Engineer Ranks Every Car Brand From Best To Worst For Reliability

The AutoGuide Creators Series tells stories and amplifies creators from the car world, including family life, car buying advice, commuting tips and car culture.

Which car brands have the best build quality? That’s what we’re going to find out.

Welcome to Car Help Corner. I’m here with David from Automotive Press, an engineer who’s visited just about every major car factory in the world. If anyone has insight into how cars are actually built—and what that means for real-world quality—it’s David.

A little while ago, I made a video ranking major brands by build quality and reliability using a tier list. Today, we’re running through those brands again, but this time I want David’s take—and to see where his rankings differ from mine.

Let’s get into it.

Toyota and Lexus

Host: David, let’s start with Japan. On a tier list where S is the highest, where would you put Toyota for manufacturing quality, engineering, and predicted reliability?

David: Toyota is interesting because there are a lot of factors that affect reliability and build quality—manufacturing process, supplier inputs, fit and finish, and so on.

From a product development standpoint, Toyota’s new product introduction (NPI) process is one of the best in the world. They use a “chief engineer” system where one person owns the project end-to-end across the product’s life cycle. It’s robust and difficult to replicate. They know how to design a product, control costs, and execute on time. For product engineering, Toyota is still S-tier.

But manufacturing quality doesn’t always translate perfectly, because it depends on suppliers, the complexity of the vehicle, and external disruptions—especially during the COVID-era years.

And recently there have been surprises. Some of the issues and recalls—particularly involving the Tundra’s V6 and early teething problems on newer launches—were unexpected. A lot of that is getting resolved, but if you’re asking me right now, I’d rate Toyota S for engineering, and closer to A-minus for manufacturing quality. I wouldn’t be shocked if they’re back to solid S-tier across the board once the current issues fully shake out.

Host: That’s fair. In my own tier list I placed Toyota in S, although I debated moving them to A because of the Tundra-related engine issues. That said, it’s still a small portion of Toyota’s overall lineup, and the rest remains very strong—so I was comfortable keeping Toyota at the top.

Honda and Acura

Host: Next up—Honda. Where does Honda land?

David: A lot of people put Honda on the same level as Toyota, but Toyota is substantially bigger and that scale matters. Honda’s engineering capability is world-class, but in North America many Hondas are engineered and built in the U.S. or Canada, whereas Toyota still has more direct continuity from Japan in both engineering and manufacturing.

Honda’s product development is strong, but they’re more resource-constrained than Toyota. If Honda had double the engineering resources, they’d be even closer. For that reason, I’d put Honda’s product engineering around A-minus.

Manufacturing quality is solid. Honda’s U.S., Canadian, and Japanese plants tend to be consistently good—more consistent than many brands. I’d rate Honda’s manufacturing quality as a strong A, possibly A-plus.

Host: That lines up with where I put them—A-tier. Honda is excellent, just not quite as consistently bulletproof as Toyota. You also hear more concerns around certain powertrains—like the 1.5-liter turbo and some V6 applications—so A feels right.

Mazda

Host: What about Mazda? They’ve improved dramatically over the last decade. Where do they land today?

David: Mazda’s manufacturing capability is one of the best in the world. I’ve audited their exterior quality and visited Mazda factories many times in recent years. Their production reality is different than Toyota or Honda because Mazda doesn’t have the same high-volume scale. They have fewer factories, and they need each line to build multiple products efficiently.

That flexibility has forced Mazda to refine its processes and equipment in a way that’s impressive. Pure manufacturing capability? I’d put Mazda at S-tier.

Where Mazda still trails slightly is long-term reliability consistency. Like Honda, Mazda is a smaller player with fewer resources, and that can show up when multiple programs are running at once. Their cars are very well built and often feel premium inside and out, but reliability data hasn’t fully caught up to what their manufacturing capability suggests—yet.

So I’d rate Mazda roughly A-minus for product engineering and S for manufacturing execution, with the expectation they continue trending upward.

Host: Interesting—on my list, Mazda landed at A, and I agree they’re getting very close to S.

Subaru

Host: Let’s keep moving through Japan. How about Subaru?

David: Subaru has improved, and part of the story is that Toyota owns a significant stake and the collaboration has deepened over the last few years. You can see Toyota’s influence in how Subaru approaches engineering, manufacturing consistency, and quality control.

Subaru is still a relatively small company, so they often rely on partnerships to expand capability. Product development is solid—call it A to A-minus—but they can be slower developing major changes independently.

Manufacturing quality and reliability have been very good recently. I’d rate Subaru as strong A, and for some aspects of manufacturing consistency, arguably S-tier.

Host: I had Subaru in A as well. They’re one of those brands that can hover between A and S depending on the model.

Nissan and Mitsubishi

Host: Let’s finish out Japan with Nissan and Mitsubishi.

David: They’re tied together through the alliance structure, and you see shared platforms and components. Nissan’s manufacturing capability can be quite good, but it hasn’t consistently translated into strong long-term reliability across the lineup.

Some proven models—like the Frontier and other long-running products—can be reliable and well made. But Nissan has struggled with new product cadence and execution, in part due to financial and resource constraints. I’d rate Nissan roughly B overall.

Mitsubishi is similar, but in my experience their engineering culture can be very passionate and careful. They spend time getting things right, and some of their products have been quite trouble-free largely because they haven’t changed dramatically in years. I’d put Mitsubishi around B-plus, potentially nudging toward A-minus on certain proven models.

Host: That’s close to where I landed. I had both in B-tier.

Hyundai and Kia

Host: Now Korea—Hyundai and Kia. I placed them in B-tier because of past engine issues, though they’ve improved in the last few years. Where do you put them?

David: People underestimate how much reliability depends on where a vehicle is in its life cycle. A model that’s three or four years into production—after a refresh and fixes—can be very solid. But brand-new models can be rough for the first year or two, and the Korean brands tend to struggle more early in the cycle than Toyota or Honda.

On the engineering side, Hyundai-Kia is impressive. They’ve hired top talent from other automakers and they move quickly—almost like tech companies in how fast they iterate. For engineering capability and innovation, I’d give them a solid A.

For manufacturing consistency and long-term predictability, though, I’m still at B-tier. They’ve improved a lot, but some products remain unpredictable compared with the best Japanese brands.

Host: That’s fair. They’ve clearly moved up, but we’ll see how they perform over the next few years.

German Brands: BMW, Audi/VW, Porsche, Mercedes

Host: Let’s jump to Europe: BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, Mercedes. I separated them and put BMW slightly ahead. What’s your take?

David: If we’re talking mainstream German brands, BMW is generally the strongest of the group. Their engineering is good, but they build cars globally, and not every plant delivers the same outcomes. I’d rate BMW around B for manufacturing quality and B-plus for engineering.

Audi and Volkswagen share so many components and platforms that they belong together. They used to be stronger from a product development standpoint, but lately it’s been inconsistent. I’d rate VW/Audi around C-plus overall.

Porsche is the standout within the broader Volkswagen Group. Their manufacturing execution and long-term reliability are closer to the top Japanese brands than most people expect. I’d rate Porsche manufacturing around A, with engineering around B to B-plus.

Mercedes has strong engineering capability and deep innovation history, but manufacturing and consistency have been hit-or-miss lately. I’d place Mercedes around C-plus on manufacturing consistency, with B-plus engineering.

Host: That’s broadly in line with my experience. European cars can be excellent, but they’re less consistent than the best Japanese brands—especially over the long term and once repair costs enter the picture.

American Brands: GM, Ford, Stellantis, Tesla

Host: Let’s finish with the American brands: Ford, GM, Stellantis—and Tesla.

David: The problem with ranking American automakers is that it varies wildly by product. Some models are genuinely solid; others are problem-prone. So averaging it out is tricky.

General Motors

GM has talented engineers and strong innovation capability—look at what they’ve done with performance products. For engineering, I’d give GM around B-plus. Manufacturing and quality consistency, though, are closer to C-plus on average, especially when you factor in recalls and variability between models.

Ford

Ford is similar. Their engineering approach differs from GM’s, and they’ve produced some great ideas, but they don’t always launch products in a fully mature, sorted state. I’d place Ford around B-minus engineering and C-plus manufacturing overall.

Stellantis

Stellantis is complicated because it’s a collection of brands. Some products that have been around a long time can be acceptable, but as a whole, quality consistency has been weak. If you average the group out, manufacturing quality lands around D-tier, with engineering closer to C-plus, depending heavily on brand and platform.

Host: That matches what I see—Stellantis in particular has been struggling.

Tesla

Host: We can’t wrap up without Tesla. Where do they fit?

David: Tesla is unlike legacy manufacturers. Their development model is iterative—build, release, improve—almost like tech. That makes their innovation impressive, and they’ve pushed the industry forward with manufacturing approaches like large castings.

Engineering and innovation? I’d put Tesla around B-plus.

Manufacturing quality and fit-and-finish have improved, especially on mature products like the Model 3 and Model Y, but they’re still inconsistent. If you include products with obvious quality-control concerns, Tesla’s manufacturing consistency is closer to C-tier overall.

Host: That’s pretty fair.

Wrap-Up

Host: That was a lot of ground. We covered most major brands.

David: Almost all—except Chinese brands, which I can’t really speak on yet.

Host: Hopefully we can cover those in a future video if and when they arrive in Canada. David, thanks for joining—always great having you on.

David: Thanks. And everyone in the comments—don’t crucify me. I’m just being honest. Hopefully it’s useful, and it was fun.

Host: Thanks again. And thanks everyone for watching—we’ll see you next time.

Become an AutoGuide insider. Get the latest from the automotive world first by subscribing to our newsletter here.