OT: Most Reliable Cars
- Thread starter RU4Real
- Start date
It's not "laughable". I'm not a huge fan of CR, but this particular ranking isn't a survey, it's an aggregation of service data.
Can't believe VW isn't at the top of the list. I figured they'd reprogram consumer reports aggregation software.
Audi is a funny brand. As they've mainstreamed, they've gotten more reliable - my "first of breed" B7 A4, circa 2005, was a frequent flier to the service department. My wife's B8 A4 hasn't so seen the shop in 3 years, except for when Audi told us after a scheduled maintenance check that it had failed their oil consumption test and that they would be replacing the engine. I have a 3 week-old A3 that is the most buttoned-down piece of automotive hardware I've ever seen.
As a repeat Audi owner I am biased, but as far as reliability goes the Audi's of today are a far cry from 10+ years ago. They used to have serious reliability issues, not so anymore. They aren't cleaning up on bast car and best in class awards for nothing. Anyone who says the new Audis are not reliable is basing their opinion on outdated information.
The one on there that surprises me most is probably Mazda. Glad to see Buick there. Buick is a great American brand going back to the beginning of time. The name deserves a resurgence.
The one on there that surprises me most is probably Mazda. Glad to see Buick there. Buick is a great American brand going back to the beginning of time. The name deserves a resurgence.
Lemme try and talk you out of that.
The S3 is only marginally smaller. If you're under 6' tall, it fits like a glove. True, it's not available with a manual, but it has a DSG and is faster than the S4, for $10k less.
Is there a link for an explanation of what is included in this aggregation? The only link I found for the Consumer Reports list (released yesterday) is for a survey of subscribers and includes the following text:
Our 2015 auto survey, conducted last spring, gathered information from Consumer Reports subscribers who collectively owned or leased over 740,000 vehicles. From this data, we can predict how cars will hold up, and collectively, what the outlook is per brand...
Last edited:
The data needs to have factored in Timepoints/Age of Vehicle data or it really does not tell me much. For instance, what is the data breakdown for service calls at vehicle age timepoints......1 YR / 3 YRS / 5 YRS / 7 YRS?
Is there a link for an explanation of what is included in this aggregation? The only link I found for the Consumer Reports list (released yesterday) is a survey of subscribers and includes the following text:
Our 2015 auto survey, conducted last spring, gathered information from Consumer Reports subscribers who collectively owned or leased over 740,000 vehicles. From this data, we can predict how cars will hold up, and collectively, what the outlook is per brand...
No idea, CR data is notoriously nebulous - it's one of the reasons I'm not a huge fan.
The only reason this intrigues me is because this board has historically been filled with Honda owners citing CR as proof that Hondas are the best. cars. ever. Now that there's a CR survey that puts Honda in 8th place, suddenly Consumer Reports sucks and is stupid.
As several of us have been saying for years, people buy cars for different reasons. Toyotas are well-known for their reliability but they have horrific dynamics. On the other hand, you don't buy an Audi with the expectation that it's never going to break.
You make some good points to consider.
I don't mind relatively smaller cars (owned several WRX's and have considered a GTI as well), but lack of stick shift is still pretty much a deal-breaker to me. I've only owned manual-transmission vehicles to this point and love rowing my own gears/working the clutch, except in heavy stop-and-go traffic (thankfully don't deal with much of that daily).
So what choices do I have for a high-performance 4- or 6-cylinder under $50k that isn't a BMW: WRX/STi, GTI, current-gen S4, or upcoming Ford Focus/Mazdaspeed 6?
I used to head up one of the departments in a consumer products testing lab. Know lots of people from CR and I can tell you based on their feedback that CR's so called reliability data for cars is a joke. Once upon a time it was "reliable". This was when they measured reliability on actual components of a car that makes it run. Today, if a consumer complains to the dealer because their bluetooth connectivity on their phone disconnected, that's given as much weight as when your transmission breaks. You don't need CR to tell you which cars are reliable. See which old cars are still on the roads. Ask your friends. Ask your neighbors.
Anybody really think an Audi is more reliable than a Honda? Give me a break. Off the top of my head I know of at least 10 people with Hondas that have more than 200 thousand miles.
When it comes to reliability it's Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus and Subaru, and then there's everybody else.
I've been where you're at.
The only thing I can say is that the DSG gets you the best of all worlds. The shifts are, literally, as quick as an eye blink. You can use the paddles if you want, but otherwise just letting the car do its thing is really the way to go.
So far the only thing that I've found to be a real adjustment is adding power on the highway when the transmission is in 'D' (as opposed to Sport mode). It's programmed more for economy so at 70 mph and about 2200 rpm when you add some pedal it wants to stay in 6th gear and just let the torque work for you. If you ease into it a little more it kinda says, "Oh, you were serious about that?", drops into 3rd and by the time you look down at the speedometer it's passing 100. The only way you can get some kind of in-between response is to shift it yourself, or leave it in Sport mode.
Interesting. Having read about its components and concept, I give the DSG transmission credit for its technological wizardry and reportedly extremely quick shifts, which you're confirming now.
DSG is likely what I'd look to get once automakers do away entirely with manual transmissions or daily traffic gets too heavy for them. Or if I'm somehow forced to 'grow up' from them..
From CR 2015 Cars Buying Guide
Reliability indicators go from best to worse - red circle, half red, white circle, half black and black circle (worse).
Honda Accord - from 2009 to 2014, red circle for Engine, Major, Minor, Cooling, Trans. Black circle - brakes for 2011 and 2012.
Honda Pilot - from 2009 to 2015, red circles with a few half reds for Engine, Major, etc etc. Only black circle? 2009 for Paint/Trim (and here's the kicker - predicted reliability? White circle - i.e. average! With no engine issue whatsoever from years 2009 to present and the predicted reliability is average)
Honda Odyssey - same as Pilot, red circles/half reds for engine from 2009 to present. Only black circles are for the breaks for 2009, 2010 and 2011. Again, predicted reliability? White circle, i.e. average!
Now let's take a look at Audis ..........
Audi A4 - Black circles for 2009, 2010 and 2011 for Major and Minor Engine Issues. Predicted reliability? Half red!!! Go figure.
Audi A5 - same as A4 except no 2009 - model year started 2010. But 2011 and 2010 black circles for engine, major and minor.
Q5? - Same thing. Black circles for engine issues for 2011.
Basically, Audi's older than four years have engine issues. But yet their predicted reliabilities are better than average!
Since I'm looking at the same page, right above the Audis are the Acuras. Let's see, Acura MDX - all red circles from 2009 to present for any engine issues, trans, cooling, etc. But hey black circle for the Audio system for a 2009 though. Predicted reliability? White circle - i.e. Average.
I rest my case your honor ..........
Reliability indicators go from best to worse - red circle, half red, white circle, half black and black circle (worse).
Honda Accord - from 2009 to 2014, red circle for Engine, Major, Minor, Cooling, Trans. Black circle - brakes for 2011 and 2012.
Honda Pilot - from 2009 to 2015, red circles with a few half reds for Engine, Major, etc etc. Only black circle? 2009 for Paint/Trim (and here's the kicker - predicted reliability? White circle - i.e. average! With no engine issue whatsoever from years 2009 to present and the predicted reliability is average)
Honda Odyssey - same as Pilot, red circles/half reds for engine from 2009 to present. Only black circles are for the breaks for 2009, 2010 and 2011. Again, predicted reliability? White circle, i.e. average!
Now let's take a look at Audis ..........
Audi A4 - Black circles for 2009, 2010 and 2011 for Major and Minor Engine Issues. Predicted reliability? Half red!!! Go figure.
Audi A5 - same as A4 except no 2009 - model year started 2010. But 2011 and 2010 black circles for engine, major and minor.
Q5? - Same thing. Black circles for engine issues for 2011.
Basically, Audi's older than four years have engine issues. But yet their predicted reliabilities are better than average!
Since I'm looking at the same page, right above the Audis are the Acuras. Let's see, Acura MDX - all red circles from 2009 to present for any engine issues, trans, cooling, etc. But hey black circle for the Audio system for a 2009 though. Predicted reliability? White circle - i.e. Average.
I rest my case your honor ..........
If you're a seasoned WRX-owner, focused on manual performance for under $50K, why wouldn't you just get an STi for less than $40K (and, if you have the full $50K, use the extra ~$10K on tuning upgrades that will blow any stock car, twice its value, off the road?) Plus, the STi handles great in winter. In this regard, good luck, with any peoples' car in the snow (presuming it even starts (a related problem), regardless of gearbox.
I gave-up on VW/Audi's two decades ago given their almost inexplicable inability to adequately perform in even, rudimentary, upstate-NY winter conditions (when my father's classic '63 Corvette split-window coupe was able to make it out of the garage and up the driveway, and my brand-new GTI couldn't, it was obvious to me that even ancient American engineering was superior to that of the modern German when it came to practical reliability--God Bless America!).
There's a reason why everyone living north of NYC has long abandoned VW/Audi as viable means of winter transportation, first, in favor of Saabs and Volvos and more recently, in preference of Subarus and their knock-offs. In addition to other failings, VW products suck in the snow. If you don't have to drive in snow, don't worry. If you do, take-out something else during a bad weather test-drive. You'll switch, immediately.
Anyone else surprised by KIA.. especially in relation to Hyundai? Where the heck is Ford? Consumer Reports really does hate American products. I remember a salesman friend pointing out to me many years ago how some model of car was built jointly by Toyota and Chevy in a single plant in the USA. And consumer reports loved the Toyota branded one and hated the Chevy branded one.. same car.. same parts.. same assembly line. Maybe it was the Corolla and Nova?
just bought an S4 a few weeks ago...traded my 2006 TL for a 2016...very happy with it...
the S3 has the same engine as the S4 and is smaller--I know why I see a fair number of S3s out here in SF...
my boss has a S6...too bad that was a bit too much for me to spend...
the S3 has the same engine as the S4 and is smaller--I know why I see a fair number of S3s out here in SF...
my boss has a S6...too bad that was a bit too much for me to spend...
Subaru makes a damn good car. If you are the guy who likes to have a issue free vehicle for over a decade and put 200/300k on it, Subaru is your choice. Not to mention that they handle great in the winters around here.
The funny thing is that I'm now on my third WRX. The current one (a 2011) is modified with Cobb down pipe/exhaust, has upgraded shocks, is pro tuned to the point of being faster than any stock Sti, and handles very well in the snow with a set of Bridgestone Blizzaks. I love it, and never want to willingly get rid of it. My pops suggested an Sti next, but it's tough to justify paying extra money for just a bit more performance (most of which needs a track to truly be felt).
For when I start commuting regularly by car again, I'd want to try something different. An Audi S4 is certainly more luxurious, seems to have similarly high-performance, has AWD, and the current generation is stick-shift. Hence why I've given it some serious consideration..
Last edited:
I've never owned a Buick, but every GM car I've ever owned has fallen apart like the junk cars in cartoons. I could see a GM in the "initial quality" list because for the first 6 months a GM car is pretty good. The problem with GMs is that eventually they exceed 20,000 miles and begin to fall apart.
Look at the range on Ford. With 13 respondents, their survey responses were all over the board ranging from -255 to +50.Is there a link for an explanation of what is included in this aggregation? The only link I found for the Consumer Reports list (released yesterday) is for a survey of subscribers and includes the following text:
Our 2015 auto survey, conducted last spring, gathered information from Consumer Reports subscribers who collectively owned or leased over 740,000 vehicles. From this data, we can predict how cars will hold up, and collectively, what the outlook is per brand...
The second generation 2.0TFSI engine has a known issue with oil consumption. Volkswagen-Audi identified the problem and issued a TSB. All vehicles with that engine are subject to a detailed consumption check process and any engines which fail the test are either rebuilt (full lower assembly) or replaced.
That's why there are "Black circles for 2009, 2010 and 2011 for Major and Minor Engine Issues" yet the reliability remains solid. At no point were the engines, or the cars they were in, "unreliable". They simply consumed oil at a rate that did not meet the manufacturer's specifications.
So... if that's what you're going to "rest (your) case" on, then I submit that the Internet law school you didn't go to isn't a very good one.
We must take into account the # of Honda's sold vs Audi's sold. I'd also think Audi's are less often used as commuter cars, where high easy miles are racked up.
On the other hand I have a 1995 Honda Civic, with 197K and the thing runs like a champ.
I agree. I have a new Audi and the car is amazing. As they say, this is not your mom's audi. lol
Oh Audis are used as everyday vehicles. For all this talk of Hondas, I actually drive a Q7 to work everyday. It's four years old with 75k. I've had issues with the electrical, including the alternator crapping out but no major issues with the engine.
On the other hand, close friend of mine loves Euro cars and has an 2014 A4, 2013 Passat and a 2009 Saab. He also has a 2005 TSX. Guess which one never goes to the shop?
I am reading this thread because it is informative.FMI ,please tell me why you think that it is not a good thing?
Because in spite of what anyone may claim about "reliability", a car with 200,000 miles on it isn't as fundamentally sound as a car with 20,000 miles on it.
Also, old cars suck. They creak and groan and smell funny.
That's your answer? Not really a good one. I expected real reasons from you. Don't forget the economical factor in keeping a vehicle a long time.But thanks anyway for responding.
Regardless of rating from any organization,the car you get may turn out to be a bomb.
Car and driver voted the 1975 Mustang "The Car of the Year".
They were right,as mine lasted one year,catching fire twice.
Car and driver voted the 1975 Mustang "The Car of the Year".
They were right,as mine lasted one year,catching fire twice.
