Watson. It blew my mind to think that watch was more expensive than probably all of the cars in the place (there were no AMG-GTs, probably one S Class that was a similar price)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top