I remember, indeed.
Moreover, it had a pretty good gas mileage; if my memory doesn't play tricks on me it was around 6.8-7 L/100 KM. It was running even on kerosene.
As far as reliability, even though it doesn't meet the present days pollution requirements in the EU, you can still see plenty of them on the roads in some of the Eastern European countries. And most of them are not "overhauled" or... restored unlike some other 40+ years cars.

By the way, was Wartburg considered the more "upscale" sedan? Those were looking so much better.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartburg_(car)

The 3 cylinders were with different bores => overhauling demanded purchase of only one piston, the other 2 pistons were reused.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enough for the ghosts from the past...


Lets talk reliability again.

One would believe that the initial price of a car reflects corresponding performance and luxury - attributes of importance for the mass-consumer.
Next - the consumers takes in consideration the reliability – reliability not as vague fine printed definition at the bottom, but reliability as an everyday’s notion.

How much a car is going to cost me for certain period of usage? Simple as that!

There is a regular maintenance –filters, brakes, spark plugs…
This should not be of a major concern as pricing is similar between brands.
And there should be a proportionality to the initial price as the high priced components supply higher luxury and performance..

Are there expectations that the quality of design, materials, workmanship should reflect the initial price of any car?

 

I am being a stickler for proper defintions here, but it appears that you still want to include cost into the "everyday's notion" of reliabilty. I find this appraoch to be much more vague than the engineering context of reliability. And vague definitions will ultimately lead to vague conclusions.

 

Cost of premature failures, for sure.

If the "the engineering context of reliability" does not affect my pocket => no grounds for denial here...

 

I dont exactly understand what you meant in the last post, but let me be clear:

reliability, in the engineering context, has nothing to do with the monetary cost of parts or repairs, in my view. You should obviously include cost in your assessment of the overall value of a car, but then it is something more than a reliabilty assessment.

 

One could call it "cost assessment in the context of reliability".

Premature failures - as an industry statistics input - would be caused by one or combined reasons=> design, materials, workmanship.

Are we discussing the occurrences of premature failures here?

What one could take on multiple failures such / but not limited to:
-cv boots, oil seals and gaskets, small gadgets, TC and turbos; TB replacement at short intervals…notorious transmission situations.

One definite sign of reliability status are the wholesale prices – evident drops from the smooth average industry graphs are typically for cars with period’s related live and overall delivery.

Sharp price drop for the year following the end of manufactures warranty?

What does this say to you? (besides the buying opportunities)

 

What you are really talking about, "cost assessment in the context of reliability", is really an assessment of value. When the warranty expires, prices rise because all repairs will have to be paid by the owner, and the probability of failure increases or the reliability decreases.

Value is much harder to asses than reliability because it is somewhat subjective and involves many more factors such as repair costs, and supply and demand.