Because existing sources of auto reliability information left much to be desired, in late 2005 I started conducting my own reliability research at TrueDelta.com. TrueDelta reports absolute stats like "trips to the shop" that make the differences between cars much clearer. Results are updated four times a year, so any significant changes in a model's reliability become apparent quickly.

So far 69 Disco owners have signed up to help. A start, but more are needed if we're to provide reliability information on this model. We're already reporting results for the LR2 and LR3, but would like to cover the Disco II as well.

Participants simply report repairs the month after they occur on a one-page survey. When there are no repairs, they simply report an approximate odometer reading four times a year, at the end of each quarter.

To encourage participation, panel members receive full access to the results for free.

For the details, and to sign up to help out:

Vehicle reliability research

 

This will not give you a truely accurate indication of the customers issues because they go in for one thing and spend $2000 on items they didn't need.
Retired Service manager.

 

Interesting take, especially given your background.

What do you mean by things they don't need? Extra maintenance or things being fixed that weren't really broken?

I try to design the survey to correct for such distortions, and the first step is to understand the potential problem. So any additional detail you can provide would be helpful.

For what it's worth, I'm currently focusing on the number of repair trips, not the number of repairs, for related reasons.

 

Sounds pretty good statistically. I'd be interested to see the results. How are you accounting for a self-selection bias? Also are you extrapolating to verify if your sample's results match up to the greater population? Also what about geographic locations? Just curious about the methods!

 

I thinnk reliability is such a hard thing to factor. I've been saying for years that Toyota reliability is somewhat of a misnomer. I've noticed the typical Toyota owner is one that buys a Toyota due to it's perceived reliability and quality (which I would dispute having owned a few Toyotas). Such owners are looking for max reliability and return on investment. I argue that they fall into a class of owners who go out of their way to ensure their vehicle is well maintained. Therefore the car/truck owner takes their vehicle into the dealer or a mechanic for regular maintenance andinspections moreso than your typical Chevy or Ford owner who buys on price and "cheap" deal. Because of this problems are found before it leads to more expensive repairs and breakdowns. These owners seem more willing to pay out to get their vehicles repaired, which ensures they operate more reliability...and therefore the increase in perceived "reliability". The circle continues.

Now, I think just the opposite is true for owners buying used Chevy's, Fords ...and evenland rovers. You see so many Land Rovers with deferred maintenance that when someone buys one used, it needs a lot of expensive tune-ups and repairs. Ultimately, many give them a nod of unreliability due to the repairs needed because the previous owners haven't performed the maintenance. Anybody care to comment?

 

I would tend to somewhat agree with your last statement.
Two years ago when I was getting divorced I bought a 1989 one owner Camry, he bought it brand new and I bought it with 170k on it for $500.
I put $1000 into in the first six months, tires, exhaust, fluids and filters, tune up, etc.
It now has 195k on it and I drive it back and forth to work and get 30+ mpg.
Everything works, pwr windows, locks, cruise, a/c, etc.
It has the orginal starter andalternator. I think that they type of person who buys a Chevy or Ford is the type of person who doesnt care as much about sticking out of the crowd, they are happy to follow the crowd and spend as little money on their car as they can. They dont care about "return on investment", they just want to go to work and to a stupid NASCAR race.
I used to be a die-hard GM man, nothing but GM or die. Then I bought a 1995 Olds brand new and it was junk. Never again.
My '97 Disco with 172+ on the clock has been in the shop less than my brand new Oldsmobile was.
Land Rovers cost more to maintain than a Chevy so people let the service fall behind.
I beat the crap out of my Camry and it just keeps comong back for more.
My son just got his drivers licence and he will inherite the car once we buy a newused car for my wife.

 

I dunno, Mark. I hear this theory a lot but haven't found anyone willing to provide anything more than estimation to support the claim. The Consumer Reports surveys ask very simple questions like. "Which of the following systems have had unscheduled repairs performed on them in the past 12 months?". I see no reason to suspect the research.

I bought a 9 year old'82 Toyota years ago with 99K on the clock for $1300. The harmonic balancer was loose causing a loud knocking sound at idle, so the guy I bought it from thought it had a bad conrod. I wasn't gonna tell him different

5 years later I sold it to a guy in North Dakotafor $1000 after having put another 150K on it. I spent a grand total of $1500 on maintenance in that time. Alternator, front crank seal, a rear axle seal, struts,rack and pinion boots,and an idler pulley where the only unscheduled maintenace items during the time I owned it. Far better service record than any car I had owned before it.

Similar story on a Subaru, Honda Accord and the Isuzu Rodeo I also currently own. All have been remarkably trouble free, going 2-3 years at a time without an unscheduled trip to the shop. I don't expect the same from the Land Rover but so far, so good.

Dave

 

Interesting conversation guys. The different perspectives are very interesting indeed. Many years ago, I owned and operated a fewover-the-road coaches (buses). The one thing I harped on to the maintenance people is "don't save me any money!!!". I want to save money on fuel, driver hours,and tolls, but not maintenance.Everytime they tried to cut corners to reduce maintenance cost (less expensive tires, cheaper parts, etc.), it usually came around and bit us in the butt.

I think our Discovery's are the same. If you let things go, sooner or later it will cost you more than if you took care of it when it was first needed. I've always tried to maintain myvehicles to the "T". I never sell a vehicle with anything wrong with it. If I own it, it's going to be current on maintenance and everything is going to work on it. Whether I'm keeping it for a long while, or whether it's being sold next week, is irrevelent. Oh, my friends love to buy my cars when I sell them.

 

<"I think that they type of person who buys a Chevy or Ford is the type of person who doesnt care as much about sticking out of the crowd, they are happy to follow the crowd and spend as little money on their car as they can. They dont care about "return on investment", they just want to go to work and to a stupid NASCAR race.">

Think the statement above may anger some! For the people residing in the U.S. perhaps they don't buy Chevy's or Ford's for simple "NASCAR" appeal. Instead they buy domestic with hopes of pumping money into their own economy not rival ones (i.e. Japan). I own a Ford and a Landrover and I am meticulous on the maintenence and repairs for each... and NO I do not enjoy NASCAR!

 

Haha AGREED. I drive a Chevy and a Land Rover. I bought the chevy for low repair costs, ease of repair etc