www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/picturegalleries/8669042/The-10-least-satisfying-cars-to-own.html
French, German, UK...............now there is a surprise.
What car would you nominate? and why (if it is not obvious to most of us)?
|
|
Well, as they nominated a car that hasn't been made for 5+ years (Rover 400) where are the Perodua Nippa, the CityRover The G Whizz etc. Totally carp cars that can't get into the list? I don't belieIIIIIIIIIve it
Last edited by: Meldrew on Mon 1 Aug 11 at 16:49
|
>> The G Whizz etc. Totally carp cars
I don't know about the others Meldrew, but I agree that you or I would hate the GWhiz. However I suspect anyone who would get one in the first place wouldn't see anything wrong with it. They are undoubtedly crawling, annoying mimsers by definition so the GWhiz would suit them down to the ground.
I wonder if Bamber Gascoigne only uses his to arrive at chattering classes parties, and normally drives a snorting monster with a 6 litre V8 and LSD? I do hope so.
|
|
That article doesen't say why they were chosen?
|
The chart is in reverse order, with the car at no.10 actually having the lowest customer satisfaction rating and the car at no.1 having the tenth lowest.
So the actual least satisfying car is the Renault Laguna Sport Tourer 2001-2008. That might explain why the dealer up the road from me (the usually wildly overpriced one that I've mentioned before) has a 54-plate example for £1,495.
EDIT: Just checked back at the news page, the rankings from 10 to 1 have been reversed and are now in the order they should be :)
EDIT EDIT: >> That article doesen't say why they were chosen?
They appear to be the ten cars with the lowest percentage of owners expressing satisfaction, ranging from 60% down to 49%.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Mon 1 Aug 11 at 18:13
|
Rover 400 had some serious loyalty from owners, it wasnt a bad motor really being a Honda Civic clone, I liked mine alot, very comfortable car.
I dont think ill pay much attention to anything the Telegraph has to say about cars, it was likely written by the office junior on their lunch break, motoring aritcles from newspapers often seem that way.
|
Perhaps the listings reflect the percentage of buyers of each model who are pernickety moaning minnie types, blinded by their own importance as the owners of VERY EXPENSIVE NEW CARS THAT ARE NOT PERFECT IN EVERY WAY and have nothing better to do than trying to make people's lives a misery.
Bell Boy whom I greatly miss knows all about those carphounds.
What's so unsatisfactory about Lagunas? I'm sure they're fine. Three or four on the list are people carriers. I hate those so that's all right.
|
>>
>> What's so unsatisfactory about Lagunas?
If they're anything like the example of No 8 (Grand Scenic) I owned, I could hazard a guess or two.
It could be the wayward electronics that have a mind all of their own perhaps, the way multiple expensive components start crapping out just as the warranty expires, the idiotic layout of the mechanical bits which add hundreds in labour costs to even the simplest of jobs, or maybe the interior trim which looks 10 yrs / 120,000 miles old at less than half that.
Renaults of this era were not very good cars.
|
|
I keep hearing how reliable Renault are, I thought it was all those Corollas that were unreliable :-)
|
The 2003 laguna I had was pretty good.
Nothing went wrong, it was quiet, comfortable, looked good, flew like the wind, sipped diesel, and when I matched it gladiator style against a bus, I could not have wanted to be anywhere safer,
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 1 Aug 11 at 20:25
|
|
Those old Lagunas were amazingly comfortable. Nice, supple ride and very quiet. Not driven anything that comfortable this side of an S-Class. Then Renault facelifted them with the eyebrows and it went downhill.
|
|
My Renault-owning experience is limited to once running a 13-year-old 11 hatchback for 6 months. It was OK.
|
Satisfaction fo me is does it do what I bought it for, well. So for me our Sharan is satisfying because it carries people - thats what I bought it for.
Not sure how people were not satisfied with the folding roof jobies....did they not know the roof moved?
|
|
It probably concerns reliability of the electrics more than anything - like a mates Peugeot 307 Hdi deciding to momentarily shut down in the fast lane, then carry on as if nothing had happened. He sold it soon after.
|
The Grand Scenic was incredibly satisfying as a product, a fact which made it arguably even more frustrating when its reliability spectacularly dropped off a cliff just out of warranty. Good looking (for an MPV), a delightfully airy, spacious interior, one of the smoothest, sweetest four pot diesels I've ever encountered, good performance, good economy, lots of equipment, comfortable seats, and full of thoughtful design touches that made it a joy to live with. It was a great car.
But the problems, and resulting costs, encountered in its fourth year were beyond a joke, made worse by speaking to several people in recent years who had also owned them, and had the exact same list of problems. The faults would appear to be inherent, rather than us just being unlucky.
We bought it at two and a bit years old, and our first year of ownership was a delight. But once the problems started, they were relentless, expensive, and put a heck of a dent in our savings.
I would never own an out of warranty Renault again, unless it were so cheap that I could afford to throw it away the first time something expensive failed.
I've spent about half as much in total running two six figure mileage Golfs for 26 and 14 months respectively as I spent in the last six months running the Scenic.
Last edited by: DP on Tue 2 Aug 11 at 11:12
|
>>
>> I dont think ill pay much attention to anything the Telegraph has to say about
>> cars, it was likely written by the office junior on their lunch break, motoring aritcles
>> from newspapers often seem that way.
If you read the article carefully you will see that it was Which Car that provided the information. The Telegraph was merely reporting Which Car's findings.
|
|
A lot of French cars in that list. Confirms my own long-held prejudice.
|
I’ve owned two Mk1 Laguna’s, and they are the most comfortable cars I have ever driven (at that time) – the ride is smooth, the gear box was slick (you could change gears with your little finger)
However The reliability / build quality was dire – the 1st one started of with the lights defaulting to “Dipped” when sidelights was selected, one! Heated mirror not working (the one you could not reach with your hand to clear annoyingly).
To the bonnet cable braking, and spewing out brake fluid out of the back drums every time you pressed the brake pedal (£160 per drum).
The car second one (don’t ask me, what possessed me to get bitten again (but the ride was really good)) constant ABS faults every time it rained and the Renault technicians unable to rectify. Thus resulting in a specialist garage diagnosing water getting into the ABS power supply (that ran underneath the car apparently) and wanting to re-wire the whole thing – I sacked of the car at this point
Lovely cars – but I just cant afford to run one
Last edited by: Redviper on Tue 2 Aug 11 at 12:26
|
|
ANY Fiat. I've never been tempted by looks or their reliability. They would be bottom of any motoring list I would compile.
|
>> ANY Fiat. I've never been tempted by looks or their reliability. They would be bottom
>> of any motoring list I would compile.
So you haven't actually driven one? I'd imagine any car you'd bought and didn't drive wouldn't be very satisfying :)
|
Having spoken to a number of MB owners and seen the reliability giures, the list confirms I am not prejudiced against Renaults but correct to loathe them...
None of the list is a surprise to any person who does a modicum of research so it just proves that makers can fool a lot of people most of the time into buying carp - over decades..
"It takes decades to build up a company's reputation and a few years to ruin it: see NOTW , Chrysler/DB and Renault...
|
10 least satisfying cars to own - Meldrew
