andy545

I agree

UUronL

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]


Sure. I'm not blind - I do accept and agree that this is one way to interpret reliability. However, I feel the definition given would be absolute reliability, and argued many points around risk, threats, reliability, etc... Unfortunately, I did not articulate the logic behind my statements.


Here goes...

If we can all agree that it is reasonable to expect failure in components - be it tires, alternators, etc... then why not some amount of repairs for a car? All cars -do- need them. I think we're quibbling over single digit percentages - deltas between marques that are either imaginary, or small enough that they are statistically insignificant (read Freakonomics for more on statistically unfounded or insignificant things getting too much public attention). Every car -will- break down. Talking about absolute perfection - zero repairs - is well... not grounded in reality. Please forgive my inability to overlook this.

If we can accept that all cars will need repairs, then the only step or remedy is to mitigate risk. It would be nice to have ironclad perfection that never ever broke, but it's simply not realistic. Get ironclad warranty coverage and be done with it.

ipse dixit

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]


Sure. I'm not blind - I do accept and agree that this is one way to interpret reliability. However, I feel the definition given would be absolute reliability, and argued many points around risk, threats, reliability, etc... Unfortunately, I did not articulate the logic behind my statements.


Here goes...

If we can all agree that it is reasonable to expect failure in components - be it tires, alternators, etc... then why not some amount of repairs for a car? All cars -do- need them. I think we're quibbling over single digit percentages - deltas between marques that are either imaginary, or small enough that they are statistically insignificant (read Freakonomics for more on statistically unfounded or insignificant things getting too much public attention). Every car -will- break down. Talking about absolute perfection - zero repairs - is well... not grounded in reality. Please forgive my inability to overlook this.

If we can accept that all cars will need repairs, then the only step or remedy is to mitigate risk. It would be nice to have ironclad perfection that never ever broke, but it's simply not realistic. Get ironclad warranty coverage and be done with it.
[/quote]

Taking your assumptions and parameters, let's reframe the issue.

Absolute Reliability = no problems, ever.
Absolute UNreliability = problems, everyday.

Now put that on a scale: Absolute Reliability = 1 and Absolute UNreliability = 10

In my opinion, BMW would be probably around 5 and (just by way of example only) a Lexus might be a 3.

Regardless of that, an extended warranty still does nothing to change the rankings, or where BMW falls on the scale of 1-10 of reliability.

If you started off with a 5, then bought an extended warranty, your BMW would still be a 5.

The extended warranty simply minimizes (negates?) the costs of an unreliable car. A warranty, by definition, cannot make a car more (or less) reliable.

That's all I'm saying.

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.
[/quote]


Sure. I'm not blind - I do accept and agree that this is one way to interpret reliability. However, I feel the definition given would be absolute reliability, and argued many points around risk, threats, reliability, etc... Unfortunately, I did not articulate the logic behind my statements.


Here goes...

If we can all agree that it is reasonable to expect failure in components - be it tires, alternators, etc... then why not some amount of repairs for a car? All cars -do- need them. I think we're quibbling over single digit percentages - deltas between marques that are either imaginary, or small enough that they are statistically insignificant (read Freakonomics for more on statistically unfounded or insignificant things getting too much public attention). Every car -will- break down. Talking about absolute perfection - zero repairs - is well... not grounded in reality. Please forgive my inability to overlook this.

If we can accept that all cars will need repairs, then the only step or remedy is to mitigate risk. It would be nice to have ironclad perfection that never ever broke, but it's simply not realistic. Get ironclad warranty coverage and be done with it.
[/quote]
I fully agree with all you say and of course I think we all expect faults with our cars at some time... at least I do. Perhaps ipse dixit has a greater expectation than the rest of us as to what reliability means... but hey we are all different and as I say it's all about opinions his included.

cobradav

I'll weigh in here with a couple of thoughts. On the side of risk, there is BMWs view of how much to spend to buy down risk in the mfr process (impacting reliability as we see it) and how much to spend on warranty costs and maintenance costs. Also do not forget, besides warranty coverage we have (at least in USA) the free maintenance coverage, also another cost to BMW (but surely factored into the price of the car on average). BMW has RMA (Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability) engineers, who along with their other organizational partners, make assessments on where and how to invest their $$. We bear the fruits of these conscious decisions on their part. Factors (not all by any stretch of the imagination) that BMW must consider are, Brand Image, safety, total cost of producing and maintaining product, profitability, shareholder value, etcetera, etcetera. It is all a matter of trade offs.

Now we the consumer must do the same thing. We make trade off decisions based on what we want, need, in a car based on our perception of the various brands. We make choices just like the mfrs make choices. If I make a choice to go to say the ?Drivers? car at the increased risk of lesser reliability compared to other products then that is a risk I have chosen to take to get what I want. If in doing so, I end up with too much unreliability IMO even though it is not necessarily hitting me directly (not counting aggravation, lost time, etc) then I may choose to change brands for a more reliable, but less of a ?drivers? car then what I have now. I know going in that no one brand can be all things to all people or even to me. That is the ?risk? I have accepted and I also know it is not the same risk others are willing to take.

Just some of my $0.02 worth

MAK

Well said!

UUronL

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]


Sure. I'm not blind - I do accept and agree that this is one way to interpret reliability. However, I feel the definition given would be absolute reliability, and argued many points around risk, threats, reliability, etc... Unfortunately, I did not articulate the logic behind my statements.


Here goes...

If we can all agree that it is reasonable to expect failure in components - be it tires, alternators, etc... then why not some amount of repairs for a car? All cars -do- need them. I think we're quibbling over single digit percentages - deltas between marques that are either imaginary, or small enough that they are statistically insignificant (read Freakonomics for more on statistically unfounded or insignificant things getting too much public attention). Every car -will- break down. Talking about absolute perfection - zero repairs - is well... not grounded in reality. Please forgive my inability to overlook this.

If we can accept that all cars will need repairs, then the only step or remedy is to mitigate risk. It would be nice to have ironclad perfection that never ever broke, but it's simply not realistic. Get ironclad warranty coverage and be done with it.
[/quote]

Taking your assumptions and parameters, let's reframe the issue.

Absolute Reliability = no problems, ever.
Absolute UNreliability = problems, everyday.

Now put that on a scale: Absolute Reliability = 1 and Absolute UNreliability = 10

In my opinion, BMW would be probably around 5 and (just by way of example only) a Lexus might be a 3.

Regardless of that, an extended warranty still does nothing to change the rankings, or where BMW falls on the scale of 1-10 of reliability.

If you started off with a 5, then bought an extended warranty, your BMW would still be a 5.

The extended warranty simply minimizes (negates?) the costs of an unreliable car. A warranty, by definition, cannot make a car more (or less) reliable.

That's all I'm saying.
[/quote]


Well, as I initially stated, I don't like talking about reliability and warranties together. That is why I started talking about risk and other things instead. Your assertion is correct - the warranty has nothing to do with making a car more reliable. With that said, I have a bit of an issue calling something that needs repaired due to falling short of perfection "unreliable". I personally think (and I think we differ here) that a car is reliable if it drives. If it goes from point A to B. That definition would exclude defects such as rattles, creaks, rough idle, transmission slams, squeaky brakes, etc...

I'm getting off topic here, although it is something I've stated here before in other threads. I only make the distinction so I may further comment on your "5" rating. If your car has been immobilized enough times to truly rate it a "5", then I am sorry your experience has been so bad. If we're simply talking about defects that do not immobilize, I prefer to use terminology that doesn't include the words reliable or reliability.

Some of the confusion arising from this thread is that the remedies (and risk mitigation) are the same for both kinds of defects (the small kind, and the immobilizing kind). I prefer to use the word quality when talking about the former - I think JD Powers uses this term as well.


Stack rankings can be deceiving. I'd maintain that while BMW may fall behind others, we're talking about the smallest of differences. The defects per 100 tally that is compiled by JD Powers (the one in which BMW recently climbed to third place) is so close that we're only talking about super low single digit percentages separating each marque.

Also, you can look at what JD has to say regarding these 3 cars - there isn't data on the 2006 GS or I would have included it. Interesting to note the BMW is ahead in quality for the mechanical -and- exterior and interior, taking the major hit for accessories and features (think iDrive). It's even possible that the new 2006 Lexus model could rank lower since it could be ironing out some bugs. This is not inconceivable since it is all new and now has more compex systems just like BMW.

znod

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]


Sure. I'm not blind - I do accept and agree that this is one way to interpret reliability. However, I feel the definition given would be absolute reliability, and argued many points around risk, threats, reliability, etc... Unfortunately, I did not articulate the logic behind my statements.


Here goes...

If we can all agree that it is reasonable to expect failure in components - be it tires, alternators, etc... then why not some amount of repairs for a car? All cars -do- need them. I think we're quibbling over single digit percentages - deltas between marques that are either imaginary, or small enough that they are statistically insignificant (read Freakonomics for more on statistically unfounded or insignificant things getting too much public attention). Every car -will- break down. Talking about absolute perfection - zero repairs - is well... not grounded in reality. Please forgive my inability to overlook this.

If we can accept that all cars will need repairs, then the only step or remedy is to mitigate risk. It would be nice to have ironclad perfection that never ever broke, but it's simply not realistic. Get ironclad warranty coverage and be done with it.
[/quote]

A BRIEF THEORY OF AUTO RELIABILITY AND ITS DECISION CONSEQUENCES

Before I give the theory I want to mention that ipse d just gave the starting points for his concepts of "scales" of (1) auto reliability and (2) cost of auto unreliability. Below, in quotes, is what he said with my comments juxtaposed in orange. In this regard, he did not attempt to define auto reliability nor did he attempt to define cost of auto unreliability.

"Reliability, for me, is 'free of problems'". This statement defines his auto-reliability scale's natural zero point--where a car does not break period.

"Reliability, for me, is not 'free cost of repair to fix problems'". This statement defines his costs-of-auto-unreliablity scale's natural zero point--where a car generates no breakage costs.

Consideration of these two scale concepts provides the basis for the "theory." They are implicit in my post #7 replies. And, the theory also is based on UUronl's addition ofr risk to our discussion of auto reliability.

Two factors need to be considered when when talking about risky things--the probability distribution of the phenomenon of interest (which is individualized) and the individual's attitude towards towards the distribution. For example, consider the probability distributions of the returns from portfolios of securities. One measure related to such a distribution is its expected return. If an individual is risk neutral, then he or she could rank portfolios in terms of desirability on the basis of their expected returns. However, most individuals are risk averse and, thus, ranking on expected returns is not appropriate. Such individuals will value sequential increases in equal amounts of expected return less and less as portfolio risk (which is individualized) becomes larger and larger. This framework applies precisely to reliability, althought I won't flesh it out even as much as above.

(1) There is the individual's probaility distruibution for the monetary consequences of a car breaking. One's attitude towards that distribution governs the amount of risk he or she is willing to accept. If the risk of a large negative total monetary outcome is too large, then he or she will buy a different car or will insure by purchasing an extended warranty.

(2) On the other hand, there is the individual's probability distribution for the inconvenience of a car breaking. In this case, if the risk of a car breaking too frequently is too large, then he or she will buy a different car.

When deciding on a car, "rational" individuals will consider both types of probability distributions implicitly and will somehow muddle through to a decision. Under this view, the breakage probability distributions for the different things that can break on a car provide measures of it reliability for the type of "breakings" being considered. In this regard, it would be meaningless to talk about the overall reliability of a car unless the breakages of different magnitudes were consider to be equal or some sort of arbitrary weighting scheme was applied to the different types of breakage. Meaning comes only when one attaches monetary consequences (and realted probabilities) as discussed under (1) above to the possible breakages and attaches inconvenience consequences (and related probabilities) as discussed under (2) above to the possible breakages.

Please comment. I dreamed the theory up quickly, and I'll go back and revise as you change my mind about what I dreamed.

znod

Everything you say fits nicely into "the" theory. Well said. I think that us older, but still way more than awesome, guys deserve more respect around here.

UUronL

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]


Sure. I'm not blind - I do accept and agree that this is one way to interpret reliability. However, I feel the definition given would be absolute reliability, and argued many points around risk, threats, reliability, etc... Unfortunately, I did not articulate the logic behind my statements.


Here goes...

If we can all agree that it is reasonable to expect failure in components - be it tires, alternators, etc... then why not some amount of repairs for a car? All cars -do- need them. I think we're quibbling over single digit percentages - deltas between marques that are either imaginary, or small enough that they are statistically insignificant (read Freakonomics for more on statistically unfounded or insignificant things getting too much public attention). Every car -will- break down. Talking about absolute perfection - zero repairs - is well... not grounded in reality. Please forgive my inability to overlook this.

If we can accept that all cars will need repairs, then the only step or remedy is to mitigate risk. It would be nice to have ironclad perfection that never ever broke, but it's simply not realistic. Get ironclad warranty coverage and be done with it.
[/quote]

A BRIEF THEORY OF AUTO RELIABILITY AND ITS DECISION CONSEQUENCES

Before I give the theory I want to mention that ipse d just gave the starting points for his concepts of "scales" of (1) auto reliability and (2) cost of auto unreliability. Below, in quotes, is what he said with my comments juxtaposed in orange. In this regard, he did not attempt to define auto reliability nor did he attempt to define cost of auto unreliability.

"Reliability, for me, is 'free of problems'". This statement defines his auto-reliability scale's natural zero point--where a car does not break period.

"Reliability, for me, is not 'free cost of repair to fix problems'". This statement defines his costs-of-auto-unreliablity scale's natural zero point.

Consideration of these two scale concepts provides the basis for the "theory."

Two factors need to be considered when when talking about risky things--the probability distribution of the phenomenon of interest (which is individualized) and the individual's attitude towards towards the distribution. For example, consider the probability distributions of the returns from portfolios of securities. One measure related to such a distribution is its expected return. If an individual is risk neutral, then he or she could rank portfolios in terms of desirability on the basis of their expected returns. However, most individuals are risk averse and, thus, ranking on expected returns is not appropriate. Such individuals will value sequential increases in equal amounts of expected return less and less as portfolio risk (which is individualized) becomes larger and larger. This framework applies precisely to reliability, althought I won't flesh it out even as much as above.

(1) There is the individual's probaility distruibution for the monetary consequences of a car breaking. One's attitude towards that distribution governs the amount of risk he or she is willing to accept. If the risk of a large negative total monetary outcome is too large, then he or she will buy a different car or will insure by purchasing an extended warranty.

(2) On the other hand, there is the individual's probability distribution for the inconvenience of a car breaking. In this case, if the risk of a car breaking too frequently is too large, then he or she will buy a different car.

When deciding on a car, "rational" individuals will consider both types of probability distributions implicitly and will somehow muddle through to a decision. Under this view, the breakage probability distributions for the different things that can break on a car provide measures of it reliability for the type of "breakings" being considered. In this regard, it would be meaningless to talk about the overall reliability of a car unless the breakages of different magnitudes were consider to be equal or some sort of arbitrary weighting scheme was applied to the different types of breakage. Meaning comes only when one attaches monetary consequences (and realted probabilities) as discussed under (1) above to the possible breakages and attaches inconvenience consequences (and related probabilities) as discussed under (2) above to the possible breakages.

Please comment. I dreamed the theory up quickly, and I'll go back and revise as you change my mind about what I dreamed.
[/quote]


I find it interesting to see another industry's perspective on risk, etc...


I would suggest three categories of consideration - cost, inconvenience, safety


I still don't like the use of the word reliability, but I think breakage and defects are interchangeable.


I think in addition to cost, meaning can be assigned in the manner I lay out earlier - in terms of immobilizing and non-immobilizing. These designations are clear and unambiguous, and would carry some amount of implied inconvenience and safety consequences.


There is yet another unmentioned aspect. There should be a factor representing the propensity of the owner to have small repairs performed. Not all owners will react the same way to defects (some may not even notice certain defects... rattles+deaf=non-issue) Take me for example. I have the "High Battery Drain" message, some squeaks and rattles, and the dealer owes me two interior trim pieces. It has been nearly 9 months since I purchased the car, yet I'm not willing to take it in for these minor defects. Some owners drop the car off when the slightest issue arises. There must be some way to characterize this sort of variance in behavior. I think maybe it makes sense to apply a separate factor for each of the three categories (which would provide some form of individualized value characterization). I don't have children, so my factor for safety-related defects might not be as high as someone's whose passengers are small children. (Remember, I'm the guy whose boss yelled at him to stop riding around on his skinny spare tire on a previous car - it had been months)


Anyway, good idea. Good thread.