China’s car industry has really come a long way in both style and tech since its bumpy beginning. But how much progress have they actually made? Can you trust buying their cars instead of sticking with the well-known brands? We’re definitely seeing a shift happening all over the globe. For those who took a leap of faith on Chinese cars early on, keeping reliability in mind is huge. Big names from Japan, Korea, Europe, and the USA have raised the bar with their great track records.
But reliability isn’t the easiest thing to measure, since it often depends on how customers feel and whether they’re motivated to back a car maker or have high expectations that are hard to meet. So even though Chinese car makers are picking up a lot by collaborating with international brands, the big question is – can they earn the same level of trust and compete with the legendary reliability of brands like Toyota and Honda?
We’ve got another article where we compare Chinese cars to some European brands that aren’t exactly known for reliability, which you can check out here. For now, let’s take a broader look at the possibilities and challenges ahead. So hop in with us and feel free to send us an email with your thoughts!
Historical Challenges
Japanese companies have set the reliability standard by taking the time to do the things that others often overlook. They focus on steady improvements, strict quality checks, and rolling out new technology carefully. Toyota and Honda didn’t just luck into their long-lasting reputation. They built it using the dedicated production systems and small, thoughtful changes that prioritize tried-and-true parts instead of flashy new features. Consumer Reports’ Jake Fisher notes, Toyota tends to add features gradually rather than “all at once,” which cuts surprises for owners.
Korean car makers got the memo too. Back in the 1990s, Hyundai and Kia had some shaky quality issues (Hyundai’s early models were cheap but often ran into problems). After facing criticism, Hyundai kicked off a major effort to improve quality, even rolling out a 10-year/100,000-mile warranty in 1998 to show they were serious about durability. Over the next twenty years, Hyundai and Kia consistently worked on better engineering and quality control. By the mid-2010s, the results spoke for themselves: Kia topped J.D. Power’s Initial Quality Study in 2016, marking the first time a non-luxury brand ranked #1 in 27 years, This really underlines that building reliability isn’t a quick feat—it takes ongoing effort, feedback, and a company culture that values long-term quality over short-term pizzazz.”
Recent surveys show that things keep changing as more electric cars and software come into play, which can introduce new issues. But the trend still stands: having simpler designs, taking a slow approach with tech releases, keeping a tight grip on suppliers, and encouraging small improvements leads to fewer problems and better resale value. Recent reliability studies with a lot of data still put Japanese brands at the top, even with new competitors getting closer.
China’s Joint Venture Strategy
When China opened its market, Beijing made one thing crystal clear: foreign automakers had to team up with local partners to build cars onshore. That wasn’t just protectionism — it was a fast-track technology-transfer strategy. By forcing joint ventures, China accelerated learning across engineering, factory processes and supplier chains; foreign firms brought mass-production know-how, and Chinese partners absorbed it on the line and in R&D labs. The JV rule underpinned four decades of rapid capability building and only began to loosen in the late 2010s.
Which outsiders taught the most? Volkswagen was first through the door — SAIC-VW started in the 1980s and helped seed large-volume assembly and supply chains. American and German partners supplied mass-production methods and complex tech, but those lessons came with caveats: many European marques prized performance and advanced systems that, while cutting-edge, often traded off long-term simplicity — the same complexity that can dent reliability rankings.
Japan’s influence arrived later and proved different: Toyota and co. emphasized incremental improvement, supplier control and conservative tech rollouts — cultural habits that favor durability over flash. FAW-Toyota and similar ventures layered those practices into Chinese factories, but adopting a quality culture is harder than copying hardware; it takes years of process discipline and supplier governance.
The result? Chinese brands closed meaningful gaps fast — J.D. Power found the dependability gap in China narrowed to its smallest point since 2010 in its 2020 study — though problems tied to new EV software and design continue to reshape rankings. Early “copycat” efforts taught engineers quick lessons, but lasting reliability came from real manufacturing know-how and corporate patience, not reverse engineering.
On the left the Chery QQ which is a copycat of the Daewoo Matiz on the right. Back in the day Chinese car makers focused on mimicking foreign car designs before they started bringing in well-known designers to help create some cool original looks.
Chinese joint ventures didn’t just build cars — they built competence. Forced partnerships let local engineers work side-by-side with VW, GM, Toyota and others, accelerating know-how in stamping, paint, supply chains and platform engineering much faster than a home-grown ramp-up would have.
The result: companies such as SAIC, GAC and BAIC evolved from rough early products into far better-built cars with cleaner paint and tighter assembly tolerances — and by 2020 J.D. Power recorded the smallest dependability gap between domestic and international brands in a decade.
Still, borrowing hardware isn’t the same as mastering durability. True reliability demands disciplined testing, supplier governance, conservative design choices and long feedback loops — things that take years of shop-floor culture and R&D investment to embed. China’s OEMs have poured resources into R&D and rapid model cycles, and exports and overseas plants now prove they’re learning fast — but the deepest lessons (process discipline, supplier control, and cautious tech rollout) separate quick catch-ups from Toyota-level longevity.
The Reality Check
How do Chinese brands really hold up out there these days? We can look at owner feedback, reliability studies, and long-term testing for clues. The findings are kind of mixed: some of the newer Chinese cars do pretty well when it comes to initial quality, but overall long-term reliability isn’t quite there when you compare them to more established brands, with some noticeable issues popping up as time goes on.
The MG4 EV, a modern Chinese-made model (SAIC’s MG), has impressed on price and features but suffered reliability glitches. In a 2024 UK survey, the MG brand scored worst overall and the MG4 was rated the least reliable electric vehicle with just 63.8% reliability
Once again take MG for example. (now SAIC-owned) has traction in Europe thanks to cheap, feature-rich EVs — but owner surveys tell a different story on dependability. In What Car?’s 2024 reliability survey MG scored poorly (brand-level trouble and the MG4 rated 63.8/100), with many owners reporting recurring faults and slow repairs. That’s the kind of user pain that kills word-of-mouth.
It’s almost the same for other Chinese marques, early wins show up in first-year quality and features: JVs and heavy R&D spending pushed assembly and paint quality forward, and some makers now match or beat legacy players on initial checks. Yet long-term reliability still lags in places, especially where rushed software and complex electronics multiply failure modes. J.D. Power’s 2024 China Vehicle Dependability Study found industry problems rising to 190 problems per 100 vehicles as design-related issues climbed, underscoring the software/design growing pains.
Here’s a look at some notable Chinese car brands:
- Geely (which owns Volvo/Lynk & Co) is closing the gap: in J.D. Power’s 2022 China VDS Geely ranked near established joint-venture outfits on PP100 metrics — proof that global engineering partnerships pay off.
- BYD: strong on volume, integration and early-life satisfaction; but even BYD has faced high-profile recalls (steering control/steering-unit fixes and other actions), showing scale doesn’t eliminate every quality risk. Reuters+1
- Chery / Exeed: flashes of strong initial quality (J.D. Power IQS) but uneven dependability after a few years — classic symptom of fast design cycles without long feedback loops.
- Great Wall Motor (Haval): early export scandals (including asbestos-gasket recalls in Australia) dented reputation; the company has improved, but those episodes linger in buyer memory.
What this means for buyers
- If you want lowest risk over five-plus years, Toyota/Honda/Korean brands still lead on consistency; Chinese brands are worth considering for value and tech, but check long-term owner reports and warranty coverage.
- For EV shoppers: expect strong early performance from BYD and others, but treat battery/steering/electronics recalls as part of the landscape; long-term battery life and software durability data are still emerging.
Lessons from Proton’s Downfall
Proton’s rise—and the stumble that followed—is a compact case study in how making your own hardware can go very wrong. Early Proton cars (Saga, Wira) were basically rebadged Mitsubishis and benefited from decades-proven Japanese engineering, which helped Proton win buyers at home and even in the UK.
Trouble began when Proton tried to go solo. Its home-designed models and CamPro engines (Waja, Gen-2, Exora) suffered quality and durability problems that Mitsubishi’s designs avoided, and consumer confidence fell fast. By 2008 Proton publicly courted Mitsubishi again to stabilise product planning — an admission that in-house tech wasn’t yet up to the job.
Three tight lessons for any OEM chasing independence:
- Copying parts isn’t the same as mastering systems. You need supplier control, test rigs, and process discipline — not just CAD files.
- Rushing new engines/features is risky. Quick rollouts without long validation produce exactly the recurring faults that destroy reputation.
- Brand damage sticks. Once buyers label you unreliable, winning them back is brutal; Proton’s market share and image suffered for years.
Proton’s story also explains why savvy acquirers don’t rip out engineering teams overnight. Geely, for example, kept Volvo leading development on the CMA platform after the takeover — proof that building credibility means learning, not instant replacement.
The Korean Lesson
Hyundai and Kia offer a roadmap for how a scrappy car industry can flip its reputation. In the 1970s–80s they learned by partnering with Japanese firms (the Pony used Mitsubishi tech; early Kias leaned on Mazda), but cheap, rushed models like the Excel left them known for low price and low reliability through the 1980s. The turnaround began in the late 1990s: Hyundai’s bold 10-year/100k-mile warranty forced internal accountability, spurred quality investments, and attracted global talent. Two decades of process fixes, R&D and warranty-driven feedback turned the Koreans into credibility machines — by 2016 both brands topped J.D. Power’s Initial Quality Study.
That playbook is exactly what many Chinese OEMs are copying — only faster. Key lessons they’re borrowing: hire global engineers, pour resources into test labs and supplier control, use long warranties to build trust, and iterate model-by-model rather than betting everything on one rollout. Geely’s buy-and-learn approach with Volvo and BYD’s vertical integration are modern examples of applying those lessons.
But the hard truth remains: fixing perception takes more than one hit product. Korea’s rise was a long, consistent campaign of better manufacturing, conservative tech rollouts and relentless warranty feedback loops. China’s makers are catching up in initial quality and tech wow-factor, yet the marathon — consistent dependability across multiple generations and markets — is still the final test. Keep watching platforms and long-term owner data, not just first-year headlines.
Why Buyers Still Hesitate
Perception lags progress. Even as many Chinese models improved assembly and tech, a big chunk of buyers still treat them as short-term buys — cheap up front, useful under warranty, then sold before the headaches start. That behavior depresses resale values: used buyers price in uncertainty about long-term durability, so trade-ins and private-sale prices often sit well below comparable Toyotas or Hondas.
Warranties fuel the “drive it while it’s covered” playbook. Generous 5–7 year policies reduce risk for first owners, but they only work if the aftersales network and parts supply are solid. Long parts delays or sparse service centers (the complaint often leveled at some European MG dealers and early Chinese exports) turn warranty promises into frustration — long downtimes, lost confidence, repeat buyers gone. That’s a reputation killer.
History shows perception can flip: Hyundai and Kia were once shunned on resale but rebuilt trust through rock-solid warranties, dealer investment, and years of consistent product improvement. Chinese brands need the same three things — reliable repairs, visible long-term performance, and repeatable quality across models — to shift public thinking from “cheap, disposable” to “real contender.”
Can Chinese Achieve Toyota-Level Durability?
The real question isn’t whether Chinese automakers can build great cars — it’s whether they’ll choose to. EVs give them a clean slate: fewer moving parts, no multi-gear transmissions, and a chance to win on battery and software reliability rather than legacy engine know-how. That plays to strengths like vertical integration and rapid iteration. But hardware simplicity isn’t a magic ticket — battery chemistry, thermal management, and software durability are hard problems that show up after years and hundreds of thousands of miles.
The bigger risk is mindset. If a maker treats models as short-life, flash-forward products, they’ll reinforce the “cheap and disposable” label. To beat Toyota-level longevity you need the boring stuff: conservative rollouts, long validation cycles, supplier discipline and aftersales networks that actually fix things fast. Do that consistently across generations and perception — and resale — will follow.
Expect divergence in the next 5–10 years: some Chinese brands will convert early buzz into real durability, others will remain novelty acts. The race is on, and one Chinese brand that proves decade-long reliability would reset the global pecking order.
Feel free to take your time browsing, and don’t forget to bookmark our homepage for updates down the line!
- Best Car Interior Cleaning Kits: Make Your Cabin Look New
- Which XV70 Camry Year Should You Buy? A Tested Guide
- Magnetic Phone Mounts & Mounts for Thick Cases: That Actually Work!
- Best Wireless CarPlay Adapters for Older Cars
- Best Seat Gap Fillers for Leather Seats
- The Most Underrated Cars — Hidden Gems You Should Actually Consider
*Disclaimer: This website provides automotive content for informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the reliability or suitability of any vehicle or product mentioned—always conduct your own research before making purchasing decisions. Additionally, some links on this site are affiliate links, meaning we may earn a commission if you make a purchase, at no extra cost to you.