Date: 19 May 2005 14:54:26 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> Subject: Re: So, would you say Saabs are reliable?
On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:21:48 -0400, Malt_Hound <Malt_Houndnospamm*yahoo.com> wrote: > pablo wrote: >> I got a 2002 9-3 convertible to replace an expensive to maintain Jaguar XJR. >> I owned Japanese (Infiniti) and European (BMW) before. >> >> I my opinion, one thing is build-to-last, the other is >> new-car-trouble-ticket-statistics. The two don't necessarily correlate, and >> many reliability reports in my opinion confuse the two. > > This is an *extremely* poignant statement. These two measurements are > often mistaken, misused and misinterpreted as being synonymous, and they > really are not. Personally, I would rather have a car with a larger > number of infantile, niggling issues, but that was designed to go the > long haul, than the inverse. Right. Also, when you buy an econo-crapbox, you _expect_ little things to be wrong with it, and tolerate that. Or, they're design and servicability problems that you might not know or care about. That sliding wedge abomination in Ford front disk brake caliper assemblies, for instance...mild steel, won't slide when it gets rusty. Now, when would a mild steel part, on a brake assembly get rusty? Oh yeah, any time after the day it's built. Gosh... But, people don't look at that until it's time to (have someone) do the brakes. The superficial problems (rattles, squeaks) are probably present on pretty much any production model. The fundamental design decisions are what differentiate a good car, from a bad car.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
