PR wrote:
> "Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:B5jcb.128746$B%[email protected]...
>> PR wrote:
>>>> The less capability you build into a vehicle, the less it should
>>>> break down. So it's easy to build a Toyota Corolla that is only
>>>> designed to go shopping in and have very little go wrong. If you
>>>> engineer a vehicle to cross difficult terrain and function in harsh
>>>> environments then it is ultimately more likely to require warranty
>>>> claims due to it's greater complexity.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Julian
>>>> ---------
>>>> = Pretentious Sig required =
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rarely have a read such a load of complete and utterr crap.
>>>
>> It's a shame you were unable to understand the point being made.
>>
>>> A vehicle which is engineered for difficult terrain and to function
>>> in harsh environments (and priced to reflect this) presumably should
>>> be capable of doing just that - not least because in many parts of
>>> the world where the vehicles are sold and these environments are
>>> more the norm than they are here your vehicle is literally your
>>> lifeline.
>>>
>> I agree entirely, but these warranty claim figures do not demonstrate
>> whether any vehicle is reliable or not, simply the number of
>> warranty claims paid out by a third party company to largely second
>> owners. Take a Land Rover that may have been a farm vehicle or used
>> for heavy towing or by a plant hire company for the first three
>> years of its life covered by a LR warranty. It's then sold off at
>> the end of it's contract along with said third party warranty and
>> lots more claims are made than a Vectra thats driven up and down the
>> M1 for 3 years. Surprise, surprise.
>>
>>> So what possible excuse has it got for being pretty unreliable in
>>> conditions that never test its afore mentioned abilities?? (as most
>>> 4x4's are used in other words).
>>>
>> These warranty figures do not demonstrate whether a vehicle is going
>> to reliably get you through the amazon or not, they merely show how
>> many warranty claims have been made. My Discovery has two electric
>> sunroofs - this means it is twice as likely to have a sunroof
>> related warranty claim as a typical car. Does this mean it can not
>> cross the Sahara? There is no getting away from the fact that
>> additional complexity means more things to go wrong and that the
>> most reliable car of all is a pushbike. Doesn't do everything you
>> want but it's reliable.
>
>
> So precisely what has the fact that your landrover has got 2 sun
> roofs got to do with "difficult terrain and function in harsh
> environments" which was your original point for being reason that you
> should expect more claims??
>
Because having 2 sunroofs means twice as many likely warranty claims as a
car with one. Here's a list of things that a 4x4 has more of than a normal
car and hance twice the likelihood of a claim - propshafts, CV joints,
differentials, halfshafts, transferbox, diff-locks etc, etc. If you can't
see how a vehicle with those, or simply more of those than a car is more
likely to claim, I am wasting my time.
> Quite frankly your point about "complexity" is largely utter nonsence.
>
> Dont believe me??? - then how come modern cars are bMUCH more
> reliable than cars of, say, 30 years ago, they last MUCH longer AND
> they are MUCH more complex.
>
Are they? Do you have any figures to back up this assertion?
> Its true, the more things you have on a car, the more there is that
> CAN go wrong, but these days with a relaible make things very rarely
> (relatively speaking) do go wrong.
>
More guesswork I'm afraid - if you ask for example, Mercedes or BMW owners
whether their cars in the 1970's were less reliable than current ones the
answer will be a resounding no as the build quality of both makes has
dropped as they have become more mass market and more complex.
>
>>> You seem to imply that the reliability figures compare ordinary cars
>>> used for mundane purposes with off road vehicles pushed past their
>>> limit. The fact of the matter is (as most of us know) that most
>>> 4x4's are used for much the same purposes as your average super mint
>>> or rep mobile and that the figures in fact compare "ordinary" cars
>>> doing what they were designed for with 4x4's that are treated with
>>> kid gloves compared with what they are supposed to be capable of.
>>
>> Those are all assumptions I'm afraid - my 4x4 vehicles get worked
>> hard on and off-road and have never let me down. Judging the
>> reliability of any car by third party, second user warranty claims
>> is as daft as complaining that you took your Vectra off-road and it
>> got stuck.
>
> I wouldn't rely on a single source of such information - but anyone
> who claims that you can ignore all such surveys (including non
> warranty figures, JD Power and all other sorts of user surveys) is
> pulling the wool over their eyes.
>
That was entirely my point which you have ignored thus far - these figures
are just warranty claims for 2nd hand vehicles out of the manufacturers
warranty. There is no indication of mileage, use, whether they have ever
been serviced or indeed how many miles they have been driven. 4x4's are
generally more likely to have mechanical or electrical failures than simpler
cars, but that cannot safely be extrapolated from these warranty figures.
> Results will vary but overall broadly similar results are seen time
> after time.
>
> I would rather consider summarised experiences of large numbers of
> individuals (including warranty claims) than consider the detailed
> experience of just a handful of owners.
Once again I agree, but thats not what we are discussing here - we are
discussing third party warranty claim figures for 2nd hand cars and your
assertion that cars with more complexity and more physical parts have no
likelihood of suffering more failures which is wrong, both statistically and
empirically.
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
)
