We have the Internet. Why don't news reports quote their sources?

Mazda tops reliability poll, says an article about a Warranty Direct survey. It gives the top five and bottom five manufacturers, and mentions in slightly more detail a couple of movers, the top two and the bottom make. It says the rankings were based on a combination of average number of breakdowns, and cost of repairs. That’s all it says, which is close to useless. Oh, and, at the time of writing, it links to the wrong Warranty Direct - the US lot, not the UK lot who actually carried out the survey.

The press release is better. It provides details for all manufacturers, not just the top and bottom five, although it doesn’t survey the more exotic brands (e.g. any sports car manufacturer). It splits off the figures for frequency and cost of repairs. It provides a bit more commentary. But its list is still completely and utterly useless for anyone who would want to making a buying decision based on it.

Consider this paragraph:

Subaru’s dramatic fall of eleven places to 22nd in the table may surprise a few observers. However, costly repairs to the Impreza’s engine and transmission units pushed the average bill to nearly £1,040 making it the most expensive model repaired.

In other words, the particularly bad performance of one model seriously impacted the figures for the manufacturer as a whole. But what if you weren’t planning on buying that model? There are all sorts of reasons why reliability can vary greatly between one model and another - look at the reliability problems for French luxury cars compared to the their standard hatchbacks and saloons, for instance - and to lump everything together helps nobody.