Quote:
Originally Posted by Dadhawk
I think there is a little bit of "brand snobbery" mob mentality that plays into it as well. The "I've spent all this money so of course I'm going to say it's "reliable".
In addition many owners of these cars don't own them long enough for problems to start popping up, while if you move down the list longer ownership becomes the norm.
Every car I've ever owned would have received the same "dependability" rating from me in the first 100,000 miles.
I also find the disclaimer at the bottom interesting saying this is not based on any statistical significance.
|
All that doesn't even touch the indiscriminate use of the word "reliable" either. The twins initially had a horrible reliability rating because of the crickets and condensation in the tail lights. I personally do not see how either of these effects how reliable the car is. The people buying Kias may overlook some little things since "hey I bought a Kia" whereas a person with a Landover that has a 1/2 inch of crooked stitching in the trunk matting may scream bloody blue murder. The "reliability" stats are questionable at best since it isn't a level playing field at the best of times.