There's a lot to consider when buying a car. Ideally, a biodiesel unit
would be desirable because it doesn't contribute to greenhouse gasses
overall, and the fuel source is infinitely renewable. Walking or biking of
course are better for your body. However, if you're limited to a
conventional car, there are a number of things to consider--I'm only
reporting on one of those things here, and that's reliability.

When asked why I bought a Japanese car that I think is pretty mediocre in
most respects, I answer that I got a Toyota because one of the most reliable
brands, if not the most reliable.

Lately, people have been telling me that this may have been true years ago,
American cars have caught up to the Japanese cars in quality and
reliability.

To find out, I went to consumerreports.org and looked up the data myself.
I'm not sure how the rumor that American cars caught up to Japanese ones
started, but though American cars have improved their reliability
substantially, the Japanese have been improving theirs more.

Here is the report I wrote up on the data I found on consumerreports.org two
weeks ago.

The most surprising thing in my opinion, German cars have gone sharply
downhill from top position in reliability to bottom. Note that no German
cars made it into the most reliable list, though a Korean company (Hyundai)
did! Most interestingly IMO, Mercedes-Benz, which used to make the most
reliable autos of any reported on by CR, now has such poor reliability that
they do not have a single model reliable enough to be in CR's recommended
list! Apparently when they merged with Chrysler, they kept American auto
engineering and German corporate management, instead of the other way
around.


Here are the reliability reports for nine different types of vehicles.
American cars Have gotten better in relation to English, German and Swedish
vehicles, but nobody even comes close to the Japanese when it comes to
reliability.


Sedans:

In the top ten for reliability, all ten are Japanese. Two are
American-branded Japanese cars (Mercury Milan and Ford Fusion, which are
both made by Mazda as the Mazda 6 and changed only cosmetically for
Ford/Lincoln.)
In the bottom ten, most of them are average in reliability except three are
significantly below average: a Volvo, a Chevy and a Volkswagen.


Upscale Cars:

Only five models on this list are 40% or more more reliable than average.
They are all Japanese.
Only three models are 20% or more below average. One is Swedish, one is
German and one is English.

Luxury Cars:

Four are 40% or more better than average, three are Japanese and one is
Swedish.
Eleven are more than 20% worse than average. None of these are Japanese.
Two are American, seven are German and two are English.

Large Cars:

One is more than 40% better than average, it is Japanese. Interestingly,
one is almost 40% above average, and it is a Buick.
Three are more than 20% below average, all of them are American.

Small cars:

Eight are more than 40% above average, and two are right at 40% above
average. All of these are Japanese. In fact, the only non-Japanese car on
the list that's better than average at all is the Ford Focus.
Seven are 20% or more below average. Two are German, four are American and
surprise, one is Japanese.

Wagons & Hatchbacks:

Four are more than 40% above average. All are Japanese. One of the four is
an American-branded Japanese car (The Pontiac Vibe, which is a Toyota
Matrix.)
Four are 20% or more below average, two of those are American and two is
Swedish.

Small SUVs:

Nine are 40% or more above average, all of them are Japanese.
Five are 20% or more below average. Two are Japanese (Suzukis), one is
Korean, and two are American.

Medium SUVs:

Nine are 40% or more above average. One is American, the rest are Japanese.
Twenty-three are 20% or more below average. None of those 23 are Japanese.
Of those twenty-three, twelve are American, seven are German, two are
English.

Large SUVs:

Only one is 40% or more better than average, it's Japanese.
Five are more than 20% below average, Two of those are Japanese and three
are American.

Here's a ranking of the reliability.

Number of exceptionally reliable models per country:

Japan-------51
USA----------1
Sweden------1
Germany-----0
England------0
Korea-------0


The winner is clear.



Number of unreliable vehicles per country:

USA----------30
Germany-----18
Japan----------5
Sweden-------4
England-------2
Korea----------1


The USA seems to fare pretty badly in this, but remember, Germany has far
fewer models sold in the USA than US car companies do. Percentage-wise, I'm
guessing that Germany might have the same amount or even more unreliable
cars than the US.




Some more details from Consumer Reports in 2007:

(there are discrepancies between their stats and mine because I chose
different criteria for "most reliable" and "least reliable." My criteria
are stated under each vehicle category above)

____________________________
"Of the 47 vehicles on the most-reliable list, 39 were from Japanese
automakers. Six came from the domestic automakers, and one each came from
South Korea and Europe. Twenty-one Toyota vehicles earned top ratings. Honda
had 11 vehicles at the top of our ratings. Ford, General Motors, and Subaru
each had three, Mitsubishi and Nissan each had two, while Hyundai and Mini
each had one."

"Of the 45 least reliable models, 19 were European, 20 were from U.S.
manufacturers, 5 were Japanese, and 1 was South Korean. General Motors had
12, Mercedes-Benz had 8, Ford and Nissan each had 5, Chrysler and Volkswagen
each had 3, BMW and Jaguar each had 2, while Kia, Land Rover, Porsche, Saab,
and Volvo each had 1."
____________________________

And that's that. Japanese cars are, on average, far and away the most
reliable; American cars have been steadily improving but are still poor, and
German cars have gone sharply downhill from top position in the 1970s to the
bottom today.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:02:26 -0600, "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote:

>There's a lot to consider when buying a car. Ideally, a biodiesel unit
>would be desirable because it doesn't contribute to greenhouse gasses
>overall, and the fuel source is infinitely renewable. Walking or biking of
>course are better for your body. However, if you're limited to a
>conventional car, there are a number of things to consider--I'm only
>reporting on one of those things here, and that's reliability.
<snipped >
>And that's that. Japanese cars are, on average, far and away the most
>reliable; American cars have been steadily improving but are still poor, and
>German cars have gone sharply downhill from top position in the 1970s to the
>bottom today.

Thanks for a great write up. When you consider that people are paying
up to a half years salary for a medium priced car you can understand
why more and more of those people are choosing quality and reliability
over other factors. The Japanese companies seem to understand this
very well. Their products show it.

That Guy wrote:

<snip>

> Here's a ranking of the reliability.
>
> Number of exceptionally reliable models per country:
>
> Japan-------51
> USA----------1
> Sweden------1
> Germany-----0
> England------0
> Korea-------0
>
>
> The winner is clear.

I don't think that any of this is news for anyone here. The U.S.
automakers have been trying to push the idea that the era of their lower
reliability has passed, and they are now equal in reliability to their
Japanese competition. Few people have fallen for their propaganda.

What's interesting is than increasingly the so-called Japanese cars are
not only built in the U.S., with a high level of U.S. content, they also
are designed at U.S. design centers.

That Guy, 1/17/2007,5:02:26 PM, wrote:

> Two are
> American-branded Japanese cars (Mercury Milan and Ford Fusion, which
> are both made by Mazda as the Mazda 6 and changed only cosmetically
> for Ford/Lincoln.)

I didn't know the Fusion was a 626. It looks bigger than the Mazda.
No wonder it's received decent reviews.

"NickySantoro" <NickySantoro@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:62dtq2lefgjc874ms48prtc2k2o7gamj1f@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:02:26 -0600, "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote:
>
>>There's a lot to consider when buying a car. Ideally, a biodiesel unit
>>would be desirable because it doesn't contribute to greenhouse gasses
>>overall, and the fuel source is infinitely renewable. Walking or biking
>>of
>>course are better for your body. However, if you're limited to a
>>conventional car, there are a number of things to consider--I'm only
>>reporting on one of those things here, and that's reliability.
> <snipped >
>>And that's that. Japanese cars are, on average, far and away the most
>>reliable; American cars have been steadily improving but are still poor,
>>and
>>German cars have gone sharply downhill from top position in the 1970s to
>>the
>>bottom today.
>
> Thanks for a great write up. When you consider that people are paying
> up to a half years salary for a medium priced car you can understand
> why more and more of those people are choosing quality and reliability
> over other factors. The Japanese companies seem to understand this
> very well. Their products show it.

Thanks!!

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45aec047$0$69037$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> That Guy wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Here's a ranking of the reliability.
>>
>> Number of exceptionally reliable models per country:
>>
>> Japan-------51
>> USA----------1
>> Sweden------1
>> Germany-----0
>> England------0
>> Korea-------0
>>
>>
>> The winner is clear.
>
> I don't think that any of this is news for anyone here. The U.S.
> automakers have been trying to push the idea that the era of their lower
> reliability has passed, and they are now equal in reliability to their
> Japanese competition. Few people have fallen for their propaganda.
>
> What's interesting is than increasingly the so-called Japanese cars are
> not only built in the U.S., with a high level of U.S. content, they also
> are designed at U.S. design centers.

I never doubted that Americans could at any time start producing cars that
would rival if not best all others in the world in reliability or anything
else. I believe the problem has always been corporate attitude, but I don't
really know that much about it so I could be wrong.

"That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote in message
news:RKOdnQ5VkNlvATPYnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@giganews.com ...

> Here are the reliability reports for nine different types of vehicles.
> American cars Have gotten better in relation to English, German and
> Swedish
> vehicles, but nobody even comes close to the Japanese when it comes to
> reliability.

You should say this is the opinion of Consumer Reports Readers - hardly an
unbiased group. The glaring short comings of the CR surveys have been
enumerated countless times. It is as if you surveyed a group of White House
Aides and announced that based on your survey, GWB has a 90% approval
rating. True enough, but irrelevant if you are looking for facts. CR is an
entertaining read, but they are one of the worst sources of good unbiased
information on the planet. I don't doubt their honesty, but I do doubt
there data collection methods, at least as far as the reader survey is
concerned. Beside almost any time I buy something they recommend, I am
disappointed.

> Sedans:
>
> In the top ten for reliability, all ten are Japanese. Two are
> American-branded Japanese cars (Mercury Milan and Ford Fusion, which are
> both made by Mazda as the Mazda 6 and changed only cosmetically for
> Ford/Lincoln.)

Well you have this almost completely wrong. The Fusion and Milan are
definitely related to Mazda 6, but they are not American-branded Japanese
Cars. They are not built by Mazda at all (they are built in a Ford plant in
Mexico). The engines are Ford engines, not Mazda. The V-6 six speed
automatic transmission is a Japanese transmission, but not the same one as
used in the Mazda 6. The interior and exterior sheet metal is completely
different from the Mazda. The width, length, and wheelbase are all different
than the Mazda 6. The suspension is based on the same design as the Mazda 6
but the parts are not directly interchangeable with the Mazda 6. And
finally, you might as well claim the car is based on a Volvo or European
Ford since they all have models that share this basic architecture
(remember, Ford has a controlling interest in Mazda). So you probably ought
to say the Mazda 6 and Fusion share a Ford world car architecture.

From
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehi...180.A9208.html :

"Ford calls the unibody base upon which the Fusion is erected its "CD3
architecture" and its expanded riff on the Mazda6. At 190.2 inches long, the
Fusion is 3.4 inches longer than that Mazda and its 107.4-inch wheelbase is
2.1 inches longer. But the most significant dimensional difference is width,
where the 72.2-inch-wide Fusion spans 2.1 inches broader than the Mazda. The
structure is Ford's first to be completely conceived on a computer, and the
company claims it's significantly stiffer than the Mazda original.



"Compared to rest of its direct competition, the Fusion is almost exactly
their size. Honda's Accord, for instance, is 189.5 inches long, 71.5 inches
wide, and rides on a 107.9-inch wheelbase. In practical terms, these
differences are meaningless. The Fusion is, however, smaller than the
outgoing Taurus sedan that stretches out 197.6 inches long and 73.0 inches
wide and rides on a 108.5-inch wheelbase."


You might also review:

http://media.ford.com/products/press...422&make_id=92

One more thing - you might want to try one, some people think it is nicer
than a Camry and it costs significantly less when similarly equipped (see
http://www.fordvehicles.com/fusionch...SCHLG_20070104 )
But this is a Toyota newsgroup, so I can't imagine anyone here would even
consider a Ford.

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:w3Arh.15763$X72.11518@newsread3.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
>
> "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote in message
> news:RKOdnQ5VkNlvATPYnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
>> Here are the reliability reports for nine different types of vehicles.
>> American cars Have gotten better in relation to English, German and
>> Swedish
>> vehicles, but nobody even comes close to the Japanese when it comes to
>> reliability.
>
> You should say this is the opinion of Consumer Reports Readers - hardly an
> unbiased group. The glaring short comings of the CR surveys have been
> enumerated countless times. It is as if you surveyed a group of White
> House Aides and announced that based on your survey, GWB has a 90%
> approval rating. True enough, but irrelevant if you are looking for facts.
> CR is an entertaining read, but they are one of the worst sources of good
> unbiased information on the planet. I don't doubt their honesty, but I do
> doubt there data collection methods, at least as far as the reader survey
> is concerned. Beside almost any time I buy something they recommend, I am
> disappointed.
>
>> Sedans:
>>
>> In the top ten for reliability, all ten are Japanese. Two are
>> American-branded Japanese cars (Mercury Milan and Ford Fusion, which are
>> both made by Mazda as the Mazda 6 and changed only cosmetically for
>> Ford/Lincoln.)
>
> Well you have this almost completely wrong. The Fusion and Milan are
> definitely related to Mazda 6, but they are not American-branded Japanese
> Cars. They are not built by Mazda at all (they are built in a Ford plant
> in Mexico). The engines are Ford engines, not Mazda. The V-6 six speed
> automatic transmission is a Japanese transmission, but not the same one as
> used in the Mazda 6. The interior and exterior sheet metal is completely
> different from the Mazda. The width, length, and wheelbase are all
> different than the Mazda 6. The suspension is based on the same design as
> the Mazda 6 but the parts are not directly interchangeable with the Mazda
> 6. And finally, you might as well claim the car is based on a Volvo or
> European Ford since they all have models that share this basic
> architecture (remember, Ford has a controlling interest in Mazda). So you
> probably ought to say the Mazda 6 and Fusion share a Ford world car
> architecture.
>
> From
> http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehi...180.A9208.html :
>
> "Ford calls the unibody base upon which the Fusion is erected its "CD3
> architecture" and its expanded riff on the Mazda6. At 190.2 inches long,
> the Fusion is 3.4 inches longer than that Mazda and its 107.4-inch
> wheelbase is 2.1 inches longer. But the most significant dimensional
> difference is width, where the 72.2-inch-wide Fusion spans 2.1 inches
> broader than the Mazda. The structure is Ford's first to be completely
> conceived on a computer, and the company claims it's significantly stiffer
> than the Mazda original.
>
>
>
> "Compared to rest of its direct competition, the Fusion is almost exactly
> their size. Honda's Accord, for instance, is 189.5 inches long, 71.5
> inches wide, and rides on a 107.9-inch wheelbase. In practical terms,
> these differences are meaningless. The Fusion is, however, smaller than
> the outgoing Taurus sedan that stretches out 197.6 inches long and 73.0
> inches wide and rides on a 108.5-inch wheelbase."
>
>
> You might also review:
>
> http://media.ford.com/products/press...422&make_id=92
>
> One more thing - you might want to try one, some people think it is nicer
> than a Camry and it costs significantly less when similarly equipped (see
> http://www.fordvehicles.com/fusionch...SCHLG_20070104 )
> But this is a Toyota newsgroup, so I can't imagine anyone here would even
> consider a Ford.
>
> Ed
>

And a Mexican Ford is an "American" car and a Toyota made here isn't?
Thanks Mike Hunter.

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote:

>You should say this is the opinion of Consumer Reports Readers - hardly an
>unbiased group. The glaring short comings of the CR surveys have been
>enumerated countless times. It is as if you surveyed a group of White House
>Aides and announced that based on your survey, GWB has a 90% approval
>rating. True enough, but irrelevant if you are looking for facts. CR is an
>entertaining read, but they are one of the worst sources of good unbiased
>information on the planet. I don't doubt their honesty, but I do doubt
>there data collection methods, at least as far as the reader survey is
>concerned.
While I don't doubt your expertise on the subject, neither have I
reason to place any great faith therein. It is true that the survey's
population is limited to subscribers of ConsumerReports.org or of
Consumer Reports magazine. I confess to being more disposed toward
accepting the results of a survey of fellow Consumer Reports subscribers
who choose to respond than the results of a survey appearing in a
ad-supported publication -- Motor Trend say -- or in a publication that
works for the industry's advertisers and marketers -- JD Powers or
Edmunds, say. An admitted bias which has served me well since the
1950's.
Here is a link to CR's automobile reliability survey FAQ:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...%20reliability
Of course, you provide your own grain of salt!
--
HTH,
Derald
"Ask the man who owns one"

C. E. White wrote:

>CR is an
>entertaining read, but they are one of the worst sources of good unbiased
>information on the planet.

One of the *worst* on the planet? Really?

Idiot.