MB vs Volvo vs. Other?

karpems · Post by **karpems** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:34 am

My wife and I are in the market for a small SUV for her to drive.

So far we have narrowed it down to two choices. We really like the Volvo XC-60 and MB GLK Diesel. We are looking for something to last 10+ years and gets great gas mileage. Safety is also a huge concern.

Anyone have any recommendations or advice on the above two vehicles or have any additional suggestions? Looking to spend no more than 45k

ivyhedge · Post by **ivyhedge** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:55 am

Folks will offer anecdotal evidence on which car you should select. Please review large sample reliability ratings at Consumer Reports and True Delta (neither of which take automotive advertising dollars) to help with your initial down selection absent the "trust me, my anecdotes are the best" comments.

[Jocularity] My anecdote: my aunt's GLK was quite troublesome (over <15,000 miles) and could not hold as much cargo as my folks' Fit when packed by the same person.

Toons · Post by **Toons** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:04 am

Mercedes is in a class of its own

Browser · Post by **Browser** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:14 am

I looked at the Volvo XC-60 and liked it also. A few nitpicks. I test drove it 3 different times, and made sure to drive on a stretch of pretty bumpy pavement. I wasn't overwhelmed by the smoothness of the ride on that surface. I'm looking for a pretty high quality ride in vehicles of this class. I also recall the autodimming rearview mirror bothered me because it wasn't very bright in daylight; others I've seen are unobstrusively clear and I didn't like the Volvo's. The Volvo has an auto shutoff feature that pauses the engine when you are stopped in order to conserve fuel. In one Volvo I drove this feature caused the car to lurch at startup; so much so that I thought the car behind me had nudged into my rear bumper. I'd check these things out on your test drive to see if they bother you. I've looked at a lot of vehicles over the last couple years in search of my perfect small-mid SUV. So far, nothing has rung all the bells for me. I've looked at the Acura RDX but haven't liked a few things about it either, including the ride quality and the absence of safety features. I note that the 2016 RDX has finally added the full package of safety features and is said to have tweaked the suspension for a better ride. I'm waiting for it to appear on dealer lots so I can have another look. I'd put the current ride at about the same level as the Volvo. Neither one was quite comfortable enough for me, so I'm hoping Acura finally has gotten it right. The MDX has all the goods, so I'm hoping the 2016 RDX is truly a smaller version of the MDX.

karpems · Post by **karpems** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:20 am

I do like the idea of the mb due to the diesel. Anyone have any opinion as to the longevity of diesel compared to gas engines?

midareff · Post by **midareff** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:42 am

Toons wrote:Mercedes is in a class of its own

+1 best vehicle I ever owned by far.

midareff · Post by **midareff** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:46 am

karpems wrote:I do like the idea of the mb due to the diesel. Anyone have any opinion as to the longevity of diesel compared to gas engines?

10+ years for either will be no issue unless your annual mileage is unreasonable. Just follow the maintenance schedule. As a general rule diesels live longer than gas. My MB is the first vehicle I have every had that has had zero defects/problems first two and half years.

surfstar · Post by **surfstar** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:55 am

Run the numbers for total cost for a fully optioned Outback or Forester (just as safe, I assume).

I just don't see the economy of spending 45k and worrying about fuel economy.
Buy something for 35k and you can drive crazy without burning up 10k in fuel differences.

I feel that the reduced ongoing costs associated with a Subaru will keep the total cost much lower over 10+ years (Volvo's, MB, Audi, BMW, all can have quite expensive repairs later in life)

Browser · Post by **Browser** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:57 am

Check out Consumer Reports ratings. IMO, more useful than random anecdotal reports. In the case of MB and Volvo, the ratings are middling. Not as good as you'd expect given the purchase price and cost of routine maintenance on these vehicles. German cars in particular are known for expensive maintenance.

LiveSimple · Post by **LiveSimple** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:22 am

Audi Q3
BMW X3

EasilyConfused · Post by **EasilyConfused** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:33 am

Enjoy unexpected brisk walks on deserted roadsides? Want to help fund a vacation home for a mechanic? Get a Volvo!

dewey · Post by **dewey** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:36 am

LiveSimple wrote:Audi Q3
BMW X3

+1

TomatoTomahto · Post by **TomatoTomahto** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:59 am

Toons wrote:Mercedes is in a class of its own

I had a 300E years ago (when the numbers preceded the letter) that was awesome. My understanding from friends who have newer Mercedes is that many of the cars suffer from MB engineering to new price points. The S class is in a class of its own. I'm not sure the C class is.

We have two XC60s in the family, and I've become a fan of Volvo.

Maybe the concept will be proven to outweigh the reality, but I'm excited about my (delayed

) Tesla Model X in a way I haven't felt since I was a kid buying his first VW.

surfstar · Post by **surfstar** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:08 pm

dewey wrote:
LiveSimple wrote:Audi Q3
BMW X3
+1

Until the warranty expires.

Browser · Post by **Browser** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:26 pm

I've owned non-US vehicles since 1986, but I have the sneaking suspicion that many US vehicles are now on par with foreign brands based on reliability, engineering and performance. For example, Buick is gathering some very good ratings these days on Consumer Reports and elsewhere. One thing I've noticed in comparing the two is that the US branded vehicles are typically more adequately equipped with electronic, safety and comfort features right out of the gate. When I look at the imports a lot of what I want is an add-on even in luxury vehicles. Why wouldn't they be more comparable? Many foreign brands are actually being built in the US these days. The big US car makers have been released from the shackles of retrograde union contracts and have become more nimble. I might have to do some reprogramming of my attitude, and look at more US brands. In particular, I'd like to see the rumored new Buick Anthem, now being sold in China. (and don't turn your nose up -- Volvo is now owned by a Chinese company Zhejiang Geely Holding Group after being tossed overboard by Ford). It is a smaller 5-person SUV in the same size class as the Volvo, BMW, RDX and others. It should eventually make it to the US market but haven't seen any info about timing. I'm getting a bit of the feeling that the preference for foreign brands may be more of an elitist thing than based on the facts, at least for many buyers. And I say this grudgingly, as I decided 30 years ago to never again touch a US brand as long as I lived. Old dog?

wfrobinette · Post by **wfrobinette** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:31 pm

karpems wrote:My wife and I are in the market for a small SUV for her to drive.

So far we have narrowed it down to two choices. We really like the Volvo XC-60 and MB GLK Diesel. We are looking for something to last 10+ years and gets great gas mileage. Safety is also a huge concern.

Anyone have any recommendations or advice on the above two vehicles or have any additional suggestions? Looking to spend no more than 45k

I love the Volvo XC-60. I have a 2015 R design and the thing rides great. Sure it's a little bumpy but I like to feel the road. The seats are as comfortable as you're going to find, the safety features are bar none ahead of the rest(great on the price as well). I love the lane departure, BLIS, active cruise control, Collision avoidance and active headlights. The only thing I wish it had was the heads up display. Infotainment is pretty good and easy to use. I've had one minor issue with the active headlights in the year I have owned. No mechanical issues at all.

I looked at the BMW X3 and hated it. Less power, less options for the same price. Didn't consider the MB at all because of the cost difference.

htdrag11 · Post by **htdrag11** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:48 pm

Did not own either one but their reliability is not impressive; just Google them or check out Consumer Reports from your local library.

We did had a MB back in the '80s, great car while it is not in the shop; ditto for BMWs and Saabs. Our friend's leased Audi and Evoque are fun but problematic.

Current SUV is a 2012 Lexus RX350 with about 30k trouble free, not the safest nor thrifty, but worry free and boring as hell. Could have gotten a Toyota Highlander for less but the front grille looks like my MIL.

likegarden · Post by **likegarden** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:36 pm

Browser, since you mention Buick, I drive a 2004 Buick Century with 91k miles on it. It is very comfortable for me and my grandson and cost me less than $500 in repairs over all those 11 years.

Grateful1 · Post by **Grateful1** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:20 pm

I love my Audi Q5 ! It is in the same class as the MB & Volvo so you many want to consider test driving a Q5.
The Q5 drives smoothly, and powerfully. Though it is an SUV it drives more like a sedan and feels sporty. This luxury SUV is a joy.
Recently my prior SUV hit 17 yrs old and badly needed replacement. I justified the expense of a new car for safety. Great crash test results, extra airbags that include the usual plus knee and pelvis airbags.
Much modern technology .... blind spot indicators, backup camera with great dash display, on board internet hot spot,.... and on and on.
Great interior. Huge Glass sunroof, etc. I love it's style and how it drives. But pricey.

livesoft · Post by **livesoft** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:26 pm

C'mon folks, if you want reliability and safety, then you want a Lexus.

gator15 · Post by **gator15** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:00 pm

A couple of years ago we looked at vehicles in that price range. Our favorite was the Audi Q5. We loved the ride quality among others things, but eliminated it from our list due to the cost. At the time, they wanted over $50k for the vehicle. For $15k less, we went with a Acura RDX. My wife loves the vehicle. We drove it over 2000 miles during the Christmas holiday to visit family and I thought it was a nice smooth ride for the most part. There is some road noise, but overall I liked the ride.

sunspotzsz · Post by **sunspotzsz** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:09 pm

we got the xc90 and really love it

111 · Post by **111** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:03 am

I had pretty much decided on getting an XC60, but the Volvo dealer didn't answer my email so I decided to just save the cash and stick with my current car for now.

My order of preference would be Volvo, MB, BMW, then Audi/VW. But, that is largely based on the size of the discount available to me.

yatesd · Post by **yatesd** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:29 am

I personally don't like Consumer Reports. I have found to many times they "measure" the wrong stuff and pretend to be an expert in everything. I'll combine feedback from them along with car sites/magazines, along with forums, friends, and personal priorities.

That being said, I think Mercedes E-Class had the privilege of being the most unreliable 4-door sedan back when I bought my CTS so they are certainly not infallible. The Volvo may offer a better value today since they have been struggling and you get the benefits of owning the first Chinese owned car in the neighborhood.

I would like to know more about your priorities & goals.

karpems · Post by **karpems** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:02 am

[quote=" I would like to know more about your priorities & goals.[/quote]

1. Safety
2. Some sort of luxury status. My wife visits people's homes for work and pulling up in a nicer car makes an excellent impression
3. Reliability
4. Room for kids and strollers
5. Reasonable gas mileage

Thanks.

sunny_socal · Post by **sunny_socal** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:36 pm

karpems wrote:
1. Safety
2. Some sort of luxury status. My wife visits people's homes for work and pulling up in a nicer car makes an excellent impression
3. Reliability
4. Room for kids and strollers
5. Reasonable gas mileage

Thanks.

If reliability is on the list, I wouldn't consider the MB. It may not leave you on the road, but the windows may not open, sunroof may get stuck, lights might not work etc. Expect to pay $500 every couple months to fix little things like that.

Browser · Post by **Browser** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:13 pm

sunny_socal wrote:
karpems wrote:
1. Safety
2. Some sort of luxury status. My wife visits people's homes for work and pulling up in a nicer car makes an excellent impression
3. Reliability
4. Room for kids and strollers
5. Reasonable gas mileage

Thanks.
If reliability is on the list, I wouldn't consider the MB. It may not leave you on the road, but the windows may not open, sunroof may get stuck, lights might not work etc. Expect to pay $500 every couple months to fix little things like that.

It's part of the charm of owning a German brand, not to mention wowing the spectators.

yatesd · Post by **yatesd** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:41 pm

karpems wrote: 1. Safety
2. Some sort of luxury status. My wife visits people's homes for work and pulling up in a nicer car makes an excellent impression
3. Reliability
4. Room for kids and strollers
5. Reasonable gas mileage

Thanks.

I have not personally evaluated the options you are considering. However, you may also wish to add the Acura MDX or a Lexus RX350. They should achieve your goals. I believe both of these models essentially share the same platform as their respective minivans and are positioned as such. For this reason, they should have the extra storage and cupholders to support the needs of kids and strollers. Come to think of it...also look at the Infiniti version, QX60. Good luck!

dognose · Post by **dognose** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:45 pm

The Mercedes diesel will last virtually forever. It's like buying a German tank without a machine gun on the hood. Don't believe the wussies at Consumer Reports, who wouldn't understand a car if it ran over them. CR is more concerned about cup holders than engine performance.

Browser · Post by **Browser** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:21 pm

dognose wrote:The Mercedes diesel will last virtually forever. It's like buying a German tank without a machine gun on the hood. Don't believe the wussies at Consumer Reports, who wouldn't understand a car if it ran over them. CR is more concerned about cup holders than engine performance.

Do you actually read CR? They report extensive reliability data from owners of these vehicles. It isn't just made-up stuff from some reporter's opinion. Consider that there must be a lot of cognitive dissonance for respondents who are plunking down $50K and more on a vehicle and report a less than $50K experience owning it. If I owned one of them I doubt that I'd be telling people: "that MB I bought - it's a heap of dog doo."

dognose · Post by **dognose** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:39 pm

Yes, I actually read CR, mainly for the amusement factor. Beyond that, it's a highly over-rated publication on many levels. Any real car person knows this, and that's been true for decades. I agree with your cognitive dissonance point, which is just one more reason to avoid CR.

yatesd · Post by **yatesd** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:50 pm

dognose wrote:Yes, I actually read CR, mainly for the amusement factor. Beyond that, it's a highly over-rated publication on many levels. Any real car person knows this, and that's been true for decades. I agree with your cognitive dissonance point, which is just one more reason to avoid CR.

+1 Many years ago I took CR more seriously (even had a subscription). I appreciated the theory of non-bias, no ads, and felt that thorough tests could provide more value for items difficult to research (cleaning products, etc.).

However, I had made a few major purchase decisions (lawn tractors as an example) with extensive research. In almost every one of these cases their evaluation criteria didn't coincide with mine (transmission, frame, hydraulics, engine design, etc.). I would choose something like John Deere, Kubota, or Cub Cadet and CR would choose Murray because the cut was similar and had the same reliability for 90 days. Same thing with cars...

Browser · Post by **Browser** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:09 pm

If some folks don't like CR, what other publications rating vehicle reliability are better? I looked at JD Power's 2015 Vehicle Dependability Study. This compares 3-year old vehicles (2012 models) based on the number and type of problems reported by owners within the last 12 months. Here are some that have been mentioned in this thread:

Volvo XC-60 Quality= 3/5, Dependability= 2/5
MB GLK-Class Quality=3/5, Dependability= 5/5 (Award Recipient)
Buick Enclave Quality=5/5, Dependability= 5/5 (Award Recipient)
Buick Encore Quality=5/5, Dependability= 4/5 (Award Recipient)

Between the MB and Volvo, it looks like MB based on Dependability. However, Volvo is now putting a redesigned turbo 4 engine in the XC-60 and getting rid of the 5- and 6-bangers and it may fare better (or not). But you can see that Buick fares very well. The Enclave is a larger SUV and the Encore is their compact SUV.

For the most part, Audi Q5 has gotten 3/5 for quality and reliability. Ditto for BMWs. Acura RDX has gotten mostly 4/5 for both, a little better than the Germans. Lexus, of course, gets 5/5.

karpems · Post by **karpems** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 4:19 pm

We spent a few hours test driving yesterday and really liked the Volvo V60. Seems like a nice compromise. 37mpg highway. 4 year/50,000 mile warranty. Volvo safety.

They have some impressive discounts now.

Browser · Post by **Browser** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:21 pm

karpems wrote:We spent a few hours test driving yesterday and really liked the Volvo V60. Seems like a nice compromise. 37mpg highway. 4 year/50,000 mile warranty. Volvo safety.

They have some impressive discounts now.

Are big discounts a good sign? Maybe having trouble moving them. There's always the rumor with Volvo that they're gonna go out of business or that some dealerships will close.

Epsilon Delta · Post by **Epsilon Delta** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:40 pm

dognose wrote:The Mercedes diesel will last virtually forever. It's like buying a German tank without a machine gun on the hood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II#R ... d_mobility

Early Tiger II's proved unreliable, due principally to leaking seals and gaskets, and an overburdened drivetrain originally intended for a lighter vehicle.[31] The double radius steering gear was initially particularly prone to failure.[32] Lack of crew training could amplify this problem; drivers originally given only limited training on other tanks were often sent directly to operational units already on their way to the front.[31]

The Schwere Heeres Panzer Abteilung 501 (s.H.Pz.Abt. 501) arrived on the Eastern Front with only eight out of 45 tanks operational, these faults were mostly due to drivetrain failures. The first five Tiger IIs delivered to the Panzer Lehr Division broke down before they could be used in combat, and were destroyed to prevent capture.

senhati · Post by **senhati** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:50 pm

livesoft wrote:C'mon folks, if you want reliability and safety, then you want a Lexus.

+1

Hawaiishrimp · Post by **Hawaiishrimp** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:56 pm

senhati wrote:
livesoft wrote:C'mon folks, if you want reliability and safety, then you want a Lexus.
+1

+2

JDot · Post by **JDot** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:27 pm

I recently purchased a new 2015 Subaru Forester XT Touring. This is by far the best vehicle I have owned. If you are truly a lover of luxury vehicles, then there is really no replacement for a luxury vehicle e.g. volvo, MB, BMW, etc.. But most people wouldn't appreciate the difference between a fully loaded Forester and the others. It's just as fast and handles probably better (due to lighter weight, the low center of gravity boxer engine, awd). Also- check out Subaru's Eyesight system. Don't ask me how, but they have the luxury brands beat hands down. I believe NPR recently did a piece on these type of accident avoidance systems and noted Subaru's Eyesight to be superior. Oh- it also has an excellent adaptive cruise control system that you have to spend some time with to believe.

Disclaimer: I am somewhat of a Subaru fanboy I guess. But I am also a lover of cars in general.

TomatoTomahto · Post by **TomatoTomahto** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:59 am

JDot, welcome to the forum. It's okay to be a Subaru fanboy; not even the Lexus fanboys or this Tesla/Volvo fanboy will hold it against you

Johno · Post by **Johno** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 10:27 am

Browser wrote:
dognose wrote:The Mercedes diesel will last virtually forever. It's like buying a German tank without a machine gun on the hood. Don't believe the wussies at Consumer Reports, who wouldn't understand a car if it ran over them. CR is more concerned about cup holders than engine performance.
Do you actually read CR? They report extensive reliability data from owners of these vehicles. It isn't just made-up stuff from some reporter's opinion. Consider that there must be a lot of cognitive dissonance for respondents who are plunking down $50K and more on a vehicle and report a less than $50K experience owning it. If I owned one of them I doubt that I'd be telling people: "that MB I bought - it's a heap of dog doo."

I'm not sure your implication, that owners of expensive cars understate the reliability problems they've had? I think it might if anything be the other way around. I know when I owned an MB (2000 E320 bought new) I was more annoyed by minor problems than I would have been, or indeed was, with minor glitches in my Ford. And I've never participated in a CR survey, don't know how exactly they do it, but I assume it's anonymous. I think any non-scientific variation in those results depends on the personality, some might be more inclined to overlook problems to make their own decision to pay more look better in their own minds, others (as I think I was) might hold the manufacturer to a higher standard because they paid more, and it might tend to average out to not much bias at all. I'm not at all convinced by attacks on CR's reliability data as itself unreliable. It's not 100% scientific, but it's more so than any other source I know. When people say 'don't believe CR reliability data, here's my personal experience on one car that's different' it's hard to believe they aren't joking.

I agree with previous poster CR's staff raters seem to give disproportionate attention to some relatively minor items ('controls are confusing' is a common ding they give cars, but if I'm going to own a car for years not rate it over a couple of days, I'll learn the controls

) but agree with you that's beside the point of the reliability data. And while no such data is perfect, people criticizing CR reliability data must IMO point to a source that's better.

TomatoTomahto · Post by **TomatoTomahto** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:49 am

Johno wrote:I'm not sure your implication, that owners of expensive cars understate the reliability problems they've had? I think it might if anything be the other way around.

It can go either way. Cognitive dissonance would incline one to think that their expensive car was worth it, else one would be publicly admitting to poor judgment. You indicated the other line of motivation.

I no longer receive CR. Years ago, when I knew audio and video systems well, I was always incensed at how CR evaluated them. If I had wanted to know which speaker could better withstand a drop from 3', well, then I'd be happy with their tests (I'm obviously exaggerating their test criteria, but you get the point). They tended to instrument the frequency response curves from speakers, without any real reporting on which ones sounded more like the source, which were boomy, which were mid-frequency oriented ("no highs, no lows, must be Bose"). Anyway, I wondered if they were just as odd in evaluating things about which I knew very little (dishwashers, lawn mowers, etc.).

RunningRad · Post by **RunningRad** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:21 pm

We recently were down to the same two models and chose the XC60 (front wheel drive T5). It came down to three things:
1. Price (
2. Image (my wife likes to keep a low profile to her work colleagues)
3. Previous positive experience with Volvo

DanMacMan · Post by **DanMacMan** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:53 pm

Check out the Porsche Macan S. In the low $60s.superb handling and drive and you can get a diesel.

wander · Post by **wander** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 10:34 pm

karpems wrote:Anyone have any recommendations or advice on the above two vehicles or have any additional suggestions?

I pick MB GLK Diesel over Volvo XC-60 any day.

fidelio · Post by **fidelio** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:06 am

volvo.

karpems · Post by **karpems** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:53 am

We went in with the intent to purchase the XC60, however we pulled the trigger and purchased a V60. Deciding factors included excellent gas mileage, Volvo safety and excellent purchase price. Thanks for everyone's help!

Valuethinker · Post by **Valuethinker** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:43 am

Epsilon Delta wrote:
dognose wrote:The Mercedes diesel will last virtually forever. It's like buying a German tank without a machine gun on the hood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II#R ... d_mobility

Early Tiger II's proved unreliable, due principally to leaking seals and gaskets, and an overburdened drivetrain originally intended for a lighter vehicle.[31] The double radius steering gear was initially particularly prone to failure.[32] Lack of crew training could amplify this problem; drivers originally given only limited training on other tanks were often sent directly to operational units already on their way to the front.[31]

The Schwere Heeres Panzer Abteilung 501 (s.H.Pz.Abt. 501) arrived on the Eastern Front with only eight out of 45 tanks operational, these faults were mostly due to drivetrain failures. The first five Tiger IIs delivered to the Panzer Lehr Division broke down before they could be used in combat, and were destroyed to prevent capture.

Good one!

I was just reading about the Panther (PZKW V, the Tiger I was the PZKW VI, not sure re Tiger II). It was an excellent tank (the French maintained it as the AMX 13 in the postwar years, the Israelis used it until at least 1967) but in its WW2 incarnation it suffered from significant reliability issues which were never entirely resolved (drivetrain in particular). Also the interleaved wheels of German tanks caused endless problems with jamming from mud and frozen mud.

I think the PZ III and PZ IV *were* good tanks, and in an upgunned form the IV served until the end of the war (I think the PZKW IIIs and many of the IVs were converted into turretless assault guns). And adequately reliable-- but these were proven designs created pre war, not rushed into service like the later tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgesch%C3%BCtz_III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgesch%C3%BCtz_IV

As AFAIK all German WW2 tanks used petrol engines (aero engines in fact-- Maybachs) the relevant comparison is probably the Kraus-Maffei Leopard I and Leopard II -- ie postwar German. Which I think had good reliability. The fellow Allied powers thought the Leopard II was underprotected compared to the Centurion and M60, but was a quality tank with a high horsepower to weight ratio (hence could dash between areas of cover) and low ground pressure (hence able in swamps-- somethings the Germans learned the hard war from the Russians in WW2).

Certainly neither Leopard had the engine disaster than the British had with the Challenger, nor the issues of the US Abrams (gas turbine engine with low fuel economy especially when idling).

Valuethinker · Post by **Valuethinker** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:46 am

TomatoTomahto wrote:
Johno wrote:I'm not sure your implication, that owners of expensive cars understate the reliability problems they've had? I think it might if anything be the other way around.
It can go either way. Cognitive dissonance would incline one to think that their expensive car was worth it, else one would be publicly admitting to poor judgment. You indicated the other line of motivation.

I no longer receive CR. Years ago, when I knew audio and video systems well, I was always incensed at how CR evaluated them. If I had wanted to know which speaker could better withstand a drop from 3', well, then I'd be happy with their tests (I'm obviously exaggerating their test criteria, but you get the point). They tended to instrument the frequency response curves from speakers, without any real reporting on which ones sounded more like the source, which were boomy, which were mid-frequency oriented ("no highs, no lows, must be Bose"). Anyway, I wondered if they were just as odd in evaluating things about which I knew very little (dishwashers, lawn mowers, etc.).

They take a very 'objective criteria' approach: a test engineering mentality. That I think means for 'afficianado' stuff, they see the forest but not the trees.

One issue is a moving benchmark. Cars are generally far more reliable than they were, so the differences they report are smaller and smaller than in the days when the Big 3 produced clear junk, and the Japanese were streets ahead (now they might be half a block ahead, but not on all cars).