>To me, panel gaps are a proxy for how much faith you have in your consistency and quality control.
I beg to differ. Modern German cars might have panel gaps tighter than a nun's fanny, but their reliability, especially after warranty is over, is so awful than in no way can I say that they represent quality. Those quality cars went away in the late '80s early '90s when the engineers got replaced by the bean counters and cars became white goods with many critical parts outsourced to the lowest bidding contractor, that must look 'cool' in the showroom, but fail the second the warranty runs out, or many times even before that.
To me, the panel gaps are a superficial metric of quality and prove nothing of substance that goes beyond body shell.
Why don't we measure quality by how reliable a car is over time and how long it lasts? Surely that would prove good consistency and quality control on the manufacturer's side, no?
Tight panel gaps only shows how much efort the manufacturer has put in the body, but says nothing about the quality and reliability of the electronics and mechanics, which is what really matters in a car for most people.
Does that prove a direct correlation between reliability and panel gaps, or could it be merely a coincidence?
According to the article:
> "the Audi E-Tron and Volkswagen ID.4 were singled out as being unreliable"
So if Audi and VW are also unreliable then the panel gaps prove as a poor signal for reliability, which was my original point.
Edit after your reply below: Sure, Tesla has poor reliability, but not because it has poor panel gaps. Those two can be completely disconnected. Just because they coincide sometimes, doesn't make this a rule of thumb like some car snobs try to convince you of.
You can easily have cars with great panel gaps that are incredibly unreliable, and vice versa. Panel gaps mean nothing more than panel gaps.
I'm just pointing out that we can have both reliability and tight panel gaps. We have the technology. They are separate things.
As are different models within a single manufacturer. I love my Ford, would highly recommend it, but would never buy or recommend a Pinto or a Bronco II.
The point people typically make is that Tesla has uncommonly poor panel gaps, which point to poor quality and tolerance control in their manufacturing. This is a complex skill that automakers have been refining for 100 years. It is indicative of something, just as the quality of paint job indicates the care and quality with which a hot rod was built.
Sure, I definitely agree reliability is important, and that just because something can be build exactly to spec doesn't mean that spec is going to be reliable.
For me at least, i don't actually think of something like panel gaps as a reliability indicator, but rather it is one of many indicators of whether more quality of life stuff is going to go wrong (ie door rattling, buttons becoming loose or fiddly, etc). These things don't stop me from getting from A to B, but at that price point they're still important considerations.
I beg to differ. Modern German cars might have panel gaps tighter than a nun's fanny, but their reliability, especially after warranty is over, is so awful than in no way can I say that they represent quality. Those quality cars went away in the late '80s early '90s when the engineers got replaced by the bean counters and cars became white goods with many critical parts outsourced to the lowest bidding contractor, that must look 'cool' in the showroom, but fail the second the warranty runs out, or many times even before that.
To me, the panel gaps are a superficial metric of quality and prove nothing of substance that goes beyond body shell.
Why don't we measure quality by how reliable a car is over time and how long it lasts? Surely that would prove good consistency and quality control on the manufacturer's side, no?
Tight panel gaps only shows how much efort the manufacturer has put in the body, but says nothing about the quality and reliability of the electronics and mechanics, which is what really matters in a car for most people.