Latest Infiniti G35 reliability results

[mkaresh]

Thanks to the help of this forum, TrueDelta received 43 responses covering 85 months of ownership for the 2008 G37 and G35 (about 80 percent G37).

The result of 56 successful repair trips per 100 vehicles is marginally better than that for the 2007 and about average for a 2008. Multiple coupe owners reported mufflers that had to be replaced to eliminate a rattle.

The survey covered through the end of 2007. Any repairs that were completed in January or February won't be included until the next update, in May. With TrueDelta's process, we'll be able to report any change in repair rates soon after it happens.

Other model years:

For the 2003 Infiniti G35, we received an average of 5.9 months of data on 36 cars. The stat of 79 successful repair trips per 100 vehicles per year (0.8 per vehicle) is about average for a 2003 model.

For the 2004 Infiniti G35, we received an average of 5.1 months of data on 32 cars. The stat of 59 successful repair trips per 100 vehicles per year (0.6 per vehicle) is about average for a 2004 model.

For the 2005 Infiniti G35, we received an average of 5.9 months of data on 26 cars. The stat of 63 successful repair trips per 100 vehicles per year (0.6 per vehicle) is about average for a 2005 model.

For the 2006 Infiniti G35, we received an average of 6.9 months of data on 28 cars. The stat of 68 successful repair trips per 100 vehicles per year (0.7 per vehicle) is about average for a 2006 model.

For the 2007 Infiniti G35 sedan, we received an average of 5.5 months of data on 46 cars. The stat of 75 successful repair trips per 100 vehicles per year (0.8 per vehicle) is about average, maybe a little worse than average, for a 2007 model.

As reported last time, sunroof triim and seat heaters were very common problem areas. These comprise a lower percentage of all repairs this time around; but the overall repair rate did not fall because a larger number of widely varied repairs were reported.

Notably, none of these years is asterisked for insufficient sample size, making the G one of the few models for which TrueDelta can provide results from 2003 through 2007, much less 2008 as well. Great job, guys.

Also notable: all of the repair rates are about the same. This suggests that reliability doesn't vary much by model year, at least not yet. The 2003s currently have about 65,000 miles on them, on average. At some point as these cars approach and pass 100k the repair rate is likely to significantly increase.

The full set of results:

TrueDelta Vehicle Reliability Survey results

Others won't have reliability info on the 2008 G until June or even October. Everyone who has been participating -- thanks for helping TrueDelta provide this information first, by a wide margin.

We can always use more help. You can join by following a link on the results page.

[talkitron]

Thanks a lot for this information. As someone considering a G, this is very helpful.

[W661335PF]

I was one of the contributors to the True Delta reliability "studies" and as I read the "results" I've become concerned that the sample size may be much too small from which to draw conclusions or make assessments/projections. True Delta's critique of Consumer Reports and JD owners, while mildly to moderately valid, do not rescue it's own analysis from the more significant critique that the sample size is too small to derive meaningful interpretations. While I believe that True Delta's assessments have reliability (that they measure something consistently, but not necessarily what it is supposed to be measuring), they most likely have extremely limited face validity.

has anyone else thought the same? I'd actually like to hear from True Delta on this.

[mkaresh]

The sample sizes are far and away the largest weakness of this research.

That said, the numbers seem to stabilize around 25 responses. The face validity is actually quite good--looking at the 92 results based on 25+ responses, very few seem inconsistent with the others, or with other reliability reports.

CR's minimum sample is 100, and JD Power's is 225. Since precision increases with the square root of the sample size, this equates to double and triple the precision of a sample of 25. With this data they attempt to go into far greater detail than I do. For what I'm currently reporting, my sample sizes are more adequate than theirs are for what they do.

But if anyone wants to help correct this problem, it's easy to do: join and participate. A few of my sample sizes are already over 100, and more will be getting there each quarter.