Funny you would say that. I almost bought a Z06, however I noticed alot of Vette guys with silver hair, pencil thin legs and pot belly. Afew in my neighborhood and I wasn't ready to join them yet. Age=Wisdom in most cases.
Interesting NSX thread on Corvette Forum
- Thread starter scottjua
- Start date
Funny you would say that. I almost bought a Z06, however I noticed alot of Vette guys with silver hair, pencil thin legs and pot belly. Afew in my neighborhood and I wasn't ready to join them yet. Age=Wisdom in most cases.
I feel sorry for you. I'm guessing you just had a lemon or something, because my Vette's been running pretty good, and it's modified too.
BJV: The reason your Vette feels faster is probably because it is faster. A 550 rwhp C5 is much quicker than even a supercharged NSX, let alone a relatively stock one.
------------------
2001 QuickSilver Corvette Coupe - Not Stock
2002 Black Acura 3.2 TL/S
BJV: The reason your Vette feels faster is probably because it is faster. A 550 rwhp C5 is much quicker than even a supercharged NSX, let alone a relatively stock one.
------------------
2001 QuickSilver Corvette Coupe - Not Stock
2002 Black Acura 3.2 TL/S
The C5 may not have the build quality of an NSX, but it's a pretty reliable car... one that I would never rule out due to quality. It's been voted as a reliable car in a number of publications. Excessively squeeky and problematic vettes died with the C4 model.
Hmmm...
First of all, ALL cars (including GM's) have been improving in reliability over the years. I would expect the C5 to be more reliable than the C4 it replaced in 1997. That doesn't mean it's more reliable than other high-performance sports cars.
Second, most automotive publications don't report on reliability. They evaluate the model when new. At best, they use a single car for a long-term test, which is hardly enough data to make conclusions from. On very rare occasions, they do a reader survey, which at least has a larger number of data points to use.
The one publication that keeps statistics on all cars, based on its surveys of reader experiences with over half a million vehicles, is Consumer Reports. It reports reliability on 14 different systems of the car, and uses them to come up with an overall reliability verdict in one of three categories:
1. Better-than-average overall reliability
2. Average overall reliability
3. Worse-than-average overall reliability.
They rate the 1999 and 2000 Corvette in category 2, and the 1998 and 2001 Corvette in category 3. There's insufficient data for years prior to 1998.
For the complete article, go to the periodical department of your local public library and ask to see the April 2002 issue.
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 19 June 2002).]
Sorry, I used the wrong terminology. When I said publications, I was referring to various sources who research reliability, not magazines such as C&D or Motortrend.
For example, established resources such as
MSN Carpoint:
http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Chevrolet/Corvette/Used.asp
Information on how their research is conducted:
http://carpoint.msn.com/home/reliability_ratingsinfo.asp
I agree that Corvettes are not in the same league in reliability as most cars at the top of their class: Lexus, Toyota, Honda. I see them of average reliability, which is commendable for an American sports car.
It's news to me that the last few years were found below average by Consumer. Good to know.
As you mentioned, Consumer Reports found the first year model C5s of average reliability. I wonder what may have changed in 99 to drop the car in their reliability rankings?
BTW- I was doing some searching and came across this interesting article about Consumer Reports. This is not to devalue them in any way, as they are still considered the status quo, but I found it an interesting read.
http://www.allpar.com/cr.html
For example, established resources such as
MSN Carpoint:
http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Chevrolet/Corvette/Used.asp
Information on how their research is conducted:
http://carpoint.msn.com/home/reliability_ratingsinfo.asp
I agree that Corvettes are not in the same league in reliability as most cars at the top of their class: Lexus, Toyota, Honda. I see them of average reliability, which is commendable for an American sports car.
It's news to me that the last few years were found below average by Consumer. Good to know.
As you mentioned, Consumer Reports found the first year model C5s of average reliability. I wonder what may have changed in 99 to drop the car in their reliability rankings?
BTW- I was doing some searching and came across this interesting article about Consumer Reports. This is not to devalue them in any way, as they are still considered the status quo, but I found it an interesting read.
http://www.allpar.com/cr.html
There's a flaw in their methodology. They show the most recent years (of Corvettes, in this case) as more reliable than the previous years. That's ALWAYS going to be the case. A seven-year-old car has a greater frequency of problems than a two-year-old car. So showing that the newer cars are more reliable than the older cars doesn't really "prove" that they are better built or anything like that.
More specifically, I mentioned that Consumer Reports evaluates 14 different systems on the car, to determine how reliable a car is. This is how they do it. For each system, they report the percentage of survey respondents who reported problems during the previous year that were deemed serious on account of cost, failure, compromised safety, or downtime. They report them in one of five categories:
1 - 2.0% or less
2 - 2.0% to 5.0%
3 - 5.0% to 9.3%
4 - 9.3% to 14.8%
5 - more than 14.8%
They then provide information on the average car model (all cars). For example, in the brakes, the average '01 is category 1; the average '00 is category 2; the average '97-99 is category 3; and the average '94-96 is category 4. As you can see, the average car is going to have more brake problems when it's older than when it's new. And if a particular model of '94 car has brake problems reported as category 3, that's actually better than the average car.
The difference between Consumer Reports and MSN Carpoint is that CR then compares all of these ratings with the average car of that age. Thus when they are reporting the overall reliability of a '94 car model, they are comparing it with all other '94 cars. MSN Carpoint is comparing reliability with the '95 and '96 etc so of course the reliability of the newer cars is almost always going to look like it's better, just because the cars are newer (and not even necessarily because they're better).
They weren't very specific about where their ratings come from or how they're calculated. They take calls from mechanics to help them with problems. Does that mean that mechanics who don't call them don't get tabulated? If a dealer mechanic calls his Techline, does that get included? If a mechanic knows what is wrong and how to fix it and doesn't call, does that not get included?
Sorry, I don't mean to pick them apart; I feel that the more data points, the better. But it's still not clear in my head what their methodology is.
I think they're improving, which is a good thing. But the reliability of all cars are improving. It's only relatively recently that manufacturers (ALL brands) are paying a lot of attention to quality - mostly since Japanese import share rose dramatically in the late seventies and eighties.
Second year, not first year; I believe the '97 C5 was its first year. Anyway, looking at specific problem areas, here are the frequency of trouble category (as shown above, with 1 the best) reported for each of the four years 98/99/00/01, for the average car model and for the Corvette:
Engine
Average car 2/1/1/1
Corvette 2/2/2/1
Cooling
Average car 1/1/1/1
Corvette 1/2/1/1
Fuel
Average car 2/2/2/1
Corvette 3/2/2/3
Ignition
Average car 1/1/1/1
Corvette 2/2/1/1
Transmission
Average car 2/2/1/1
Corvette 2/3/2/1
Electrical
Average car 3/3/2/2
Corvette 4/5/3/2
A/C
Average car 2/2/1/1
Corvette 2/3/1/1
Suspension
Average car 2/2/2/1
Corvette 2/2/1/1
Brakes
Average car 3/3/2/1
Corvette 3/3/2/1
Exhaust
Average car 1/1/1/1
Corvette 2/2/1/1
Paint/trim/rust
Average car 2/2/1/1
Corvette 2/1/1/1
Body integrity
Average car 3/3/3/2
Corvette 3/4/4/2
Power equipment
Average car 3/3/2/2
Corvette 3/5/3/2
Body hardware
Average car 3/3/3/2
Corvette 3/4/3/1
Thus you can see that the '99 had more frequent serious repairs than the '98 in quite a few areas (cooling, transmission, electrical, A/C, body integrity, power equipment, and body hardware), and less frequent in only a couple (fuel, paint/trim/rust). You would generally expect a newer model year to have the same or less frequent repairs in all areas.
There are a lot of people who just don't like Consumer Reports, and try to come up with reasons why their survey reports are wrong. But all of those accusations rely on an assumption that the magazine readers (and, more specifically, those who respond to their surveys) report differently than the general public. However, their reported reliability results are generally extremely consistent with those reported by other respected organizations, such as the surveys at five years of ownership conducted by J. D. Power and Associates. Furthermore, in an example like this, you would need to come up with a reason why the Corvette owners who respond to the CR survey are less representative than the owners of the other cars who respond to the CR survey. And that just doesn't make any sense to me.
Bottom line is that the Corvette's reliability (based on the Consumer Reports data) is actually not that bad - not great, but better than some other car models (some of which are rated below average for ALL of the past four years). And that in itself should be good news for Vette fans.
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 19 June 2002).]
Judging by this information, we can conclude that the C5 is not nearly as reliable as many make it out to be, from reviewers to magazine publications. I believe it.
More interesting to me... how was the idea that it was average or better in reliability perpetuated. Through magazines, independent reviews, other publications? What basis did the reviewers have for judging the reliability? Is the conclusion to not trust any source outside of Consumer Reports/JD Power regarding vehicle reliability?
If I was under the impression that a C5 is above average in reliability, I must have gained that information from a large number of sources. Enough sources to where a single negative report (such as Consumer) would not be enough to sway my opinion at glance. The majority of drivers do not see Toyota and Honda as the most reliable cars due simply to Consumer. In fact, I would argue that other sources contribute more to that view than the factual report Consumer releases.
A lot of individuals see current Mercedes and BMW as some of the most reliable marks, although compiled data shows otherwise. I recall a recent international report showing Mercedes quality having slipped below Opel.
It's almost universally accepted that Toyota and Honda are the most reliable cars? This may be true. Although they deserve the reputation, I wonder how much of it has to do with actual reliability reports versus careful marketing ploys and other devices that sway public opinion?
Finally, how did I get off on this philosophical tangent?
Don't mind my ramblings.
More interesting to me... how was the idea that it was average or better in reliability perpetuated. Through magazines, independent reviews, other publications? What basis did the reviewers have for judging the reliability? Is the conclusion to not trust any source outside of Consumer Reports/JD Power regarding vehicle reliability?
If I was under the impression that a C5 is above average in reliability, I must have gained that information from a large number of sources. Enough sources to where a single negative report (such as Consumer) would not be enough to sway my opinion at glance. The majority of drivers do not see Toyota and Honda as the most reliable cars due simply to Consumer. In fact, I would argue that other sources contribute more to that view than the factual report Consumer releases.
A lot of individuals see current Mercedes and BMW as some of the most reliable marks, although compiled data shows otherwise. I recall a recent international report showing Mercedes quality having slipped below Opel.
It's almost universally accepted that Toyota and Honda are the most reliable cars? This may be true. Although they deserve the reputation, I wonder how much of it has to do with actual reliability reports versus careful marketing ploys and other devices that sway public opinion?
Finally, how did I get off on this philosophical tangent?
Don't mind my ramblings.
Originally posted by ilya:
how did I get off on this philosophical tangent?
Don't mind my ramblings.
I hope no one minds if we follow this tangent for a while.
I don't know. It depends on where that information came from. For example, J. D. Power's website has some information that may be useful, although they often publish only the "good guys" so you can't see what else was compared with. I see that the Corvette won their 2001 award for "Best Premium Sports Car in Initial Quality". That's a good thing, for sure; it means that the cars left the factory in good shape, but doesn't measure how they held up over time. I'd like to see Power's 2001 awards for "2001 Vehicle Dependability Study", which measures vehicles after five years (this is the award that the NSX won in 1996), but I can't get it from their website, oh well.
That's possible. Each of us has enough personal contact with car owners that, in aggregate, we often form opinions based on that. Granted, these are small sample sizes, but it seems that most Honda and Toyota owners I run into have trouble-free ownership experiences, and those that own problematic models (such as the third-gen Mazda RX-7, just to cite one example) usually have horror stories to tell.
Compiled data is actually quite good for BMW, not so good for Mercedes. In last year's Consumer Reports auto issue (April 2001, they showed the range of problems per 100 cars for 2000 models sold under a particular nameplate. Average for all cars was 20 problems per 100 cars. For example, all of Acura's models averaged 9 problems per 100 cars. Honda's models ranged from 5 to 18 problems per 100, with an average just slightly worse than Acura's 9. (I'd be willing to bet that the model showing 18 problems per 100 is the Isuzu-built Passport.) Here is how all the makes ranked, in order based on average problem rate for all models within each make:
Infiniti
Lexus
Acura
Honda
Toyota
Nissan
Subaru
Mazda
BMW
Mercury
Ford
Volvo
Chrysler
Volkswagen
Plymouth
Saturn
Dodge
Audi
Buick
Mercedes-Benz
Oldsmobile
Cadillac
Pontiac
Lincoln
Chevrolet
GMC
Jaguar
Jeep
So, as you can see, all the Japanese makes ranked above all the non-Japanese makes, but BMW (with its models ranging from 13 to 23 problems per 100) was tops in reliability among all non-Japanese makes.
Good discussion and great info. I see that Jaguar is near the bottom of the list. I used to think Jaguars were quality cars, but have learned otherwise. Unbelievable for a luxury car so expensive to be at the bottom of the list.
I think many automotive journalists make passing comments regarding quality and reliability of cars. That may play a part in possibly inaccurate views of certain brands.
I think many automotive journalists make passing comments regarding quality and reliability of cars. That may play a part in possibly inaccurate views of certain brands.
