Forbes' Least Reliable Luxury Vehicles 2006
- Thread starter YSSMAN
- 63 comments
- 2,302 views
- 30,040
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
That's not really accurate regarding the lowest reliability overall, that's lowest compared to their predicted reliability. There's a lot of cars with worse reliability than thoes, but a car like say the Mercedes M-Class, now has it's reputation which will lower predictions for how relaible it should be so it won't fall as far short of thoes predictions as say the VW Touareg, yet it will probabbly be a less reliable car.
- 40,990
The Tuareg is essentially a Porsche Cayanne, and it is the first (and only one left) of the luxurious VWs. I also find it funny that Ford pissed away 20 years of name heritage with the Landy Disco, only to have it as unreliable as it has ever been.
Have you seen the prices on the 9-3? It's essentially a $32,000 Chevrolet Cobalt (although the build quality in Saab's is still far and away the best thing GM has).YSSMAN
- 30,040
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Jags tend to be pretty good reliability wise, the new XK is built on decent mechanicals so I don't see wy. But yeah, like amp88 said, these types of polls arn't that relaible, as I said in my last post it's all based on predictions.Poverty
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
I've always thought of Saab as an "intermediate" luxury brand (same goes for Volvo), where they aren't good enough to be looked at by those looking for a BMW or Mercedes, but are too good for someone looking for a Pontiac or Chrysler.
...They're kinda like how Oldsmobile was, floating around in the price bracket.
BTW: Tornado, the 9-3 shares it's platform with the Malibu, not the Cobalt...
...They're kinda like how Oldsmobile was, floating around in the price bracket.
BTW: Tornado, the 9-3 shares it's platform with the Malibu, not the Cobalt...
Are you serious?YSSMAN
The "premium brands" in the US automarket are defined as the following:
- Acura
- Audi
- BMW
- Buick
- Cadillac
- Hummer
- Infiniti
- Jaguar
- Land Rover
- Lexus
- Lincoln
- Mercedes
- Mini
- Porsche
- Saab
- Volkswagen
- Volvo
Borderline premium brands are GMC, Jeep, and Mercury.
Toronado
The Passat is a "luxurious" Volkswagen, a premium sedan particularly when compared to its other midsize "competitors." But even taken separately, it's a premium sedan. Really it's more of a front-drive Infiniti G35 - and almost nicer than that.
By the way I'm not sure about that whole twenty years of hertiage thing - the original Discovery came out in 1994.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
Well obviously Saab comes with a premium when compared to a Honda or Chevrolet, but they are only Acura-ish (atleast for me) when it comes to luxury.
Either way, they are great cars, and I'd love to have one if I could (the 9-5 please)...
Either way, they are great cars, and I'd love to have one if I could (the 9-5 please)...
McLaren
Premium
- 45,966
- Texas
Since they introduced the Phaeton. The W-12 model sold for around $96,600 when it was still in the US, and models equipped with extra packaging sold for a good deal over $100,000.TS
As Cadillac is following, people just weren't ready for a $96,600 Volkswagen. I don't know how well the W-8 sold, but I've only heard it wasn't much better.
Previous to this post, I respected you a great deal. I will just say that the Saab 9-5 is the single worst vehicle currently in production and the fact that you've said you wanted one gives me great disappointment.YSSMAN
Here's a fact. The Saab 9-5 debuted when I was entering fourth grade. In one month, I'll be entering college - that's twelfth grade - and Saab is still selling the exact same 9-5 it was back when I was entering fourth grade.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
I really don't care if you don't like the 9-5, but I really do like the car. Granted they have managed to ugly it up just a bit in it's newest form, but older models are still quite nice, and deserve a place in the "great sedan" category.
...But note that I didn't indicate that I wanted a brand-new one. Generally speaking, I'd go for the older 9-5s, even the old 9000 just to be a bit odd. The car may be incredibly old, but you know what, how long did we live with the Fox-chassis with the Mustang? Yeah, it isn't THAT bad...
...But note that I didn't indicate that I wanted a brand-new one. Generally speaking, I'd go for the older 9-5s, even the old 9000 just to be a bit odd. The car may be incredibly old, but you know what, how long did we live with the Fox-chassis with the Mustang? Yeah, it isn't THAT bad...
YSSMAN
Absolutely freaking classic. Since the 9-5 came out in early 1998 as a 1999 model, Audi has sold three different A4s; Jeep has sold three different Grand Cherokees; Subaru three different Legacys... etc. Meanwhile Saab has stood with just the one 9-5. So what are the incredible downfalls of the 9-5? Where to start.
Features for one. It took Saab until 2006 to add the manumatic transmission, despite every single competitor having the feature at least five years earlier. Every single one of the 9-5's competitors has side curtain airbags. Not the 9-5. Most competitors offer either a 6-speed manual or a 6-speed automatic. Not the 9-5. The 9-5 also has the smallest engine in its class and though power is sometimes competitive, it's negated by the mid-90s turbo lag never seen these days.
How about resale value? On average, the 2001 Saab 9-5 sold for $38600. Today, the average price for a 2001 model is $12700 (32.9% retained). The average '01 Audi A6 sold for $40800. Today, the average price for one of those is $17100 (41.9% retained). The $2k you would've saved in '01 picking the Saab over the Audi has now turned into a $5k deficit. That's not even close. Let's go back a bit further. The '99 Saab 9-5 - that's the first year on the market, by the way - averaged $37000. Today they average $7900 (21.4% retained). Meanwhile the Lexus ES300, which sold for only $34200 in 1999, today averages $11700 - 34.2% retained. The Saab again lags so far behind its competitors that it's scary.
I won't even bring up the fact that it's front-drive while I'm hard-pressed to think of a single competitor which solely uses that inferior drivetrain (the Toyota Avalon and Acura TL are the only one I could come up with - both are more powerful of course, and quicker, and more efficient, and much cheaper). But how about pricing? The 9-5 lists for $34100 with 260hp while the Infiniti G35 lists for $31200 with twenty more horsepower and a very comparable list of standard features - not to mention a 6-speed manual (and curtain side airbags).
I could go on for days about the faults of this piece of **** (did I mention it has less interior room than nearly every member of its class?) but I'm getting tired. The moral of the story is, three sorts of people buy the 9-5: wimps, women, and idiots, none of whom don't know any better.
Of course the difference there is that the Fox Mustang had about two competitors, neither of which were getting redesigned on any sort of frequent scale as well. Whereas the new 9-5 has about twenty competitors, which have lapped the thing in every sense of the term. The 9-5 is the worst car presently on sale in the United States.
I agree that only the interior is cool. I used to hate them but I've come around quite a bit in the wake of Bono's ownership of one and the constant use of one on HBO's Entourage - I started to re-think their coolness after that, and I realized they're not bad - especially as they're quite cheap. "Only" 400 horsepower though...
The CLS is probably a better car - the AMG version is both cheaper and much quicker. But then, the E55 AMG (now the E63 AMG) is a better version of the CLS, in my book (as in, it's cheaper and quicker) - and it's not styled to upset anyone. So given the cash and those options that's probably what I'd take. I'd look at the new M5 too.
Though actually given the cash I'd probably have a CLK55, rather than a sedan - or perhaps an F355. But who knows.
Though actually given the cash I'd probably have a CLK55, rather than a sedan - or perhaps an F355. But who knows.
