Most reliable used simple/basic vehicle

[gman2304]

OP’s original post. “Most reliable used simple/basic vehicle”. I think we may have veered off into the weeds on this topic!

 

[OVERKILL]

There is opinion and there is fact in it.

Yes, and you've expressed much opinion, which you double down on in this post. My son has a friend that is autistic and he, like you, seems to struggle with the concept of nuance and grey area. Everything is very black or white, much like your "trash/gem" dichotomy, which obviates the necessary nuance inherent to this discussion.

Now sure some models are terrible from good brands. Terrible brands sometimes make good models of vehicles. There is a difference and important distinction. Honda has made some absolute trash in their history, Toyota has made some horrific vehicles but those are rare. Jeep, Dodge, VW, and Fiat have slipped up and made some gems, but those are rare.

There are no "terrible" brands, there are just brands. And within those brands, there are typically sub-brands, which each have their own slate of offerings that will vary in terms of tech selection, appointments and powertrain options. Some of these nameplates have higher average reliability than others, but "reliability" is also impacted by things like how consistent is the pairing of a phone to the infotainment system, so without knowing the exact details of the ranking matrix, and weighting system, it's difficult to know what the "reliability" issues are that drag down, or push up a score.

You will find very little data and much less anecdotal experience that disagrees. Now again do not hear what I am not saying BMW's are expensive to upkeep that is the truth of the matter. That's a huge issue and puts them in that trash tier category for me, but that doesnt mean they break all the time.

And this is where the data I've presented, and your opinion, diverge. Most luxury brands have higher repair costs than non-luxury brands. This fact does not make them "trash", it's simply something to be aware of when shopping. If the cost of brake replacement on a BMW is cost prohibitive, don't buy a BMW. This isn't weighed into "reliability", which is why BMW is able to top the CR list, despite your protestations about the marque's TCO.

You like most hear what you want sometimes not what im saying. My words mean what I am saying there is no reading into them.

What are you "saying" are simply fragments of incomplete thoughts, opinions presented as "data" without supporting evidence, subjective perspectives about appointment choices and "feelings" as reliability qualifiers as well as the complete sidestepping of numerous points I've made to you, either because you are unable to address them, or unwilling, as they conflict with your established position.

You've presented a diametric surface-level perspective on a complex and nuanced subject in a crass and inelegant manner and then have the gall to contend that I'm the one struggling with what is being said.

Trash vehicles are ones that cost too much time or money to upkeep, or that don't suit their purpose well. What I mean buy that is if a car is supposed to be fun to drive but isn't. Thats an issue that puts it in trash tier because it doesn't do what it was meant to do. If a cheap commuter car isn't fun to drive that's fine it isnt supposed to be. If a model in a particular category costs far more to upkeep than its comprable comperitors that puts it in trash tier. Imagine a Lexus versus a BMW the Lexus is far less costly to maintain. I'll Give you that so you know how I am using the word. As that is a subjective use of a word being used for objective measurements.

You are using "trash" in a manner that implies a weight and usefulness to the term, broadly, that simply doesn't exist outside of your own headspace. This paragraph reinforces my earlier conclusion that you struggle with reconciling your own black/white ranking system with the tiers/gradients that exist in the material you feel supports this view; that you struggle with nuance.

More bluntly: Your "trash/gem" personal ranking system is not a valid metric outside of your own head. It is based on simplistic criteria that you've defined at a personal level that simply do not translate to the broader, more nuanced landscape of reality.

I can accept that this is how you view things, and if that works for you at a personal level, that's fine. But you need to understand that there's a good chunk of the population that sees the shades of grey you don't and will dismiss this simplistic approach as crude and lacking the necessary detail and refinement to be useful.

 

[emmett442]

Yes, and you've expressed much opinion, which you double down on in this post. My son has a friend that is autistic and he, like you, seems to struggle with the concept of nuance and grey area. Everything is very black or white, much like your "trash/gem" dichotomy, which obviates the necessary nuance inherent to this discussion.

There are no "terrible" brands, there are just brands. And within those brands, there are typically sub-brands, which each have their own slate of offerings that will vary in terms of tech selection, appointments and powertrain options. Some of these nameplates have higher average reliability than others, but "reliability" is also impacted by things like how consistent is the pairing of a phone to the infotainment system, so without knowing the exact details of the ranking matrix, and weighting system, it's difficult to know what the "reliability" issues are that drag down, or push up a score.

And this is where the data I've presented, and your opinion, diverge. Most luxury brands have higher repair costs than non-luxury brands. This fact does not make them "trash", it's simply something to be aware of when shopping. If the cost of brake replacement on a BMW is cost prohibitive, don't buy a BMW. This isn't weighed into "reliability", which is why BMW is able to top the CR list, despite your protestations about the marque's TCO.

What are you "saying" are simply fragments of incomplete thoughts, opinions presented as "data" without supporting evidence, subjective perspectives about appointment choices and "feelings" as reliability qualifiers as well as the complete sidestepping of numerous points I've made to you, either because you are unable to address them, or unwilling, as they conflict with your established position.

You've presented a diametric surface-level perspective on a complex and nuanced subject in a crass and inelegant manner and then have the gall to contend that I'm the one struggling with what is being said.

You are using "trash" in a manner that implies a weight and usefulness to the term, broadly, that simply doesn't exist outside of your own headspace. This paragraph reinforces my earlier conclusion that you struggle with reconciling your own black/white ranking system with the tiers/gradients that exist in the material you feel supports this view; that you struggle with nuance.

More bluntly: Your "trash/gem" personal ranking system is not a valid metric outside of your own head. It is based on simplistic criteria that you've defined at a personal level that simply do not translate to the broader, more nuanced landscape of reality.

I can accept that this is how you view things, and if that works for you at a personal level, that's fine. But you need to understand that there's a good chunk of the population that sees the shades of grey you don't and will dismiss this simplistic approach as crude and lacking the necessary detail and refinement to be useful.

What are you doing?

 

[OVERKILL]

What are you doing?

Arguing against this ridiculous trash/treasure dichotomy, I thought that was obvious?

 

[emmett442]

I mean, yeah. I guess I should have worded that differently: What are you accomplishing?

 

[OVERKILL]

I mean, yeah. I guess I should have worded that differently: What are you accomplishing?

Well, I was hopeful for some introspection and acknowledgement of the lack of nuance. I was hopeful for a shift in opinion away from the flawed polar viewpoint to one that more appropriately acknowledges the spectrum or gradient that properly fits this subject, which in turn relates to many of the options fielded in this thread for the OP.

Do I think I'm achieving that? No, not at this juncture.

 

[fdcg27]

One man's trash is another man's treasure.
I may find a very thirsty if very quick pickup that sucks fuel like it's free to be an absurd conveyance but that does not make it so to another.
Speaking of one man's trash, a BMW can be as reliable and cheap to own as any Toyota. Ask me how I know this. Additionally, if you buy a used BMW, there are enthusiast sites for the marque that will guide you in models to seek as well as those to avoid. Won't find that for any Camry. Parts are also generally cheaper than they are for Toys and Hondas and there are a number of parts sources that specialize in BMWs that can provide pretty much whatever you might need for reasonable coin.
There is also a world of difference in the driving experience. Rental Camrys, RAVs and Corollas we've had did the job but were in no way engaging to drive. They were not designed to be. They were designed to provide no-drama transportation and they do.
A BMW is designed to be engaging for the driver while still offering a comfortable ride and delivering good fuel economy which they do.
We cannot generalize about the attributes of any marque based upon no more than internet clickbait.
Maybe if the guy who characterized certain entire marques as "trash" actually broadened his ownership experience a bit, he'd come to understand this as well as the real cost involved in owning something more involving than a toaster. It's much less expensive than he seems to think.
Meanwhile, we have yet another new member bringing the gospel of car ownership to our poor and benighted members who have labored under the yoke of unwittingly buying "trash" for so many years.

 

[Paco Pena]

Toyota Yaris. It is the cockroach of cars. Tough to kill even by the ignorant.

Paco

 

[OVERKILL]

One man's trash is another man's treasure.
I may find a very thirsty if very quick pickup that sucks fuel like it's free to be an absurd conveyance but that does not make it so to another.
Speaking of one man's trash, a BMW can be as reliable and cheap to own as any Toyota. Ask me how I know this. Additionally, if you buy a used BMW, there are enthusiast sites for the marque that will guide you in models to seek as well as those to avoid. Won't find that for any Camry. Parts are also generally cheaper than they are for Toys and Hondas and there are a number of parts sources that specialize in BMWs that can provide pretty much whatever you might need for reasonable coin.
There is also a world of difference in the driving experience. Rental Camrys, RAVs and Corollas we've had did the job but were in no way engaging to drive. They were not designed to be. They were designed to provide no-drama transportation and they do.
A BMW is designed to be engaging for the driver while still offering a comfortable ride and delivering good fuel economy which they do.
We cannot generalize about the attributes of any marque based upon no more than internet clickbait.
Maybe if the guy who characterized certain entire marques as "trash" actually broadened his ownership experience a bit, he'd come to understand this as well as the real cost involved in owning something more involving than a toaster. It's much less expensive than he seems to think.
Meanwhile, we have yet another new member bringing the gospel of car ownership to our poor and benighted members who have labored under the yoke of unwittingly buying "trash" for so many years.

Beautifully stated!

 

[dja4260]

I'm suprised this kept on going! I'm also considering a e-bike and moped. I have 1st world problems....