tankinbeans wrote:I often think of this. Specifically what is the working definition of unreliable?
Ford guys trash GM; GM guys trash Ford; everybody trashes Chrysler. Yet proportionally speaking cars from each company seem about as common relative to age as any other. I'm certainly guilty and cop to dogging GM (though the Buick is still a pretty robust part time cruiser - issues of age notwithstanding).
Are our expectations just screwed that an otherwise good car, that will get you where you need to go, is "unreliable" because of a peripheral? My infotainment system is problematic, but I'm working with my dealer to address it, otherwise mechanically the car is a champ. I only have 7000 miles on it, but internet wisdom vis-a-vis Chrysler
is that something should have happened by then.
Lets make up our own definition!
I vote that "Reliable" means that it starts and runs properly anytime you need to use it.
"Durable" to me might mean that it continues to operate and not break or wear out when driven at the extremes of its rated capabilities, including to extended years and miles of usage. For a car, that might mean 10 years and/or 150,000 miles when maintained according to the owners manual and that the GVWR and/or GCWR are not exceeded (remember to abide by the trailer frontal area limitations as well). For a light-duty truck (up to 1-Ton rating), that might be 15 years and/or 200,000 miles, as these trucks are sometimes still used as work-horses.
"Quality" might be more about how well it performs, how quiet, how smooth, the fit-n-finish, the ease to drive, steer and brake smoothly, how it responds to rough roads, how it resists side gusts of wind, that the slushbox doesn't hunt for gears on an uphill grade, that the entertainment system is easy to sync with your smartphone, i.e. that it exhibits refinement.
What do YOU thimpk?