vehicle reliablity survey
- Thread starter Harvey
- Start date
- Status
Stats currently updated to include owner experienced through the end of September, and next week will add through the end of 2013.
We've also added a second set of stats that include only powertrain and chassis repairs.
www.truedelta.com/car-reliability
We've also added a second set of stats that include only powertrain and chassis repairs.
www.truedelta.com/car-reliability
We've updated stats, and added a new set that includes only powertrain and chassis repairs.
www.truedelta.com/car-reliability
www.truedelta.com/car-reliability
Another quarter, another update--which puts these stats nearly a year ahead of those you'll find elsewhere.
www.truedelta.com/car-reliability
www.truedelta.com/car-reliability
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
I don't find it very useful, maybe for newer cars but looking up my Camry people are complaining about a radiator leaking at 150,000 miles and paying $600 to get it replaced, then they paid $70 for a radiator flush AFTER replacing it. Are these people stupid?
I don't recall the case you mention, but it would be one out of the over 2,000 reported each month.
By reporting a repair, people aren't necessarily complaining about it. Members are supposed to report all repairs, even minor ones, so we can have an objective basis for the stats. A radiator flush isn't supposed to be reported, and won't be counted in the stats.
By reporting a repair, people aren't necessarily complaining about it. Members are supposed to report all repairs, even minor ones, so we can have an objective basis for the stats. A radiator flush isn't supposed to be reported, and won't be counted in the stats.
Our stats have again been updated, to include owner experiences through the end of 2014. Plus we've added reliability trends graphs. These indicate how a model's reliability has changed as it has aged, and how different model years performed when the same age.
www.truedelta.com/car-reliability
www.truedelta.com/car-reliability
We're going to have updated results again later today.
As I type this, we have 99,941 members. For those reading this who haven't yet joined, care to help nudge us into six figures?
www.truedelta.com/join
As I type this, we have 99,941 members. For those reading this who haven't yet joined, care to help nudge us into six figures?
www.truedelta.com/join
The current reliability stats are now nearly a year ahead of those elsewhere. Around the end of the month they'll be updated to cover through the end of June, making them about 14 months ahead.
Additional participants always helpful.
www.truedelta.com/car-reliability
Additional participants always helpful.
www.truedelta.com/car-reliability
I make no secret about www.truedelta.com on these forums. It's my trusted source of information. Many people remain unaware of the site, or it's impressive reliability data. These good folks go on repeating the "urban legends" of what is reliable, and what is not. Often times, they are absolutely incorrect.
I trust objective data. I do not trust "urban legends".
Bottom line: I like it.
I trust objective data. I do not trust "urban legends".
Bottom line: I like it.
One thing I don't understand about truedelta. 2015 Honda Fits have had at least 5 recalls, I believe everyone has been affected by at least two, and most have had all 5. Yet the truedelta claims WAY less than ONE repair per car. How can this be? I would consider a recall trip to the dealer to be a repair, even if it is free, just like a warranty repair. So do recall repairs not count? Or is that up to the individual reporting the data. I find that discrepancy very troubling.
No major reliability survey counts preventive recalls (where a fix is made before a problem has manifested) as a repair. There are a few good reasons for this:
1. For many newer cars the recall repairs would swamp the regular ones, so you'd end up measuring recalls more than actual failures.
2. Reporting every recall would be more work for respondents.
3. Respondents would be less likely to report a recall repair, since many would assume they don't count, and you'd end up with less accurate stats.
4. Manufacturers would be penalized for spending money to prevent problems before they happen, and would then be less likely to voluntarily recall cars.
1. For many newer cars the recall repairs would swamp the regular ones, so you'd end up measuring recalls more than actual failures.
2. Reporting every recall would be more work for respondents.
3. Respondents would be less likely to report a recall repair, since many would assume they don't count, and you'd end up with less accurate stats.
4. Manufacturers would be penalized for spending money to prevent problems before they happen, and would then be less likely to voluntarily recall cars.
That said, we do have updated stats. And as always additional participants would be very helpful.
www.truedelta.com/join
www.truedelta.com/join
Originally Posted By: mkaresh
No major reliability survey counts preventive recalls (where a fix is made before a problem has manifested) as a repair. There are a few good reasons for this:
1. For many newer cars the recall repairs would swamp the regular ones, so you'd end up measuring recalls more than actual failures.
2. Reporting every recall would be more work for respondents.
3. Respondents would be less likely to report a recall repair, since many would assume they don't count, and you'd end up with less accurate stats.
4. Manufacturers would be penalized for spending money to prevent problems before they happen, and would then be less likely to voluntarily recall cars.
Not sure I agree with that philosophy, or parts of its accuracy.
Yes reporting recalls as repairs is more work for the responder, as is reporting any repair. but it should be all about getting good data on problems with the cars. If recalls are "swamping actual repairs", to me that indicates a problem vehicle and it should be recognized as such. Of the 5 recalls on my wife's Fit at least three of them corrected actual failures in parts or designs (and possibly a 4th), but by your definition they aren't repairs. Even though Honda initiated the repair, its still a repair. A recall is a significant inconvenience to the owner, and I personally would want to know if I should expect to be inconvenienced by repeated recalls. I don't dispute that other reliability studies may be done the same way, but I disagree that that is the proper or most useful or accurate way of doing it.
No major reliability survey counts preventive recalls (where a fix is made before a problem has manifested) as a repair. There are a few good reasons for this:
1. For many newer cars the recall repairs would swamp the regular ones, so you'd end up measuring recalls more than actual failures.
2. Reporting every recall would be more work for respondents.
3. Respondents would be less likely to report a recall repair, since many would assume they don't count, and you'd end up with less accurate stats.
4. Manufacturers would be penalized for spending money to prevent problems before they happen, and would then be less likely to voluntarily recall cars.
Not sure I agree with that philosophy, or parts of its accuracy.
Yes reporting recalls as repairs is more work for the responder, as is reporting any repair. but it should be all about getting good data on problems with the cars. If recalls are "swamping actual repairs", to me that indicates a problem vehicle and it should be recognized as such. Of the 5 recalls on my wife's Fit at least three of them corrected actual failures in parts or designs (and possibly a 4th), but by your definition they aren't repairs. Even though Honda initiated the repair, its still a repair. A recall is a significant inconvenience to the owner, and I personally would want to know if I should expect to be inconvenienced by repeated recalls. I don't dispute that other reliability studies may be done the same way, but I disagree that that is the proper or most useful or accurate way of doing it.
- Status