Why are Porsche's so reliable and why can't Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, Merc, BMW, etc learn from them?

where did that whole "porsches are so reliable!" came from?

they break just like every other sport car
valve guide issues, cooling, intermediate shaft, oil leaking, etc etc
and don't get me started on a fucking 944 turbo

Talking about real Porsches probably, not 20+ year old shitboxes.

can't you read?
i didn't even started to list 944 problems, you fucking retard

Serious answer...

Porsche thoroughly modernized their engineering and manufacturing in the '90s. Porsche 911s are assembled on mostly-automated assembly lines just like a Toyota, which leads to consistency.

The only thing Ferrari modernized was the stamping and welding of their aluminum chassis. There is still a great deal of hand assembly, and humans are less consistent than robots. No two Ferraris produce exactly the same horsepower.

Lamborghini also has consistency problems. No two Lamborghinis handle exactly the same!

They're far more reliable than Ferraris, which they are usually compared to. Fast cars break a lot, but many Porsche owners daily drive their car without many issues, they are better than Mercedes now too.

That kid is jealous as fuk

So that means a Panamera is a reliable choice than the S-Class? These two are somewhat in the same price category.

Only acceptable answers here.

I would actually buy a Porsche in that case.

I just don't get one thing about Porsche and that is that you only need to change oil every 30k km"s or every 2 years.

How is that possible?

I'm jealous.

because porsche is more willing to fix a problem when it occurs rather than just say "you bought a high strung supercar what do you expect!?"
example:
>Porsche catches fire
>recall

>Ferrari/Lamborghini catches fire
>nothing

Are there any supercars over 300k that are reliable?

Price point is just to get leave the assembly line supercars out

God I love Porsches more

>not being interested in the Deltas

...

r8s and 911s can be DD

Speaking of reliable super cars, are evoras reliable?

Lots
Of
Trouble
Usually
Serious

Camry engine.

I was watching "How It's Made: Dream Cars" last night and they were doing the Panamera. I was amazed at how Porsche builds their cars and the machines they use. It is nothing like other supercars.

>where did that whole "porsches are so reliable!" came from?
From people who own them.

>fucking 944 turbo
here's your problem: Its not a 911

isnt that kind of the no true scottsman fallacy?
shouldn't you specify that 911s are really reliable?

KEK

Mercedes Commercial vehicles are every 70,000kms...

>The quintessential Porsche, that comprises the majority of their sales, their brand and image needs to be explicitly stated in case you're dealing with a retard who hears 'Porsche' and thinks '924'

>that comprises the majority of their sales
One word: Cayenne.

it happens fast

>2016
>Still driving stock car

What is wrong with you people ?

TOYOTA IS SUPERIOR
Have you ever seen how a Corolla is made? It truly is amazing no one else is doing anything like it.

Cayenne's are reliable. I was about to put my mother in one.

no they're not
they're less-bad than say, an audi, but not good

>non stock car

>2016
>modifying your car
Next you'll tell me "tasteful" mods add value.

How is mclaren in terms of reliability? I know theyre a little more modernized in terms of production than most other supercar makers.

Porsche makes cars people will want to drive, Ferrari, Lamborghini and so on make cars people want to be seen in.

c.uck

Koenigsegg build solid stuff. Although they never really get used as daily drives I guess, so they don't get the sort of semi-neglect that others do.

Great, as far as I'm aware. A friend of mine works for them and always mocks me for Range Rover build quality (I work for JLR). From what he says, the only real issues for mclarens tend to be when they're used as racing machines, which let's face it, destroys pretty much anything eventually.

Is that what happens with Land Rover? They suck at reliability.

that's more a combination of English pretentiousness and far too much tech crammed into one product

I personally know a guy who does 100+ kms daily on his 2013 V10 R8. I think it already has well over 70k miles lodged in it. Also I never heard him complain about the car. He has owned a couple of Ferrari and Maserati and he always complains about the stuff that breaks.

Yes, they are. They might not look very charming like the other ones in the business but is very engaging to drive as the reviews say. Also the sound that supercharged Camry engine makes is music.

Make sure she gets the RS and the speed limited.

Much like MB, BMW and Audi right?

Last year the 911 was their best selling model for a month

Because they take a lot of oil too, my dinky ass Boxster needs like 10 litres

Every car has a small number of issues, but even the "unreliable" 911s like the 996 with the IMS issue can be daily driven all year round

Some guy in Japan daily drives a McLaren P1, and Mr. Bean but like over 200k miles on his McLaren F1

JLR mech here. It sounds ridiculous, but nobody really knows. The Jag range are almost universally solid, and we have a fairly broad spectrum of shared component use between a lot of platforms, so there's no real reason for the Range Rover line shitting themselves so much more frequently.

Personally, I believe it's a case of naive or shitty owners. The sort of person who buys an F-Type is totally different to one who buys a Sport. People seem to think that Range Rover means "tough, reliable, no-maintenance-needed machine", when nowadays it actually means "flashy, comfortable school-run-mobile", so it wouldn't surprise me if they just don't think about maintenance the same way the F-Type owner would.

>it's not a 911

I totally agree with the sentiment that when people hear Porsche the think 911, that's how it should be.

But the only the wrong with 944's are owners who are too cheap to maintain it, because "it's not a 911". That and first gen EFI from Bosch.

>/end rant

It's the dry sump, at least on the cars that have one. They have a giant oil tank, so you're spreading the contamination over a lot more oil and therefore have to change it less often.

>911 GT3s are stable in value
>Ferrari 458s/488s are consistent money losers
>Lamborghini Gallardos/Huracans are consistent money losers
>Maserati ANYTHING RECENT are consistent money losers
>Mercedes-Benzs are mostly pleb cars, are consistent money losers (except the SLR McLaren and the CLK-GTR)
>BMW is fucking LOL. Maybe the M3 CSL and M3 GTR are the only recent BMWs that aren't consistent money losers

Why are 911 GT3s so bulletproof in the markets compared to everything else from Germany and compared to non-halo Italian cars?

the land rover factory is pretty shit, that's the problem.
too much fucking around to get things to fit.

>tfw when in 30 years there will probably be no more manufacturers who hand assemble...
why live desu