Re: Car Brands
- From: "DanTXD" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:57:29 +0100
"Taylor" <donthaveanemailaddressanymore@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MSb3g.52370$8o.42968@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"scott" <spam@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e2j235$jol$03$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is a pretty generic question; but with reliability-indexes and
all sorts of other (as best as possible) tests on the various
manufacturer's output, why do people buy cars that have such a high
chance of failing (in a more serious way) than, say, a Honda?
1) People have criteria apart from reliability. Price, fun, looks, size,
performance, standard equipment, colour, location of dealer
2) Even the most unreliable cars don't really fail *that* often, you
still have to be one of the unlucky ones, and in general they will get
fixed under warranty
Fair enough, but would you buy a car, let's talk about cheap peugeots,
that had so-called great performance when there's such a high chance of
something arsing up with it? I didn't mean reliable just as in starts-up
every-time, i mean reliable in terms of how much it likes to nick your
wallet and go spending.
Trips to the garage can reach the tip of a thousand on the *really*
unreliable cars, and from memory my (bloody) renault clio had this joy
years ago when I stupidly bought it. Oh naivety...
I'd argue that these days, you had just as much chance of going back to the
dealer with problems in your Merc or Beemer as you did in your Pug.
--
Dan
.
- References:
- Car Brands
- From: Taylor
- Re: Car Brands
- From: scott
- Re: Car Brands
- From: Taylor
- Car Brands
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Date of this photo?
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Date of this photo?
- Previous by thread: Re: Car Brands
- Next by thread: Re: Car Brands
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|