Is a car as reliable as how you treat it?
Discussion
I firmly believe this- to a certain extent ANY car of any make would be reliable if either myself or my dad owned it.
I have a possible theory on why peugeots and renaults and the likes are so unreliable. They are bought primarily by folk attracted by big discounts so are at the cheaper end of the market who then abuse them.
Most Clio 172's and Megane 225's don't tend to go wrong very often, possibly due to the fact they are owned by enthusiasts.
I reckon all cars these days are reliable, you just have to take care of them, just like you'd take care of yourself.
I have a possible theory on why peugeots and renaults and the likes are so unreliable. They are bought primarily by folk attracted by big discounts so are at the cheaper end of the market who then abuse them.
Most Clio 172's and Megane 225's don't tend to go wrong very often, possibly due to the fact they are owned by enthusiasts.
I reckon all cars these days are reliable, you just have to take care of them, just like you'd take care of yourself.
I firmly agree....
I had a Lexus GS300 with limited service history and many owners, and it was rubbish. My current car is an Alfa 166 V6 with reams of careful service history from people in the know, and its been excellent.
my old low mileage immaculate ford Mustang was complete crap, but the V6 variants were god-awful cars anyway.(the V8 was little better)
My dad is the second owner of his 03 pug 307. the previous owner being a friend of mine. It came to him after the 1st owners tragic death from cancer age 29 with 45,000 miles on the clock and a complete service history. its been faultless.
I had a Lexus GS300 with limited service history and many owners, and it was rubbish. My current car is an Alfa 166 V6 with reams of careful service history from people in the know, and its been excellent.
my old low mileage immaculate ford Mustang was complete crap, but the V6 variants were god-awful cars anyway.(the V8 was little better)
My dad is the second owner of his 03 pug 307. the previous owner being a friend of mine. It came to him after the 1st owners tragic death from cancer age 29 with 45,000 miles on the clock and a complete service history. its been faultless.
Edited by philoldsmobile on Tuesday 21st December 15:01
Largely I agree but it depends on what point in the vehicles life-cycle you join it and how evil previous owners have been.
I bought a van once, and looked after it well; checked oil and water regularly, never drove it hard etc. It had 100,000 miles on it when I bought it but it was by far the least reliable vehicle I've ever owned. No matter how much money I threw at it, it got worse and worse until I cut my losses and got rid.
I bought a van once, and looked after it well; checked oil and water regularly, never drove it hard etc. It had 100,000 miles on it when I bought it but it was by far the least reliable vehicle I've ever owned. No matter how much money I threw at it, it got worse and worse until I cut my losses and got rid.
I agree to some extent, but it also depends on if the car is fit for purpose. I used to have a 205 when 17. That car has a shed load of my love and care spent on it, but because I drove it like a GTI... every time I went for a service etc, it also needing something on the suspension doing, new clutch etc.
When I grew up a bit and got a Punto GT, which was more fit for purpose, I drove it exactly the same, but nothing like that ever went wrong with it, it was actually almost 100% reliable.
TVR Cerbera, no matter how I drove it, something always needed fixing, although other that the starter motor going one morning, the engine never gave me any issues.
When I grew up a bit and got a Punto GT, which was more fit for purpose, I drove it exactly the same, but nothing like that ever went wrong with it, it was actually almost 100% reliable.
TVR Cerbera, no matter how I drove it, something always needed fixing, although other that the starter motor going one morning, the engine never gave me any issues.
With Renault, it really is a case of luck of the draw. I had two as company cars, both were well over 130k on the clock with minimal trouble. The Clio only died once in the time I had it, and that was the gearbox dying at 99,500 - and that was due to my bad tempered abuse.
The Laguna was a bit electrically twitchy, but nothing ever totally failed, and it was 6 years old with 130k on it.
Neither car were serviced to the recommendations. Hell, the Laguna had the same oil between 70 and 105k. They have a 5k interval. I only changed the oil as the engine was squeaking. Fair enough it sounded like s
t once the oil was changed, but it still went. 
The Laguna was a bit electrically twitchy, but nothing ever totally failed, and it was 6 years old with 130k on it.
Neither car were serviced to the recommendations. Hell, the Laguna had the same oil between 70 and 105k. They have a 5k interval. I only changed the oil as the engine was squeaking. Fair enough it sounded like s
t once the oil was changed, but it still went. There is also the possibility of a small scale fault/design flaw at the manufacturing stage which may run fine for 2-3 years but could eventually lead to a large scale failure.
However if you take two identical brand new cars and give one to a careful owner who looks after it, services it properly etc... and one to a careless owner who never gets it serviced, drives it badly etc... I'm willing to bet on which one would last longer, so there is some merit to your argument.
However if you take two identical brand new cars and give one to a careful owner who looks after it, services it properly etc... and one to a careless owner who never gets it serviced, drives it badly etc... I'm willing to bet on which one would last longer, so there is some merit to your argument.
doogz said:
I have to disagree.
I owned a Clio 182. I was the second owner, the first being my cousin. She bought it because she thought it looked pretty, as far as i can tell.
I took the car on, on 36k miles, with it having a FSH, and having been driven fairly sedately by my older cousin all it's days.
By 40k miles, the brake servo and master cylinder needed replaced, the exhaust had rusted and broken in half (Renault wanted £550 for a replacement!) and both rear shocks had started leaking and needed replacing.
The car was maintained by the book, and was never really abused, or even used to it's potential very often.
Thoroughly un-impressed with it. Sorted it and got rid. I'm not a one make fan boy, nor am i going to say "All Renault's are unreliable" since that's just not true.
But mine was, so not all cars are as reliable as you treat them.
You generally can't compensate for sI owned a Clio 182. I was the second owner, the first being my cousin. She bought it because she thought it looked pretty, as far as i can tell.
I took the car on, on 36k miles, with it having a FSH, and having been driven fairly sedately by my older cousin all it's days.
By 40k miles, the brake servo and master cylinder needed replaced, the exhaust had rusted and broken in half (Renault wanted £550 for a replacement!) and both rear shocks had started leaking and needed replacing.
The car was maintained by the book, and was never really abused, or even used to it's potential very often.
Thoroughly un-impressed with it. Sorted it and got rid. I'm not a one make fan boy, nor am i going to say "All Renault's are unreliable" since that's just not true.
But mine was, so not all cars are as reliable as you treat them.
tty build quality / manufacturing flaws through a basic maintenance regime though. :P Anybody in engineering will tell you preventative maintenance is paramount and WILL reduce the potential for failure, but as I said, things will go wrong - just the nature of the beast lol!doogz said:
I have to disagree.
I owned a Clio 182. I was the second owner, the first being my cousin. She bought it because she thought it looked pretty, as far as i can tell.
I took the car on, on 36k miles, with it having a FSH, and having been driven fairly sedately by my older cousin all it's days.
By 40k miles, the brake servo and master cylinder needed replaced, the exhaust had rusted and broken in half (Renault wanted £550 for a replacement!) and both rear shocks had started leaking and needed replacing.
The car was maintained by the book, and was never really abused, or even used to it's potential very often.
Thoroughly un-impressed with it. Sorted it and got rid. I'm not a one make fan boy, nor am i going to say "All Renault's are unreliable" since that's just not true.
But mine was, so not all cars are as reliable as you treat them.
40k out of an exhaust is not that bad imo. That is a known problem on them though. I owned a Clio 182. I was the second owner, the first being my cousin. She bought it because she thought it looked pretty, as far as i can tell.
I took the car on, on 36k miles, with it having a FSH, and having been driven fairly sedately by my older cousin all it's days.
By 40k miles, the brake servo and master cylinder needed replaced, the exhaust had rusted and broken in half (Renault wanted £550 for a replacement!) and both rear shocks had started leaking and needed replacing.
The car was maintained by the book, and was never really abused, or even used to it's potential very often.
Thoroughly un-impressed with it. Sorted it and got rid. I'm not a one make fan boy, nor am i going to say "All Renault's are unreliable" since that's just not true.
But mine was, so not all cars are as reliable as you treat them.
My 172 was remarkably reliable. It got driven very hard regularly for 40k (having been bought on 33k) and never really missed a beat. Bearing in the gearbox did fail shortly before I sold it but all things considered that wasn't bad.
I did ensure it was well looked after in my ownership which I hope helped. Who knows though? In theory it should but some cars just keep going forever despite poor treatment.
The point I'm trying to get across, in relation to the OP's question, is that how you maintain a car will have a bearing on it's reliability.
I recognise this doesn't apply in all cases (for example your Clio, or bad design as you mentioned with the K series engine), but I would imagine it would apply the majority of the time, so, in a very long and roundabout fashion, I would say that yes, a car is (in most cases) as reliable as you treat it.
Phew!
I recognise this doesn't apply in all cases (for example your Clio, or bad design as you mentioned with the K series engine), but I would imagine it would apply the majority of the time, so, in a very long and roundabout fashion, I would say that yes, a car is (in most cases) as reliable as you treat it.
Phew!
doogz said:
Leicesterdave said:
A couple of well know minor faults still translates into reliable in my world.
What is a minor fault in your world?HG failing?
Gearbox going bang?
Exhaust falling off every 30k miles or so?
One of the most reliable cars I had was a Jeep Cherokee. Two year and 22000 miles and I didn't spend a penny on servicing apart from one replacement part required to pass an MOT. I pretty much tried to drive the thing into the ground. I have spent loads of cash on other cars maintenance and they have let me down badly; so I haven't experienced this correlation.
doogz said:
Camaro91 said:
The point I'm trying to get across, in relation to the OP's question, is that how you maintain a car will have a bearing on it's reliability.
I recognise this doesn't apply in all cases (for example your Clio, or bad design as you mentioned with the K series engine), but I would imagine it would apply the majority of the time, so, in a very long and roundabout fashion, I would say that yes, a car is (in most cases) as reliable as you treat it.
Phew!
So in conclusion, the answer to the OP is...I recognise this doesn't apply in all cases (for example your Clio, or bad design as you mentioned with the K series engine), but I would imagine it would apply the majority of the time, so, in a very long and roundabout fashion, I would say that yes, a car is (in most cases) as reliable as you treat it.
Phew!
Sometimes.
We rule.
The only things I think this would apply to is the engine internally (regular oil etc), and the gearbox and clutch. Everything else will fail when then want too and are not parts you would change regularly like the starter motor, alternator, shocks etc no matter how much you car about your car.
FSH basically means regular oil changes, which when you think about it means very little in terms of the whole car.
FSH basically means regular oil changes, which when you think about it means very little in terms of the whole car.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff