Walters, Martin wrote:
> As I mentioned in an earlier post, my experience with VWs has been quite
> different. There are lemons and horror stories in all brands. As with
> cameras and other things, one tends to hear those stories rather that
> the unsensational ones. At the risk of further repitition, I'd gladly
> trade a little reliability for driving fun. YMMV.
>
I think the CR ratings of frequency of repair are probably fairly
accurate, but there are two big drawbacks.
As someone pointed out, they aren't cost weighted. So if a transmission
problem requires a simple shifter adjustment for a few $ or a rebuild
for thousands, it's simply an incident in their report.
Second, the frequencies are low enough that the practical difference for
any single buyer of one vehicle is essentially nothing. For a fleet
buyer, sure. For me, the chance of trouble is essentially the same
statistically for all but the most awful brands.
Even there, anecdotally, I bought a 1995 Olds convertible that was on
CR's "do not buy" list for that year for unreliability. I did so because
the choices and cost benefit issues for a decent size convertible are
immensely more difficult than for a sedan. In the first 45,000 or so
miles, it had a tranny seal go out and the alternator die. Both covered
under warranty and they gave me a rental car when the tranny took over a
day to repair and a ride to and from work for the other repair.
In the 40 odd thousand miles since then, it's had one repair that cost
$800, but would have been more like $1,100 if my son didn't have a
connection. For 87,000 miles, I can't say that's bad.
Both of my sons have had VWs, which have been decent until recently when
the 99 Jetta cooling system decided to absolutely reject any repair for
long. He's given up and is getting a new car - an Audi - go figure.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|