The December 2014 issue provides the annual subscriber reliability results. The C7 bar graph appears to be about -15% worse than the average reliability of all vehicle brands & models. +/- 20% is considered the "average" bracket.

As way of reference, the Chevy Impala is -81% and Chevy Cruze -143%. On the plus side for the General; the CTS, Buick Verano and Regal are all about +25%, 30% or so. Buick is the only GM brand with a high rating, other GM brands are in the bottom half overall.

For Porsche: 911 is -10%; Boxster +20% and Cayman +30%. On the other end of the German spectrum is Mercedes: the S-Class is -127% and CLA is -145%. Overall, M-B is below all GM brands.

 

Yikes, Glad I did not buy that Impala LTZ I was looking at a couple weeks ago.

 

1-get in car
2-start Vette
3-put in sport mode
4-exhaust opens up
5-drive away
6-smiling ear to ear
7-can't stand up
8-this is better than any survey!!! 100% enjoyment
9-don't need a survey to tell me how great this car is!!
10-use magazine to light my fireplace!

ENJOY THE VETTE! AMERICA'S #1 SPORTS CAR

 

Consumer Reports reliability data are worth some consideration, but they have a real problem with quantifying the severity and cost of reliability problems they report. A number of years ago they reported cost data, but apparently they gave up.

 

Looks like the Porsche 911 and the Corvette rank about the same.

And what's going on at Mercedes? They got slammed hard.

 

That's the problem, it's hard to quantify the severity of issues in a single value. Mine had 7 issues that appeared in the first week. I would consider 4 of them as medium and the other 3 minor, but I'm sure others would say anything short of a failing engine is minor.

 

Anyone consider that people tend to respond to surveys when they have problems and probably do not respond when they have no problems? I'll bet Corvette reliability is way better than CR reports.

We have owned 11. Too early to answer on a C7 anyway. 2012 GS had zero problems. 2007 Z06 had rocker arm issues early on. Three C5s (2 Z06 & FRC) had minimal issues over many years. Two C4s (96 CE and 89) had minor trim problems w/door panels only. All-in-all, very reliable over many years.

 

To answer that question, I use the Africanized Honey Bee (AHB) analogy. When the AHBs were accidentally transported from Africa to South America, they got out and started to mate with the more docile honey bee. By the time they worked their way up into the U.S., most of their aggression had been bred out and the bees were no longer a danger.

Same thing at Mercedes. In 1998, Daimler Benz absorbed Chrysler in what some called a "Merger" (more like a hostile takeover). The execs at Benz (after draining Chrysler of billions in cash reserves) soon learned they could make a lot more money by adopting the shoddy (at the time) Chrysler materials and build methods at their plants back in Germany, which they still apply to this very day (look inside any Mercedes today, the materials will remind you of a Dodge Caliper). Sad, very sad for what WAS a world class automobile builder.

The joke was ultimately on them, as Chrysler has managed through its removal from Daimler and ultimate merger with Fiat to vastly improve its materials and methods. As a result, the overall quality over at Chrysler has actually improved, while the build quality at Mercedes is now pretty much horrendous. Sadly, the execs over at Mercedes still wonder what went wrong...

 

I couldn't agree more with the above statement. MB is total crap. The last decent car they built was in the mid 80's.

 

Well, not quite....According to a summary of the Consumer Reports in today's NY Times, Chrysler was at the bottom of the list and the Fiat 500 was the the least reliable new car.

AND for what its worth, "the Ford dual clutch power shift 6 speed showed no significant improvement".

 

I wouldn't mind having an old diesel MB sedan from back then. Hard to find them with low miles tho.

 

you guys have to be kidding me, chryslers are the biggest turds on the road bar none!

i am not saying MB is the end all be all, but I have owned 4 in the last 2 years (i change cars a lot - 15 in the last 4 years) and going from my current benz into my C7 and back makes the C7 feel like a tin shitbox.

getting into any chrysler feels like a 90's rental car.

if you think an MB is bad quality you haven't sat in/driven one since 2007, give or take a year or two depending on the model. Go get in a 2014/2015 S Class and name one car on the road that is better. There isn't one and I would put it up against anything!

 

JD Powers might disagree:

 

Frankly Scarlet, I don`t give a ..... Everyone slams U.S. brands, but my Rams, Jeeps, Chevys and Vettes have all been winners, so I don`t care.

 

Hey Hey easy on the throttle. The wife's M-B C300, built in 2011... one minor issue in 3.5 yrs. If I wasn't into Vettes I'd have to conclude your C7 is total crap from reading abt issues on C7 Discussion. C5 has 23+ known issues by my last count.

But having had more than my fair share of these, I won't say they're total crap. Just the usual expectation.

 

Oh I left out the current talk on C6
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=3557145

 

Chevrolet needs to address these problems and it's my opinion that they are dragging their feet.

 

This same bias would affect the reporting for all brands equally. So no, I don't think this is a consideration.

This report, which places the C7 within the "Average" band, should be good enough to permit CR to identify the Stingray as a "Recommended" car in its February issue, which is devoted solely to cars. They were very positive about it when they test-drove it, but could not recommend it then because there was no reliability data. You C7 owners might not care a bit about this, but keep in mind that it will help your resale value when you trade up to the C8.

This "Average" ranking is consistent with the usual rating given to the C5 and early C6s, but an improvement over late C6s, which seemed to falter during the "Government Motors" bailout phase of the company's existence.