[ThePythonicCow]

That was my first thought, too. Wait five years, then do the numbers change?

Yeah, the long term reliability figures are quite different: Problems for 3 year old vehicles

Unfortunately, there is a difference between saying that the car Hyundai sold 3 years ago is showing problems now, and saying that the car Hyundai is selling now will have problems in 3 years.

My impression is that Hyundai has sharply improved their reliability over the last few years. It will take a couple more years for the long term stats to show this, if so.

Full disclosure: I've got 30,000 miles and 2 years on my Hyundai Elantra - I hope I am right. So far so good. Flawless.

[crv16]

Unfortunately, there is a difference between saying that the car Hyundai sold 3 years ago is showing problems now, and saying that the car Hyundai is selling now will have problems in 3 years. My impression is that Hyundai has sharply improved their reliability over the last few years. It will take a couple more years for the long term stats to show this, if so.

Full disclosure: I've got 30,000 miles and 2 years on my Hyundai Elantra - I hope I am right. So far so good. Flawless.

Initial quality ratings, in my mind, are only "assembly quality" -- how well it was screwed together. It says little of the quality of the parts used, or the design. Cars like the Mercury Sable and the like traditionally do really well on IQS, simply because they have been made for so many years without change, and the assembly lines have been perfected and workers know how to do it well. But throw 3-5 years of use at those cars and long term ratings are average at best. Long term quality ratings show the quality of components used, and design.

That said, the Koreans have come a long way. They have improved a lot faster than the Japanese did.