Because the average is based on all cars sold? And the upper few sell quite a lot, compared to those below?

I agree. But I guess since a great number of people are crazy in debt (national problem) lease's look so attractive... so I guess, 3 years is the new long-term.

Personally, I paid my car off and she is going on 5 years old and 50,000 miles. When people ask me, my response is... "she's still young". I like not having a car payment and feeling the only burden my car has on my financial success is gas, insurance ($600 a year isn't bad) and that rare event called repairs.

Having a hard time believing VW is that bad...
They might not be in the top league, but still...

-t

Read the article.

So are you saying BMW is average? They scored below GM.

In Most cases I have seen, VW has scored very low.

They aren't the VW they used to be.

Back in the 80s, I would have bought one. Now, no way.

RSX compares pretty favorably to the Celica in price, IMO. But I haven't looked that closely at the Celica, it's too ugly looking

Everyone I know with a VW seemingly always has to get their car repaired. On top of that, the parts aren't cheap.

Keep in mind that industrywide quality is much better now than it was in the '80s. The lowest-scoring brand now probably has better quality than the highest-scoring brand back then.

True, but I think the Celica is overpriced too.

I love Volkswagens. But I can't justify the price of one.

I owned several of them (mostly GTis) in the 80's and 90's - and nearly all of them experienced the same failures. I figured it was just part of the low cost of ownership.

Without ever improving their quality, VW decided in about 1985 (end of 1st gen Golf/Rabbit) that they would become a 'premium' car maker. Nevermind the fact that VW has historically been known to only offer efficient affordable cars. Nevermind the fact that Audi was already their 'upmarket' marque - and not doing too well.

I'm sorry, but wishing something were so doesn't make it so. Volkswagen was not and still is not competitive in the market segment they chose to compete in.

If you can't beat *Suzuki* in longterm quality - you are NOT a quality car manufacturer in any sense of the term.

I'v owned 4 Subarus and literally never had to put a dime into them other than preventative maintanince(how the hell do you spell that). I'm drooling over the new Subaru Legacy GTs too.

So they say Hyundais are among the best in initial quality but far worse than average after three years?

I also agree three years is far too short a time period, I would think 5 years would be much better than three. Whats the average car going to have on it for mileage in three years, only 40-50,000 miles? I'd say they need to start counting the problems at 100,000 miles--thats where you separate the men from the boys. My brother's work vehicle was a Taurus and he had almost no problems with it--until it blew an engine at 70,000 miles!

Also, nobody has talked about how bad mercedes has gone in the tank. I wonder if these are self-reported "problems" or what. Perhaps different car owners have different standards, I would love to see a copy of the survey.

I'm glad this thread got started. Gives me an excuse to post a pic of my new set of wheels.



2001 Honda Accord EX. Just got it last night. My very first car that I can call mine.

Anyway, not surprised to see Toyotas and Hondas top the list. My entire life, all I've had were those two makes. They last forever. And ever. And they still keep going. I was just driving my dad's 1993 Civic and realized that I was driving a 12 year old car. And it runs great. Fantastic gas mileage, great manual shifter, and the only thing it really needs is a little engine work. And this was a low-end DX. Great, great cars.

Mercedes began offering more affordable models (c-series) and selling the popular (US built) M-series SUV. I'm guessing that the US-built vehicles are of a lower quality than the same German-built models. It hurts to admit that, tho. I'll also guess that the C-series models, while affordable, aren't built to the high standards of Mercedes' flagship models. I see a hundred ($20,000) C230's for every ($50,000) E-something I see.

If all we could buy was E-class German-built Benzes, I'm sure the longterm reliability score would be much improved.

The C-Series do seem to have problems, my mother leased one and had all sorts of issues with hers. I'm just a fountain of anecdotal information

Why? I had always thought that they were of mediocre build-quality world-wide, but I don't know for sure.

Since I don't own a E-class Benz, or any other Benz I can't speak from experience.

I reckon it's just wishful thinking, then. If Mercedes can't deliver a reliable, high-quality product for fifty thousand dollars...then who can? Toyota? Somebody kill me please.

Your post would make sense if freaking Chevys and Fords and GMCs, etc weren't smoking Mercedes in the quality department and they're cheaper and built in America.

I suspect their slide has more to do with the Chrysler half of the equation sucking the life out of the Mercedes half.

So does Toyota's ranking include the Lexus line? Same question for Acura/Honda, Lincoln/Ford, etc.

It appears that they lumped 'em together under one nameplate.

None of the upmarket japanese makes are shown.

Toyota/Lexus

Nissan/Infiniti

Honda/Acura

Chrysler/Daimler