# BMW reliability way at the bottom per latest Consumer Reports data



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

captainaudio said:


> I agree. IMO placing the controls for the seat and mirror controls presets on the side of the drivers seat where you can't see them (or the LED indicator) was an act of absolute genius,
> 
> CA


:rofl: Most German cars suck in terms of logical control placement...though i'm sure ze chermans would argue that its all totally logical. I drove a Mercedes CLK a few months ago that drove me nuts.

And come on everyone, we're car (and BMW) enthusiasts but there's no excuse for BMW's poor showing here. As others have pointed out the Porsche 911, which is a lower volume, higher performacne and more expensive car has far less problems. As do Lexuses with equal or more amouns of electronics and gadgets. BMW needs to step it up.

It amazes me that people are so negative about CR...who do you trust then? Car and driver? Motor Trend?  NOt to be political, but it's like claiming global warming is a big hoax or conspiracy.


----------



## ProRail (May 31, 2006)

I'm very happy with my 1999 528, Best car I ever had. Driver has complete control over the settings/warnings/options. At 155K it feels like it could go on forever. Viva BMW.


----------



## tagheuer (Jun 10, 2004)

for those of you fan boys who dismiss CR and JD Power data, maybe you should take a look at TrueDelta which tracks number of visits to dealers.

BMW loses on reliability according to any study you choose to look at. How can you argue with TrueDelta?

The data is what it is, none of you have posted a single valid data source contradicting the long standing, consistent and numerous studies which demonstrate that BMW is generally below average.

And BMW products aren't that compelling anymore. The styling is "meh", they get heavier and heavier every generation, with more useless complicated technology that does not improve the driving experience (i.e. push button starts, electric steering, runflats etc.)

its not what is once was, and I am not sure if its worth it to pay $35k for a compact sport sedan with only 230bhp and vinyl seats.

BMW's edge is getting narrower and narrower every generation....you can buy an Infiniti with 300+bhp for the same price as a 328 and weld the hood shut on the Infiniti

(and no, its not a rebadged Nissan, its based on an entirely different, unique platform from the ground up, its RWD FM architecture, not like the FWD unibody platform in the Maxima, Altima, etc.)


----------



## captainaudio (Jul 17, 2007)

Facts and statistics are for people that don't know how to argue.

CA


----------



## need4speed (May 26, 2006)

IMHO downgrading because of the controls is pointless. Some people can't even program the clock on their car. Those same people likely have issues with every bit of new tech that comes out. 
As for reliability, as noted we don't buy BMW's because they are reliable. We (on the'Fest) buy them for the driving experience. The more complicated something is the more often it breaks. BMW is using technology much of it new or fairly new in making their cars. I will take the N54/55 motors as an example. They have DI and twin turbo. DI is very recent and TT have been around for a while but not as long as or as widely used as say a small V8 making the same power. Ok, what could be less complicated and more reliable the small V8 used by Ford? They have been making the same basic motor and refining it for 40 years. The same with the flat 6 used by Porsche. They have modified it and improved it greatly over the years, but they have not re invented the wheel. Now think about BMW. They have a history they want to stay with as much as possible. Straight six no bigger than 3 liters. That motor in many ways _is_ BMW. However,you need to make more power to keep up with the HP/TQ of the competition and still meet the ever increasing MPG mandates. BMW is also hamstrung by not selling a lot of small cars (corolla, focus) to balance out the MPG of a less fuel efficient motor. So they have to try somthing new. Anyone who has driven the N54/55 motor knows what a great performer it is, and gets decent MPG, on the interstate anyway. Since it is relatively new technology, it does have some bugs to work out. That is the price you pay. N4S


----------



## MarcA78 (Oct 28, 2008)

So many of you are totally missing the point. No one is saying that CR is fudging the data or that BMWs are bullet proof. What I'm disagreeing with are the metrics that CR uses to find the Best Car Company. This is why CR and JDP usually have very different top 10 lists than automotive publications. They're looking for different things.


----------



## swajames (Jan 16, 2005)

need4speed said:


> IMHO downgrading because of the controls is pointless. Some people can't even program the clock on their car. Those same people likely have issues with every bit of new tech that comes out.
> As for reliability, as noted we don't buy BMW's because they are reliable. We (on the'Fest) buy them for the driving experience. The more complicated something is the more often it breaks. BMW is using technology much of it new or fairly new in making their cars. I will take the N54/55 motors as an example. They have DI and twin turbo. DI is very recent and TT have been around for a while but not as long as or as widely used as say a small V8 making the same power. Ok, what could be less complicated and more reliable the small V8 used by Ford? They have been making the same basic motor and refining it for 40 years. The same with the flat 6 used by Porsche. They have modified it and improved it greatly over the years, but they have not re invented the wheel. Now think about BMW. They have a history they want to stay with as much as possible. Straight six no bigger than 3 liters. That motor in many ways _is_ BMW. However,you need to make more power to keep up with the HP/TQ of the competition and still meet the ever increasing MPG mandates. BMW is also hamstrung by not selling a lot of small cars (corolla, focus) to balance out the MPG of a less fuel efficient motor. So they have to try somthing new. Anyone who has driven the N54/55 motor knows what a great performer it is, and gets decent MPG, on the interstate anyway. Since it is relatively new technology, it does have some bugs to work out. That is the price you pay. N4S


This really is the kind of crazy, apologist logic that empowers BMW and others to set the bar lower than they should and to get away with mediocre reliability.

The simple fact is that the engine in your car is no more complex than many other modern engines. The technology in a modern car is staggering, and BMW isn't the only manufacturer pushing the technological envelope.


----------



## MarcA78 (Oct 28, 2008)

swajames said:


> This really is the kind of crazy, apologist logic that empowers BMW and others to set the bar lower than they should and to get away with mediocre reliability.
> 
> The simple fact is that the engine in your car is no more complex than many other modern engines. The technology in a modern car is staggering, and BMW isn't the only manufacturer pushing the technological envelope.


And this is the kind of crazy post that assumes that BMW has ever had anything better than mediocre reliability. 
I was born and raised in a BMW family. Both parents drove them when I was growing up, and I've owned three...four if you count my Mini. These cars are no less reliable now than they were in the 80s and 90s. They may actually be more reliable, but they're certainly not less reliable.


----------



## captainaudio (Jul 17, 2007)

My 2007 335i has been reliable and feels solidly built but these statsistics are based on a smaple of one.
IMO it is completely inexcusable for BMW (or anyone else for that matter) to build unreliable cars regardless of how well some people think they drive. These are mass market cars that are mainly purchased as daily drivers for basic transportation.


I think that some of the controls are poorly thought out and I think that the iDrive in my 2007 has a poorly designed user interface. These are relatively minor annoyances and are not related to reliablity and I would not consider either of them reason to not buy the car.
I am not by any means intimidated by technology. I can program a Cisco router from the command line and I help maintain a very large and complex global TCP/IP network.
I know a poor user interface when I see one.


CA


----------



## MarcA78 (Oct 28, 2008)

captainaudio said:


> My 2007 335i has been reliable and feels solidly built.
> I think that some of the controls are poorly thought out and I think that the iDrive in my 2007 has a poorly designed user interface. These are relatively minor annoyances and are not related to reliablity and I would not consider either of them reason to not my the car.
> 
> I am not by any means intimidated by technology. I can program a Cisco router from the command line and I help maintain a very large and complex global TCP/IP network.
> ...


How is the idrive interface different in your 07 from the more modern versions? This is my first car with idrive, and I've only had it a week. Curious how it compares to older versions. 
If it had been an option to not have idrive, I would have gladly given it up. I don't see the point if you don't have nav.


----------



## captainaudio (Jul 17, 2007)

MarcA78 said:


> How is the idrive interface different in your 07 from the more modern versions? This is my first car with idrive, and I've only had it a week. Curious how it compares to older versions.
> If it had been an option to not have idrive, I would have gladly given it up. I don't see the point if you don't have nav.


On the 3 Series you can't get iDrive without Nav. I don't really have any experience with the newer iDrive but from what I have read here has been significantly improved.

The nav interface is probably the worst part of the 2007 version. IMO Nav is only part of iDrive. The iPod interface and the Bluetooth phone interface are both important parts. In spite of my complaints about the interface I am not by any means sorry I got it,

C


----------



## MarcA78 (Oct 28, 2008)

captainaudio said:


> On the 3 Series you can't get iDrive without Nav. I don't really have any experience with the newer iDrive but from what I have read here has been significantly improved.
> 
> The nav interface is probably the worst part of the 2007 version. IMO Nav is only part of iDrive. The iPod interface and the Bluetooth phone interface are both important parts. In spite of my complaints about the interface I am not by any means sorry I got it,
> 
> C


Yeah, I'm not sure why they made iDrive standard on the X3. It doesn't make sense to me to have that if you don't have navigation. But there it is. I liked the ipod and phone interface on my '09 328 just fine. Oh well.


----------



## need4speed (May 26, 2006)

swajames said:


> This really is the kind of crazy, apologist logic that empowers BMW and others to set the bar lower than they should and to get away with mediocre reliability.
> 
> *The simple fact is that the engine in your car is no more complex than many other modern engines*. The technology in a modern car is staggering, and BMW isn't the only manufacturer pushing the technological envelope.


I have to disagree. Take a look at the 300/300 club on cars in North America. The only cars anywhere near the price point of a 335 are either old school V8's or V6's that are close to 1 liter larger than the straight 3.0 in a BMW. Of those V6's, most lack the low end TQ of the N54/55.
The point is if you want this kind of power, it has to come from some where. In BMW's case they went with less proven tech. and it is giving them some issues. A good example of this is the comparison of a Corvette and an M3 in last months Roundel. One is hi tech, the other is old school V8 muscle. Is one better? You decide. Is one going to have fewer issues after 40 years of refining the same basic motor? Yes. Could BMW produce this kind of power in a NA motor. Yes, but it will be either a small V8 like the M3 or a larger displacement V6. I doubt either one would get them to the fuel economy they need to have. N4S


----------



## swajames (Jan 16, 2005)

MarcA78 said:


> And this is the kind of crazy post that assumes that BMW has ever had anything better than mediocre reliability.
> I was born and raised in a BMW family. Both parents drove them when I was growing up, and I've owned three...four if you count my Mini. These cars are no less reliable now than they were in the 80s and 90s. They may actually be more reliable, but they're certainly not less reliable.


Not at all. It was a reponse to the posts that suggest that BMWs are somehow more complex than other cars - something that really isn't the case. Whether BMW reliability today is better or worse than it used to be isn't really the point under issue - it is how BMW reliability compares to others and to its competitors. The only meaningful comparison is how BMW is tracking against others in the industry and this is where there is a bigger delta. As others have already noted, BMW sells most of its cars towards the lower end of its range - approximately half the cars BMW sells in the US are 3 Series models - and thus the competitive landscape goes well beyond just MB, Audi and Lexus.


----------



## swajames (Jan 16, 2005)

need4speed said:


> I have to disagree. Take a look at the 300/300 club on cars in North America. The only cars anywhere near the price point of a 335 are either old school V8's or V6's that are close to 1 liter larger than the straight 3.0 in a BMW. Of those V6's, most lack the low end TQ of the N54/55.
> The point is if you want this kind of power, it has to come from some where. In BMW's case they went with less proven tech. and it is giving them some issues. A good example of this is the comparison of a Corvette and an M3 in last months Roundel. One is hi tech, the other is old school V8 muscle. Is one better? You decide. Is one going to have fewer issues after 40 years of refining the same basic motor? Yes. Could BMW produce this kind of power in a NA motor. Yes, but it will be either a small V8 like the M3 or a larger displacement V6. I doubt either one would get them to the fuel economy they need to have. N4S


Turbo charging is not high tech. I'd argue that the VW twincharger which combines supercharging and turbocharging in a small displacement engine is a more interesting technological achievement. The N54/55 is a great engine, but a specific output of 100bhp per liter is pretty mainstream.


----------



## need4speed (May 26, 2006)

swajames said:


> *Turbo charging is not high tech*. I'd argue that the VW twincharger which combines supercharging and turbocharging in a small displacement engine is a more interesting technological achievement. The N54/55 specific output of 100bhp per liter is mainstream.


I agree. However, DI and turbo charging is only what, 5 years old at most. Other's have spent decades refining a very similar system to what they currently use to acheve their numbers. While I agree that 100HP per liter is fairly common, having 100hp and 100 Tq. both is not. N4S


----------



## wkb2texans (Dec 11, 2009)

*Reliability*

Really a hoot to watch those who castigate CR for pointing out what is blatantly obvious to ANY BMW owner: BMW reliability pretty much sucks.

Even a quick tour around the beemer boards indicates reliability isn't a BMW strong suit, particularly as you get into the more complex/advance 7-series models. But who cares, right? I know I don't mind spending $100k on a car so it can spend one-half its time at the local BMW dealer. I mean, who wants to deprive these cars from being amongst so many of their friends? I like to think of it as "day care" ... very expensive day care, for sure ... but daycare nonetheless.

Yes, that clicking sound you hear is my tongue being buried DEEP into the my mouth cheek....


----------



## MarcA78 (Oct 28, 2008)

wkb2texans said:


> Really a hoot to watch those who castigate CR for pointing out what is blatantly obvious to ANY BMW owner: BMW reliability pretty much sucks.


Have you been reading the same thread? No one is claiming that BMW has rock solid reliability.


----------



## swajames (Jan 16, 2005)

MarcA78 said:


> Have you been reading the same thread? No one is claiming that BMW has rock solid reliability.


Much of it is due to posters suggesting that CR's data is worthless, effectively suggesting their conclusions are invalid. If you choose to argue that CR's conclusions aren't reliable, it boils down to much the same thing.



MarcA78 said:


> CR is a joke. No one should take their work seriously. But hey, if you think that a Hyundai is better than a BMW, who am I to argue?





AlexK said:


> :rofl: Believing in CR's data is like believing that Santa is real, or that Bose makes best audio systems and Monster Cable makes best video/audio cables


----------



## MarcA78 (Oct 28, 2008)

swajames said:


> Much of it is due to posters suggesting that CR's data is worthless, effectively suggesting their conclusions are invalid. If you choose to argue that CR's conclusions aren't reliable, it boils down to much the same thing.


That pretty much sums it up. When it comes to naming The Best Car Companies, I think CR's data is pretty worthless.


----------



## captainaudio (Jul 17, 2007)

CR accepts no advertising, buys the cars they test and is as unbiased as it is possible to be. There are people here claiming that BMW owners tend to report more defects because they are expensive cars and there are posts stating that BMW owners don't care about reliablilty because they purchased them for the driving experience.

Reliability statistics are statistics on reliability and nothing more. They do not take styling, performance, comfort or anything else into consideration. If cars are being rated on the basis of reliability then apples have to be compared with apples. An ugly, boring, poor performing relaible car is (guess what) a reliable car and will be rated as such.

CA


----------



## MarcA78 (Oct 28, 2008)

captainaudio said:


> CR accepts no advertising, buys the cars they test and is as unbiased as it is possible to be. There are people here claiming that BMW owners tend to report more defects because they are expensive cars and there are posts stating that BMW owners don't care about reliablilty because they purchased them for the driving experience.
> 
> Reliability statistics are statistics on reliability and nothing more. They do not take styling, performance, comfort or anything else into consideration. If cars are being rated on the basis of reliability then apples have to be compared with apples. An ugly, boring, poor performing relaible car is (guess what) a reliable car and will be rated as such.
> 
> CA


You'll get no argument from me on that point. But, like I've said, reliability isn't what this report is about. It's about The Best Car Companies. So the question is, do you think that the company that produces the most reliable car is The Best Car Company?


----------



## captainaudio (Jul 17, 2007)

MarcA78 said:


> You'll get no argument from me on that point. But, like I've said, reliability isn't what this report is about. It's about The Best Car Companies. So the question is, do you think that the company *that produces the most reliable car is The Best Car Company*?


Not necessarily but I would not consider a car that produces unrelaible cars a particularly good car company.

So I guess I am saying that while there may be companies that I don't consider good car companies that build reliable cars I don't think that building unreliable cars is acceptable.

CA


----------



## swajames (Jan 16, 2005)

MarcA78 said:


> That pretty much sums it up. When it comes to naming The Best Car Companies, I think CR's data is pretty worthless.


It's generally accepted that CR's definition of "best" is weighted towards reliability much as the JD Power survey that garners the most interest and media coverage is their reliability study. You're rather obviously shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.

The interesting things is CR does not recommend the 1 Series, for example, despite the 1 Series having the _second highest scores_ in its road test ratings because CR's road testers appreciated the _same things that we as enthusiasts value_. It is not that CR doesn't know a good car when it sees one - it is, as Captain Audio says, that it chooses not to recommend an unreliable one. That, to me, makes perfect sense.


----------



## tagheuer (Jun 10, 2004)

some cars, like the Infiniti G37, offer 9/10ths of the performance of a 3 series but have much, much better reliability.

So BMW has no excuse.

Who cares if BMW uses twin turbocharging, direct fuel injection, etc. to generate their power.

I don't care HOW power is generated or WHERE it comes from, as long as it is strong and feels good.

Funny how BMW said it would NEVER stoop to cheap tricks like "turbocharging" when comparing their straight six to certain blown Asian motors....

HAHA how far we have come. :rofl:

Now it is BMW building turbo engines that first overheated, then had problems with HPFP....

Its just not acceptable for a low mileage, $50k over priced compact sport sedan to go into limp mode because of a failed fuel pump, or worse yet, leave you stranded because it won't start.

This is 2011.


----------



## captainaudio (Jul 17, 2007)

tagheuer said:


> some cars, like the Infiniti G37, offer 9/10ths of the performance of a 3 series but have much, much better reliability.
> 
> So BMW has no excuse.
> 
> ...


As I have posted here before I believe that if BMW started delivering cars with dirty diapers in the center console and someone here posted a complaint it would only be a matter of time before an "If you don't want to smell baby poop, buy a Lexus" post appeared.

By accepting mediocrity you are doing a disservice to yourself, to other BMW owners and to BMW itself. BMW should get a clear message from all of us that selling cars with sub-standard reliablity is unacceptable regardless of how good they may be in other respects.

CA


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

swajames said:


> It's generally accepted that CR's definition of "best" is weighted towards reliability much as the JD Power survey that garners the most interest and media coverage is their reliability study. You're rather obviously shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.
> 
> The interesting things is CR does not recommend the 1 Series, for example, despite the 1 Series having the _second highest scores_ in its road test ratings because CR's road testers appreciated the _same things that we as enthusiasts value_. It is not that CR doesn't know a good car when it sees one - it is, as Captain Audio says, that it chooses not to recommend an unreliable one. That, to me, makes perfect sense.


Nail.. Meet hammer. Exactly.

Also there are plenty of companies doing turbo direct injection motored now including ford and vw. And they achieve similar or better fuel economy for similar or more hp and tq. And I don't get the fascination with engine techology for it's own sake. If gm can make a higher displacement, lower tech engine that delivers better fuel economy and power.. Great. On the whole, I still don't completely like the cars they're attached to but let's call a spade a spade.

Personally, I'm still buying a BMW because i still value what they offer and am willing to take a reliability gamble. But there's no way i would tell someone else to buy one.


----------



## AlexK (Jul 25, 2009)

tagheuer said:


> How can you argue with TrueDelta?


Same way as with CR or J.D. Powers - if they cannot produce the actual repair data directly from each car's manufacturer and instead still rely on a user-submitted data only, their data is still irrelevant to me  In my own *objective* experience, we (our family) had more issues/problems with Lexus cars than our (current and past) MB/BMW cars. I know some people (not random anon internets users, but from "real life") who had completely opposite experience. Logical conclusion based on objective experience = all cars have a chance of developing problems, so it's better to buy whatever model/brand of car that suits your objective "needs" (based on interior room, cargo room, towing capability, etc.) as well as subjective, "feel"-based preferences (based on such subjective stuff as "steering response", "brake response", "acceleration response", "suspension response", "quality of materials", "ease of use of functions/controls", etc.) and forget about random number generating "statistics" sites


----------



## PPXYZ (Sep 13, 2009)

Not surprised.

BMW is really losing it IMO. I have driven them for years and this X3 is likely to be my last. It has low miles, bouncy suspension, and an AT that knocks. It has been in several times - purchased new - already.

From leaking pano roofs to AT problems to suspension pigtails breaking off -- WTH? :thumbdwn:


----------



## tagheuer (Jun 10, 2004)

AlexK said:


> Same way as with CR or J.D. Powers - if they cannot produce the actual repair data directly from each car's manufacturer and instead still rely on a user-submitted data only, their data is still irrelevant to me  In my own *objective* experience, we (our family) had more issues/problems with Lexus cars than our (current and past) MB/BMW cars. I know some people (not random anon internets users, but from "real life") who had completely opposite experience. Logical conclusion based on objective experience = all cars have a chance of developing problems, so it's better to buy whatever model/brand of car that suits your objective "needs" (based on interior room, cargo room, towing capability, etc.) as well as subjective, "feel"-based preferences (based on such subjective stuff as "steering response", "brake response", "acceleration response", "suspension response", "quality of materials", "ease of use of functions/controls", etc.) and forget about random number generating "statistics" sites


you're right in saying "all cars have a chance of developing problems", of course that's true. But you are completely ignoring the fact that on average, BMW (as well as Audi and Mercedes) are much more likely to develop problems then some of their competition, such as Infiniti, Acura and Lexus.

Its not like CR just reached this conclusion for 2011, its been YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR....its a very consistent, predictable trend, NO MATTER WHAT DATA SOURCE you look at....the Europeans almost ALWAYS finish near the bottom in reliability.

Now, of course a BMW provides much more enjoyment then a Lexus...and no one is expecting Lexus like reliability from BMW, but why can't they spend a LITTLE more time focusing on reliability....and stop using exotic technology like cylinder liners that corrode when a certain kind of fuel is used...:dunno:

I understand you are one of those people who will continue to deny that on average, Asian brands are much more reliable then BMW....if you want to ignore years and years of consistent data trending from multiple sources, that's fine....its not rational though.


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

tagheuer said:


> you're right in saying "all cars have a chance of developing problems", of course that's true. But you are completely ignoring the fact that on average, BMW (as well as Audi and Mercedes) are much more likely to develop problems then some of their competition, such as Infiniti, Acura and Lexus.
> 
> Its not like CR just reached this conclusion for 2011, its been YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR....its a very consistent, predictable trend, NO MATTER WHAT DATA SOURCE you look at....the Europeans almost ALWAYS finish near the bottom in reliability.
> 
> ...


What kills me is that it's usually not the "exotic" parts that fail.. It's very mundane stuff.


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

wkb2texans said:


> Really a hoot to watch those who castigate CR for pointing out what is blatantly obvious to ANY BMW owner: BMW reliability pretty much sucks.
> 
> Even a quick tour around the beemer boards indicates reliability isn't a BMW strong suit, particularly as you get into the more complex/advance 7-series models. But who cares, right? I know I don't mind spending $100k on a car so it can spend one-half its time at the local BMW dealer. I mean, who wants to deprive these cars from being amongst so many of their friends? I like to think of it as "day care" ... very expensive day care, for sure ... but daycare nonetheless.
> 
> Yes, that clicking sound you hear is my tongue being buried DEEP into the my mouth cheek....


BMW reliability is poor, that's a fact and anyone here who denies that is kidding themselves. BMW poor reliability is one of the main reasons the prices drop so radically once the "free" maintenance expires.



bmw325 said:


> What kills me is that it's usually not the "exotic" parts that fail.. It's very mundane stuff.


Door handles and steering wheels peeling, why on earth does BMW not pay the proper attention to the little things?


----------



## 02BMW530 (Nov 19, 2010)

The people who say CR is not trustworthy and BMW quality is top notch sound like Catholics who way abuses never happened. Get real. CR (Among others) are trustworthy sites to get a "real" picture of a car, not the extra-detailed, double quality-controlled ones the magazines get. 

Let's not forget, CR rated the E39 530i higher then any car it ever had before it. I be you people supported CR then...


Sent from my iPhone using BimmerApp


----------



## Munich77 (Jul 16, 2008)

Not a surprising finding. I love my BMW but having an N54 powered car has been a nightmare. I am on my third HPFP and second set of fuel injectors. I hope that the car is finally fixed but I doubt it. I am not expecting perfect reliability out of the car but for the same part to fail repeatedly and BMW not being able to address the issue is unacceptable.


----------



## Bremen Ben (Sep 1, 2008)

BMW needs to start making cars that have a big cluster of glowing dash control knobs and buttons with lettering like "climate control-on/off," "volume," etc. next to every knob and button.

Those Germans just can't seem to get it: we Americans can't function without signs to tell us exactly what controls what! :rofl:


----------



## mhrir (May 17, 2010)

Lets face it, a car is an appliance. Only through marketing do the manufacturers create brand loyalty and passion (ie The Ultimate Driving Machine). We all use cars for the same purpose, which is to get from point A to B. If everyone made car buying decisions using their left brain, we would all buy the most reliable brand (which for arguments sake in this discussion I am assuming is the #1 priorty). Of course perception is most peoples reality. Someone who buys a BMW and never has a problem would likely declare BMWs are the most reliable cars ever. The opposite goes for someone who buys a Honda and has constant problems.

I buy BMWs because of the experience of driving one and (I will also admit) for the image. Reliability doesn't even factor into my decision. As long as I receive outstanding service from the dealer, I will be happy. The service center is what keeps me coming back (listen up BMW!). Being treated better than someone who owns a Toyota or Hyundai is important to me. If BMW loses that, they WILL be in trouble.


----------



## AlexK (Jul 25, 2009)

tagheuer said:


> But you are completely ignoring *the fact* that on average, *BMW (as well as Audi and Mercedes) are much more likely to develop problems then some of their competition, such as Infiniti, Acura and Lexus*.


First of all, it's not a FACT. Unless, of course, you can prove that to me, by giving me a certified copies of manufacturer's own repair statistics. Can you do that? No? I thought so 
Second of all, it really is NOT a good idea to make a "generic" conclusion about whole brand based on model-specific issues. For example, I know about HPFP problems, which is an objective problem specific to a certain model range with certain engine. Do I care about it? No, because my specific model is guaranteed to never develop such issue. Does it automatically make ALL cars made by BMW "unreliable"? Obviously not.



> Now, of course a BMW provides much more enjoyment then a Lexus...and no one is expecting Lexus like reliability from BMW, but why can't they spend a LITTLE more time focusing on reliability....and *stop using exotic technology like cylinder liners that corrode when a certain kind of fuel is used*...:dunno:


Probably for the same reason Lexus could not (initially) develop a proper fuel lines made out of proper alloys, which wouldn't corrode when a certain kind of fuel is used  Or the same reason Mazda (another Jap company which is rated higher on random number-generating "reliability" sites)  could not (initially) design the proper fuel system vent, creating a possibility for a tiny ****ing spider to make your fuel tank crack and your car potentially catch fire :yikes: Everybody make mistakes, REGARDLESS of brand name.



> I understand you are one of those people who will continue to deny that on average, Asian brands are much more reliable then BMW....if you want to ignore years and years of consistent data trending from multiple sources, that's fine....*its not rational though*.


:rofl: It's not "rational" to rely on personal OBJECTIVE experience instead of relying on some random anonymous people's SUBJECTIVE perception about existence and severity of car's "issues"?


----------



## listerone (Jul 21, 2009)

I can only speak of my own personal experiences....some may have fared better,others worse.In eight years I've owned three automobiles.....two Infiniti (2003 & 2008) and my "d".In about 6 years and 70K miles with the Japanese vehicles I found them to be comfortable,secure,rock solid (reliability-wise) and *BORING*.In almost two years and 24K miles my "d" has been comfortable,secure,not enirely reliable (two service visits for malfunctions) and *FUN*.

It's a trade-off I'm willing to make...an occasional service visit for the extra enjoyment.Of course my attitude may change if the reliability worsens (more visits,safety-related malfunctions,etc).


----------



## RicN (Dec 23, 2002)

Some people here claimed that they don't buy BMW for the reliability, but when some respected publications said BMW is not reliable as a Honda (which is one of the brand known for its reliability), they got their panties in a bunch. Then they would start citing examples how reliable their BMWs, their mothers/brothers/sisters/grandmothers/neighbors/dosg/cats' BMWs are. Yet they can't explain why the 911, which is more expensive, more high end, arguably better handling is more reliable than a BMW. Too funny.


----------



## darbyogill (Jan 16, 2011)

thumbnail said:


> Yet they can't explain why the 911, which is more expensive, more high end, arguably better handling is more reliable than a BMW.


Here's the explanation: when you make the same product for 50 years, you tend to get pretty good at it, and it tends to be pretty reliable.


----------



## RicN (Dec 23, 2002)

darbyogill said:


> Here's the explanation: when you make the same product for 50 years, you tend to get pretty good at it, and it tends to be pretty reliable.


and you would be wrong. the shape of the 911 might be similar for 50 years but the engines are not the same for 50 years. one quick example: air-cooled vs water-cooled engines. Go read up history on the 911 and try again.


----------



## darbyogill (Jan 16, 2011)

911s are liquid-cooled now? Who knew?


----------



## RicN (Dec 23, 2002)

darbyogill said:


> 911s are liquid-cooled now? Who knew?


my bad.. I meant water-cooled. i typed too fast


----------



## darbyogill (Jan 16, 2011)

Is water a liquid?


----------



## George Allan (Feb 22, 2008)

Read the link below,

http://www.bmwblog.com/2010/05/04/g...mpressive-reliability-of-bmw-and-mini-models/

A different experience there,

George Allan


----------



## captainaudio (Jul 17, 2007)

FWIW Consumer's lists the 3 Series as "recommended"


CA


----------



## aiwapro (Apr 18, 2006)

Unfortunately, it serves BMW right. The fact that issues arise is one thing, but the fact that many times they don't do anything about it, is the worse thing. The HPFP issue has been around way too long. This should have been resolved for good long ago. There is a problem with the E60 trans., '04 to probably '07. It's the Mechantronics unit, and instead of BMW just fixing it, they give many of the vehicle's owner the run-around: no fault found, clear the adaptive values, software upgrade; None of it resolves the problem. I'm speaking personally on this one.


----------



## bmwarchitect (Dec 3, 2010)

BMW (and others) seem to be focusing on caputuring market share with a model for every niche. The Porsche 911 has been around for a long time and evolved. Controlled evolution was part of most European brands way of doing business. With so many models and options developed so quickly, keeping a lock on quality has to be a challenge. 

BMW is a brand that is not particularly reliable, and what makes it bearable is the four year warrantly and service. I have an 03 X5 that I a neighbor wanted to buy. I am reluctant to sell it to him, as I know it may be expensive to fix. I don't think BMW is necessarily worse than Audi, or Merecedes, but if they need to focus on reliability as much as on market expansion.

I find the steering/grinding problems with the F10 disturbing to the point I cancelled my order, and am waiting for the next model year. They need to improve in this area so they don't gain the reputation of the old jags. Certain models like the 7 series lose their value immediately after sale. Whether thats due to reliability, its hard to say, but reliability goes a long way in the typical consumer's mind with regard to satisfication, no matter what the price point.


----------



## duckdog7925 (Feb 3, 2012)

My wife's 2010 X3 (Canadian car) has been the most unreliable car she or I have experienced in 30+ years of driving. I can't even be bothered to list all the issues in its 80,000km life, but it's the only car to have left us stranded more than once, and for major issues.  I'm ignoring things like sticky sunroofs and the like. I'm referring to major, show stopping, mechanical events, known to some, including ourselves, as vacation killers. Our neighbours are fascinated by all the issues we've had with this thing, in the meantime buying Ford's and Acura for themselves instead. And no wonder! It does not even stand up reliability wise to the old Citroen 2CV I bought for $900 in the 90's. Thank goodness it's been under warranty, otherwise the cost of major components and labour would have rendered the car scrap. We're still trying to like the car, but boy, do I feel sorry that my wife's dream car has been such a disappointment for her. Both reliability and service have been sorely lacking. German engineering, my-rear-end! I would be insane to recommend a BMW to anyone, and BMW would not be able to argue the point with the repair data in front of them. Next road trip we take that goes South of the 49'th into the US of A, we're renting a car, and crucial trips within BC, Canada, I'll take my 1997 300K Toyota. We have no choice&#8230; Really sad.


----------



## mullini (Aug 27, 2012)

Well I'm a first time BMW owner, with a sDrive X1 purchased November 2012. Coming on 25,000 miles and though there have been a couple of very small hiccups (it needed coolant very early in its life, and in the first week it briefly went into engine limp mode), it's been very solid. In fact, CR itself ranks the 2013 X1 reliability as "above average." But who knows how it performs or how I feel about it in 2, 4, 6 years...if I keep it that long. 

Maybe certain models are bringing down BMW's average? Possibly models built in SC? Just asking.


----------



## duckdog7925 (Feb 3, 2012)

mullini said:


> Well I'm a first time BMW owner, with a sDrive X1 purchased November 2012. Coming on 25,000 miles and though there have been a couple of very small hiccups (it needed coolant very early in its life, and in the first week it briefly went into engine limp mode), it's been very solid. In fact, CR itself ranks the 2013 X1 reliability as "above average." But who knows how it performs or how I feel about it in 2, 4, 6 years...if I keep it that long.
> 
> Maybe certain models are bringing down BMW's average? Possibly models built in SC? Just asking.


In fairness, my sister has owned and X1 for 3 years, with no issues. It's a diesel UK car with 12000 miles on the clock. Her X5 before that had some issues, but they were minor, and dealer service was good. I find our local service a little superficial. We also drive far larger distances in one trip than my UK friends. 2200km in 22 hours is our longest continuous stint.

Our X3 issues started at 32,000km if you ignore annoyances, and we do since we've owned a few European cars. We can't blame the car entirely. I'm convinced that 4 of the last 8 visits were to clean up dealer errors. Trouble is, 8 visits over 2.5 months gets really boring. The dealer voluntarily confessed to the last problem, and I could sense the anguish in the service managers email.. I think servicing at an independent specialist will improve things for us. As an ex-mechanic, I'd also like to perform my own diff level checks and the like, but aside from the info on this forum, BMW service info for the X3 is hard to find in one spot, unless you want to subscribe... Then try find the oil...

My wife and I are still BMW customers right now. My wife defends the car to the neighbours, but can't deny the issues. Our BMW loaner cars (We have driven quite a few) remind us what blast some of them are to drive: Turn off the silly screen, press the sport mode button, enjoy!

Oh well.

Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------



## JimD1 (Jun 5, 2009)

Consumers Reports is a credible source of data on appliances, which they test, but not cars. The issues with their so-called testing of cars are well documented. Try searching for "Consumer Reports: Never to be Trusted. Their results are so biased they have been sued but have not been declared guilty of defamation due to settlements and the difficulty of proving intent (it's not enough to be a liar, you have to have wanted to cause harm). Their reliability "data" is from their subscribers and is basically a collection of subjective ratings. If somebody says their BMW is very unreliable that is what they report. No data on what their issues are, just the users rating. I don't really care what CR says about BMWs. I prefer TrueDelta. They track trips to the dealer which is at least data and also what the trip was for. Considerably better. TrueDelta had pretty good ratings for the 328, last I looked, but the 335 in the years with HPFP issues did not have as good a score. They didn't have enough 1 series reporting their experience to give reliable results last I looked.


----------



## dpritchett (Sep 6, 2006)

For what it's worth, BMW reliability was Average in the 2014 Annual Auto issue of CR. It probably would be higher but for the very poor rating of the 7.




Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------



## BestCS (Jun 30, 2009)

What individual owners supply in regard to reliability is anecdotal data. In other words a very small sample of one!

What CR does is collect data from owners. Just how good it is depends upon the number of responses they get. Well some of you who are statisticians might argue about the sample size, but it is certainly better than miscellaneous comments from the forum members. Another factor is if the gathered sample clearly show that there are problem areas. Anyway, that is all you have in trying to determine how reliable a BMW is. 

Another factor regarding this issue is technology. Look at the new M3/M4 a six cylinder with twin turbos. It makes lot of power, but I doubt the engine will be more reliable than the normally aspirated V8. The V8 is just mechanically a simpler engine. 

I haven't owned a German car since my last one in 1970, a 2002 which was a PITA with rust and transmission problems. I now have two - a MB SLK 350 and a BMW135i. What I did was buy these cars at the end of their production run. I figured by then the maker had the bugs worked out. I'm not a bit worried about the Mercedes, but the BMW is an open question.


----------



## JimD1 (Jun 5, 2009)

Consumer Reports has done several hatchet jobs on cars they did not like. Read the story on the Suzuki Samauri. They had to use multiple drivers and a lane change maneuver no other vehicle was subjected to before they were able to make it tip over. Then they called the vehicle unsafe. This was beyond sleazy. 

Their reliability ratings are mainly a collection of subjective opinions of car owners. No data in a normal sense. If a car owner thinks a trip to a dealer for a check engine light is a big deal, then the car gets dinged. If they don't think it's a big deal then it doesn't. Herd opinion like Toyotas and Hondas are reliable turns into CR data. They don't tell you if the cars required repairs and for what. They basically tell you if the owners like the car and consider it reliable. That's of some value but then it gets modified by CRs "testing" which you can't depend on to be unbiased. I think the net effect is useless information. The source has been shown to be a liar so how can you trust their "data"?

If you look at TrueDelta ratings of BMW 3 series versus Camrys you find bimmers anywhere from the good end of the ratings to the bad depending on the year. The Camrys are better but often by very little. In 2013, for instance, the 3 series has a 17 and the Camry a 11. The numbers is successful trips to the dealer for repairs per 100 vehicles per year. To me this is much more usable. I can also see what those trips were for. Something CR doesn't tell you.


----------



## Mojizel (Jun 22, 2014)

MarcA78 said:


> CR is a joke. No one should take their work seriously. But hey, if you think that a Hyundai is better than a BMW, who am I to argue?


exactly

Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------



## prayin4snow (Jun 1, 2014)

2012 X1 with 62000 k have repaired or replaced:
1. Seven month wait for front drivers seat to be replaced as leather wore and split (Red cattle are hard to come by)
2. Rattle from antenna bracket that came apart between roof and roof liner.
3. Recall on wiring to battery (prone to rust)
4. Two blown speakers
5. A dashboard that crackles and pops when the a/c comes on (apparently normal)
6. Possible timing chain/tensioner issue linked to a faulty oil pump causing an unbearable engine whine during acceleration in the first 4 speeds. Repairs to follow within the next two weeks, as parts are shipped by boat.
And I suspect the bushing on the left front part of the stabilizer link is wearing as it knocks over small inclines
This outside of regular maintenance, with every repair requiring the vehicle in the shop for the day.
I have never experienced so much non sense from a single vehicle, nevermind a BMW...The service department at my dealer has been very professional, no questions asked. but when do you draw the line with this product? 
July 2/14 Update:
Oil pump has arrived, timing chain and tensioners are being replaced the car will be in the shop for three days...
but wait, 
July 3/14 Update: 
The service department has called and need yet another part...that is of course on back order. two more weeks of BMW purgatory with no car. This is starting to get embarrassing... and for the record my dodge neon had better reliability.


----------



## WRS (Dec 22, 2001)

BestCS said:


> What individual owners supply in regard to reliability is anecdotal data. In other words a very small sample of one!
> 
> What CR does is collect data from owners. Just how good it is depends upon the number of responses they get. Well some of you who are statisticians might argue about the sample size, but it is certainly better than miscellaneous comments from the forum members. Another factor is if the gathered sample clearly show that there are problem areas. Anyway, that is all you have in trying to determine how reliable a BMW is.


CR does not verify ownership. they send a questionnaire to subscribers and then publish it as reliability data. I had a co-worker who got a yearly joy from trashing American made cars he didn't own.


----------

