Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!

1138013811383138513861606

Comments

  • texasestexases Posts: 5,511
    Consumer Reports, summarized by brand.

    And Andre, you're absolutely right, all makers are much better than they did, say, 20 years ago. The bar keeps being raised.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Based only on subscribers to the magazine. ;)

    OK, I'll stop. ;)
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Not to mention poor Hyundai...looks like so many get junked 9 years out that none of 'em make it to 10!

    Yeah, what's up with that?
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,170
    if the data is from CR, it probably means that they had insufficient data for models that old.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • texasestexases Posts: 5,511
    I think you're right. That was an older version of the graph, here's the newest I found, same basic trends:
    image

    I always get a kick out of how folks dismiss the thousands of data points that go into the plot, as if there is some mass hysteria present in CR subscribers...
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    The chart really shows that most of the companies are really clustered very close near the top, for ten year old cars.

    Over on the GM forum we'd discussed some how in a recent CR the 2011 Nissan Juke shows "much worse than average" while the 2012 shows "much better than average". Even CR seems a tad sheepish about it, only saying in the text that 'reliability should be average'. I, frankly, have a little trouble believing that there is truly that much difference in the two consecutive model years, even knowing that the 2011 was the first model year for the Juke. In my forty years of looking at CR, I've never seen anything that dramatic before. But I won't get into that more here, since it's the classic car forum and I'd be hard-pressed to identify any ten-year-old car as a 'classic'!
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,511
    edited February 2013
    Don't confuse small sample statistical variation from one model in one year to another with large sample statistics, brand vs. brand.

    And CR did a review of new vs. existing models, found that new models were more trouble-prone, consistent with your Juke observation...

    I bring this up because, as much as GM, etc, have improved from the dark days of the 80s, they're still playing catch up.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    Small sample variation? The two model years vary by four of CR's reliability levels.

    Upon re-reading your post, I get what you're saying.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited February 2013
    The difference between the very best and the very worst is less than 1 problem per car. Lets keep that in mind, also seems like all cars are better, and fairly reliable, really.

    So Hyundai's implode right after the warranty is up. ;)

    We should define any 10+ year old as a survivor, and thus a classic.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 1,744
    Did you ever drive one when they were new?

    It was a much nicer driving car off the showroom floor than the Pinto and light-years ahead of just about any economy import. We owned a pair of Volvo 144s in the mid-'70s that drove OK - the '73 was far better trimmed than the '68 - but were reliability disasters. Dad would get rental cars when they were in the shop, so I drove a lot of rentals. One week we got a '74 or '75 Vega hatchback and I drive it for a week. It was a nice car. Sporty, like a shrunken Camaro. I liked driving it a lot better than the Volvo.

    Long term quality issues were absolutely true. But I can see why they sold so well. They were great at making a good impression.

    2011 Buick Regal Turbo, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,167
    "...nearly killed them."

    I'd leave the "nearly" out, since the new GM is essentially a new company.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    We should define any 10+ year old as a survivor, and thus a classic.

    Anyone else here like to comment on this comment? ;)
  • jljacjljac Posts: 649
    Ten years sets the bar pretty low for a "survivor" car. I consider a ten-year old car to be almost new, just old enough to change the spark plugs. I think a survivor car should be at least 20 years old and/or from the 20th century.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 27,671
    I think he was only referring to ten yr old Hyundais. ;)

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,416
    yeah I drove them new or nearly new, when I was a young 'un working on cars. That's where my "cheap and nasty" remark came from. I was, even at that time, a foreign car buff (except for a few domestics I really liked), and let's just say Vega was certainly built to a price--cheesy interior, very raspy, vibrating engine, bizarre gear rations.

    I liked the styling though, and I can see why people would make rods out of them---what they are doing essentially is getting rid of the two worst parts---the powertrain and the interior.

    Given what Detroit produced in the 60s, the car was junk, really.

    RELIABILITY---well, at least you can say that GM has "matched the biggest imports in reliability"---if you compare it to VW! :P

    MODERATOR

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    My comment was tongue-in-cheek but the thread is funny so let's just go with it!
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,167
    I'd say mileage is as important, or nearly so, as age. So, to me, a 10 year old car with, say, >200,000 miles that's still usable could be considered a survivor, while one with 50,000 isn't. I suppose at some point, say after 25 years, even a low mileage car could be considered a susvivor. It's subjective, as the responses to your question suggest. To me, though, survivor equates to some combination of age and mileage.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    I think the Custom Interior package on a Vega made all the difference in the world...like the difference between a Scotsman and a Golden Hawk or a Biscayne and a Caprice. Took you from hard plastic door panels and acres of black plastic on the panel, and woven vinyl seats, to soft vinyl door panels with vinyl pockets, Camaro bucket seats in good quality cloth or leather-like vinyl, and add the GT and you got full instrumentation, in a woodgrain panel and a fat steering wheel.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    I love the 'survivor' (or HPOC) class at car shows like the huge AACA show at Hershey. They're only origihal once.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,509
    I'd put maybe a 20-25 year cutoff for "survivor" status, regardless of mileage. Then the car is old enough to have required some luck in staying together, even if in a garage most of the time.

    I too like the preserved original cars, especially with original paint and interior.
Sign In or Register to comment.