31st Jan 2018, 15:02

You are clearly confusing ease of repair with reliability. They are not the same thing.

Yeah, older cars with their primitive technology can be repaired by just about anyone who knows which end of a wrench to use. That does not make them MORE reliable.

31st Jan 2018, 19:24

I think the real mental block on new modern era cars, is more about price on this particular discussion board, than not actually being fixable. We knew going in as new first owners what we were getting ourselves into. We are busy people and simply pay the price of admission on keeping our brand choices in top shape. I would rather do very well at work and not deal with it. Less likely to get declined on warranty if the very new car dealership that represents the manufacturer does the work and keeps up to date records. If not, I still do not feel like working on them today. It was cake years ago. Open the hood today, it's literally hard to get to everything. I will do minor jobs such as batteries, bulbs, wiper blades, topping off fluids, new key fob battery perhaps and doing its reset steps. My thoughts, invest in a nice scanner to narrow down needs. I do not like taking advantage of an Autozone scanner knowing that I am not buying their parts, I am actually having it fixed by others. Not nice to do to a merchant. A scanner is a good investment. You can therefore show codes you found and compare.

1st Feb 2018, 04:58

No, there isn't any confusion between comparing an old car's reliability to its easier repairs.

The point being made is that old cars don't have the many more things that can fail on a new car.

The question being made over and over to you is what is so unreliable about them.

If you can't reply to that, then there is no reason to keep going with this.

9th Mar 2019, 14:56

I think we can all agree that this conversation would not occur on the Lexus category. My IS300 2001 has 258,000 miles on the original trans and engine. Most reliable car I have personally owned. But thanks for confirming my thoughts about the Mercedes. Almost looked at a C300. What was I thinking?

10th Mar 2019, 23:30

The mere fact that new cars have "many more things" that can fail than the old cars did does not automatically mean that they WILL fail, contrary to what you keep insisting.

Your argument is specious: you may as well compare a horse-drawn carriage to a car. The carriage has less things to "fail", therefore that makes it more reliable and thus, better than the car, by your way of thinking.

12th Mar 2019, 12:17

Debates about old vs new cars go on forever on here. The fact is there are pros and cons to both older and newer cars - just comes down to what you prefer.

12th Mar 2019, 15:42

And after replying over a year later, you still "fail" to state what the reliability disadvantages are on an old car compared to a modern one... Imagine that.

13th Mar 2019, 15:32

What’s the reliability comparison of a car that’s 10-15 years old with 10,000 total miles on it, vs a one year old car with 20,000 miles already on it? An interesting reliability comparison to ponder. Old vs New.

13th Mar 2019, 18:24

Both would be reliable. Both are barely broken in. What's your point? My current vehicle is a 2002 with 130k on the clock. Pretty much broken in by now, body on frame, V8, rear wheel drive. Older technology. That's the way I like it. And you?

13th Mar 2019, 21:30

Not much of a comparison at all. There isn't a whole lot of change from a year old to a 10-15 year old car. A 30 year old comparison would be a little more like it.

14th Mar 2019, 01:53

An older car is gonna have rust issues regardless of low miles... and the newer car might have its first electronic fault :)