but we had these jags between maybe 1975 - 1985 or so. way before ford entered the picture. they were great to look at.......... and thats about it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
American Cars are not Worse (on average)!
- Thread starter carbonmotion
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
but we had these jags between maybe 1975 - 1985 or so. way before ford entered the picture. they were great to look at.......... and thats about it.
My mom's 05 touareg (3x,000 miles) is crap. Lets see... headlights multiple times, tailights bunches of times, some mass air flow sensor, some other sensor, window, trunk lock x2, door seal, CD player, license plate light at least 5 times, starter, alternator, fuel pump. Also the first set of tires wore out after 7000 miles- VW doesn't cover the tires in the warranty, so we had to deal with the tire company. Thank god its under warranty, are their any lemon law violations here. The dealer is good, they repair it very quickly and they are nice, however, the last time i was there the desk people admitted that they could not afford to maintain a volkswagen. One of them had a maxima and one of them has a camery. The guy with the Maxima said his has 80,000 miles and last year his total maintence fees were $271. In two years my parents would have spent thousands. Oh yea, don't forget the $350 battery- mind you its special, the only way to take out the battery is to remove tons of plastic in the engine, and if disconnect the battery, the car will not start until the dealer resets the computer.
My uncle had a 2001 passat 1.8t. At his 50,000 mile tune up he spent $2500. At his 80,000 mile tune-up, he dropped 3 grand on the car. Thats not including the other quirky things that went wrong with his car.
Our Discovery (2003 with a whopping 8x,000 miles) has had a lot of money put into it, you can't blame it though, its british
. The biggest problems were 1) the both AC compressors, and lines had to be replaces and 2) the computer died. Both of those were costly repairs. In addition it had the alternator, fuel pump, window problems, driver power seat, sunroofs sticking, 02 sensors, door locks. EAS leveling module. Totally Unreliable, but it always runs.
Jeep- Fuel Pump, Freon for the A/C, and the transmission had to get fixed (chrysler )
My dad's commuter car, my grandmas old car, a most disgusting 1998 Cutlass with 60,000 miles has had a brake light replaced, a tail light replaced, the antenna replaced, the alternator replaced, and the A/C Button replaced. Thats it. The alternator thing was weird, but compared to the VW and Rover, thats nothing.
The Jeep and Olds are like $45/hr to fix. The VW I think is like $90 and the rover is over $100. Its quite interesting how the Jeep Dealer has like 4 repair garages and has a ton of cars. The land rover dealer has like 10 bays and sell probably 1/100 of the amount as jeep.
American cars are ok, some are better than others. Generally they are improving. Someone has to make an affordable car though. Personally I think Hyundai will become a major auto maker. There cars are cheap, reliable, good warranty, and they mimic higher end cars. ie. Hyundai Sonota = Jaguar X-Type.
My uncle had a 2001 passat 1.8t. At his 50,000 mile tune up he spent $2500. At his 80,000 mile tune-up, he dropped 3 grand on the car. Thats not including the other quirky things that went wrong with his car.
Our Discovery (2003 with a whopping 8x,000 miles) has had a lot of money put into it, you can't blame it though, its british
. The biggest problems were 1) the both AC compressors, and lines had to be replaces and 2) the computer died. Both of those were costly repairs. In addition it had the alternator, fuel pump, window problems, driver power seat, sunroofs sticking, 02 sensors, door locks. EAS leveling module. Totally Unreliable, but it always runs.Jeep- Fuel Pump, Freon for the A/C, and the transmission had to get fixed (chrysler
)My dad's commuter car, my grandmas old car, a most disgusting 1998 Cutlass with 60,000 miles has had a brake light replaced, a tail light replaced, the antenna replaced, the alternator replaced, and the A/C Button replaced. Thats it. The alternator thing was weird, but compared to the VW and Rover, thats nothing.
The Jeep and Olds are like $45/hr to fix. The VW I think is like $90 and the rover is over $100. Its quite interesting how the Jeep Dealer has like 4 repair garages and has a ton of cars. The land rover dealer has like 10 bays and sell probably 1/100 of the amount as jeep.
American cars are ok, some are better than others. Generally they are improving. Someone has to make an affordable car though. Personally I think Hyundai will become a major auto maker. There cars are cheap, reliable, good warranty, and they mimic higher end cars. ie. Hyundai Sonota = Jaguar X-Type.
If money isn't a issue, I'd buy a 07 Lexus LS... I've drive alot of cars on road trips and not a single car came anywhere near the Lexus. Accords and Camrys really aren't the same thing as their up-scale counter parts. If I were rich and had alot of money to waste on maintance, I'd probably buy a Range Rover, supercharged...
Right now it's between a CTS '08 and a BMW 3 series '08... I like BMW for the understated styling... I like the CTS for the size and interior design. Although the beamer look like a girl's car and the CTS 08 looks like a grand mother's car.... so another option is a used CTS-V.
Why the europeans insist on making their entry level cars look like sub compacts, i will never know. besides mercedes c-class virtually everyother german entry looks sub compact. They should really take a cue from nissan and toyota. when people spend 35 grand this side of the pund they expect something the size of the IS or CTS not the three series.
p.s. when south korean automaker Hyundi gets more name recognition in this country, Accord and Camery better watch out... cause they gonna have way better reliability and much lower price and better warrenty!
Right now it's between a CTS '08 and a BMW 3 series '08... I like BMW for the understated styling... I like the CTS for the size and interior design. Although the beamer look like a girl's car and the CTS 08 looks like a grand mother's car.... so another option is a used CTS-V.
Why the europeans insist on making their entry level cars look like sub compacts, i will never know. besides mercedes c-class virtually everyother german entry looks sub compact. They should really take a cue from nissan and toyota. when people spend 35 grand this side of the pund they expect something the size of the IS or CTS not the three series.
p.s. when south korean automaker Hyundi gets more name recognition in this country, Accord and Camery better watch out... cause they gonna have way better reliability and much lower price and better warrenty!
the issue with German cars is that while the electrics and incidentals tend to be problematic (see ErikCLDR's post above) the way they actually do anything relating to the act of driving is usually amazingly yummy. thats how they get you.
i am going to use this car for at least 4 or 5 more years then i think i am going to go with something japanese. what i really would prefer is to have no car and use public transit, and get a Zipcar when needed.
i am going to use this car for at least 4 or 5 more years then i think i am going to go with something japanese. what i really would prefer is to have no car and use public transit, and get a Zipcar when needed.
Well if you are advancing a thesis, then your post should support the thesis in some identifiable way.
You said American cars -- you didn't say cars built by American companies (whatever that is these days given the ownership of Chrysler, for example) vs. cars built in America and built to certain processes (assuming that American car manufacturers use identifiably different processes than others).
You said on average, American cars are not worse -- you didn't say what your quality criteria were (mileage was one, but your individual example is not representative of fleet mileage at all), or what your selection criteria for the vehicles were -- what date ranges, for example -- and then contradicted yourself for cars in the date ranges 1990-1999 and for certain models.
But now you say the post is about how American cars' quality has improved.
OK, what quality measures, over what period of time and compared to what?
If you have information, I am honestly interested in seeing it.
VW wasn't this bad for me until Mr. Lopez started his cost cutting of the parts. The other 3 VWs I had were not nearly as bad as this latest one but the exchange rate always kept the parts high. Scheduled maintenance is actually down with the last one.
So, I decided to look up some fleet stats. Since the 2002 Chev and Toyota were compared, I looked up the reliability ratings on all Chevrolet and Toyota models for 2002 (Consumer Reports (subscription required), which are based on standardized reports from actual owners' repairs), and the EPA combined mileage ratings.
Chevrolet: Reliability rating fleet wide for 2002 = 2.7 out of 5 -- 54% grade
Toyota: Reliability rating fleet wide for 2002 = 4.7 out of 5 -- 94% grade
There were only three Chevys that scored over 3.0
The Silverado pickup (4.0), the Prizm (5.0) and the Tracker (4.0)
The Prizm is a Toyota Corolla, and the Tracker is an Isuzu.
The worst Toyota model (3.0) was rated as reliable or more reliable than all but one American Chevy.
Fleet wide, the EPA Combined Mileage ratings are
Chevrolet 20.1 MPG
Toyota 23.8 MPG
but this doesn't take into consideration that some of the vehicles are trucks and SUVs where mileage doesn't matter as much as size, 4WD or carrying capacity (although there is a pretty good match down the line of models.)
So, I chose just the small cars, family cars, minivans and smallest SUVs as representative of the vehicles where you actually might care about mileage. I excluded the sports cars, and arbitrarily excluded the 49 MPG Prius Hybrid 'cause that skewed the results way too much, as Chev has nothing comparable.
Chevrolet 23.3 MPG
Toyota 26.7 MPG
Leave out the small SUV category from both manufacturers and:
Chevy's 24 MPG versus Toyota's 27 MPG
But, when you exclude the Toyota designed and built Prizm, what happens?
Chevy's "American" cars drop to 22 MPG vs. 27 MPG-- over 18% worse than the 'foreign' competition.
So: ON AVERAGE Toyota in 2002 wiped the floor with Chevrolet in actual, reported reliability and gas mileage.
I'll put the spreadsheet up on a web page if someone wants it...
Customer Satisfaction -- of 350,000 new car owners surveyed, there were 44 models which 80% or more of the owners said they would purchase the car again:
Of those 44, just 3 were "American" : Corvette, Mustang and Dodge Magnum.
Of the 21 models where more than 50% of the owners said they would never buy the model again: 14 are "American"
You just keep at it don't you? By what measurement. other than your personal opinion, do you say that Hyundai has way better reliability than Toyota and Honda?
Just for S&G I ran the Hyundai fleet reliability ratings for 2002 -- 3.0 A bit better than Chev, but not even close to Toyota. Hyundai did not place a single car in the Excellent category, vs. 12 out of 15 Toyota models rated Excellent (5.0)
Chevrolet: Reliability rating fleet wide for 2002 = 2.7 out of 5 -- 54% grade
Toyota: Reliability rating fleet wide for 2002 = 4.7 out of 5 -- 94% grade
There were only three Chevys that scored over 3.0
The Silverado pickup (4.0), the Prizm (5.0) and the Tracker (4.0)
The Prizm is a Toyota Corolla, and the Tracker is an Isuzu.
The worst Toyota model (3.0) was rated as reliable or more reliable than all but one American Chevy.
Fleet wide, the EPA Combined Mileage ratings are
Chevrolet 20.1 MPG
Toyota 23.8 MPG
but this doesn't take into consideration that some of the vehicles are trucks and SUVs where mileage doesn't matter as much as size, 4WD or carrying capacity (although there is a pretty good match down the line of models.)
So, I chose just the small cars, family cars, minivans and smallest SUVs as representative of the vehicles where you actually might care about mileage. I excluded the sports cars, and arbitrarily excluded the 49 MPG Prius Hybrid 'cause that skewed the results way too much, as Chev has nothing comparable.
Chevrolet 23.3 MPG
Toyota 26.7 MPG
Leave out the small SUV category from both manufacturers and:
Chevy's 24 MPG versus Toyota's 27 MPG
But, when you exclude the Toyota designed and built Prizm, what happens?
Chevy's "American" cars drop to 22 MPG vs. 27 MPG-- over 18% worse than the 'foreign' competition.
So: ON AVERAGE Toyota in 2002 wiped the floor with Chevrolet in actual, reported reliability and gas mileage.
I'll put the spreadsheet up on a web page if someone wants it...
Customer Satisfaction -- of 350,000 new car owners surveyed, there were 44 models which 80% or more of the owners said they would purchase the car again:
Of those 44, just 3 were "American" : Corvette, Mustang and Dodge Magnum.
Of the 21 models where more than 50% of the owners said they would never buy the model again: 14 are "American"
You just keep at it don't you? By what measurement. other than your personal opinion, do you say that Hyundai has way better reliability than Toyota and Honda?
Just for S&G I ran the Hyundai fleet reliability ratings for 2002 -- 3.0 A bit better than Chev, but not even close to Toyota. Hyundai did not place a single car in the Excellent category, vs. 12 out of 15 Toyota models rated Excellent (5.0)
Canada, you have to do a model by model comparison. Like I said before...
Camry is not as mechanically reliable as the Impala
Hyundai's mechanical reliability is catching up to Toyota's in mid-size sedans.
...Maybe I don't really know what I'm talking about. But, having grown up at the heart of the auto industry, I can tell you that my dad's best friend is the lead engineer in GM's electric car program (the fabled EV1 that was the subject of who killed the electric car) his other friend is one of the man who designed Toyota's Pokiyoki (sp?) manufacturing process in 1994 ...which played a big part in helping Toyota keep quality up and process down. So the GM guy comes over for dinner and says their quality is up and the Toyota guy comes over and says their cutting corners that should mean something. But it didn't to me. I still deep down inside felt that Toyota and Japanese makers made better cars than the American auto makers.
I didn't actually give this entire thing another thought when I was in my lecture and we had a brief talk about product reputation. The professor, who by the way is C.K. Prahalad, made a small point about how even when your products quality has sufficiently recovered, your reputation will lag behind for a while. He made the Camry Impala, among many other examples, to prove his point. I had a huge paradigm shift at that moment and wanted to share it with this board... albeit hurriedly, so my ideas might have been misinterpreted.
I don't have loyalty to any particular car company, I just thought the idea that I was presented with was interesting. I found it to be believable because this guy's Paul and Ruth McCracken Distinguished University Professor of Corporate Strategy at Stephen M. Ross School of Business.
I know people are passionate about their cars, but I was really speaking of this from a corporate strategy perspective. I will engage in all of these discussion devoid of emotion and I encourage you to do the same.
I'm all out of arguments. I guess since I can't look at your raw data, I can't dispute it. But if you want find out more about the theory that's being discussed about the automotive company you should check out my text book: The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. You can buy it
here.
J.D. Power and Associates Data is attached....
Camry is not as mechanically reliable as the Impala
Hyundai's mechanical reliability is catching up to Toyota's in mid-size sedans.
...Maybe I don't really know what I'm talking about. But, having grown up at the heart of the auto industry, I can tell you that my dad's best friend is the lead engineer in GM's electric car program (the fabled EV1 that was the subject of who killed the electric car) his other friend is one of the man who designed Toyota's Pokiyoki (sp?) manufacturing process in 1994 ...which played a big part in helping Toyota keep quality up and process down. So the GM guy comes over for dinner and says their quality is up and the Toyota guy comes over and says their cutting corners that should mean something. But it didn't to me. I still deep down inside felt that Toyota and Japanese makers made better cars than the American auto makers.
I didn't actually give this entire thing another thought when I was in my lecture and we had a brief talk about product reputation. The professor, who by the way is C.K. Prahalad, made a small point about how even when your products quality has sufficiently recovered, your reputation will lag behind for a while. He made the Camry Impala, among many other examples, to prove his point. I had a huge paradigm shift at that moment and wanted to share it with this board... albeit hurriedly, so my ideas might have been misinterpreted.
I don't have loyalty to any particular car company, I just thought the idea that I was presented with was interesting. I found it to be believable because this guy's Paul and Ruth McCracken Distinguished University Professor of Corporate Strategy at Stephen M. Ross School of Business.
I know people are passionate about their cars, but I was really speaking of this from a corporate strategy perspective. I will engage in all of these discussion devoid of emotion and I encourage you to do the same.
I'm all out of arguments. I guess since I can't look at your raw data, I can't dispute it. But if you want find out more about the theory that's being discussed about the automotive company you should check out my text book: The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. You can buy it
here.
J.D. Power and Associates Data is attached....
Attachments
I NEVER meant to say that Hyundai Cars are better quality than Toyota Cars, right now. I said...
The the first part of the sentence 'when south korean automaker Hyundi gets more name recognition' implies that the second part of the sentence will happen in the future. I can see how this can be unclear as I hurriedly typed this while I was doing my homework. So i take the blame for being unclear in my wording.
Well to be fair, Hyundai is catching up. I'd like to see numbers from 2004 or something. Hyundai has made huge progress. In 1997, I don't think many of us would have bought a Hyundai. No way. I certainly wouldn't have. My step-siblings had an Excel from the 1990s, and it suuuuucks.
On the other hand, that was 10 years ago. Hyundai sucked 10 years ago. The year 2002 was 5 years ago. Apparently, they weren't great in 2002 either, but around the same as Chevy. That's still an improvement over their "bottom of the barrel" reputation they had. In 2007, their reputation in quality and reliability has certainly increased since 2002, which is why it's certainly not unbelievable to think that Hyundai, with the way they're growing, is going to compete well with the likes of Toyota if they keep selling good, reliable cars for several thousand $$$ less than Toyota does for equivalent models.
I own a 2005 Hyundai, and it was only after doing a LOT of research before I ever considered buying one. My first choice was a Toyota, and my second was a Honda. For the money, the Hyundai Getz (not sold in North America) gave me the best car for the price, as all features are STANDARD. Top this baby off with a reputation as being the cheapest small car to own and maintain, and you have yourself a winner. The 1.5 L, 100 HP engine is good enough for most people outside North America, so power certainly wasn't a problem, as it also had a larger engine than cars in the same class.
On the other hand, that was 10 years ago. Hyundai sucked 10 years ago. The year 2002 was 5 years ago. Apparently, they weren't great in 2002 either, but around the same as Chevy. That's still an improvement over their "bottom of the barrel" reputation they had. In 2007, their reputation in quality and reliability has certainly increased since 2002, which is why it's certainly not unbelievable to think that Hyundai, with the way they're growing, is going to compete well with the likes of Toyota if they keep selling good, reliable cars for several thousand $$$ less than Toyota does for equivalent models.
I own a 2005 Hyundai, and it was only after doing a LOT of research before I ever considered buying one. My first choice was a Toyota, and my second was a Honda. For the money, the Hyundai Getz (not sold in North America) gave me the best car for the price, as all features are STANDARD. Top this baby off with a reputation as being the cheapest small car to own and maintain, and you have yourself a winner. The 1.5 L, 100 HP engine is good enough for most people outside North America, so power certainly wasn't a problem, as it also had a larger engine than cars in the same class.
funny how the camry never made it in europe and was withdrawn because it sold too bad and yet it is one of the most popular cars in the US
and as somebody said it in this thread that resale value counts as well and at least in that department the american cars are at least better than Lexus over here which is considered unsellable ...
and as somebody said it in this thread that resale value counts as well and at least in that department the american cars are at least better than Lexus over here which is considered unsellable ...
I question how CR gathers its data on reliability. I know they have millions of subcribers. To me they have no crediability with me. They bash GM for first year problems. Yet when the 2005 Avalon was having some issues they went, " We are confident Toyota will solve these issues for 2006 MY." Sorry, but you don't bash one company for first year problems and then hand another one a escape from bashing card. GM has improved in quality. The Japanese still has the advantage, but the gap is getting smaller. As I said earlier GM has been the most reliable vehicles in my family. Chrysler being the worst.
CR, I have noticed is very biased towards american cars. For the most part, they only like Japanese cars.
Woot go BMW.
The motor in my M3 was designed 13 years ago, yet it gets ~23ish mpg on average (sticker is 20/28) for 260ish hp and even more torque, that's pretty crazy. Most of the little Japanese sport compacts can't claim that.
I've had no problems with quality.
Something you have to remember is that a more complex car has more that can go wrong, however the overall driving experience should be better as a result. That's like saying you should strip out all the onboard computers, airbags, climate control features, heated/air conditioned seats, rains sensing windshield wipers, etc etc etc.. just so a certain BMW / Mercedes can match the reliability records of a stripped out base model Civic.
I never understood that argument.
I'll take the reliability hit if the overall experience is far better.
The motor in my M3 was designed 13 years ago, yet it gets ~23ish mpg on average (sticker is 20/28) for 260ish hp and even more torque, that's pretty crazy. Most of the little Japanese sport compacts can't claim that.
I've had no problems with quality.
Something you have to remember is that a more complex car has more that can go wrong, however the overall driving experience should be better as a result. That's like saying you should strip out all the onboard computers, airbags, climate control features, heated/air conditioned seats, rains sensing windshield wipers, etc etc etc.. just so a certain BMW / Mercedes can match the reliability records of a stripped out base model Civic.
I never understood that argument.
I'll take the reliability hit if the overall experience is far better.
I have a question about something I've never understood, sorry if it is a bit offtopic.
Why is the power of the car important? The fastest you should be driving (at least in Arizona, and most of the U.S.) is 65mph, 75mph on very rural and rare ocassions. Why is it important to have a car that can go from 0 to 60 in a few seconds; you'll never have the opportunity to do that.
Why is the power of the car important? The fastest you should be driving (at least in Arizona, and most of the U.S.) is 65mph, 75mph on very rural and rare ocassions. Why is it important to have a car that can go from 0 to 60 in a few seconds; you'll never have the opportunity to do that.
I agree I've noticed this too, as have all of my friends, and they're mostly honda nuts!
The Saab H-Engine made it's debut in 1981 - 26 years ago, and still powers every 2007 Saab 9-5 (the last car to use it). My 2001 has 122,000 miles and has never had anything wrong with the engine, and I drive it pretty rough! Still on original clutch too! Stock has 250 horse and 275 lbs of torque at overboost - mine has over 300 horse and 320 ft-lbs. I also get ~30mpg under normal highway driving. Recently in the Saab universe the big story was the guy in Wisconsin who hit one million miles on his Saab 900 (using this engine) and Saab gave him a free 2007 9-5 for the feat, and extended the offer to anyone else that can reach a million miles. Also, Saabs now have a 100,000 mile warranty.
My Mom's BMW X5 didn't make it to 50,000 miles with us... it was so unreliable that my Mom just had to get rid of it - replaced it with a Tahoe Z71 which is extremely reliable in comparison.
The point being (in the case of the Saab) you don't have to sacrifice reliability to get high power and european refinement. Not to mention, with BMW you have to pay twice as much to get a car equal in performance to other (even european) brands. A $40,000 BMW is slow as molasses, but it'll get you a high performance Saab, Volvo, Subaru, Chevrolet, Volkswagen, etc... I can think of hardly any reason to buy a BMW. There is just no value at all, not even slight-almost-justafiable value.
I've had my Saab to 130 on interstate 55 in Illinois. Only topped out at 130 because it was freaking me out. Never did it again.
I havent found American cars to be awful just not as good as Japanease, my family owns subarus and a mercury a dodge and a chrysler, and they all run fine but the Subarus are just more solid they feel better and they never developed the rattles that the American cars have gained over the years.
That's because they don't have any recent GMs. GM has massively raised the bar for American cars, especially with cars such as the Saturn Aura (recently name NA Car of the Year for 2007), Saturn SKY, Buick Lucerne, Buick Lacrosse, Cadillac STS, DTS, and CTS. Ford (Mercury) and Chrysler (Dodge) really don't compare in the build quality department.
You really have to sit in and/or drive one of these cars to appreciate how hard GM is trying now.
Hell, Ford/Mercury still offers the Grand Marquis as a 2007 model! What!?!? Even Buick dropped their traditional boat/sedans (Park Avenue, LeSaber, Century) a long time ago and replaced them with euro-style sedans such as the Lucerne (which is really awesome for a Buick).
My dads 2003 Discovery has a pushrod v8 designed by Buick in 1961. Of course it has been enlarged. Its still load and gets horrible fuel economy though.
Then they switched to BMW for the Range Rovers but now they have Jaguars. In the V6 LR3 the engine is "Ford Based" and I assume the engine in the LR2 is the same.
I would say in terms of American car reliability and longevity GM would be #1, Ford, and then Chrysler. Thats just based on my observation though.
Then they switched to BMW for the Range Rovers but now they have Jaguars. In the V6 LR3 the engine is "Ford Based" and I assume the engine in the LR2 is the same.
I would say in terms of American car reliability and longevity GM would be #1, Ford, and then Chrysler. Thats just based on my observation though.
I would hardly call an XLR-V a car that feels cheap, though it is geared to an older crowd than say the Corvettes Funny video though, especially interviewing people in Las Vegas.
Someone who owned a British made car once told me that you have one to drive and another to fix in the shop. British cars are notoriously unreliable he said. Jaguar made unreliable cars before Ford bought them. I believe they've improved considerably in quality since then.
my family never owned an american car, mostly due to the stigma of them being unreliable, etc.. but what i can say from experience, is that Japanese cars really are that much more reliable than any of the other cars we have owned. myself and my parents have owned, amongst others, 4 Jaguars, 3 Mercedes, 3 Volvo's, a Mitsubishi, a Honda, a Toyota, an Infiniti, an Audi, a Volkswagen, and as of last week my dad just bought his 4th Lexus - and his first hybrid (a brand new GS 450h.) (i am probably forgetting a few in there too.)
by far, by very very very far, the Japanese cars just work more often with the fewest problems. The Jaqs were by far the worst. i have a 2003 Jetta 1.8t and i love it in every way except for the electrics; German cars just cannot seem to get the electrics quite right (same issues on the benz's as well, and i do not recall if the Audi had issues)
i should also mention that having grown up with luxury cars in the family was certainly nice, but i really think that spending more than maybe $25K on a car tends to be excessive. i would rather spend my money elsewhere. my jetta was $18K at only 2% financing
I agree, out of the cars you purchased, Lexus and Honda have the highest quality. I was about to buy a Jetta but got scared off from all the stories about the problems they've been having several years ago. Instead, I bought a Mazda3 and love it.