Repair-It

http://www3.forbes.com/business/10-cars ... m=Referral

How about all of them, except for certain, terrible design atrocities?

But you may be wondering what their criteria was.

To determine which would be the most likely new vehicles to reach 250,000 miles and beyond, we combed the predicted reliability ratings for new vehicles published annually by Consumer Reports, based on subscriber surveys received for over 1 million vehicles from the 2005 through 2014 model years. Vehicles are ranked according to 17 potential problem areas, ranging from major components like the engine, transmission and brakes, to issues with paint, trim and interior accessories.

We further winnowed down the highest-ranked cars according to which models Consumer Reports specifically recommends for a combination of high marks in their own extensive road tests, as well as owner satisfaction surveys conducted among the publication’s subscribers and other data.

Eh, kinda weak. Here we go.

Toyota Sienna
Lexus RX 350 / 450h
Mazda Mazda6
Volkswagen Passat
Audi Allroad
Subaru Forester
Toyota Prius / Plug-In Prius
Lexus ES 350 / 450h
Toyota Camry / Camry Hybrid
Scion xB

And the list is meaningless. Yes, I am annoyed that a VW and Audi product is on the list and zero American brands.

Also my Caprice is not on this list. Because it is on another list: "Cars that can run for over 300,000 miles."

Isn't the Audi Allroad the world standard for unreliability?

It still is. It used to be, too. /MitchHedberg

Yeah, the old one was...

Scion/Toyota/Lexus have 6 of the 10. Which is good on them. They get shunned for not being fun to drive, but they do excel at what they aspire for.

Did they not look at Trucks/SUVs, the Tahoe/Avalanche/Silverado and GMC variants should have gotten a spot. What about the Camaro?

Also surprised to see the 6 and not the 3.

I think what you really should be surprised by is no Corolla.

I think people may not even have a complete list of their own requirements. For example, "I need to have the most reliable car possible." I would argue that reliability is actually derived from several possible, real requirements, such as:
- "I cannot break down because of safety/my job/I don't have time to deal with it" (ok, reliability probably applies here)
- "I want low operational costs" (reliability isn't even a factor if the car is under warranty, and a less reliable but cheap to purchase and run vehicle may still have overall low operational costs)
- "I want to enjoy the car, and breaking down is not enjoyable." (true, but you'd have to have had some pretty lousy cars to be even thinking about this)

Reliability isn't unimportant, but I'd rather own and drive an E38 7-series than a Corolla (it'll be great fun to reevaluate this statement if I get one). So it's important to be clear about what really matters, and weighting those things appropriately. It should go without saying that everyone is different here. But people also need to be more honest about their preferences.

I would wager that the major categories of characteristics are:
- Total cost of ownership (purchase price, operational cost and possibly resale, all rolled into one)
- Performance (self explanatory)
- Utility (does it do what you need, which may not be "I need to haul my family" but "I need to go fast on weekend track days")
- Emotional attachment (this could come from almost any source, from pure aesthetics, exhaust note, the badge, or any of the above - or, there IS no emotional attachment)

There is a lot to write about as far as people misplacing one requirement for another. What I mean by that is focusing on one thing as the solution to what they haven't identified as the actual requirement. Reliability is a derived requirement to address TCO and possibly emotional attachment (i.e. "this old-ass BMW makes me nervous every time I turn the key"). But I see no reason to jump to that or sort by reliability when choosing a car.

Kind of goes back to the old argument...you want to go out and spend $30k on a new hybrid. Ok, why? For fuel economy? Or because of perceived cheap operating expenses? What about spending $30k to do so? That factors in. So does the resale when you're done with it.

More on topic, the relative ease that a car may run to 250k probably doesn't even really matter to the vast, vast majority of Americans who buy cars.

For me, breaking down or having unscheduled repairs is inconvenient no matter who is paying for it. In fact, having a car break down while under warranty is sometimes less convenient because I need to go out of my way to go to a dealer to have it fixed.

My net cost to buy a new Prius was well under $20k after a EV/hybrid purchase rebate my wife's employer was offering. Obviously a lot of the models I used to predict the value of the car over time in fuel savings and resale were blown up by extremely low fuel prices. Now I am in a situation where the car isn't saving me a whole lot of money in operating costs and selling it would cause me to take a significant loss even taking into consideration my very low initial purchase price. Three years and 34k miles into the ownership of this car, I am beginning to accept the very real possibility that it could end up being my one year old's first car if it makes it to 250k (as it should).

Then you can be in those Toyota commercials. Or Subaru commercials.

I wasn't trying to pick on your Prius but it was an example that's been around for the last....15 years, especially as people dumped their older vehicles that definitely got worse mileage, but maybe took on a car payment to do so.

Yeah, I can be there saying something like "I never really loved this car, but the damn thing wouldn't ever die or break down so I had to keep it."

My next good opportunity to sell will be when oil spikes. Consumers behave irrationally when there is a rapid change in price and I can take advantage of that.