2013 TUV Reliability Report

[l5foye]

I very much hope Mercedes read the 2013 TUV Reliability Report and strive to improve their cars. It certainly does not offer much comfort for those of us who own a Mercedes. The best Mercedes achieved was 27th in the 2-3 year old category.

 

[John Jones Jr]

It's not encouraging, that's for sure.

Report 2013, age of cars 2-3 years - reliability rating -- An used car - TÜV reports

 

[mersum1es]

Edit: I was about to write how many cayennes there is on the road, then erased it but when V12 brought it up I rewrote it

And also mileage should be compared, Audi and MB have perhaps highest ones (some VWs too)

 

[V12]

Hmmm, that's not exactly a fair comparison.
Comparing a car full of gadgets with a bog standard polo with wind up windows will never be representative.

Perhaps more useful is the fact that the C beat the 3 and the A4 and the E beat the 5 and the A6.

One of the most impressive results for me is the Cayenne!

 

[Sp!ke]

The report doesnt seem to reflect what is common knowledge.

Cars with well known and published issues seemingly scoring well while the cars that have a strong reputation way down the list or not even appearing at all.

 

[John Jones Jr]

Comparing a car full of gadgets with a bog standard polo with wind up windows will never be representative.

That's no justification in my book.

VW Polo £9,995

M-B C-Class £25,525

 

[V12]

That's no justification in my book.

VW Polo £9,995

M-B C-Class £25,525

It's not a justification, it's the reason.

Should we all sell our 4 bed houses and buy a 1 bed flat because there is less to potentially go wrong?

 

[sixpot]

No way is that list an accurate document. Skoda's are way down, when we all know how good they are nowadays, and where's Lexus? they are normally near the top.

 

[rhud]

Likewise Honda,which are universally regarded as reliable.

 

[Dryce]

That's no justification in my book.

VW Polo £9,995

M-B C-Class £25,525

It's reality.

MB will have one or two additional turbochargers, higher power output per CC, more likely to be diesel, will almost always have an auto transmission, will have aircon, alarm, parking sensors, ESP, and more likely to have electric seats and other guff.

That's an awful lot more to go wrong.

In general it's hard to make complex systems as reliable as simple systems because there are more potential points of failure.

 

[V12]

Remember that this is the equivalent of a British MOT.
The defect rate could be a blown bulb or a oil burning engine or anything else in between.

 

[John Jones Jr]

In general it's hard to make complex systems as reliable as simple systems because there are more potential points of failure.

So, what are you really paying for so? Yes, sure the C-Class is bigger, more powerful and has some extra features over the likes of the Polo. Still, I expect the Merc to better built have less failures than a basic Polo, after all is that not one presumes the three pointed start is about - i.e. quailty.

 

[V12]

It is good quality, better than the 3 series or the A4...
You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[markjay]

This report doesn't make sense...

VW have cars all over the list, Polo in 1st place, Golf in 16th...

You would have thought that cars made by the same manufacturer and from largly the same components (engine, transmission, etc) would have the same reliability?

Perhaps it's a measure of the actual factory where the cars are assembled, or the mileage they cover (as others pointed out), or owners' expectations.... I do not know.

 

[V12]

Bear in mind that it's a 1.8% difference between 1st and 16th and the Golfs cover an additional 15k on average...

 

[John Jones Jr]

Should we all sell our 4 bed houses and buy a 1 bed flat because there is less to potentially go wrong?

^^^That's a poor analogy

But, hell I'll add another.

So a small simple light aircraft should be safer than the likes of a Jumbo having less to go wrong. And it's more acceptable that the more complex and far more expensive aircraft crashes than the light aircraft simply because it has a greater potential to go wrong?

 

[John Jones Jr]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

You mean the TUV is...

 

[Berkshire Rich]

Its a very good result beating the direct (decent brand / perceived quality) competitors with similar mileages

 

[V12]

I think you understand my point, despite my poor analogy.

As far as aircraft go, it's generally a life or death situation if some things fail.
Cars crash because of user error. Suspension failure (or anything causing a safety issue) is almost non existent these days.

The TUV is just publishing a report of statistics, individuals have to decide whether that information is useful or not.

An example of how this information can be dangerous at a quick glance is how positions 16-44 are covered by just 1%.

The statistics are interesting but hardly damning on the part of MB and apart from a couple of small surprises, a report like this is unlikely to affect the buying decisions of consumers.

 

[mersum1es]

The defect rate could be a blown bulb or a oil burning engine or anything else in between.

No it's not, if I've understood right. These TÜV statistics includes only hazardous or serious faults, so blown bulb is ignored. That was stated in some Finnish discussions were Finnish MOT statistic was calculation only failed ones, where all kind of fails were included.