There's no such thing as completely problem free. However, when you look at most any modern evaluation of reliability or comparison of popular models, these days, the gripes and the areas where there are differences are typically in infotainment systems or other non-essential (to function) types of systems. If a particular model has more issues with, say, bluetooth pairing, or voice command recognition, evaluators are considering that a "reliability" issue. To me, that's silly, since it has no bearing on the vehicle's actual functional drivability. What that does underscore, however, is that those are things that remain for evaluators to quibble about. The take away from that is that most all modern production vehicles, which have all passed myriad validation test requirements, are all pretty damn dependable. Sure, there are niggling little issues here and there, but they are quire minor normally. And manufacturers are generally quite prompt at issuing recalls and such when things pop up. Sure, its more because they're required to by the gov't, rather than a sense of the right thing. But it still happens.
That's why it makes it pretty noteworthy when a manufacturer actually has repeat, established mechanical issues. A company like Subaru is quite a bit different than GM or Toyota in terms of scale and available resources. So, maybe they don't have the engineers to throw at a repeat problem, or it takes more time to deep-dive into a long-term issue. Or maybe they don't have the personel to support more elaborate testing in the first place. Its hard to say. But there is definitely a repeat pattern in several of the issues that they've had over the years. Its such that I would be reluctant to trust them myself. Toyota can simply throw a lot of resources at a problem, lean hard on their suppliers (who, in Japan, treat Toyota as God, essentially), and spend the money on getting to the bottom of things. OTOH, Toyota also has some of the most stringent, severe test requirements in the industry. To that end, they are probably the most over-engineered in the business, but that means that their products can enjoy incredible reliability and long life. I suspect Honda is close, though I've never worked with them. Ford and GM also have fairly severe requirements in testing, but not like Toyota. But they're still pretty well tested.
With regards to innovation and trends, they walk a balance between customers demanding features, tech, advancements, federal regulations putting strict guidelines on what can be done, and (of course) their shareholders demanding maximized profits. That makes for a difficult environment. Ultimately, though, you don't profit if you don't sell cars. And you don't sell cars if they don't meet federal regulations. But even then, you don't sell cars if you don't build what the customer wants. And even if you do, if the other guy does it better - or has an touchscreen system that works better - you still don't sell. So, it all trickles down from the customer demands, but there's a lot of variation in how that's perceived and how its implemented. Right now, it seems that customers are mostly preferring cars with higher seating positions, AWD availability and useful cargo room - but they want car-like ride, performance and economy. That's they're favoring CUVs. These things are essentially the same as the old station wagons that these customers hate, just taller with an AWD option. But they don't realize that...