Of course without information like mileages, what the failure was for, age of vehicle etc etc it's all pretty useless.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8456116.stm
Interesting stuff though you have to be cautious about raw data like that, which to be fair they make clear.
Nice to see Renault Meganes up near the top.
Of course without information like mileages, what the failure was for, age of vehicle etc etc it's all pretty useless.
Totally useless data.. Need by car millage and also by age.. Also most fails are not really that bad, manufactures just need to fit LED bulbs and they
will look better....
Dan
quote:
Originally posted by Bluemoon
Totally useless data.. Need by car millage and also by age.. Also most fails are not really that bad, manufactures just need to fit LED bulbs and they will look better....
Dan
Can't really tell from their data but I think these are all from three year old cars - I.e. at their first mot.
It doesn't suprise me that transits are near the top as most of them are work vans and take daily punishment. But, as said, the reason for
failure and the mileage would be of infinitely more use. It would worry more that a renault with 30,000 miles failed from a rusty chassis then a
90,000 mile transit with a blown bulb!
There's also the type of owner.
For example are the type of people who own a corolla the same kind of people that get it serviced at the main dealer and then tested (in which case it
really should pass).
Useless and unreliable database
if you check row number 22629,
there is a Megane Scenic tested in 1986.
I thought that Scenics were introduced back in 1995 which means the first test would be in 1998.
This data shows you which cars get better maintenance, i.e. mostly the more expensive ones. Look at the cars with the really high failure rates and the biggest issues are lighting and brakes and tyres, exactly the kind of stuff that most people running a car on a budget simply ignore until MOT time.
The figures aren't reliable as a guage of the condition of cars on the road; Only the condition of cars when presented for test.
Many independant, non-test station garages do as I do and check/rectify customers vehicles before testing. So a test station that does a lot of
"trade" tests can have better pass rates than one that does few trade tests.
Most cars we take for test pass but if we didn't check them first 90% would fail (even if many of those would be minor things).
adrian
but after all that is said...
we all know fine well the jap cars are the most reliable and Vauxhall / Ford are the worst 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
but after all that is said...
we all know fine well the jap cars are the most reliable and Vauxhall / Ford are the worst
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
but after all that is said...
we all know fine well the jap cars are the most reliable and Vauxhall / Ford are the worst
One of the problems with the data is it dosen't differentiate between petrol and diesel, using a bit of detective work using the Rover data it
would appear as the years mount up diesels fair a lot worse than petrols ---- most likely reason being they do a higher mileage. Honda &
Honda derived Rover models have very similar scores.
Interestingly while looking at the Lexus stats (Very good) I had a look at the Lotus stats ---- surprisingly as good as Lexus ! if not better
!--- lower annual mileage and perfectionist owners.
Surprisingly contrary to popular myths about cheap American tin, it appears very few imports from GM USA have low scores on structural/body work
problems.
[Edited on 13/1/10 by britishtrident]
Probably skewed by all the cars heading for scrapage
I used to be a toyota tech and am now working for an independant garage which takes on any car. I also do mots and since working on almost all makes,
I can honestly say that french cars are the worst for reliability and build quliaty . As for That MOT data. its is nice to see data on paper but it is
useless for picking out the worst from the best.
I was on an mot refresher course and my god they have gone mad! we spent more time on headlamp aim and how important it is. And how a small rust hole
the size of a penny is a fail if its in the PRESCRIBED area of 30cm but a huge hole the size of your hand is a pass if its out of that area! Mot
standards are terrible the test is only really valid for that day. not for the future worthiness of the car for the next 12 months like a
service.
Rob
quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
but after all that is said...
we all know fine well the jap cars are the most reliable and Vauxhall / Ford are the worst
Ford/Vauxhall are for from being the worst. Any thing french or Italian comes in below them.
adrian
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
Well what would you make of this then?
My car is an 05 Mondeo, now with 76k miles on it. First MOT passed (2007), second MOT came with a warning about suspension bushes but passed, third one warned me about the brake pads but passed.
Missus has a 2001 106. Last MOT failed on bulbs, something to do with the suspension and the washer pump. £200 repair bill.
Pretty much the same the year before and the year before that.
The newer Ford has had more battering, more miles, more usage. I used it as a taxi for 9 months...
I did mention the ford has about 14k miles extra on it, that's like a year's worth of use