[drvhplyevraftr]

Though I would normally associate Build Quality with something similar to the "thud", I now think the Build Quality is not just the external components that creates the "thud" or the solidness feel. It should also be the build quality of the internal mechanical components (what we refer by reliability). So the Build Quality has to be both the internal components (mechanicals, electricals that leads to reliability) and the external components (or those components that creates the "thud" or solidness). Anyways among the two that has been listed, I voted for reliability as to me reliability is superior to the "thud" (solid feeling).

[sridharps]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Only 1 link I found useful was related to photography (PhotoNotes.org Dictionary - Build quality) and this was what they had to say :
Build quality :

The general quality of construction, design, etc. of a product. How well it’s built.

Build quality is not an easily or objectively defined concept but it refers, generally speaking, to how well designed and constructed the product actually is from a subjective point of view. This includes factors such as reliability, sturdiness, fit and finish (if the product appears smoothly made and polished or is rough and ready), quality of materials and so on.

If the above definition is anything to go by (I think it is pretty good), then build-quality covers different areas. It is not just the thud or sturdiness aka tank-like build, but is also
about reliability. Even quality of materials used.

If anyone has a better definition, please share.

Good point. While I agree with you that there may be no formal definitions available which are better than this, however, in automobile terms, "build quality" is generally equated with lower number of defects i.e. reliability. Check this link as a sample
Ford vows to beat Toyota in compact car build quality - MotorAuthority - Car news, reviews, spy shots

[nutcracker]

Originally Posted by hydrashok

IMHO, Reliability and Build Quality are not the same.

Exactly my opinion, albeit I still consider both as pretty much equals. I drive the ANHC, and as much as I find it extremely reliable, IMHO the build quality feels quirky, loose and light. My perfect car would be one which maintains the PERFECT balance between build quality and reliability. I'd compromise on some reliability for some build quality. I dont mind dishing out some extra cash, to compromise reliability, but definitely, a 'thud' will put a safedrop at the back of my mind.

[vigsom]

A good Example:
Build Quality=Salman Khan
Reliability=Shah Rukh Khan
Build+Reliability=Aamir Khan

So far as cars go,

build quality simply means how solid and well planted the car feels eg.Linea,Palio,Octavia

Relaibility - no breakdowns,visits to workshop only for routine service eg.Maruti

[VeluM]

The Thud.

If a car rattles, I can't stand it. It will stay in the shop until the rattles are gone.

That doesn't mean that I would buy a car that doesn't rattle but breaks down at the drop of a hat. If the build quality is good, and the car has The Thud, I'm not sure why it automatically implies that the car will spend more time in the shop.

Far as I know, The Thud really improves the ownership and driving experience. A quiet drive, good music, conversations, thoughts - None of these can be enjoyed in a rattling, squeaking, whining or creaking car.

Finally: It's downright embarrassing Especially when one has guests

[Jeep]

Supreme reliability for me, though a silent cabin is needed. I don't care about the thud much, however rattles do really put me off.

However, compared to reliability, the 'thud' is nothing much. That's why I rely on Jap cars.

[clevermax]

* A car with good build quality can have the 'Thud'.

* A car which has 'Thud' doesn't always mean it has good build quality.

* A reliable car will mostly have good build quality

* A car with supreme build quality may or may not be reliable.

So it is not 'Thud' alone or Reliability alone.

[oxyzen]

I think build quality is mainly associated with
1) Safety
2) Reliability (no breakdown)
3) Durability of body (both time based & impact based-- specially in India)

Safety is not associated with thud---think of ambassador,tata sumo.
It is associated with reliability----brake fail,engine seize can even claim your life.
Higher reliability meens u pay less visits to workshops.
Thud is important for durability but I think one can live without it.

My vote is with RELIABILITY

[Fabiaous]

90% reliability to prove your car performs to your expectations year on year without issues or niggles.
10 % to thud as it gives a feeling of safety when you close the door.

With the recalls in market off late reliability has become a question of trust.

[ramzsys]

Build quality- how well the components of the car are holding together after miles and miles of usage... i am meaning lakhs of kms....

The fiat uno, ikon, old bolero(GLX) all were excellent in this regard.

[tj123]

Build quality means

• reliability
• Good fit & finish, no rattles even after 5 yrs of driving,
• zero defects,
• value for my money
• Dependability

[ph03n!x]

I somehow am not able to dissect the thud and reliability - maybe am asking for much, but for me a well built car is a Palio / Punto / Linea - they have the characteristic "thud", and looking at how things are happening in the Fiat stable, wont carry the blemish they had initially with reliability.

(Disclaimer: I cherish my Getz CRDi - it has all that I want, more so with the turbo-charged 100 BHP kick!)

[prashanthyr]

Originally Posted by GTO

To me, build quality is using parts of the highest quality, the precision with these parts are put together, and the ability for them to work in harmony over a long long duration.

I think this sums it up best.

I have had experience with a Santro and Indica, both bought at almost the same time, used in very similar conditions (mostly city, with occasional highway use) and maintained well. The Indica felt like it would last years and years due to the fact that the doors were heavy and solid, it crashed through potholes without a squeak. The Santro on the other hand felt it would start squeaking and rattling in no time. However, 2 years and 20,000 km later, the Indica, while still feeling solid had developed all these minor irritations - power windows not rolling up or down consistently, switches coming lose etc. Not a single issue with the Santro.
Given this, I feel the Santro had better build quality than the Indica as it was a more rounded/complete product and all parts seem to have had the same attention in terms of quality and attention.

[maglev]

If I have deep pockets then I'll have the THUD, the reliability doesn't matter that much as I'll probably have another more reliable car, for the just in case situations.

AND

If I am on a budget or my pockets aren't deep enough for the higher maintenance, reduced fuel efficiency then I'll go in for reliability.

[recshenoy]

For me its the thud and handling. But for my budget i can only have my old zen

Is supremely reliable car with thud a oxymoron in India? May be octy used to be in this league but due to current Skoda A.S.S it doesn't fit any more