FCA RELIABILITY

Also is the difference in reliability from top to bottom really that large?

FIX

File: Manufacturer Ratings Car Reliability Index Reliability Index How reliable is your car .png (550KB, 1160x4424px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1160x4424px

>>16546331
>survey maymayers will have issues accepting facts

File: 1473614699529.jpg (41KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x400px

>>16546344
IT
>>16546348
>UK index
Top pleb

>>16546354
>clearly having issues
x')

>>16546360
But I'm not a fiat

>>16546368
Nah, you're just fat.

>>16546331
It's a meme, when you see those graphics that show that FCA is beyond saving in matter of reliability you have to remind that a bluetooth failing is now considered a major problem

>>16546393
Makes sense people find it hard to let go if the past

File: this_picture_makes_you_really_really_really_mad.jpg (224KB, 1200x683px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1200x683px

>>16546380
>so fucking mad

>>16546354
UP

>>16546457
At least I'm not fat.

>>16546354
That just confirms that Fiat, Chrysler, Jeep and all that garbage are truly shit.

Now you don't only have statistics from the USA market but also from the UK that tell you how unreliable those pieces of shit are.

>>16546393
That only applies to JD Power, FCA shill.

>>16546348
>Ford
>good
Fake graph.

File: 1470046242786.gif (2MB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x426px

>>16546630
I guess it confirms Porsche is also shit because that's where they are on the graph. Right below Chrysler.

Either that or it just confirms all reliability indexes are useless shit since people will forever and always support the ones that best support their confirmation bias.

File: fca-masturbation-notice-masturbating-in-the-showers-is-a-violation-11817485.png (64KB, 500x347px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x347px

>>16546678
All reliability reports confirm that FCA is utter garbage you fucking imbecile.

That doesn't happen with Porsche.

Stay assblasted shill.

>>16546701
I;m not a shill, nor was i the person you're replying to. My point still stands and Fiat was actually rated unusually high in>>16546348 or at least above all the German manufacturers which goes back to what i was saying that i just don't bother with any reliability reports and would prefer to google actual issues.

>>16546709
>highly rated
>literally at the bottom where they had always live.

>>16546725
Considering there were 38 brands rated and it (fiat) came 15th that puts it in the middle.

File: Capture.png (24KB, 258x298px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 258x298px

>>16546737
>Ignores Chrysler and jeep

But yeah, lets ignore reliability reports like you said right? we all know FCA makes quality cars and, literally toyota tier hehehe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YaQCsrDfdY

>>16546752
Read you're original post
>>16546630
>Fiat, Chrysler, Jeep

So part of FCA was rated higher than Benz, Audi, BMW and Porsche. I don't trust that reliability index or any really.

>>16546752
>But yeah, lets ignore reliability reports like you said right?
If you want to use it i don't give a shit. i was making an argument against all reports on any brand because i prefer to search issues myself. If i want to know the reliability of a GTR for example i'm going to try and search for known issues rather than just look at where nissan stands themselves.

>we all know FCA makes quality cars and, literally toyota tier hehehe.

No, just Grade-A Austismos who have a hard time following a discussion. I don't care about FCA.

>>16546773
You are the who should read my earlier posts when I mention that literally all reports point the fact that FCA cars are badly made, that doesn't happen with the Germans.

Also your argument that "the others are just bad as us" is fucking pathetic.

>>16546778
>I mention that literally all reports point the fact that FCA

Yes, you said all and that report>>16546348 rated Fiat at 15th which is why i don't trust it.

>"the others are just bad as us"
No i said that Graph rated a Manufacturer that is considered bad unusually high and others unusually low which i used as an argument against the report itself.

>>16546778
>that doesn't happen with the Germans.

BMW was rated below some Korean manufacturers on other reliability reports and a lot of people shitpost about Korean cars here saying they are not to be trusted.

>>16546803
>not trusting a fucking fact
Just because Chrysler has allegedly shit QC (like every other american automaker producing in the domestic market), doesn't mean Fiats are the same.

>>16546331

FCA make the most unreliable PoS in the world.

>>16546331
it's not a meme, their reliability is truly as bad as people say.

>>16546348
>Hey guys our cars break all the time and will last you 5 years at best until they fail inspection, but at least our parts are cheap, so all things considered our cars are actually the most reliable.
Check the TUV report if you want hard reliability facts.

>>16547133
2017 TUV report (2-3 year old cars): Fiat 500 8th worst car (same rank as Dacia Duster), Fiat Punto 5th worst car.
Followed only by Chevrolet Spark, Chevrolet Captiva, Kia Sorento, Kia Sportage.

File: 1409471460449s.jpg (4KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 125x125px

>>16546348
>1.3 diesel fiat punto
>esse gajo thinks he can have an opinion

FCA is known for having sub par reliability and cheaping out a lot on materials. Even so, I still want a Chrysler 300 as a DD. Fuck if I know why. It's probably some Italian mind control voodoo.

>>16546348
>Bentley
>SUPER POOR
B-brittania rule the w-aves