DBSnappa wrote:
We've had this argument before Cavey. I think pretty much all manufacturers nowadays build their cars to broadly equal quality controls nowadays. Any mass produced car will undoubtedly have problems, that's a simple fact which I'll get back to in a moment.
Yes, there's a difference in the materials used on the premium brands, and VW is a classic example of this with their sliding scale modular cars across their various marques. The big difference is that if you drop >40k on a Merc/BMW/Jag/Audi and you get a problem, then the dealers will smoothly, rapidly and efficiently deal with it if the anecdotal evidence I've heard is true. It was probably true until a few years ago that you wouldn't get this treatment from the likes of Ford/Vauxhall/PSA/Fiat, but I've heard that they've improved considerably in the last couple of years.
The simple fact is this, there's a possibility that any new mass produced car you buy, regardless of who makes it, can have problems. It's how willing to look after you the dealer is transforms that from being a horror story to one of undying love for the brand. IIRC your first TT was a bit of a lemon but Audi bent over backwards to look after you, didn't they. You didn't get the same treatment from Ford with your cars.
The thing is, I've had experience of numerous Fords in the last decade that have been very reliable, Hondas that have been similar but no better, VWs that have ranged from fine to fucking awful, terrible Fiats (electrical problems obviously and the dealers were beyond fucking useless) and I have friends with Porsche's, Beemers, Audis, Mercs and Jags and I do enquire what the ownership experience is like. The "satisfaction" is wholly dependent on how the problems are sorted. Out of that lot the only one who had no problems was the Jag owner, the Beemer had numerous niggling problems which were fixed quickly, the Audi was fine with some teething issues and the Merc was an absolute dog which needed a new engine with 30k miles on the clock, had paintwork problems that required a respray(It was a CL600, which correct me if I'm wrong is a >£100k car). My friend's Porsche had a problem with a porous rear alloy leaking air all the time and Porsche failed to resolve it in the three years he owned the 997 S.
The thing is, I know this isn't empirical but all I'm suggesting is that all modern cars can be faulty. The dealers make a difference and hopefully if you're paying a premium for a premium brand, there's no guarantee that the car will be better built, but you WILL get better looked after.
Hell, one friend of mine went to another friend's 60th birthday and parked his 2 week old 5 series estate on their lawn and couldn't move it the following morning as it had sunk into the lawn. BMW sent a tow truck at no charge to get it off the lawn. Yes, it's a £50k car, but that's the kind of service I'd want if I was dropping that kind of money on a new car.
To be fair mate, I pretty much agree with all you've said there - of course, anything mechanical and/or electrical can, and will go wrong, and there's much to be said for how efficiently or otherwise a manufacturer or their dealer network sorts things out for you, or not. Ford are fucking terrible in this respect btw, at least in my experience of three separate vehicles spanning 20-odd years.
However, I totally disagree with Grim... when he says modern car manufacturers are basically all very similar in terms of reliability and build quality. If that were true, the likes of completely impartial surveys like Which? and JD Power would be finding this, but in fact they find the total opposite - there are wide differences between manufacturers offering similarly priced, same sector products e.g. Toyota and Honda vs. Citroen and Fiat/Alfa. That's not me making shit up, it's a fact, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with badge snobbery or owt like that either - these are similarly priced products as I've said. Besides, I've spent enough time hanging round various major car plants in my time across Europe and in the UK to know there's a huge yawning gulf between the best and worst production practices, age of machinery, accepted manufacturing tolerance and even just the work ethos of the staff, to know that such a claim is bollocks anyway.
In any event, it doesn't stack up to simple logic - with so many possible variables with something as complex as car design and manufacture, acorss massively diverse cultures, places and degrees of expertise/investment, or not, it just doesn't stand to reason that all would be 'broadly similar' anyway.
The fact of the matter is, there is no comparison at all between the likes of Ford/Fiat and Toyota. Whereas the former may well be more interesting to drive in some cases and designed more with driving pleasure in mind, the Toyota will have vastly improved quality, durability and reliability. The panels will fit better because the manufacturing tolerances are tighter, in turn because the plant and machinery they're produced on is newer and better, there's been more investment and R&D ploughed back into the business and its products and the (non unionised) workers are better motivated. Sames goes for the engine and all the other gubbins. Despite having no badge prestige to speak of and costing roughly the same amount of money. Why else would Toyota haave become the largest, most popular car brand in the world, from nowhere perhaps 30 years ago, and the likes of GM and Ford near bankrupt?
_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...
Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but
interestingly wrong