It is hoped that this web page offers the most useful auto
durability information ever set forth in any medium. Some discussion of its
shortcomings appears at the end. It should also be noted that the BMW Roster of
high mileage vehicles is new as of early December 2001; consequently, for this
year's durability page there is but one entry.
The main purpose of this web page is to help give visitors some
idea as to what they can expect from the products of manufacturers with
reputations for more mentionable quality and durability. Click here
to be taken directly to those sections providing assessments that contrast
vehicles made by Toyota and BMW against those made by the Big Three (General
Motors, Ford and Chrysler). The symbol 
is used to highlight those sections.
| |
Original engine, transmission and air conditioner: |
| |
|
Toyota:
|
9 listees reported having the original engine,
transmission, and air conditioner; 4 reported that either the engine or
the transmission or the air conditioner is not original. |
| |
|
BMW: |
The sole listee reported that all three were original. |
| |
Any significant amount of time or money spent on
repair, renovation or cleaning of the original engine, transmission or air
conditioner? |
| |
|
Toyota: |
7 said no; 5 said yes. |
| |
|
BMW: |
The sole listee said no. |
| |
Some
reasons for owning the high mileage vehicle: |
| |
|
Toyota: |
9 reported, "The vehicle is the embodiment of
engineering excellence, which I appreciate." |
|
10 reported, "The vehicle is the embodiment of
engineering excellence, which I passionately enjoy." |
| |
|
BMW: |
The sole listee reported, "The vehicle is the
embodiment of engineering excellence, which I appreciate." |
| |
Some
descriptions of feelings for vehicle: |
| |
|
Toyota: |
6 reported respect for its rather flawless performance,
11 reported fondness for its faithful performance, 8 reported an
attachment because its utilitarian value is several or many
times its current market value, and 7 reported an attachment because its esthetic
and engineering value is several or many times its current
market value. |
| |
|
BMW: |
The sole listee reported respect for its rather
flawless performance, fondness for its faithful performance,
and an attachment because its esthetic and engineering value is many
times its current market value. |
| |
Current engine performance: |
| |
|
Toyota:
|
5 reported, "It runs now as well as it did when it
was new." |
| |
|
|
5 reported, "It runs now nearly as well as it did
when it was new." |
| |
|
|
1 reported, "It runs some worse now than when it was
new." |
| |
|
|
1 reported, "It runs quite noticeably worse now than
when it was new." |
| |
|
|
1 reported that he was in the process of replacing the
engine. |
| |
|
BMW:
|
The sole listee reported, "It runs now nearly as well
as it did when it was new." |
| |
Current
performance of mechanical parts other than the engine: |
| |
|
Toyota: |
4 reported, "They run now as well as they did when they were
new." |
| |
|
|
6 reported, "They run now nearly as well as they did when they were
new." |
| |
|
|
3 reported, "They run some worse now than when they were new. |
| |
|
BMW: |
The sole listee reported, "They run now nearly as well as they did
when they were new." |
| |
Current
operation of electrical parts: |
| |
|
Toyota: |
5 reported, "They operate now as well as they did when they were
new." |
| |
|
|
6 reported, "They operate now nearly as well as they did when they
were new." |
| |
|
|
2 reported, "They run some worse now than when they were new. |
| |
|
BMW: |
The sole listee reported, "They operated now nearly as well as they
did when they were new." |
| |
Change
in engine noise from time of purchase as new vehicle: |
| |
|
Toyota median: |
0 (7 respondents) |
| |
|
BMW median: |
No median as sole BMW listee purchased his vehicle used. |
| |
Change
in other noise from time of purchase as new vehicle: |
| |
|
Toyota median: |
0 (7 respondents) |
| |
|
BMW median: |
No median as sole BMW listee purchased his vehicle used. |
| |
Current dilapidation (taking account of noise, poorly functioning or nonfunctional
components, loss of trim, loss of exterior color, fading, bleeding, cracking
or warping of plastics, etc.) on the following scale: |
| |
|
barely
usable very
great considerable
some nearly none
|
| |
|
Toyota median: |
-3 (13
respondents) |
| |
|
BMW median: |
-8 (1
respondent) |
| |
Change
in comfort from time of purchase as new vehicle: |
| |
|
Toyota median: |
0 (7 respondents): |
| |
|
BMW median: |
No median as sole BMW listee purchased his vehicle used. |
| |
Change in overall pleasantness from time of purchase as
new vehicle: |
| |
|
Toyota median: |
0 (7 respondents) |
| |
|
BMW median: |
No median as sole BMW listee purchased his vehicle used. |
|
Estimate as to when vehicle operated or will operate as
a typical Big Three vehicle with 3,000 miles |
| |
|
Toyota median: |
100,000 - 200,000 miles (9 respondents) |
| |
|
BMW median: |
200,000 - 300,000 miles (1 respondent) |
|
Requirement for replacing current vehicle with a new
Big Three vehicle |
| |
|
Toyota median: |
Gift of the Big Three vehicle, plus $20,000 compensation
for the first year, more subsequently (13 respondents with responses
distributed as follows: |
| |
|
|
|
0 |
5% reduction in the selling price of the Big Three vehicle |
| |
|
|
|
0 |
20% reduction in the selling price of the Big Three vehicle |
| |
|
|
|
2 |
50% reduction in the selling price of the Big Three vehicle |
| |
|
|
|
4 |
Gift of the Big Three vehicle |
| |
|
|
|
1 |
Gift of the Big Three vehicle plus $20,000 compensation for the first
year, more subsequently |
| |
|
|
|
1 |
Gift of the Big Three vehicle plus $200,000 compensation for the first
year, more subsequently |
| |
|
|
|
5 |
Unwilling to make such a replacement) |
| |
|
BMW median: |
Gift of the Big Three vehicle (1 respondent) |
|
Estimated Life Expectancy of a Toyota motor vehicle
from the first half of the 1980s. This query was a recent addition
which was replaced by another; hence, there are only two responses. |
| |
|
Toyota median: |
600,000 - 800,000 miles (2 respondents) |
| |
|
BMW median: |
N/A |
|
Estimated
Life Expectancy of a Big Three engineered vehicle |
| |
|
Toyota median: |
0 - 200,000 miles (2 respondents) |
| |
|
BMW median: |
0 - 200,000 miles (1 respondent) |
The principal shortcoming of the above data and information is the sample
size. With a sample of one for BMW, the data and information, save when it may
be combined with that for Toyota, is a very poor guide and maybe a meaningless
guide for a person with a significantly different SAT score, percentile, or
educational achievement. The sample for Toyota also is small and weighted
very heavily at the high aptitude end. Nonetheless, the advantage of having such
talented samples is that they may have accorded an acumen of observation that
only a much larger sample about the norm might have offered.
Another shortcoming is the generality of the questions asked. For example,
three queries ask the respondent to estimate when his/her vehicle operated like
a typical Big Three vehicle at 3,000 miles, 6,000 miles, and 22,000 miles. One
problem with these queries is that riding in or operating a Big Three vehicle
may have been so detestable for the Toyota or BMW owner that he/she may not have
done it for 5, 10 or 20 years. Consequently, his/her concept of how a Big Three
vehicle operates with each of these mileages may be old and may have been
updated only by curb side or stopped car observations, which may or may not have
been adequate for him/her to accurately characterize the operation of a more current Big
Three vehicle. Or the respondent may be simply comparing his/her Toyota/BMW
experiences with his/her experiences with Big Three vehicles of a similar
vintage, possibly with the thought, right or wrong, that little has changed.
A third shortcoming is that we don't have a characterization of the listees'
driving and car maintenance habits. For example, the listees may have more
gentle driving habits and/or more meticulous car maintenance habits than the
average motorist, or they may not. And while there may be reasonable conjectures
as to how these habits may affect responses to some of the queries, how these
habits may affect the responses to other queries seems entirely unpredictable.
To correct for this shortcoming, the questionnaires have been modified to
solicit information from future respondents on such habits.
Site manager emphasizes that these are early steps in a new field of
enquiry. The immediate objective is to give a very rough idea as to relative
life, operational, and esthetic expectancies. Only after many years of enquiry
may we be able to associate probabilities and expectancies to particular
products and consumer groups. And then the pace of technological change, not to
mention the increased Big Three reliance on Japanese components, may make such a
task troublesome or impossible.
Finally, an acknowledgment is in order. Via the comments page, a young girl
(gender is a conjecture based on manner of expression) or teenager left a message that briefly stated her mother's thoughts on the
matter of durability. From these remarks, there appeared a need for one page
providing a comprehensive view of all of the durability information gathered to
date from Auto on Info's high mileage roster listees. Hence, came this page, and
an additional query in the high mileage roster questionnaires.
|
Additional Information Pertaining to Durability and
Long-Term Ownership
| Some
Additional
Charts Pertaining to Durability |
|
(Each chart is linked to a news article providing additional
information.) |
More Charts and Tables appear below the list of
news articles.
Some Auto News Articles:
|
January 2007:
Toyota Expands Dominance on Durability Measure |
|
January 2007: Big Three Dominate 2006 and Cumulative U.S. Safety Recalls |
|
January 2007: In the U.S. in 2006, Consumers Quicken Their Pace to Quality: Toyota Sales Soar and Honda Sales Rise as Big Three Sales Plunge |
|
December 2006: Filling the Quota at the Consumer's Expense? How CR's 1998 GM Recommendations Fared |
|
November 2006:
True Value Estimates of GM's 2007 Vehicles |
|
November 2006:
The 2006 Updates: Honda Age-Equivalent Estimates: Estimates of When a Typical 1998 Model of Honda Motor Company Will Be as Troublesome as Typical 1998 Models of General Motors Corporation and Its Several Marques Were Circa 3 Years, 4 Years, ..., and 7 Years of Age |
|
November 2006:
The 2006 Updates: Toyota Age-Equivalent Estimates: Estimates of When a Typical 1998 Model of Toyota Motor Corporation Will Be as Troublesome as Typical 1998 Models of General Motors Corporation and Its Several Marques Were Circa 3 Years, 4 Years, ..., and 7 Years of Age |
|
October 2006:
Site Manager's 1984 Corolla Passes 500,000 Mark |
|
October 2006:
The 2006 Updates: Toyota and Honda Account for 4 of 5 Most Durable Sport-Utility Vehicles; General Motors - 7 of 10 Worst: Will a Typical 1998 Toyota SUV Be More Trouble Free at 21 Years of Age Than a Typical 1998 GM SUV at 3? |
|
October 2006:
The 2006 Updates: Toyota Tops in Pickup Reliability and Durability: Just How Bad, or Disastrous, Are GM Pickups? |
|
October 2006:
The 2006 Updates: Toyota and Honda Account for 4 Most Durable Vehicle Lines; General Motors - 4 of 10 Worst: Will a Typical Toyota or Honda 1998 Model Be More Trouble Free at 20 Years of Age Than a Typical 1998 GM Model at 3? |
|
September 2006:
Reliability Updates: Best and Worst Cars and Trucks Tables: A Chart Summary |
|
August 2006:
Reliability Updates: For Vehicles 6-to-8 Years Old, Toyota Accounts for 7 of 10 Best, GM - 17 of 36 Worst |
|
August 2006:
Reliability Updates: For Vehicles 5-to-7 Years Old, Toyota Accounts for 9 of 13 Best, GM - 17 of 42 Worst |
|
August 2006:
Fitch Cuts Ford Debt Deeper into Junk, Retains Negative Outlook, Puts Estimated Post-Bankruptcy Recovery at 51-70%; Will GM-Ford Race to Bankruptcy End in Dead Heat? |
|
August 2006:
Toyota Dominates Auto on Info's Rosters of High Mileage Vehicles; Honda Places Second: Another Auto Manufacturer Durability Award for Each |
|
August 2006:
Ford Announces Recall of 1.2 Million More Incendiaries, But No New Relief for Owners of GM's Runaways, Collapsing Tailgates, and Engine Knockers |
|
January 2006:
Toyota Overwhelmingly Dominates Another Measure of Durability |
|
August 2005:
For Vehicles 6-to-8 Years Old, Toyota Garners 7 of Top 10 Reliability Percentranks, General Motors Gathers 23 of Lowest 36 |
|
August 2005:
Speediest Dilapidations: General Motors Accounts for 16 of the 20 Worst |
|
August 2005:
Toyota Dominates Auto on Info's Rosters of High Mileage Vehicles; Honda Places Second: Another Auto Manufacturer Durability Award for Each |
|
August 2005:
In the U.S. in July 2005, Reliable Two and Nissan Sales Soar on Quality; Big Three Sales Soar on Discounts |
|
July 2005:
Another Ford Fire: Park That Ford on the Street! IV |
|
July 2005:
As Fires Mount, NHTSA Puts the Heat on Ford: Park That Ford on the Street! III |
|
July 2005:
Did GM's Marketing Department Make Out GM's CEO an Unmitigated Nincompoop? |
|
July 2005:
In the U.S. in June 2005, Sales by Quality Four Continue Growth and GM Shows World That It Can Move Off Dealer Lots Anything That Rolls |
|
June 2005:
Site Manager Replaces Corolla Transmission: 1984 Torque Converter Expires at 478,943 Miles |
|
June 2005:
Park That Ford on the Street! II |
|
June 2005:
In the U.S. in May 2005, Sales Shift Toward Quality Continues |
|
May 2005:
Fitch Says GM Bonds Junk Too |
|
May 2005:
Does 'GM' Mean 'Junk'? |
|
May 2005:
Toyota-Big Three Quality Gap Huge, and Growing |
|
May 2005:
Toyota and Honda Rule Most Reliable List with 12 of 12 Best, GM Dominates Least Reliable List with 8 of 11 Worst |
|
May 2005:
With U.S. Consumer Shift toward Quality Unabated, S&P Cuts GM and Ford's Debt to Junk |
|
May 2005:
In the U.S. in April 2005, Quality Four Sales Soar, GM and Ford Continue Free Fall |
|
May 2005:
Park That Ford on the Street! |
|
April 2005:
Consumer Shift Toward Quality Gives Honda Market Capitalization Greater Than GM's and Ford's Combined |
|
April 2005:
Moody's Cuts GM Long-Term Debt Rating to One Notch Above Junk, Puts Ford Debt Under Review |
|
March 2005:
Additional Measures of Toyota's Dominion in Automotive Quality: Market Capitalizations and Bond Ratings of Toyota vs. General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Volkswagen |
|
March 2005:
GM's Bond Rating, Bond Outlook, Common Stock, and Market Cap Take a Tumble, Reports WSJ |
|
March 2005:
General Motors and Chrysler Dominate Consumer Reports Used-Cars-To-Avoid List |
|
March 2005:
General Motors Dominates Consumer Reports Much-Worse-Than-Average Reliability List, Again |
|
March 2005:
Toyota and Honda Again Dominate Consumer Reports Good Bets List |
|
October 2004:
Is GM King of Junk? |
|
October 2004:
The 2004 Auto Reliability Updates: Toyota Continues to Govern; GM Stays Stuck ... Deep, Down and Under, and Below |
The visitor may find the following tables and charts useful as well.
|
Cumulative Number of Auto on Info
Auto Manufacturer Awards for Motor
Vehicle Quality |
|
Cumulative Number of First Place Positions in Auto on Info's
Auto
Manufacturer Awards for Motor Vehicle Quality |
|
Auto Manufacturer |
Awards |
Auto Manufacturer |
First Place Positions |
|
Toyota |
35 |
Toyota |
34 |
|
Honda |
27 |
Honda |
2 |
|
Mercedes-Benz |
2 |
Mercedes-Benz |
0 |
|
Nissan |
4 |
Nissan |
0 |
|
BMW |
1 |
BMW |
0 |
|
Volvo |
1 |
Volvo |
0 |
|
General Motors |
0 |
General Motors |
0 |
|
Ford |
0 |
Ford |
0 |
|
Chrysler |
0 |
Chrysler |
0 |
|
This table is current as of 15
October 2006. |
This table is current as of 15
October 2006. |
|
Shares of Consumer Reports' 2005 Quick Picks, by Auto
Manufacturer and Motor Vehicle Line |
|
Manufacturer |
Share of
2005 Reliability Quick Picks |
Share of
2005 Owner Satisfaction Quick Picks |
Share of
2005 Fuel Economy Quick Picks |
Share of
2005 Overall Quick Picks |
|
|
Vehicle Line |
|
Toyota |
.63 |
.47 |
.46 |
.33 |
|
|
Lexus |
.11 |
.16 |
0.00 |
.14 |
|
|
Toyota |
.53 |
.32 |
.46 |
.19 |
|
Honda |
.21 |
.26 |
.38 |
.33 |
|
|
Acura |
.11 |
.11 |
.08 |
.05 |
|
|
Honda |
.11 |
.16 |
.31 |
.29 |
|
Subaru |
.05 |
.11 |
0.00 |
.14 |
|
Nissan |
0.00 |
.05 |
0.00 |
.14 |
|
|
Infiniti |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
.05 |
|
|
Nissan |
0.00 |
.05 |
0.00 |
.10 |
|
Mazda |
.05 |
.05 |
.15 |
.051 |
|
BMW |
0.00 |
.05 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Mitsubishi |
.05 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Ford, Chrysler,
General Motors, and all others |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
1
Mazda's one entry, the Mazda3 i, may have been pulled from Consumer
Reports' Overall Quick Pick List due to a
"Poor" side-impact crash test rating
by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The Insurance
Institute's rating did cause Consumer Reports to pull the Mazda3
from its recommended list. |
|
All shares are rounded to two
significant digits. |
|
CR 2005 Quick Picks are quick pick
models of model year 2005. |
|
Note: A rebadge of a product
engineered by Toyota, but sold by another auto manufacturer, is
omitted from the latter's share. |
|
Source for Consumer Reports' Good
Bets: "Quick Picks," Consumer Reports, April 2005, P. 31 |
|
Shares of Consumer Reports' 2006 Good Bets for Model Years
1998-2005 with Selected 1997-2001 Reliability Percentrank Averages,
by Auto Manufacturer and Motor Vehicle Line |
|
Manufacturer |
Share of CR 2006 Good Bets
with a 1997-2001 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .80 |
Share of CR 2006 Good Bets
with a 1997-2001 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .85 |
Share of CR 2006 Good Bets
with a 1997-2001 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .90 |
Share of CR 2006 Good Bets
with a 1997-2001 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .95 |
|
|
Vehicle Line |
|
Toyota |
.48 |
.52 |
.57 |
.83 |
|
|
Lexus |
.13 |
.16 |
.22 |
.33 |
|
|
Toyota |
.35 |
.35 |
.35 |
.50 |
|
Honda |
.28 |
.29 |
.26 |
.17 |
|
|
Acura |
.10 |
.13 |
.09 |
0.00 |
|
|
Honda |
.18 |
.16 |
.17 |
.17 |
|
Subaru |
.10 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Nissan |
.12 |
.16 |
.13 |
0.00 |
|
|
Infiniti |
.07 |
.10 |
.13 |
0.00 |
|
|
Nissan |
.05 |
.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Mazda |
.02 |
.03 |
.04 |
0.00 |
|
Ford, Chrysler,
General Motors, and all others |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
1
If the vehicle model is too new for a 1997-2001 Reliability Percentrank average to exist, the early 2002 Reliability Percentrank
is used when such exists. |
|
All shares are rounded to two
significant digits. |
|
CR Good Bets are models that have three or more
model years between 1998 and 2005 of better-than-average reliability. An auto
Reliability Percentrank is
a measure of relative overall reliability used by Auto on Info. |
|
Note: Two rebadges of products
engineered by Toyota, but sold by another auto manufacturer, are
omitted from the latter's share. |
|
Source for Consumer Reports' Good
Bets: "CR Good Bet: The Best of Both World's,"
Consumer Reports Cars: Used
Car Buying Guide 2006, p.
25 |
|
Median Reported
Severity of Engine Knock for Various Classes of GM Vehicles as
of July 12, 2005 |
|
Class |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
GM pickup trucks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
GM sport utility vehicles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
GM minivans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
GM passenger cars |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Bookmarking
Auto on Info pages
