mRVRsport

They look nice but are made cheap.

10. Ford Escape
9. Fiat 500L
8. Jeep Compass
7. Toyota Yaris
6. Mazda CX-9
5. Mitsubishi EVOlution
4. Chrysler 200
3. Chevrolet Trax
2. Mercedes Benz CLA
1. Dodge Dart

LINK

Personally, I think the MINIs need to be on the list as well - due to their many CVT trans problems.


We had originally considered a Ford Escape with Ecoboost (one of several on our CUV list). Really glad we didn't.

Landshark

surprisingly, my Evo MR has been the most reliable vehicle i've owned. in six years i had two problems:
- old design key fob got erased by cellphone. replaced both with new design by dealer for free
- ACD pump died - did not affect driveablility, drove it for 6 weeks before dealer replaced it under warranty

AWCAWD

It is an interesting article and it is similar to this:
http://www3.forbes.com/business/15-n...edium=referral
The definition of "quality" is ambiguous today and so is that of "cheap". People like to spend a lot of money because they think they purchase quality with more money. If, however, neither quality nor cheap is interpreted properly, the "you get what you pay for" slogan becomes useless.
In my book quality product is that does not break down. For example, I bought a Panasonic plasma tv 10 years ago and it has not been taken off the wall since. It is turned on all the time without a problem. Its operating ours are well beyond what was guaranteed at the time of purchase. I only buy Fujitsu computers and even the one that is 11 years old has zero hardware problem. These are quality products. Now, back to cars. Let's suppose one buys a Range Rover for $100+K and has to visit the dealer frequently. To me it is cheap and crap (forgive my language) regardless of the purchase price. Comfortable leather seats, high resolution, big screen infotainment system etc. should not be labels of quality of any car. Unfortunately many people fall for this. If you are in the car business, produce a car that is providing problem free ownership, that is the recipe.
Instead of doing this, manufacturers teamed up with journalists and advocate for redefining "quality". Excessive computerized features are not ready to be introduced yet. They tend to fail.
Few examples here from quality automakers (Volvo, Tesla, Mercedes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsTxS6tg6xc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6ZwS9izm4E

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...oes-wrong.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYY7OfQ4-5A

Quality also represents safety. If a car manufacturer does not care for my safety, I would walk away. They use us as items for their playground and let us pay for their toys even though they are not ready. Ford and BMW ignored for three years that the Escape and X1 performed badly in the IIHS small overlap crash tests. Every other manufacturer that had problems (Mazda, Honda, Toyota, Buick) came up with an improved safety model within a year in response to these tests (CX-5, CRV, RAV4, Encore). Is Ford or BMW represent quality? I do not care for the peppy engines, I have no confidence in them.
So, what really is the car that is made cheap? I guess, the one that attempts to be quality but it isn't. Let me quote Mark Twain for this: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

mRVRsport

^
THANK YOU!


I needed a good laugh today.
That first video of Volvo and the last vid of Mercedes really made my day!

Landshark

the Evo hardly has a "quality" interior - no soft-touch plastics, wood, or brushed aluminum. but you know what? it still looks like the day it left the showroom.

check out an interior with soft-touch plastics and "premium materials" after 8 years ... it will look like *** from wear.

AWCAWD

I agree. The Lancer (not specifically the EVO, in general) has this though:
http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/mit...icle-1.1205917
This is not heralded by JD Power or esteemed auto journalists, who constantly badmouth Mitsubishi. If a car is the most reliable (as per article in the link) that should be a quality product (at least according to how I define quality).
Look at the least reliable list: they are nearly all luxury, "quality" brands.

AWCAWD

One should be careful to properly read between the lines, when it comes to quality.
Look at for example the Jeep Grand Cherokee:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...nd-summit-002/
This Overland Summit edition looks gorgeous.
When it comes to reliability, it is a different story. Regardless of the "dreadful rankings for reliability, build quality, running costs and handling" (quote from the article below) the rating for reliability is still 90% and build quality is 88.6% for 2015. Go figure. Either the journalist does not know the meaning of dreadful or the scale they want to use is between 90 and 100%.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/jeep/gr...ee/reliability
Unfortunately, this is how an unsuspecting consumer is taken for a ride.