# Consumer Reports & BMW Reliability



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

The "2003 Cars" edition of consumer reports came out and they've officially stopped recommending the BMW 3-series due to reliability issues. Also, the 2000 & 2001 3-series models were lucky enough to make join the relatively short list of "Used cars to avoid".

I'm still planning on ordering a 330 later this year, but reading this stuff is not good! My wife keeps asking me about it too... If I buy this car and it breaks down she is never going to let me hear the end of it.. :tsk: 

I just keep reminding myself how much I was smiling after the test drives.


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

2002+ models were fine.

2001 was a disaster.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

Wow--- my 2000 323i has been the most reliable car I've ever had. (70,000miles) It's too reliable and I it will be a shame to sell it.


----------



## Capitalist (Oct 12, 2002)

Consumer Reports has no credibility in my eyes.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

I don't respect consumer reports all that much either, but I would think that statistical repair records would be somewhat objective... But then again maybe not.


----------



## Sean (Dec 22, 2001)

Capitalist said:


> *Consumer Reports has no credibility in my eyes. *


You've got that right! :thumbup:


----------



## cruztopless (Sep 23, 2002)

So where can one get unbiased reliability reports? :dunno:


----------



## OBS3SSION (Oct 1, 2002)

cruztopless said:


> *So where can one get unbiased reliability reports? :dunno: *


I'd imagine you'd get some good feedback from people who own the very cars... right here.

One thing to keep in mind on message boards. More often people will take the time to post a bad experience than a good one. So, if there are several threads with complaints, imagine how many happy people aren't posting.


----------



## sshuit (Apr 15, 2002)

Consumer reports does have some problems with their sampling (Its voluntary subscriber based rather than random) but I think its going a bit far to say that they have no credibility.

In the Toronto Star last week they had a poll of dealers who actually sold cars and BMW dealers were just below average in quality of cars sold.

Here is the text of the article.

Dealers of Prestige Brands Not a Happy Lot 
Suzuki, Pontiac and Hyundai top big-name Germans VW retailers dislike product mix, survey shows

It turns out that many German models that buyers think come with high initial quality don't rank very high in the opinions of the people who sell them.

According to a survey involving the vast majority of Canadian car dealers, Volkswagen ranks at the bottom of the list (24th out of 24) on the question involving the quality of cars from the manufacturer, with Porsche finishing 20th, Audi 18th and BMW 15th.

That puts those German firms under the industry average in the category of well made cars and behind such manufacturers as Suzuki (seventh), Pontiac and Buick (ninth) and Hyundai (12th), companies that most people believe to be inferior to German brands in terms of quality.

Mercedes-Benz did finish slightly ahead of the industry average in 13th spot, but was behind Hyundai on the list. Again, an order of finish that should surprise many people.

And if you don't think these numbers are meaningful to the people involved, consider that it says "Not For Press Release'' across the front page of the survey results, which means they're desperate that you not see them.

While some of the other German firms are new to the south end of the dealers' quality listings (Porsche was eighth last year and Audi 11th), VW and BMW are holdovers, finishing 23rd and 20th, respectively, in last year's survey. Mercedes was 12th.

VW also does fairly badly when the dealers rank the car companies with regard to how their vehicles are "designed to meet the demands of the marketplace." This means, how good are they at giving the dealers vehicles that people want to buy.

VW was 22nd on that list (six spots down from the year before), while BMW was second (a carryover spot), Porsche third (up from seventh), Mercedes-Benz sixth (down from first) and Audi seventh (up from 15).

It's apparently possible to make a huge improvement in terms of designing vehicles to meet the demands of the marketplace, since Nissan's upscale Infiniti division went from last on the previous survey to Number 1 this year.

Despite what appears to be growing quality problems, Porsche took the Number 1 spot in the Overall Opinions Index, moving up from fifth last year and replacing Lexus, which slipped to second.

This is because the dealer survey also involves a lot of questions about the business side of the arrangement with the manufacturer, such as parts and field service policies, and the value of the brand to the dealer. Considering the huge profit margin on a Porsche and steep servicing costs, it's probably not surprising the Porsche dealers are not worried about their own best interests.

On the other hand, you have to wonder what kind of relationship exists at the other end of the list.

You have to figure DaimlerChrysler dealers aren't too happy with their company, since they ranked the Windsor-based firm second last this year (just ahead of Jaguar) and last the previous year.

Many of the business policies don't directly affect the customer, but if the dealers are right about the parts being distributed badly and warranty policies being unfair and that kind of thing, then it has to be bad for consumers doing business there.


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

Given how many '01s waited for weeks for new cooling fans... And how many of them caught on fire... (At least one Bimmerfest member's car went up. At least one house was burned down, as well.)

I'd say they're accurate on the '01s.


----------



## ff (Dec 19, 2001)

I think it's really hit-and-miss with BMWs. The 2002 330i that I had last year, was flawless for 18K miles. The 2002 330i that I'm driving now has had a decent-sized list of problems in only 12K miles, certainly more than I'd ever had with any previous car I've owned.

From the comments I hear around here, either a person has a really good one, or a really bad one. There doesn't seem to be any in-between. Maybe it really has something to do with the day in which your car was built?


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

I must just be damn lucky then...only ONE issue with my 2001 model, the moon roof track became loose, oh, and the HK rattle. Other than that, my July built 2001 (Post-fan, post-steering issue) has been going for 26,000 flawless miles.:thumbup:


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

cruztopless said:


> *So where can one get unbiased reliability reports? :dunno: *


You get information from _multiple resources_ then make the decision yourself.


----------



## Fripp64 (Oct 31, 2002)

I've said it before....we use to get a kick out of Consumer reports.

I worked for GE for 6 years and every year when they came out with their appliance issue and ranked products from best to worst we'd all get a good laugh.
For example;
They'd rate a Hotpoint Refrigerator a top pick and then an RCA or GE model in the middle or bottom of the pack.
The untis all came down the same assembly line with the same parts and build, Quality checks and and tests...the difference was the name and a feature or two. Spill proof shelves versus glass, chrome trimmed handle versus solid color.
Yet somehow one was better than another ???
Take it with a grain of salt.
I bet the Fiero was a best pick back in '84 !!!

Jon:thumbup:


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

could it be that in prior years, the 1999/2000/2002 were still under warranty so people may have forgotten the problems and/or didn't list them. now that some of those car's manufacturer's warranty have expired. those owners are now more vocal about issues that crop up since they have to pay from their own pockets. i've had more than my share of little defects and i would be really pissed if/when i will have to pay for the repairs.  :thumbdwn:


----------



## Llarry (May 17, 2002)

rumatt said:


> *The "2003 Cars" edition of consumer reports came out and they've officially stopped recommending the BMW 3-series due to reliability issues. Also, the 2000 & 2001 3-series models were lucky enough to make join the relatively short list of "Used cars to avoid".
> 
> I'm still planning on ordering a 330 later this year, but reading this stuff is not good! My wife keeps asking me about it too... If I buy this car and it breaks down she is never going to let me hear the end of it.. :tsk:
> 
> I just keep reminding myself how much I was smiling after the test drives.  *


If you compare a BMW 330 to the "mainstream" top of the line Accord or Camry purely on "transportation appliance" basis, there is no way you can justify going with the 330. You're paying considerably more for the 330 out the door and then probably more for insurance and it will not have the semi-bulletproof reliability of the Toyota or Honda. And the back seat isn't quite as big, etc. But a whole bunch of people here have carefully considered all the tradeoffs and the "smiling after test drives" wins! It wasn't even close for me: Honda Accord and 10K in my pocket vs BMW 330 -- BMW wins. And the "great unwashed" don't have a clue why I would think that way, or perhaps think I'm just a status-seeking snob. So if your wife is approaching this purchase in a totally rational, emotionless manner, you may be in trouble.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

I've always preferred a company's track record over time to that of an individual product...here's what I like to use for automobiles:

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/recallsearch.cfm


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

Ripsnort said:


> *I've always preferred a company's track record over time to that of an individual product...here's what I like to use for automobiles:
> 
> http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/recallsearch.cfm *


how about this one: defects list


----------



## SchwartzBlack (Jan 4, 2002)

My 2001 325Ci has been the most reliable car I've ever owned. Its been to the shop less than my Toyota. Other than routine maintenance the only problem has been the internal moon roof cover coming out of alignment. Its been so good I intend to keep it and pass it on to my daughter once she gets her license.... in some 15 years or so.


----------



## adrian's bmw (Feb 14, 2003)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> *Given how many '01s waited for weeks for new cooling fans... And how many of them caught on fire... (At least one Bimmerfest member's car went up. At least one house was burned down, as well.)
> 
> I'd say they're accurate on the '01s.  *


I can't remember which production months ( I think the earlier months like Oct-Feb or Mar.) ...but they were painful... I think it was Seimens who screwed up our software regarding the cooling fan units and it affected X5's as well. I have a 2001 May prod. 330xi- and not one problem whatsoever!

It goes to show that if somebody is considering an 00 or 01, it better be certified.... Nevertheless, those problems should have been corrected with a recall campaign.


----------



## 3or5er (Nov 26, 2002)

Which part of the report is so hard to understand? BMW, as well as other Euro brands, is not known for reliability, period.

I'm buying a Bimmer for the pure driving pleasure and saftety. If the doors rattle or the audio system blows up, so be it. I knew that the minute I walked into the dealer's showroom. Having said that, I would never buy a bimmer in it's first or second model years in order to avoid some of the bugs.

The fact remains, German cars stink in terms of reliability. A lot of you argue, oh, I've never had a problem until 15,000 or 25,000 miles... but then this happens or that develops and I had to bring it in for service... B.S. How about Lexus or Honda that rarely require any warranty work? Survey tells the truth.



:angel:


----------



## dlloyd1975 (Sep 8, 2002)

Don't forget to look at IIHS crash tests ! Ya just can't put a price on safety. Both the 3 and 5 score 'best picks' on the 40mph offset crash test. Of course, so do the new Accord and Camry, but they don't have all the "active" safety features of the BMW (i. e., the ability to avoid accidents with razor sharp handling).


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

well, I'm glad that this happened. I really do think BMW needs to improve their quality--and anything that embarasses them publicly on that front is a good thing. Yes, most of what we complain about are small annoyances-bbut they should be fixed nonetheless--there's just no excuse. I also wonder if the generally poor BMW service experience exascerbates the problems that we experience. If a dealer fixes a problem with no fuss the first time, you might forget about it (and never report it to Consumer Reports). If you have to come back repeatedly and deal with service personnel w/ bad attitudes you're likely to remember the problem and report it. I'd bet that poor dealer service is the primary cause of the lower Consumer Reports rankings-- yet its probably the hardest thing for BMW to fix.

Yeah, there may be some problems with Consumer Reports data, but I think its a valid way of atleast measuring how a product stacks up against customer expectations. We might say that people who buy BMWs have higher expectations, but this is justified based on BMW market positioning, advertistings and pricing. If they can't live up to their customers' expectations this should be documented for potential customers to note. If this affect what consumers buy, then BMW will be forced to take note and address the design, manufactuing and service issues they have.

OTOH, I'm slightly upset because I do own a 2001 car, and this will probably lower its resale value. Overall, its been a good car--although there's still no excuse for the ongoing niggles (problems that appear year after year) and poor dealer service. And overall, I'd still buy the same car all over again since there's still nothing else out there that I like better (with the possible exception of the e39 5 series).

And, to the poster who started this thread: If you can be happy w/ one the Japanese 3 series competitors, I'd say go for it. Unfortunately for me, they all have "fatal flaws" (like really cheap looking interiors), that prevent me from considering them. I'd still rather take the less reliable BMW over a car that will make me unhappy each day w/ its ugly exterior and/or interior and/or handling.


----------



## dusterbuster (Jan 29, 2003)

rumatt said:


> *I'm still planning on ordering a 330 later this year, but reading this stuff is not good! My wife keeps asking me about it too... If I buy this car and it breaks down she is never going to let me hear the end of it.. :tsk:
> 
> I just keep reminding myself how much I was smiling after the test drives.  *


rumatt, i am in the EXACT same situation as you are. i have a 330i on order for ED in june, and the only things that keeps me from sleeping well at night (well, i don't really have problems sleeping at night, but you know what i mean) is all this talk about lower reliability ratings for the bmw.

my current cars are a nissan maxima and mazda miata, and i really haven't had any mechanical problems with these 2 cars, or problems with rattles, etc. so when i mention the lower reliability ratings from consumer reports to the mrs., she gives me a puzzled look and asks "shouldn't reliability be the most important factor when looking at cars?" well, i don't really know how to answer that except to say that i'm willing (or at least i think i'm willing) to take the chance on a new 330i, hoping they've ironed out most of the bugs on this car.

still, i just don't understand how a car that costs half as much can be so much more reliable. but like others have pointed out, you lose out in other ways by going with a honda/toyota.

but then again, one of my previous cars was a honda accord ('94). that thing had its share of problems--defective fuel pump (would stall when turning), faulty window regulator, faulty door locks, faulty trunk latch mechanism, defective tires (it was the first car with michelin mxv4 tires, which would build up static electricity so that when you stopped to pay the tollman, you would give the guy an electifying expereince--it was actually both sad and funny to see the tollperson flinch and yelp as i paid him or her my money). i guess you never can be sure, whichever car you buy. :dunno:


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

> one of my previous cars was a honda accord ('94).


Sorry to hear about your bad times with the accord. Ironically, I also have a 94 accord and mine is working great. The only problem I had was a leaky radiator 2 years ago. That's it. I certainly can't complain.


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

*Re: Re: Consumer Reports & BMW Reliability*



> still, i just don't understand how a car that costs half as much can be so much more reliable. but like others have pointed out, you lose out in other ways by going with a honda/toyota.


Lower reliability sometimes goes hand in hand with lower production volume--less cars are sold, so problems take longer to be caught and corrected. Considering that BMW sells 500,000 3ers worldwide each year, which might actually exceed the amount of Camrys and Accords produced, this is probably not a good excuse. Another point that people often make is that more expensive cars have more gadgets that can break. I don't really buy this argument anymore-- even a 16k car can now have power everything, ABS, etc. And, Toyota manages to make the LS430 (their most complicated car), the most reliable in their line.

Car manufacturers spend their money and expertise in different ways-- so while you might spend more for a BMW, more money may have gone into engineering the engine and suspension, than making sure that the car has no problems (a la Toyota). You're also paying a premium simply to have the roundel on our hood, and its possible that BMW actually spends less to engineer some of their cars than Toyota or Honda would, while selling them for more money. My point is that their are many reasons for why a more expensive car can be less reliable. Simply saying the words "Ferrari", or "Rolls Royce", would make the same point as well.

Also, when Consumer Reports says "reliability" they basically mean anything that went wrong with the car. So, a few rattles or clunks would actually lower the "reliability" rating. Also, today's cars are actually quite close in quality/reliability, so very small deviations will now have a big effect on CR's reliability ranking. A few thousand cooling fans that went south during the 2001 MY, would be enough to tank the 3 series. Also, these rankings are done relative to the average for all cars of that year-- so if other makes improve more than BMW, and BMW stays the same, their ranking will slip. I don't want to sugar-coat this too much, as I really do think BMW needs to make improvements-- mostly with its service departments and maybe its electrical component suppliers. CR doesn't publish the exact number of problems, or the break-down of the types of problems reported, so its hard to know what the rankings really mean on a practical level-- were cars failing to start, or did they just have a few rattles... You'll probably have a few more annoyances with a 3 series than with an Accord--- but driving and looking at the Accord would be a bigger annoyance unto itself (how's that for justification).


----------



## mbr129 (Aug 23, 2002)

I think there is something to be said about the psychology of the replies to Consumer Reports. As a couple of people mentioned here, the polls are not scientific. In fact, I would say they are heavily biased. There are a lot of factors that influence it. The two big pluses are that it does cover a large sample, and it is neutral (in that nobody is being paid). However, the demographics affect it a bunch. 

It is my completely unscientific opinion that people who are wealthy may be less inclined to either subscribe and/or take the time to fill out the products ratings form. So in my opinion luxury brands suffer by the disproportionately smaller sample vs accords and camrys. Also,the ones who own luxury brands and fill out the form may very well be those to whom this BMW or MB is their ultimate car and are less tolerant of any flaws. For example, an accord owner may hear a slight vibration and live with it. But the next year he makes the big trade and jumps on a M-B and hears the same vibration ans says "It's a M-B! Why is it vibrating? " takes it to the dealer, the dealer tells him its some suspension component that probably doesnt need to be changed but is, and the person says he/she had suspension problems. Basically my point is that for a bunch of the people these cars are very expensive and the expectations RISE, so despite being on par with toyotas and hondas, they may suffer.


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

mbr129 said:


> *I think there is something to be said about the psychology of the replies to Consumer Reports. As a couple of people mentioned here, the polls are not scientific. In fact, I would say they are heavily biased. There are a lot of factors that influence it. The two big pluses are that it does cover a large sample, and it is neutral (in that nobody is being paid). However, the demographics affect it a bunch.
> 
> It is my completely unscientific opinion that people who are wealthy may be less inclined to either subscribe and/or take the time to fill out the products ratings form. So in my opinion luxury brands suffer by the disproportionately smaller sample vs accords and camrys. Also,the ones who own luxury brands and fill out the form may very well be those to whom this BMW or MB is their ultimate car and are less tolerant of any flaws. For example, an accord owner may hear a slight vibration and live with it. But the next year he makes the big trade and jumps on a M-B and hears the same vibration ans says "It's a M-B! Why is it vibrating? " takes it to the dealer, the dealer tells him its some suspension component that probably doesnt need to be changed but is, and the person says he/she had suspension problems. Basically my point is that for a bunch of the people these cars are very expensive and the expectations RISE, so despite being on par with toyotas and hondas, they may suffer. *


Agree- i'm sure this is somewhat of a factor in these reliability surveys. BUT , shouldn't Lexus and Acura see a similar affect?


----------



## mbr129 (Aug 23, 2002)

robg said:


> *Agree- i'm sure this is somewhat of a factor in these reliability surveys. BUT , shouldn't Lexus and Acura see a similar affect? *


True. I agree with that. I am not denying BMW is not as reliable as Acura/Lexus ceteris paribus, but in the end... and I know this from every person I know older than 35... Acura/Lexus doesn't hold the same image as M-B/BMW and they tend to be cheaper.


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

mbr129 said:


> *True. I agree with that. I am not denying BMW is not as reliable as Acura/Lexus ceteris paribus, but in the end... and I know this from every person I know older than 35... Acura/Lexus doesn't hold the same image as M-B/BMW and they tend to be cheaper. *


It certainly may be true that buyers of German brands have the highest expectations of their cars. That would be an interesting survey--- to measure customer's expectations of a particular model and quantify them. :dunno:


----------



## Tanning machine (Feb 21, 2002)

mbr129 said:


> *. . .
> 
> Also,the ones who own luxury brands and fill out the form may very well be those to whom this BMW or MB is their ultimate car and are less tolerant of any flaws. For example, an accord owner may hear a slight vibration and live with it. But the next year he makes the big trade and jumps on a M-B and hears the same vibration ans says "It's a M-B! Why is it vibrating? " takes it to the dealer, the dealer tells him its some suspension component that probably doesnt need to be changed but is, and the person says he/she had suspension problems. Basically my point is that for a bunch of the people these cars are very expensive and the expectations RISE, so despite being on par with toyotas and hondas, they may suffer. *


In a way, that makes the results more useful, not less, because they're comparing reality to expectations. AS a BMW buyer, I have very high expectations, and if they can't meet them I want to know. It doesn't make comparisons with other cars as easy, but it's still relevant.

I don't see how people can say CR has *no* credibility. They shouldn't be your only source of information, but they are unbiased and certainly do a better job than JD powers, which doesn't report negatives and doesn't measure what it sounds like. Their sampling isn't scientific, but it's also not biased against BMWs (other than expectations, as mbr explained). Some people send in the survey; others don't. Of course, they probably get the complainers, but that's true for every product.

I also don't see why we should defend BMW on reliability. Some people have excellent results; others don't. Just because *your* experience says they;re good, doesn't mean they are for everyone. As someone else said, overall BMWs aren't the most reliable car out there, but they make up for it in other ways. Anything that presses them to become better in their bad points is helfpful


----------



## MR325iT (Feb 21, 2002)

I think there's some truth to the saying that the easier information is to get, the less reliable it may be. Would I read CR results? Sure. But I'd also have to balance that out with impressions from people who own and drive the cars. I've had great luck with mine, easily the most reliable car I've had (including 2 Hondas, which were both good). Er...OK...I have one burned out lightbulb. I must have lucked out with a 2001, 'cause I didn't get the fan of death or the bent wheels (did get the lazy throttle and light steering, though). What bothers me, though, isn't the likelihood of the car breaking down, it's the thought of having to deal with BMW service: inconsistent at best, downright painful at worst. THAT'S the real change I'd like to see at BMW.


----------



## mbr129 (Aug 23, 2002)

MR325iT said:


> *I think there's some truth to the saying that the easier information is to get, the less reliable it may be. Would I read CR results? Sure. But I'd also have to balance that out with impressions from people who own and drive the cars. I've had great luck with mine, easily the most reliable car I've had (including 2 Hondas, which were both good). Er...OK...I have one burned out lightbulb. I must have lucked out with a 2001, 'cause I didn't get the fan of death or the bent wheels (did get the lazy throttle and light steering, though). What bothers me, though, isn't the likelihood of the car breaking down, it's the thought of having to deal with BMW service: inconsistent at best, downright painful at worst. THAT'S the real change I'd like to see at BMW. *


That's true too... perhaps the bad experience just makes it stand out more obviously in BMW's that people may be itching to ***** about it. I got my CR magazine just now and I saw that both M-B and Audi got hammered in ALL models. Ouch!


----------

