The 100 most reliable cars of the last decade. Httpwwwgizmagcomthe 100 most reliable cars of the last decade in order5657

http://www.gizmag.com/the-100-most-reliable-cars-of-the-last-decade-in-order/5657/

And the punto is #50, must be a pretty 'average' car ;-)

No mention of the multipla miniature horse wagon, must be off the scale!

Hmmm, but the Punto at #50 easily beats a Toyota Corolla at #91 .

But far behind the mighty pulsar at #7

Do you think it's an unbiased and valid report!

Lolololol toyota mr2 at #54. VICTORY :)

They break all the time to

that list is bull shit! one of the best cars ever made was infact a 1956 Rover "P4" with it's chassis rails almost made out of railway-iron (sherman-tank) as well as a humber super-snipe and finally a 1961 wolseley 6/110

subaru forester #2! lol

What a load of BOLLOCKS.
Cheers Stevo

they werent made in the last decade tho.

mr2 rulzs

as much credibility as the dog and lemon methinks.

[quote]Subaru Forester - Not quite an off roader, much more than an estate with a sporty edge, making it the perfect combination. Great all round buy.
[/quote]

This surely must be a joke article . was it released on April 1st by some chance!

I don't buy it either.

Even though I own #1 and it's been completely trouble free.

the list dont seems verry accurate to me.
depends on what they base things on . all naturally aspired mechanical dieselwith manual transmission would rate higher then petrol cars as there is alsmost noting to go wrong in a hurry on a diesel like that.at least there is no mitsubishi as number 1 lolfor overall it would have to be a toyota st150 with 4 cilinder petrol engineif the list was anything realistic from early 80s as ultra reliable.

i think its pretty bang on!

I see double-ups!

Like bloodyhell they are reliable.

Oh hang on. since b*gger all Foresters actually sold (compared to say, a Toyota Corolla), this "survey" is not numerically correct, since comparing the breakdowns of a million Corollas Vs. 5 Foresters is not exactly comparing apples with apples.

Oh, and on a side note, it is sad to see that the one Porsche Boxster (sold to a male hairdresser in a pink shirt) unfortunately had a breakdown.
Geez, if you come across some w**ker driving one of these "look at me, I'm gay and have a small p3nis cars, just say to him, "well, I'm sure you're disappointed. if only you'd been more successful, you'd been able to afford a 911".
And then laugh.
On into the night.

The trouble with these lists is there is not enough information to actually be able to draw any kind of useful conclusion from it.

The reliabilityindex site (where the data is from) is a really useful tool and I find it exceptionally accurate. BUT you have to know how to read it.

Three of the most important things to note are that when a car is listed you MUST take into context the age range of the sample, the samples used in the list usually relate to specific model periods of just a few years. With some vehicles the actual age range of the sample in question is so old/new its irrelevant to what you may be considering and the age range of what you are considering scores completely differently.

The next easy trap to fall in is to look carefully at what that sample encompasses in terms of model changes and spec. A classic example is the VW Touran. The Touran scores fairly badly, yet the MK 5 Golf which mechanically is pretty much identical scores quite well.

So why does it score so badly! Well there are two obvious things I have spotted and there may be more. Firstly the Touran is grouped into only one segment. That means that the common and quite basic MK5 design we mostly get here is lumped in with the really sophisticated newer versions and the cross version. Data relating to a model that is so sophisticated that it can park itself taints the data belonging to the "tried and tested" comparatively simple MK5 version sold here. Also, the Touran is driven by a different type of person in quite different circumstances to the many of the VW Golf's that make up the other sampe.

The final thing that I think people miss is the level of sophistication of the vehicles. Manufacturers that also cater to the stripped down cheapest of the cheap most basic of the basic market will score quite high. You can see this when you click on the models that make up the first 20 or so placings on their list. When you combine the age group (older when vehicles had less features) with the actual model in question the pattern becomes very obvious. In my mind the real achievements to be celebrated are the likes of Volvo and Lexus with their comparatively sophisticated vehicles scoring right up with the most basic of go carts.

In short, its an awesome resource but you need to use the specific model range search to get any sort of useful information. The top and bottom 100 lists are really just gimmicky amusement that is of little actual use to anyone.

When you have got your specific model looked up then consider the results critically and do comparisons like the Golf/Touran one to get a fairer picture of things. Doing the likes of Mazda/Ford comparisons can really show up any irregularities.

They are not talkin noahs ark lol

l know should be bloody last lol

haha. Mitsubishi Carisma in at number 4. Obviously a very UK-biased report.

and which part of the last DECADE were those made in !

MG TF at 47 does catch the eye.