When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
HIs comment is to be expected. Saintor always has problems with cars that cost more than whatever thing he is currently driving.
You obviously missed a lot of conversations, including that at $50K I would rather get a 340i manual. That was a completely gratuitous and stupid statement.
A stripped 340 in Canada for C$50K,really sounds good. Typical stripped 340 in Canada is around C$55K & I don't believe you can get a 6MT on the car. What you do get is a no options base car, white or black non metallic paint & plastic seats. Such a deal. Expect you could get a nice M240 for around C$52K.
BTW you do know they both have Turbos which IIRC you said have no value many times.
Back to the topic, the new Alfa Romeo is an awesome car. I've been reading about it and watching numerous YouTube videos featuring it. From what I've seen and read, it has the soul of a Ferrari. It's one of my new favorites. It's beating all the competitors they're throwing its way. Time will tell if it proves to be reliable.
Back to the topic, the new Alfa Romeo is an awesome car. I've been reading about it and watching numerous YouTube videos featuring it. From what I've seen and read, it has the soul of a Ferrari. It's one of my new favorites. It's beating all the competitors they're throwing its way. Time will tell if it proves to be reliable.
If it can prove to be more reliable/cheaper to fix (these will be sold and repaired at FCA dealers right, not stand alone dealers?) than it's german and japanese competition, it's going to make a killing and that interior looks top notch. Acura better watch out, they have the potential of burying them and stealing quite a bit from everyone else.
Back to the topic, the new Alfa Romeo is an awesome car. I've been reading about it and watching numerous YouTube videos featuring it. From what I've seen and read, it has the soul of a Ferrari. It's one of my new favorites. It's beating all the competitors they're throwing its way. Time will tell if it proves to be reliable.
Also, the Ferrari pedigree is mostly in the engine, which is pretty much only the Quadrifoglio model. That being said, it is clearly the best behind the wheel in the Quadrifoglio model. Reliability is still a concern, however.
Will pass on the Quad this time around. Like most would like some reliability history before it would go on my prospect list. That said it looks like everybody who has driven has been impressed..
Back to the topic, the new Alfa Romeo is an awesome car. I've been reading about it and watching numerous YouTube videos featuring it. From what I've seen and read, it has the soul of a Ferrari. It's one of my new favorites.
And it is something new and fresh.... I wouldn't hesitate to lease.
Funny thing this thread about the Alfa is here. Saw two car commercials back to back today. TLX running through a wooded two lane in sport + with what sounded like the Alfa Quads exhaust track which was in the very next commercial doing the exact same thing. Have to wonder where they got the TLX sound track from?
From the presentation they were being sold as cars with the same performance level. LOL
Lol I hate to say it but I'm not the least bit surprised. Alfas, as cool as they are, have always been unreliable pieces of shit. They're the epitome of unreliable. I wouldn't even lease one and that article is proof why.
Again, I think they're cool cars. They have style and power but shit, I'd buy a dozen decade old Audi's and BMWs before I bought an Alfa.
Lol I hate to say it but I'm not the least bit surprised. Alfas, as cool as they are, have always been unreliable pieces of shit. They're the epitome of unreliable. I wouldn't even lease one and that article is proof why.
Again, I think they're cool cars. They have style and power but shit, I'd buy a dozen decade old Audi's and BMWs before I bought an Alfa.
X2, I seen this on my FB page and was like shit, spoke too soon. I mean, the fact is, because it's alfa people are going to make a big deal. But at the time, it's ridiculous and sucks because man that is a SICK ASS CAR! Holy crap it looks amazing.
Just got my invite to an Alfa launch party, drinks & canapés, on the 24th. Interesting thing is its signed by a guy titled with "Studio Director". Wonder what they are calling the normal salesmen? Will enjoy a test ride in the Quad.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 03-18-2017 at 02:55 PM.
As far as I'm aware, no Italian car manufacturer has ever been reliable. They've been everything, but. Fiat, Alfa, Ferrari, Lambo, Maserati...
Now their FCA. That said, perhaps it will get better similar to PAG and other unreliable brands becoming considerably more reliable thanks to Ford. (Except for Volvo... I think they got the short end of the stick.)
Fiats are still unreliable, even though they're FCA.
Maybe so, but the Giulia looks pretty sexy... quite different than most cars in that price range even though it may not have some of the fancier features that the Bavarians offer.
I agree. Italians in general know how to design nice cars.
When I originally saw pics I thought the grille was incredibly ugly and that it looked like angry birds. But from those motor trend pics it looks amazing. I know this might sound dumb, but why can't luxury brands get normal things right? Why do BMW's have to have the reputation they have? I can understand that there is always a balance between max performance and how long something will last, but like really. Is there not a way to do both? I understand the Germans are always cutting edge with technology, but then I look back at a lot of it and holy cow some ideas are so convoluted. It's things like coolant pipes, valve bodies...etc. Germans always seem to slide in a really shitty part into a really difficult place to access and this ruins a car.
It's pretty telling when folks are suggesting that Alfa will become more reliable via FCA. FCA...the company that holds the distinction of having four of the five least reliable brands per JD Power (Fiat, Jeep, Dodge, and Ram)
It's pretty telling when folks are suggesting that Alfa will become more reliable via FCA. FCA...the company that holds the distinction of having four of the five least reliable brands per JD Power (Fiat, Jeep, Dodge, and Ram)
Do you really even consider JD a reliable source of information? Think about it, if more cars are sold by a make, it will look less dependable because there is a higher probability of issues naturally. I still maintain that there is no way in hell porsche is as reliable as lexus and that mercedes is the 5th most reliable? Um no. I'd also bet any day of the week that a Jeep product will FAR outlast a BMW. I've had 2 and will never touch BMW again. Don't get me wrong, FCA products can be crap, but I refuse to beleive they are worse than volvo and BMW.
Do you really even consider JD a reliable source of information? Think about it, if more cars are sold by a make, it will look less dependable because there is a higher probability of issues naturally. I still maintain that there is no way in hell porsche is as reliable as lexus and that mercedes is the 5th most reliable? Um no. I'd also bet any day of the week that a Jeep product will FAR outlast a BMW. I've had 2 and will never touch BMW again. Don't get me wrong, FCA products can be crap, but I refuse to beleive they are worse than volvo and BMW.
They're not looking at total number of problems across the entire country. They're looking at problems per car, so it doesn't matter if they sell 1 million or 1 billion cars.
I'm surprised Infiniti is at the bottom. I always thought they were pretty reliable.
I'm not that surprised. I've had a few Nissans in the past and even though they're Japanese they fell well short of Toyota/Honda when it came to reliability. In more recent years, the CEO of Renault-Nissan has been on a cost-cutting tear, which unsurprisingly has led to a dip in quality.
They're not looking at total number of problems across the entire country. They're looking at problems per car, so it doesn't matter if they sell 1 million or 1 billion cars.
How is that a reliable measure of dependability if the sample size is small? Unless I am misunderstanding what you are talking about?
Originally Posted by fiatlux
Also, if JD Power doesn't float your boat, how about CR? It's even worse here; the bottom 4 brands are all FCA.
CR has been crap for the lomgest time. I give ZERO credibility to CR. I am not denying the relaibility of FCA (again don't get me wrong) just that something odd is going on here. I do think FCA products need a LOT of work and maybe it is like this because they are playing with a lot of new tech to the brand all the time. The 2011 GC was a HUGE change from past models, couple that with a german platform, american and italian engines, and american and italian management. It's a lot.
Originally Posted by TacoBello
I'm surprised Infiniti is at the bottom. I always thought they were pretty reliable.
I'm not surprised. We had a nissan murano and it was the BIGGEST POS I have ever seen. I have also seen friends with Nissan products. In general, they start off looking amazing for the first 2 years. Then after 2 years things just start falling apart. Literally the stupidest shit ever just falls apart. Our murano had failing visors, rear lift gate, front hood, the shifter was loose and popped off often, the fuel level indicator was faulty, leak from the engine and the transmission and the coolant. It was creaky and that material nissan uses(d) on the doors (leatherette crap) feels and looks awful.
How is that a reliable measure of dependability if the sample size is small? Unless I am misunderstanding what you are talking about?
First of all, one million vs one billion were just arbitrary numbers I picked to illustrate that the sample size doesn't matter because we're looking at rate of incidence, not total number of incidence.
Secondly, even if the sample size was in fact one million, that would still be sufficiently large for the purposes of determining statistical significance.
I'm surprised Infiniti is at the bottom. I always thought they were pretty reliable.
No way, Nissan and Infiniti are horrible. You very rarely see +5 yr old Infiniti's on the road, especially compared to Acuras and Lexuses. BTW, Acura is pretty far down the list also.
As far as "more" reliable, that's relatively speaking. Like someone mentioned, Alfa's not even on the list but neither are Aston Martin or Rolls Royce.
Now their FCA. That said, perhaps it will get better similar to PAG and other unreliable brands becoming considerably more reliable thanks to Ford. (Except for Volvo... I think they got the short end of the stick.)
Considering the combo of brands I can't believe any of the FCA groups will getbmor reliable. If Chrysler is the bar that is a low bar.
No way, Nissan and Infiniti are horrible. You very rarely see +5 yr old Infiniti's on the road, especially compared to Acuras and Lexuses. BTW, Acura is pretty far down the list also.
As far as "more" reliable, that's relatively speaking. Like someone mentioned, Alfa's not even on the list but neither are Aston Martin or Rolls Royce.
I leased a 2011 M37S within months of introduction and in 39 months it had one sensor go bad, otherwise flawless after 44K miles.
First of all, one million vs one billion were just arbitrary numbers I picked to illustrate that the sample size doesn't matter because we're looking at rate of incidence, not total number of incidence.
Secondly, even if the sample size was in fact one million, that would still be sufficiently large for the purposes of determining statistical significance.
That's not the point. I am not even talking about your arbitary numbers here. You said they don't look at all cars across the country, they look at problems per car, which by the way is impossible without looking at all cars. So how can they look at some cars and then make an estimate for problems without considering all the cars? You can say extrapolation but how do you extrapolate for cars that have no issues. You are failing to understand what I am saying. I am saying that without looking at ALL the data, you can't make a reliable statement for a whole brand.
The next issue is the concept of dependability and reliability. It is ALL personal. I consider a car non-reliable if it doesn't start or it suddenly stops and leaves me stranded. Others consider a car unreliable if there is rattles inside. With publications like CR, there is a HUGE fault in their determination method and it revolves around the concept of self selection which inadvertently introduces flaws.
We can agree to disagree. I don't consider JD or CR or any of that crap a true source for reliability or dependability, and you can choose to do so if you like.
That's not the point. I am not even talking about your arbitary numbers here. You said they don't look at all cars across the country, they look at problems per car, which by the way is impossible without looking at all cars. So how can they look at some cars and then make an estimate for problems without considering all the cars? You can say extrapolation but how do you extrapolate for cars that have no issues. You are failing to understand what I am saying. I am saying that without looking at ALL the data, you can't make a reliable statement for a whole brand.
The next issue is the concept of dependability and reliability. It is ALL personal. I consider a car non-reliable if it doesn't start or it suddenly stops and leaves me stranded. Others consider a car unreliable if there is rattles inside. With publications like CR, there is a HUGE fault in their determination method and it revolves around the concept of self selection which inadvertently introduces flaws.
We can agree to disagree. I don't consider JD or CR or any of that crap a true source for reliability or dependability, and you can choose to do so if you like.
That's not what I'm saying at all. My reply is in response to your point quoted below:
Do you really even consider JD a reliable source of information? Think about it, if more cars are sold by a make, it will look less dependable because there is a higher probability of issues naturally
It sure sounds like you're suggesting that the more cars a manufacturer sells, the less dependable it'll appear because there will be more problems to occur. Can you explain what you mean by that? How does selling more cars increase the problem rate on a per-car basis?
That's not what I'm saying at all. My reply is in response to your point quoted below:
It sure sounds like you're suggesting that the more cars a manufacturer sells, the less dependable it'll appear because there will be more problems to occur. Can you explain what you mean by that? How does selling more cars increase the problem rate on a per-car basis?
That is exactly what I am saying. When you introduce more variables (i.e more cars) into an equation, you introduce a greater potential to have issues. Brands like CR that rely on self selection to gage issues (I think JD does the same thing?) rely on people with issues to speak up and there is more people who have the probability of having issues when more cars are sold and therefore it looks worse than the fewer people complaining for brands that sell less cars. If these dependability surveys are not looking at the total cars sold vs problems, how can they make a reliable calculation on the number of issues? I guess what I am trying to get at, is that in order for these numbers to have any validity, you have to look at all variables and you have to standardize data and to do so you must look at ALL the data. Not some.
How can you make a "per car" basis when you don't look at all cars? Please define per car basis for me.
Before beating up FCA to bad the CR trouble spot shows transmission issues of all of them. Also Acura in the JD Power study is 5 below the average break line. Expect that is also trans related? Don't FCA & Acura share the same transmission?
One thing to keep in mind with both JD Power and CR reliability surveys is that infotainment issues/questions/updates are also reported as trips to dealers/reliability issues. Like if an infotainment system is convoluted then it scores poorly in satisfaction/reliability in their surveys. (not defending FCA products b/c they're infotainment isn't terrible actually it's everything else that breaks on them lol). So it's not just raw reliability on whether a car is working/functioning properly enough to drive safely.
And things will continue to change over time, a few years ago Audi/Porsche weren't very reliable, but now they're breaking into the top 5 consistently. Honda/Acura slipped b/c of transmissions and infotainment. (I would trust CR over JD power however).
Before beating up FCA to bad the CR trouble spot shows transmission issues of all of them. Also Acura in the JD Power study is 5 below the average break line. Expect that is also trans related? Don't FCA & Acura share the same transmission?
03-15-2017, 04:16 PM
Will enjoy a test ride in the Quad.
