[Image-only or quote-only post; no author-written text.] https://thumbsnap.com/sc/6yaLQpp2.jpg
Porsche most reliable !! - Page 1 - Porsche General - PistonHeads UK
Add to repair workspace
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHPorsche most reliable !! - Page 1 - Porsche General - PistonHeads UK
1 matching discussions were examined; no attributable action/outcome evidence was detected. No consensus or repair conclusion is claimed.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Read captured repliesInsufficient extracted evidence does not mean there is no answer in the original discussions.
1 matching discussions · 10 captured posts examined · 1 partial discussions
Coverage and how to read this overview
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
10 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
- PistonHeads: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T124918Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Amazing to see!
Not that much difference near the bottom of the tables. So a Porsche isn’t that much more reliable than a Mercedes.
Just behind DACIA 🥺
Explains why so many Land/Range Rover drivers are wannabe Kenneth Noyes...
wyson said: Not that much difference near the bottom of the tables. So a Porsche isn’t that much more reliable than a Mercedes. 10% more reliable. Which is quite alot.
anonymous said: [redacted] Mercedes you mean. You are reading the table upside down.
Long list of reasons why these surveys do not return results that are well correlated with actual reliability. Just as a for instance, expectations will skew the results. People will generally have different expectations if they've paid a lot compared to paying a relatively small amount for a car. That will have an impact even if the questions being asked are ostensibly quantitative. Customers likewise generally do not have a good grasp of the severity of a given fault. Perceptions will also be skewed by the dealer experience. A car with several faults swiftly and efficiently dealt with may be viewed as similarly reliable as a car with just a few faults that are painful to resolve due to bad service. So much depends on what you ask and how you ask it. Even then, asking customers is ultimately so far removed from the actual data you really want. You'd want access to something like Hertz' database to really get a grip on comparative reliability (one would expect the likes Hertz to track this kind of thing), but that limits you to only a relatively small range of models. Reliability isn't a monolithic, objective concept, anyway. It has to be subjectively defined for the purposes of any survey. What if you mainly want to know about core powertrain and critical functionality that prevents the car from being used, but have a higher tolerance for other failures? There might be a car that generally suffers from very few faults, but one or two it does have are exactly the kind you want to avoid. But the survey may not weight faults according to your preferences - or really weight them at all. It may just be a survey of how often a car had to go into a dealership to fix a fault. The survey may be cleverer than that, but ultimately, it can only be survey of owner opinion, not actual reliability. Just to underline how ultimately useless this kind of survey is, if you do a search, you can find Porsche doing well in surveys of new model reliability smack bang in the middle of the M97 era. Car was fixed under warranty in those days, so a failed engine is no worse a fault than any other that takes the car off the road for a bit for a customer that isn't paying. A failed MAF combined with sluggish service and a temporary shortage of replacement parts could give a similar overall experience to total engine failure in that context and have a similar impact on this kind of reliability 'data', whereas by any reasonable measure, one is a major mechanical fault and one is a minor technical glitch.
anonymous said: [redacted] You need to study the results again. You are looking at it like 1 on the right would be next after 10 on the left. You are coming at it all wrong.
julian987R said: anonymous said: [redacted] You need to study the results again. You are looking at it like 1 on the right would be next after 10 on the left. You are coming at it all wrong. No - m12nathan is commenting on the Carwow survey, which is not surprising as he has linked it in his post.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
