Automotive

Do japanese cars like toyota and honda really hold up to their name in terms of reliability?

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 7th, 2018 2:15 pm
Penalty Box
Aug 10, 2010
781 posts
188 upvotes
Mars.
board123 wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 1:51 pm
This goes back to the discussion way earlier in this thread, though. What extra stuff does a 3 series have that a Camry doesn't have? What are these extra things that contribute to its lower reliability?

Forget about demographics and all the other reasons for why the two cars are different. I think the less understood issue is what are the differences, exactly?

Let's step away from German cars for a moment. Let's compare Japanese and American cars. More specifically, Honda Civic versus Ford Focus. Can we all agree that a Civic and Focus are pretty similar in terms of technology and complexity? If so, then how do you explain this reliability rating?

Image
I feel like this discussion is completely pointless because you don't strike me as a "car" person at all, if you have to ask such a basic question, but sure, I'll have one last stab at this before I give up as it takes up far too much of my energy.

Let's dial this back to 2011 or so, because I can't think of a more drastic time between what the Germans were doing and what the Japanese were doing.

Audi was pushing 200HP from a 2L engine using direct injection and turbocharging. Direct injected gasoline engine provides an insane (at the time) amount of horsepower given the small displacement of the engine. However, this also means HPFPs, cam follower wear issues, coil packs that crapped itself (all the time) etc. However, these Audi engines were getting 30+ mpg, while giving off insane amount of horsepower given how small the engines are. The Japanese had not even begun to experiment with this yet. Their cars, at the time, were still port fuel injected, which don't require piezo injectors, HPFPs, etc etc.

I could, but I'm not going to spend this much time on this topic. Here's another big example, focused on the present.

A Lexus GS vs a Mercedes E class - today. A GS doesn't have air suspension, and you can't even get it with that option. With an E class, you can add it for a measily $2000. I'm sure you know enough about cars to know that air suspension vehicles are great, but they are expensive, as balls, to maintain.

Two types of cars, going after two types of buyers with two different expectations.

The analogy that you're trying to make (that all cars are the same here) is like saying all human beings are the same. We all have the same organs, yet we all perform differently, because we all live in different climates around the world.

There's literally probably another 100 examples off the top of my head, but this is really basic knowledge that you seem to be asking about.

You want to know some more insanity? Go and compare a present day dual turbocharged Bimmer with some Honda Civic. They couldn't be more different.
Don't be a cooch.
Newbie
Sep 16, 2012
98 posts
55 upvotes
Calgary
superangrypenguin wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 2:36 pm
I feel like this discussion is completely pointless because you don't strike me as a "car" person at all, if you have to ask such a basic question, but sure, I'll have one last stab at this before I give up as it takes up far too much of my energy.

Let's dial this back to 2011 or so, because I can't think of a more drastic time between what the Germans were doing and what the Japanese were doing.

Audi was pushing 200HP from a 2L engine using direct injection and turbocharging. Direct injected gasoline engine provides an insane (at the time) amount of horsepower given the small displacement of the engine. However, this also means HPFPs, cam follower wear issues, coil packs that crapped itself (all the time) etc. However, these Audi engines were getting 30+ mpg, while giving off insane amount of horsepower given how small the engines are. The Japanese had not even begun to experiment with this yet. Their cars, at the time, were still port fuel injected, which don't require piezo injectors, HPFPs, etc etc.

I could, but I'm not going to spend this much time on this topic. Here's another big example, focused on the present.

A Lexus GS vs a Mercedes E class - today. A GS doesn't have air suspension, and you can't even get it with that option. With an E class, you can add it for a measily $2000. I'm sure you know enough about cars to know that air suspension vehicles are great, but they are expensive, as balls, to maintain.

Two types of cars, going after two types of buyers with two different expectations.

The analogy that you're trying to make (that all cars are the same here) is like saying all human beings are the same. We all have the same organs, yet we all perform differently, because we all live in different climates around the world.

There's literally probably another 100 examples off the top of my head, but this is really basic knowledge that you seem to be asking about.

You want to know some more insanity? Go and compare a present day dual turbocharged Bimmer with some Honda Civic. They couldn't be more different.
The Japanese were using direct injection in 2006 in the Lexus IS 2.5 4GR-FSE engine, they had issues with carbon build up so they ended up switching to dual injection. Subaru was making 227 HP out of a 2.0 litre turbo charged engine in 2002.
https://www.clublexus.com/how-tos/a/lex ... -it-367282
https://blog.caranddriver.com/explained ... injection/
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 27, 2005
11583 posts
1227 upvotes
superangrypenguin wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 2:36 pm
I feel like this discussion is completely pointless because you don't strike me as a "car" person at all, if you have to ask such a basic question, but sure, I'll have one last stab at this before I give up as it takes up far too much of my energy.

Let's dial this back to 2011 or so, because I can't think of a more drastic time between what the Germans were doing and what the Japanese were doing.

Audi was pushing 200HP from a 2L engine using direct injection and turbocharging. Direct injected gasoline engine provides an insane (at the time) amount of horsepower given the small displacement of the engine. However, this also means HPFPs, cam follower wear issues, coil packs that crapped itself (all the time) etc. However, these Audi engines were getting 30+ mpg, while giving off insane amount of horsepower given how small the engines are. The Japanese had not even begun to experiment with this yet. Their cars, at the time, were still port fuel injected, which don't require piezo injectors, HPFPs, etc etc.

I could, but I'm not going to spend this much time on this topic. Here's another big example, focused on the present.

A Lexus GS vs a Mercedes E class - today. A GS doesn't have air suspension, and you can't even get it with that option. With an E class, you can add it for a measily $2000. I'm sure you know enough about cars to know that air suspension vehicles are great, but they are expensive, as balls, to maintain.

Two types of cars, going after two types of buyers with two different expectations.
I don't see how mentioning Audi's 2.0T engine from 2011 is relevant here. Yes, they were relatively early with turbo usage, and since then, they've had 7 years to work out the kinks. Let's look at 2018 model year cars now. Do you expect Audi A4's 2018 turbo engine (2.0L, 250 HP) to be more or less reliable than the Civic Type-R's 2018 turbo engine (2.0L, 300 HP)?

In other words, Audi was earlier to introduce turbo and had more time to refine it than Honda. This is the first introduction of the Type-R engine and Honda has had no time to refine it like Audi did. Which of the two would you bet on for reliability, if you were actually betting real money?
superangrypenguin wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 2:36 pm
The analogy that you're trying to make (that all cars are the same here) is like saying all human beings are the same. We all have the same organs, yet we all perform differently, because we all live in different climates around the world.
That was not what I was trying to say at all. That was what you were saying by claiming that all cars share common components from the same few suppliers.

All cars are clearly not the same, and you just established that yourself, so I'm not sure why you led with the opposite position originally.
Penalty Box
Aug 10, 2010
781 posts
188 upvotes
Mars.
board123 wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 4:34 pm
I don't see how mentioning Audi's 2.0T engine from 2011 is relevant here. Yes, they were relatively early with turbo usage, and since then, they've had 7 years to work out the kinks. Let's look at 2018 model year cars now. Do you expect Audi A4's 2018 turbo engine (2.0L, 250 HP) to be more or less reliable than the Civic Type-R's 2018 turbo engine (2.0L, 300 HP)?

In other words, Audi was earlier to introduce turbo and had more time to refine it than Honda. This is the first introduction of the Type-R engine and Honda has had no time to refine it like Audi did. Which of the two would you bet on for reliability, if you were actually betting real money?
That was not what I was trying to say at all. That was what you were saying by claiming that all cars share common components from the same few suppliers.

All cars are clearly not the same, and you just established that yourself, so I'm not sure why you led with the opposite position originally.
I love how you pick and choose facts. I give up with you.
Don't be a cooch.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 27, 2005
11583 posts
1227 upvotes
superangrypenguin wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 5:05 pm
I love how you pick and choose facts. I give up with you.
Not all facts are relevant, and you seem to love to bring up irrelevant facts that contribute nothing to your own position.
Penalty Box
Aug 10, 2010
781 posts
188 upvotes
Mars.
board123 wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 5:12 pm
Not all facts are relevant, and you seem to love to bring up irrelevant facts that contribute nothing to your own position.
And you seem to have a complete lack of knowledge about vehicles. Agree to disagree. #next
Don't be a cooch.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 27, 2005
11583 posts
1227 upvotes
superangrypenguin wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 5:22 pm
And you seem to have a complete lack of knowledge about vehicles. Agree to disagree. #next
Well, that's the thing - I've been trying to get you to educate me on this topic, and I've been totally open to what you're saying. However, that also means I'm going to scrutinize what you're telling me, and so far, everything you've said definitely deserves quite a bit of scrutiny. I'm simply responding to your explanation for why things are the way you claim them to be, and you're calling me silly for asking those questions.

I'm not even agreeing or disagreeing with anything you've said. I'm simply asking you to keep elaborating on your claims.
Penalty Box
Aug 10, 2010
781 posts
188 upvotes
Mars.
board123 wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 5:29 pm
Well, that's the thing - I've been trying to get you to educate me on this topic, and I've been totally open to what you're saying. However, that also means I'm going to scrutinize what you're telling me, and so far, everything you've said definitely deserves quite a bit of scrutiny. I'm simply responding to your explanation for why things are the way you claim them to be, and you're calling me silly for asking those questions.
Well I tried, and then I realized that the knowledge gap is too large. I don't have the time to write you very long essays when there is a huge gap, apparently, with your understanding about cars. Anyways, I'm moving on and not spending any additional time, otherwise, if you'd like me to, I can, but my hourly rate will have to be paid.
Don't be a cooch.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 27, 2005
11583 posts
1227 upvotes
superangrypenguin wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 5:31 pm
Well I tried, and then I realized that the knowledge gap is too large. I don't have the time to write you very long essays when there is a huge gap, apparently, with your understanding about cars. Anyways, I'm moving on and not spending any additional time, otherwise, if you'd like me to, I can, but my hourly rate will have to be paid.
I don't see how knowledge gap is a factor for a simple question such as this:
Do you expect Audi A4's 2018 turbo engine to be more or less reliable than the Civic Type-R's 2018 turbo engine?
That wasn't even prompting for an explanation. Just a yes or no response. If you're knowledgeable about cars, then shouldn't this be a pretty easy one to answer based on your insight about engine design?

It only takes a few seconds to answer, so I'd be happy to pay your hourly rate for it.
Jr. Member
Aug 29, 2011
193 posts
147 upvotes
GTA
FirstGear wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 11:39 am
I used to see a woman in Calgary who took her Rav4 to the dealer for $400 oil and cabin air filter changes..
I assume you are exaggerating to make a point with a $400 oil and filter change. My Lexus costs $160 at the dealer for such a service. That is considered expensive but at least I get breakfast and a massage chair while waiting.
The Duke
Member
User avatar
Dec 9, 2008
420 posts
77 upvotes
Toronto
BMW and Toyota should co-build a fast reliable car. Eg. BMW body with a Supra drive train. Done
Penalty Box
User avatar
Apr 25, 2013
7283 posts
1287 upvotes
superangrypenguin wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 10:21 am
I wholly disagree. If Gordon Ramsay and I used the same ingredients and techniques to cook the same dish, then the outcome would be the same.

This is the same as Mercedes and Audi both using the Bosch engine management system. The result, reliability wise, for that system, is exactly the same.
...and Bosch parts are mostly made in India !
99% of regular Joes buy brand names thinking they are getting something better for more money because they don't have the analytical and technical skills to determine which is better build quality !
Penalty Box
User avatar
Apr 25, 2013
7283 posts
1287 upvotes
greybrick wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 1:33 pm
There's definitely some apples to oranges going on here. The Camry was designed with longevity in mind. It was first and foremost developed as a middle class family sedan. The 3 series targets a different demographic with well-equipped examples approaching six figures. The BMW driver isn't necessarily looking to hold onto his car for 12+ years whereas that's precisely why many people shop a Toyota or Honda in the first place. With the BMW, you can load it up pretty much how you want it but the trade off is that it probably is going to be less reliable over the later part of its life. Traditionally Toyota and Honda have kept their vehicles pretty simple. This makes perfect sense when you're pushing longevity and reliability rather than performance or driving dynamics. The interesting thing is that newer Toyotas and Hondas are increasingly focusing on performance. It makes you wonder if they will continue to maintain a significant longevity advantage over their German and American counterparts.

People who are looking to buy a Corolla or Camry aren't typically cross-shopping a 3 series unless they don't have a real understanding of what they want to purchase. The cars are being developed for two completely different segments.
Only the Nutty Professor would design something that has less longevity for more money ! ...LoL
Jr. Member
User avatar
Mar 6, 2010
111 posts
77 upvotes
superangrypenguin wrote:
Jan 25th, 2018 2:36 pm
You want to know some more insanity? Go and compare a present day dual turbocharged Bimmer with some Honda Civic. They couldn't be more different.
Thread topic: Japanese cars such as toyota and honda are more reliability?

board123's argument: European cars are more complex and thus break down more often.
superangrypenguin's argument: European cars are more complex because European cars are more technologically advance, thus more fun to drive.

Conclusion: European cars are complex and thus tend to break more.

In the context of this thread (whether A, B, or C are more reliable), it doesn't matter if B can fly to the moon and C is designed to reach 0-60 at 2.9sec. If A is more reliable (even if it is a dog to drive), then A wins the argument (again in the context of this thread- reliability.)
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 13, 2009
21091 posts
10551 upvotes
Iqaluit, NU
This really turned into a garbage thread
Re: Procurement, Life & RFD
nasa25: say you won it in a raffle. That's what I do with like 86% of my purchases
infinityloop: Lying to your SO seems like an unhealthy long term strategy
nasa25: lmao

Top