ipse dixit

There's been quite a bit of discussion (hand-wringing?) over the reliability of our cherished car (E60) and brand (BMW), as evidenced by this post and this other post from this past weekend.

There seems to be some thought (or agreement) that even assuming that BMWs are not the most reliable cars on the road (perish the thought, I know ...), then buying the extended warranty for an additional 3 years (to give you a total of 7 years and around 110k miles) should be enough to militate the effects of BMW's often erratic and cranky service history.

But doesn't that miss the point of what makes a car reliable?

When I think reliable, I think of getting into my car every morning and starting it without any problems and having not to worry about anything with the car except to (1) put in gas and (2) change the oil and other routine maintenance items.

An extended warranty does not achieve that result. The warranty, extended or otherwise, simply reduces the costs of fixing problems -- it does not make the car free of problems.

Reliability, for me, is "free of problems".

Reliability, for me, is not "free cost of repair to fix problems".

Having to have my car towed, driven, or pushed to the dealership to get it fixed, warranty or not, is simply a pain in the a_s.

Sorry for the rant. Thanks for listening.

Just my 0.02.

drjochen

I AGREE COMPLETLY with you definition of reliability.

MAK

You have a point there although I think most of our problems are on the minor side in general. But! as you say still a pain in the rear. But as my dealer said don't think other makes are problem free.. he had previously worked in a Rolls Royce dealership with just as many problems. "You pays your money you takes your chances!"

Rudy

I agree with your definition of reliability as well. If I want reliability, I buy Japanese. If I want an awsome car, I sacrifice some reliability and buy a German car.

That said, I will say that my last three 5-series cars never stranded me or required a tow truck but again, each of those three cars were not in my possession after the factory warranty ran out...

UUronL

Well, I would argue that it's not reliability at the core of the discussion - it's risk.


Risk can either be ignored, accepted, mitigated, or reduced. It is quite common in much higher-stakes arenas than this to "buy down" risk with some form of insurance. Extended warranties do this and protect our wallets by mitigating the risks associated with expensive repairs. BMW Assist mitigates the risks associated with breaking down at bad times/places.


I don't see an issue here.

MAK

The question was... What makes a car reliable? We will all no doubt have differing opinions on this. Risk of course is another issue.

znod

I think ipse d's exploration of what reliability means was interesting, although I am not sure why anyone would have been confused about the essentials of its meaning in the first place. And, I agree with you mostly about risk. But, you have ignored the risk of too many annoying problems occuring. So, some might accept some amount of such risks, for example, if they really like a car, while others would want to do their best to minimize such risks. And, as you indicate some might deal with the monetary issues related to the risks of problems by purchasing extended warranties.

UUronL

The question was... What makes a car reliable? We will all no doubt have differing opinions on this. Risk of course is another issue.
[/quote]


Well, I'm not sure the question was ever really stated - at least not in this thread. Regardless, I'd argue that reliability is nothing by itself - it's only a representation of other things. When talking about automobiles, reliability is nothing more than a metric - a loose measure (sometimes a guesstimate based on reputation) used to forecast the frequency that your car may break down (the occurence of one or more threats that could cause this to happen). So risk is core to the discussion. Your car is at risk for alternator failure in very hot weather. The threat is that it will break, causing you to be stranded. If this happens, you may decide that brand x's alternators are not very good, or unreliable.

Tires are a source of break downs. We carry spares and join the auto club. In more recent years, we've come to rely on assistance dispatched via telematics and the use of runflats so we can keep moving. Heck, you can even purchase insurance for your tires in case you hit something and damage them. The argument that calls for absolute reliability is like asking for tires that will never fail. It's unrealistic and unfair to demand.

MAK

Well, I'm not sure the question was ever really stated - at least not in this thread. Regardless, I'd argue that reliability is nothing by itself - it's only a representation of other things. When talking about automobiles, reliability is nothing more than a metric - a loose measure (sometimes a guesstimate based on reputation) used to forecast the frequency that your car may break down (the occurence of one or more threats that could cause this to happen). So risk is core to the discussion. Your car is at risk for alternator failure in very hot weather. The threat is that it will break, causing you to be stranded. If this happens, you may decide that brand x's alternators are not very good, or unreliable.

Tires are a source of break downs. We carry spares and join the auto club. In more recent years, we've come to rely on assistance dispatched via telematics and the use of runflats so we can keep moving. Heck, you can even purchase insurance for your tires in case you hit something and damage them. The argument that calls for absolute reliability is like asking for tires that will never fail. It's unrealistic and unfair to demand.
[/quote]
I think he did ask What makes a car reliable and gave his own opinions. As I said we all have different views on this and I accept your points as well.

TV550

I agree with your definition of reliability just convince the engineers and management of BMW. The only way they will ever change their ways to make their products more reliable is when we all protest and stop buying their cars. Unfortunately they have filled a niche in the car market that can't be beat even when imitated by countless car companies. They know they own the market for sport and luxury and we keep buying regardless when the cars are reliable or not. I think the future for total domination by BMW in this niche will come to an end as other companies keep trying.
Well, I'm not sure the question was ever really stated - at least not in this thread. Regardless, I'd argue that reliability is nothing by itself - it's only a representation of other things. When talking about automobiles, reliability is nothing more than a metric - a loose measure (sometimes a guesstimate based on reputation) used to forecast the frequency that your car may break down (the occurence of one or more threats that could cause this to happen). So risk is core to the discussion. Your car is at risk for alternator failure in very hot weather. The threat is that it will break, causing you to be stranded. If this happens, you may decide that brand x's alternators are not very good, or unreliable.

Tires are a source of break downs. We carry spares and join the auto club. In more recent years, we've come to rely on assistance dispatched via telematics and the use of runflats so we can keep moving. Heck, you can even purchase insurance for your tires in case you hit something and damage them. The argument that calls for absolute reliability is like asking for tires that will never fail. It's unrealistic and unfair to demand.
[/quote]
I think he did ask What makes a car reliable and gave his own opinions. As I said we all have different views on this and I accept your points as well.
[/quote]