View Single Post
      10-30-2012, 08:00 PM   #2
jpwolfe31
Private
United_States
7
Rep
60
Posts

Drives: 2009 Z4 35i
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

iTrader: (0)

BMW Response to Complaint of Cracked Wheels

This was BMW’s initial response
________________________

MANUFACTURER RESPONSE FORM
(CALIFORNIA ARBITRATION POSITION STATEMENT)

Manufacturer's Position

Vehicle 2009 Z4

The request to replace the vehicle's rims (wheels) has been denied. The decision is based on the following: The vehicle’s file was reviewed via the BMW warranty history file that documents both warranty and maintenance work performed on the vehicle. BMW's service technical file which contains all service, technical and recall bulletins and notices. There are no related bulletins or notices.

The repair order from BMW Concord was reviewed. Documentation from this repair order stated that the cracks in the rims was verified by both the technician and the shop foreman and to determine the cause the wheels were mounted on the wheel balancer and rotated to check if there was any runout/distortion. This procedure is normal work shop practice to determine if the wheels had been impacted. They found that both wheels were bent and had lateral runout. In other words the rims were bent and were somewhat oval. A statement was made that both rims needed replacement and warranty would not cover cracks. The repair order also noted that the tire pressure were adjusted to the correct pressures and although this is law that every time a vehicle enters the work shop for any kind of service work, tire pressure have to be checked (this law stems from vehicle owners not keeping their vehicle’s tire pressure to a safe level to try to prevent accidents occurring because of blowouts) This vehicle had traveled 6,655 miles since it was last in a work shop. Low tire pressures reduce the protection level of a vehicle’s wheel rims when traveling over poor road surfaces.

Every manufacturer has instances of damaged wheels due to poorly maintained streets, roads and highways where road surface erosion has taken place causing ruts and especially potholes that cause vehicle’s rims to be bent while driving over them. To this point, most automobile insurance companies cover this as road hazard. Therefore it would be unreasonable for BMW to cover this damage caused by road hazard.

To conclude,
Damage to the rims was not caused by a defect in materials or workmanship and is therefore not a warranty matter. The damage is evidenced by the rims being bent from impact. From these impacts and bending, cracks have formed.

Participation is by “in writing”
_________________________


BMW elected not to come to the arbitration hearing. I was disappointed as I wanted to discuss this issue with them and felt like they were just blowing me off because they knew they would win. At that time, I did not have much trust in the BBB process because they are supported by business members, like BMW.
Appreciate 0