German Cars Amongst Worst Engine Failures

[Mr. Mercedes]

Audi, BMW and VW ranked in the bottom 10 of a study into engine reliability

German-made cars are not as reliable as many believe, according to new research. Warranty Direct has studied its claims data to compile a list of the manufacturers with the most reliable engines - and Audi, BMW and Volkswagen all finished in the bottom 10 out of a total 36 makers.
In fact, the only firm whose cars had a worse engine failure rate than Audi was MG Rover. MINI wasn’t much better, finishing third from bottom, while its parent company BMW came seventh from bottom. And, despite its reputation for rock-solid reliability, Volkswagen came ninth from bottom.
Honda scooped the gold medal – the study found that just one in every 344 Honda engines failed, compared to one in every 27 Audi engines. Despite its recent recall woes, Toyota came second and Mercedes managed to outperform its fellow German brands with a respectable third-place finish.
Duncan McClure, Warranty Direct Managing Director, said that engine failures are the worst for motorists as they’re the repairs that can lead to the highest costs because of the parts and hours of labour required to fix them: “The nuber of failures may be low compared to areas such as axle and suspension damage but engine repairs almost always result in costs reaching the thousands for motorists who aren’t covered by a warranty.”
An engine failure on a Range Rover Vogue recently led to Warranty Direct’s highest ever claim of £13,000.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/62383/german-cars-among-worst-engine-failures

 

[mini_cooper4]

Who said German cars are reliable!? One should be a fool to believe that...

 

[Mr. Mercedes]

Seems like you're ok if you buy a Benz though.

And what was this nonsense about MB engines and transmissions in the C-class thread?

Jokes aside, 2-3% is still a very low percentage. Do you guys think it's an acceptable standard? 2-3 cars out of every hundred?

 

[mini_cooper4]

Seems like you're ok if you buy a Benz though.

And what was this nonsense about MB engines and transmissions in the C-class thread?

Jokes aside, 2-3% is still a very low percentage. Do you guys think it's an acceptable standard? 2-3 cars out of every hundred?

That's why I drive a Benz

PS: I don't want to even think about regular MB engines AMG and that's it.

 

[Merc1]

VW and Audi right at the bottom as always, along with Land Rover. Look at Mercedes-Benz. Right there with Toyota and Honda. A Mercedes has always been of higher quality and durability. Love it.

M

 

[Zafiro]

That's why I drive a Ford...

 

[Wunderkind]

I think a break down of the failure figures will be more helpful and give a better picture. I mean, which engine has the highest incidents of failure, etc.

 

[Human]

Who said German cars are reliable!? One should be a fool to believe that...

True. If you've driven a German car or cars, the engines is not that reliable at all. I believe BMW makes THE most technological advanced engines today, but component failure accompanies them unfortunately.

 

[PanterroR]

Thanks for the good laugh (this article).

 

[DblPen]

True. If you've driven a German car or cars, the engines is not that reliable at all. I believe BMW makes THE most technological advanced engines today, but component failure accompanies them unfortunately.

i believe BMW's NA engines were very reliable, not turbo ones tho

 

[MikeJ]

The problem with almost all of these reliability listings is that they rarely take into account things such as the mileage or service history of the cars.
I remember seeing a Finnish listing of the percentage of each car model failing their annual check-up at the age of five years. At the top of the list was some Japanese granny mobile, at the bottom the VW Transporter. The thing was, the average mileage the Transporters had done was ten times that of whatever was at the top...

 

[martinbo]

So at first I dismissed this report out of hand, immediately viewing this as a plug for the insurer via Auto Express. However, I felt compelled to dig a bit deeper to gain an insight into the insurance company involved to see if I could uncover anything more useful. I want to share this with the community so that we have more discussion and opinion around this.

I found this sister site of theirs: http://www.reliabilityindex.com/

Go and dig around - I'm sure that you'll find some rather interesting information and also a lack of complete transparency in the data presented. For example how many of a certain model do you have on your books; what is the total sample number of cars in the 2004 to 2011 year category?

Why is Auto Express focussing solely on engine failures? Because they're the most expensive repair-wise? Why don't they tell the full story?

Go to this screen and navigate to the ratings via the Manufacturer and Model/Type buttons: http://www.reliabilityindex.com/ratings

It's quite interesting reading and shows clearly how statistical information can be interpreted one way and yet not tell the full story. Here's an example: go to Compact Executives - see that the C-Class is supposedly the most reliable product in the class. However, the average age of the C-Class sample is 3.95 years and 44136 miles or 71030 km whereas the BMW sample's average age is 4.82 years at 56994 miles or 91723 km. That's a one year and 20 000 km difference.

Take a look at the overall Manufacturer's Reliability Ratings: Mercedes Benz (32) actually features below BMW (29) with Audi (34) even further down. The problem with the presentation of such data is that, at face value, there appears to be outright statistical objectivity through numbers presented. But there's so much more to vehicle reliability and longevity than this organisations failure statistics can present.

My first question: why are people insuring with Warranty Direct if the average age of the C-Class sample is 4 years? Cars bought outside of the manufacturer's dealer network? Cars with incomplete service history? Cars altered or in a condition that precludes cost-effective service plan extension with the manufacturer? Accident-damaged and since repaired vehicles?

The more sophisticated the car, the more sophisticated the preventative maintenance process and potential fault diagnosis. An E60 M5 S85 V10 with engine failures? Sure, but then what's its history?

A very interesting topic with a plethora of permutations that could skew seemingly objective statistics.

 

[mini_cooper4]

VW and Audi right at the bottom as always, along with Land Rover. Look at Mercedes-Benz. Right there with Toyota and Honda. A Mercedes has always been of higher quality and durability. Love it.

M

No.

 

[W201]

Yet another useless 'list'/'survey', which will probably be used to feed fan-boys of certain brands. Martinbo's post is definitely a winner and explains a lot. Also, I agree with MikeJ.

It's not what car you have, but how you drive it, and how you take care of it.

 

[Merc1]

No.

Wrong.

M

 

[DblPen]

VW and Audi right at the bottom as always, along with Land Rover. Look at Mercedes-Benz. Right there with Toyota and Honda. A Mercedes has always been of higher quality and durability. Love it.

M

you forgout about a period of mercedes reliability problems like a decade ago

 

[Merc1]

you forgout about a period of mercedes reliability problems like a decade ago

Nope. Engine failures weren't their problem then either. Sure they had a period, but unlike BMW and Audi, a Mercedes was better in that regard before and after. Audi/VW products have never been known for reliability. Never. They wind up at the bottom on any list like this for a reason.

M

 

[martinbo]

The W211 E270 CDI was the biggest dog of a diesel - I have first hand insight and access to service records. My business partner bought a pre-facelift E270 CDI - it had a myriad of problems. Limp mode, blown turbo, intercooler hose failure and, ultimately, 7G-Tronic gearbox failure. He was a misery to work with during this time. He traded in on a facelifted W211 E320 CDI and it was the best car he ever owned. He loved it to bits and it had not a single issue. So enamoured was he that he again traded, this time on an ML 320 CDI pre-facelift. Front air suspension replacement, excessive tyre wear and electronics failure. He bought a Toyota Prado.

Then there's the doctor friend (well, one of them) he bought an X5 3.0d M-Sport. It was the biggest dog ever, it suffered from all kinds of electronics malaise. Handbrake failure, electronics on the blink and so on. He never had a day's trouble with his A3 2.0T Sportback. Anectodal? Yes. Someone's reality? Entirely.

Such statistical information never tells the full story. MB USA was lucky that they never got to market diesels during that pivotal technology "school fees" period where diesel reliability was a hit and miss affair. Audi for instance pioneered turbocharging on a mass-market scale in the late nineties. They went through a serious learning curve and it cost them; now however, I am almost certain that their turbopetrols are amongst the most reliable on the market now. What they learnt back in the day, the others learned only much later. Just look at BMW's woes with the N54 HPFP and turbo failure debacle.

My point is that it is imprecisely subjective to single out a certain manufacturer as being head and shoulders superior relative to its closest rivals in the reliability stakes. It's nothing but unsubstantiated sentiment.

 

[Merc1]

We all have those stories, yet these lists always seem to put certain cars at the bottom.

I wasn't asked by JD Powers or Consumer Reports about my "cylinder misfire" in my brand new 650i so no one will ever know about that either, making BMW look great come survey/study time.

Mercedes sure had their problems, we all know that, but since 2007 it has been upwards in terms of reliability, sharply in fact. Problem is certain brands were never known for reliability and they're still towards the middle or bottom in that area, regardless of who is collecting the data.

"My point is that it is imprecisely subjective to single out a certain manufacturer as being head and shoulders superior relative to its closest rivals in the reliability stakes. It's nothing but unsubstantiated sentiment."

Totally disagree with that. Reputations are made based on something. Mercedes problems were an exception, not the norm like for certain other brands.

M

 

[mini_cooper4]

Wrong.

M

You might be too young to remember the Daimler-Chrysler relationship and the "quality" products it used to spit.