Reliability - what the heck is...
Senior Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,090
From: Columbia, MD
I think it is best to separate cost from reliabilty, becasue they are essentially different things. Cost has nothing to do with the probability of failure. Expensive parts that fail with equal probability are not less reliable than cheap parts, they just cost more. You may be able to design cheaper parts with equal failure probability, but that doesnt make the car more reliable, it makes it cheaper to maintain.
Thread Starter
|
2nd Gear
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 965
From:
Does the reliability changes (gets affected) by performing preventive maintenance?
On car A preventive maintenance coststs $$$$.
On car B preventive maintenance costs $.
As one could say the cars spend different time in use, based on maintenance time in the shop.
Do car A and car B show equal reliability?
On car A preventive maintenance coststs $$$$.
On car B preventive maintenance costs $.
As one could say the cars spend different time in use, based on maintenance time in the shop.
Do car A and car B show equal reliability?
Senior Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,090
From: Columbia, MD
As I said before,
"to me it comes down to the the amount of time a car operates vs. amount of time car is unable to operate, on average."
and
"I think it is best to separate cost from reliabilty, becasue they are essentially different things."
So what I am saying is that maintenance time should be a factor of reliability but not maintenance cost.
"to me it comes down to the the amount of time a car operates vs. amount of time car is unable to operate, on average."
and
"I think it is best to separate cost from reliabilty, becasue they are essentially different things."
So what I am saying is that maintenance time should be a factor of reliability but not maintenance cost.
3rd Gear
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,941
From: IL
"I don't think that maintenance costs are a part of reliability".
Otherwise the last two posts contradict that very statement made in the beginning. And I would assume that's what actually you wanted to say in the first place; meaning that maintenance cost should not be factored in when discussing reliability.
If one separates (maintenance) costs from reliability, then it comes down to pocket preference, social status preference, etc; it may be fair to say that a Yugo or a Trabant may be as reliable as a Rolls Roys Phantom if both have the same breakdown-free road dependability.
Last edited by chefro; Mar 11, 2009 at 04:06 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,090
From: Columbia, MD
If you don't believe that maintenance is an intricate part when debating reliability, then probably you should change the above statement to :
"I don't think that maintenance costs are a part of reliability".
Otherwise the last two posts contradict that very statement made in the beginning. And I would assume that's what actually you wanted to say in the first place; meaning that maintenance cost should not be factored in when discussing reliability.
If one separates (maintenance) costs from reliability, then it comes down to pocket preference, social status preference, etc; it may be fair to say that a Yugo or a Trabant may be as reliable as a Rolls Roys Phantom if both have the same breakdown-free road dependability.
"I don't think that maintenance costs are a part of reliability".
Otherwise the last two posts contradict that very statement made in the beginning. And I would assume that's what actually you wanted to say in the first place; meaning that maintenance cost should not be factored in when discussing reliability.
If one separates (maintenance) costs from reliability, then it comes down to pocket preference, social status preference, etc; it may be fair to say that a Yugo or a Trabant may be as reliable as a Rolls Roys Phantom if both have the same breakdown-free road dependability.
I think my assertion was fairly clear. And yes you are right, I should have said "a part."
3rd Gear
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,941
From: IL
Unfortunately (from a smoke perspective), or fortunately (from a historic perspective), yes...I have driven one 
Oh... forgot to mention: 2 cylinders; definitely it had more power than a present day weed eater that runs on combo fuel... LOL
Oh... forgot to mention: 2 cylinders; definitely it had more power than a present day weed eater that runs on combo fuel... LOL
Last edited by chefro; Mar 11, 2009 at 04:52 PM.
3rd Gear
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,941
From: IL
, not even one word in there was in a bad spirit.... honestly
3rd Gear
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,941
From: IL
Lol, sorry I don't want to mess up the topic, but you gotta watch this .
Had no idea there are so many Trabant clips on youtube... hahahaha
Had no idea there are so many Trabant clips on youtube... hahahaha
Thread Starter
|
2nd Gear
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 965
From:
Then you should remember on that Trabant the projected live has been set to 100k km.
Needle bearings all over, cars had been sold with a spare engine.
Predominantly the engines have lasted well beyond the projected live.
In the times of gas shortage they were the only on the road running on everything that could ignite.
One of the most reliable 'cars' one could say!
Needle bearings all over, cars had been sold with a spare engine.
Predominantly the engines have lasted well beyond the projected live.
In the times of gas shortage they were the only on the road running on everything that could ignite.
One of the most reliable 'cars' one could say!
