Nate

iTrader: (2)

What a silly sentence to use for a Renault Megane!

Looks nice, but it is just a bleedin' Renault

Renault UK - Home

davegtt

I keep seeing the advert for this and think it looks really nice. But then I liked the previous Megane too

stilover

I think it does look nice. Then I remember owning a Renault, and saying the words "Never again" when I sold it.

nash_wrx

iTrader: (3)

Same here I had a 2004 Laguna for 6 months of Which 3months it spent at the dealer getting al sorts of electrical problems "fixed".

Never Again . .

dpb

looks like about another 6 cars of its class !

If you want a french car with innovation and flare , go Citroen

the C5 estate has to be one of the more handsome offerings on the market

Swift Nick

Couldn't have said it better myself

Timwinner

iTrader: (3)

Renaults are like Paris Hilton, From the right angel they look nice, But you wouldnt want to be inside it.

Matteeboy

"Is that your car?"

"Yes"

"Welcome to the world of constant breakdowns and the industries' worst customer service."

BURTON

Is that you car? Is it fu8k my scooby is in the workshop getting more power this is a rent a bag o sh8t

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Allegedly Renault are now building the new Megane to better modeled MTBF standards (Mean time between failure).

The MTBF is basically a defining element to vehicle design/testing/production costs and the expected fail rate within warranty periods or what would be seen as acceptable period. All manufacturers do it; they often know what is prone to fail on a car well before it is put into production. The judgment call is how damaging in terms of cost and PR it will be vs cost to put it right vs increased production costs. Over-engineering and excessive testing is the obvious cure, but its costly in terms of deign and production and also in the future as the cars won't wear out; Manufacturers want their cars to wear out and fail, otherwise they'd sell less and less new cars. But obviously they don't want it to happen so soon that it harms their reputation.

Note worthy examples of pushing the limits of expected MTBF are Rover's K-series engine. Its component defects are well documented and solutions were available. But the current components gave (in their eyes) an acceptable MTBF so it was seen that the cost of updating the components wasn't considered to be viable; Because they often failed out of warranty, giving a nice money earner for the dealer network, but obviously its not so good on reputation. However the idea is if/when the vehicle which gains a bad reputation it would be towards the end of its production life-cycle. So would be replaced with a "new improved" car, wiping the reputation slate clean (Rover 200 to Rover 25, Rover 400 to 45), and thus the cycle repeats.

Renault with the last shape Megane and Laguna is an example of going too far; They got their calculations wrong, thinking their MTBF would be satisfactory. It wasn't, and it bit them in **** big time for both reputation and warranty claims.

They can't afford to make that mistake again......well, we'll see in a few years, won't we?

austinwrx

I have a perverted desire for a citroen C6.

actually owned a zx which was brilliant for what it was

and a BX- which again was faultless and just such good fun in the twistys, superb brakes etc. very quick/light car. fond memories.


bloke at work here bought a new megane saloon last year. how bloody dull is yr life when you choose something so chuffing dull at the age of 50 with a pocket full of cash.