Warranty direct claims - best and worst reliability

[grober]

Just to copy a comment I made yesterday on the other thread...

"I don't know what the data set is, but it being based on number of incidents and repair costs I would hazard a guess that it's related to the costs of the warranty and how eager they are to do the business.

You first have to define reliability, and for me cost doesn't come into it. A single, expensive failure does not signal an unreliable car, but a number of small failures would. I want to know that the car will start, stop and get me to my destination safely - that's what I would call reliable.

IIRC from my 6 Sigma days, reliability is the assurance that components, equipment and systems function without failure for desired periods during their whole design life. Pushing cost to repair into the equation is wrong, and distorts the underlying facts."

The cost of repair has absolutely nothing to do with reliability, so WD are not being quite as straightforward as they could be (This is the definition from their website - "The UK Reliability index takes into account all factors of a repair, the cost of the parts and the frequency of failures").

They are quite disingenuous in what they say:

It's really quite simple. The higher the Reliability Index score, the worse the car is - the lower the score, the better.

As a guideline, the average RI number on the 250 models we compare is 100.The Reliability Index figure is calculated as a combination of:

the number of times a car fails,
the cost of repairing it,
the average amount of time it spends off the road due to repairs
the average age and mileage of the vehicles we have on our books.


Reliability is the first item - WD then muddy the waters by adding in cost, time, age and mileage variables. So complex cars come bottom of the list? That's hardly a huge surprise.

Other cars include:

BMW 7 Series - Poor, 232
Jag XJ - Poor, 201

So are these 50% more reliable than a CL or SL? You can't say. But comparing the SL to the Jag, the main difference is the cost of repair, not time off the road (although the average SL was also 20% older).

So does the increased cost of repair make the SL more unreliable?

BTW, I'm not defending one marque against the other, rather I'm questioning a disingenuous index (with no published method) that is labelled as "reliability".

I know what you are saying but I found it very difficult to come up with an all- encompassing phrase that covered both cost and frequency of repair and days of the road to describe any index . Its well worth paying a visit to the Warranty Direct Site to have a look at the faults breakdown for the a) various models and b) model years covered. Home - Car Reliability Index | Reliability Index | How reliable is your car?

I append a couple for your perusal
upper

SL post 2002 - note the predominance of suspension and electrical faults

lower
A class 98-05 -- predominance of electrical faults


A quick glance through all the Mercedes range which does not cover the latest models thankfully [perhaps some grounds for optimism here ] shows a recurring pattern of axle and suspension problems/claims----- BROKEN SPRINGS ANYONE.????

You have to take these surveys with a pinch of salt but in the absence of any other data sources they can still furnish useful information.

 

[finisterre]

I am with Grober on this

I would like more info on the claims, the costs, and the way they are combined.

Something else, manufacturers warranties, what makes them choose to cover a vehicle for seven years or three or even one?

I remember buying my van, it had a one year warranty, when MB introduced the turbo diesel engine they said they had to increase the warranty period to three years because the technology was not trusted. I bought one with the older engine and it hasn't missed a beat.

Are the manufacturers hiding unreliability in warranty periods? Does a Kia seven year warranty really mean they are reliably engineered?

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I *think* the only really gauge to use is the one that tells you how long the car is out of use for?

The longer it's off the road, the more unreliable it is?

Off the top of my head I can't think of too may flaws with that idea...

 

[mirras]

Even the detail needs interpretation...

WD have left my car in MB a couple of times for over a week awaiting inspection and WD approval, it then took 2 hours to repair. So does the table represent time off the road overall or just the garage 'repair' time. I suspect there are so many variables there will never be a side by side reliability measure that fits all. I know my R230 inside out and know it's potentially 'unreliable' but I have done 40k miles in it and not been stranded once but I did expect this before purchase as all the faults are evident across other R230s and widely discussed here. You pays your money and all that....

 

[Mr E]

The index, IMHO, is all about getting people to buy a warranty. If you tell people that their car is likely to break down and will cost a fortune to repair, and then offer to sell them a warranty to insure against that cost, you will present the data in a way that suits you.

Regarding what to call the index, their own page has a good phrase - "making it a 'real world' picture of car ownership".

So is it surprising that big complex and expensive MBs also cost a lot in terms of car ownership?

Looking at the fault breakdowns for the top car - Toyota Corolla - shows 99.97% of faults are electrical. What does that tell me about reliability? Nothing.

You need something that looks at frequency of faults / claims, mapped against age/mileage. You'd probably end up with a classic "bathtub" graph showing a high number of faults / claims in the first fairly short period of ownership, flattening out in the main life of the vehicle and then rising again as it nears end of life. The "depth" of the bathtub and the slope of the sides would give a much better idea of reliability.

I'll ask a couple of simple questions - One car has a single strut failure in a year, costing >£1k and taking 5 days to fix. Another has a series of electrical faults that has required 5 visits to the dealer, but costs £200 to repair. Which is more reliable? Which is more expensive to own?

 

[Mr E]

The manufacturer's index makes for interesting reading too.

Chevrolet is the most reliable brand.
Those French manufacturer's that we love to bash come in at 12, 16, and 23.
Nissan and Mazda, who seem to do well elsewhere, are at 17 and 18.

 

[Sp!ke]

But if your Chevrolet breaks you just throw it away dont you?

 

[grober]

The manufacturer's index makes for interesting reading too.

Chevrolet is the most reliable brand.
Those French manufacturer's that we love to bash come in at 12, 16, and 23.
Nissan and Mazda, who seem to do well elsewhere, are at 17 and 18.

Interesting when you try to look at Chevrolet for model detail in their Car Reliability Search box--it doesn't exist--what's that about!

 

[Badboysun]

Warranty Direct

I've had personal experience of warranty direct on my C Class a few years ago, firstly there were cheaper than a Mercedes warranty, but they were always tight with the budget and would take up to five days to inspect/give permission to get work done, My L/H front spring broke,My local Merc dealer said we normally replace both front springs at the same time because one will be stronger than the other,Warranty direct said no they would only pay for one, and to wait untill an engineer inspects in five days, I could not do with out a car for up to five days so I paid for the L/H front spring and claimed the money back later, two weeks later the other front spring broke, Numerous lower and upper suspension links went, during my time with Warranty direct these I was given permission to get done, but I had to pay up front and claim the money back from warranty direct minus a fee relating to the age of my car.
The mercedes warranty was more expensive but no hassel for you Mercedes dealer to claim with a curtesy car included.

 

[jepho]

Jepho - your argument doesnt stand as the figures are based on failures per 100 cars.

Besides there are far more Fords or Vauxhalls on the road anyway.

The point I'm trying to getting at is that despite being a die hard fan of the marque, I think its becoming clear that MB still need to pull their socks up as even todays cars rolling off the production lines are not up to standard.

Sp!ke, I don't think I have put my case very well. The analysis provided by WD is simplistic... They appear to think that cause and effect are established because the owner bought the car. (the car of this marque caused the failure because it is a car of this particular marque) This is to ignore all of the possible variables that could confound their data. Worse, it carries an implication that one marque (MB) is worse than every other marque.

What terrain, mileages and how were the cars being driven? Was the driver young, middle-aged or old? Is the full service history comparable if some work was carried out at a marque main dealership and some work carried out by an indie? Is it reasonable to require major engine repairs at say... 300,000 miles or does that signify an unreliable car? What were the comparison mileages for all cars in the survey or did it not figure in the data? The cost of repairs should not figure in a reliability survey for they are irrelevant to the reliability of a vehicle.

Simplistic numbers are worthless if they are derived without any care to the variables affecting the numbers. I am still of the opinion that WD are just trying to sell more warranties. I am not saying their particular warranty is worthless or not worth buying (although I read an account that suggests it may not be all that is being claimed for it) but I am saying that sloppy numbers mean absolutely nothing to anyone and I call advertising bull***t.

/rant

A worldwide total sales for MB figure, for a set period of time, compared with the same number of cars sold for all other marques, would help to smooth out the numbers and be a little more even-handed. I would want to find out what the overall percentage of days off the road would be for MB and every other marque in the survey sample, which required warranty repairs.

 

[Mercy1]

Simplistic numbers are worthless if they are derived without any care to the variables affecting the numbers. I am still of the opinion that WD are just trying to sell more warranties. I am not saying their particular warranty is worthless or not worth buying (although I read an account that suggests it may not be all that is being claimed for it) but I am saying that sloppy numbers mean absolutely nothing to anyone and I call advertising bull***t.

Of course it's advertising bullsh**t. The first commandment of every PR firm is to produce simplistic surveys/research for their clients promoting their services. Every industry is at it - health, holidays, insurance, etc, etc. The survey/research is fed to the media as news, and the press lap it up. Never a day goes by without one appearing in newspapers - and they're all of doubtful substance. For obvious reasons, PR firms view media news stories (supposedly unbiased) as 100 more times effective than ads (clearly biased) - and of course they're free!!
The figures are thrown together by PR types with little interest in authenticity and have little expert input. Like all stats, they can be knocked back - as you are proving.
These so called surveys are usually forgotten as quickly as yesterday's news - and that's the best thing that can be said about them...