New 2009 2010 BMW Z4 - ZPOST - View Single Post

jpwolfe31 · 10-30-2012, 08:04 PM

Will this ever end?

_____________________

October 26, 2012

Vehicle: 2009 BMW Z4

Response to BMW’s comments on 10-25-12.

1. The vehicle was sold and has been driven in Northern California - not Southern California. BMW should know this.

2. BMW states that Z4s do not have a high rate of failure but provides no support for this statement. BMW also states that the Z4 forum members are inexperienced individuals. Many of these members actually have considerable auto knowledge and are quite thoughtful as evidenced by their posts. The forums have proven to be an invaluable resource to learn more about and diagnose problems with the Z4. In light of the cavalier dismissal of forum members and given BMW’s resources, it’s odd that BMW has not offered any “informed professional opinions” in its own submissions. Z4s actually do have a high rate of failure in their rear wheels (especially the 296 wheels). One commentator has stated there must be “millions of posts” on the site about cracks in the 296 wheels.

3. BMW does not dispute that the 296 wheels have been redesigned and refuses to provide any explanation for the change. The redesign with the added rim thickness can only be to make the wheel stronger. Instead, BMW goes off on a tangent with respect to an irrelevant tire pressure check in October 2011 - at least 8 months prior to the wheels cracking. BMW does not even state how low the tire pressure was. No cracks were found after a June 2012 wheel inspection performed shortly after we purchased the vehicle. The cracks had to develop sometime between June 2012 and August 2012. The cracks are therefore completely unrelated to any low tire pressure that BMW asserts was discovered the prior year. For this tire pressure check to be a consideration at all, BMW should be required to show some causal link, which they have not done here. On three other trips to the dealer in July and August 2012 (the relevant time frame), tire pressure was not indicated by BMW as being low.

4. The wheels should not “bend” or “crack” through normal use. For any bending or cracking to be excluded from BMW’s express warranty, it needs to rise to the level of “negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident.” BMW does not dispute its warranty obligations or the limited warranty exclusions.

5. “Cost limitations” should not excuse a manufacturer from escaping responsibility for a defective product and breach of warranty. This statement is unusual, especially coming from BMW. What could these cost limits be given the vehicle’s $65,000 msrp and the fact that an additional $1,200 was specifically allocated to the larger 19 inch wheels as an upgrade to the stock 18 inch wheels. Given the price of aluminum, BMW could double the amount of aluminum used in a wheel for less than $25.

6. The 296 wheels bend from minor normal road impacts which, over time, lead to cracking of the aluminum alloy. BMW does not refute this point. The 296 wheels need to be stronger to eliminate this initial bending that occurs through normal use of the vehicle. BMW in the UK concurs with this position and no longer views minor bending as evidence of an accident impact which would be excluded from warranty coverage.

Most importantly, BMW does not dispute that BMW has the burden of proof with respect to warranty claim exclusions.

7. BMW mischaracterizes the current BMW UK policy. As quoted by BMW UK in the UK article, the policy before the change was as follows:

"If the wheel is found to be deflected from a perfect circle by 0.3 mm or more this is evidence that an impact has taken place and this has been the cause of the cracks. In this case the customer would be responsible for the repair. If the wheel is deflected by less than 0.3 mm and yet is cracked, then it will be replaced under warranty.”

In sum, prior to the change, BMW UK stated if the wheel was deflected or “bent” by more than .3 mm, BMW would not replace the cracked wheel.

After the change, BMW UK’s policy was as follows: “BMW (UK) is now replacing cracked 19-inch alloys with run-flats unless there are clear visual indications of impact damage.” BMW UK is no longer testing for bent wheels nor are they using bent wheels as evidence of impact damage. BMW UK acknowledges that 19 inch wheels combined with hard sidewall run-flats (as is the case here) are prone to failure.

The wheel presented to the arbitrator for inspection showed no visual impact damage.

8. In sum:

(i) Wheels need to absorb normal road impacts as part of their day to day function.

(ii) A wheel that easily bends is just as defective as a wheel that easily cracks. In both cases, the wheel is simply not strong enough. BMW’s selection of run-flat tires and a high negative camber exacerbate these wheel failures.

(iii) BMW has redesigned replacement 296 rear wheels in an attempt to make them stronger.

(iv) BMW has offered no evidence of any negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident other than the failure of the wheel itself. Historically, when claims were made regarding bent or cracked wheels, dealerships looked for signs of impact on the tire and on the wheel itself near the point of any bend or crack. None of these impact signs exist on the wheels. The vehicle, which is quite low to the road, also shows no sign of any accident impact.

(v) BMW does not dispute that it has the burden of proof with respect to warranty claims. Wheel failure should be covered under warranty absent a showing by BMW that the cause of the failure was a result of one of the applicable warranty exclusions - namely negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident. BMW has not made this showing.

(vi) BMW in the UK has expressly rejected BMW’s position in the US and now covers bent or cracked wheels under warranty “absent any clear visual sign of impact damage.”

__________________

I think I have had my say now.

10-30-2012, 08:04 PM	#5
jpwolfe31 Private 7 Rep 60 Posts Drives: 2009 Z4 35i Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: San Francisco Bay Area iTrader: (0)	Our Follow-up Response Will this ever end? _____________________ October 26, 2012 Vehicle: 2009 BMW Z4 Response to BMW’s comments on 10-25-12. 1. The vehicle was sold and has been driven in Northern California - not Southern California. BMW should know this. 2. BMW states that Z4s do not have a high rate of failure but provides no support for this statement. BMW also states that the Z4 forum members are inexperienced individuals. Many of these members actually have considerable auto knowledge and are quite thoughtful as evidenced by their posts. The forums have proven to be an invaluable resource to learn more about and diagnose problems with the Z4. In light of the cavalier dismissal of forum members and given BMW’s resources, it’s odd that BMW has not offered any “informed professional opinions” in its own submissions. Z4s actually do have a high rate of failure in their rear wheels (especially the 296 wheels). One commentator has stated there must be “millions of posts” on the site about cracks in the 296 wheels. 3. BMW does not dispute that the 296 wheels have been redesigned and refuses to provide any explanation for the change. The redesign with the added rim thickness can only be to make the wheel stronger. Instead, BMW goes off on a tangent with respect to an irrelevant tire pressure check in October 2011 - at least 8 months prior to the wheels cracking. BMW does not even state how low the tire pressure was. No cracks were found after a June 2012 wheel inspection performed shortly after we purchased the vehicle. The cracks had to develop sometime between June 2012 and August 2012. The cracks are therefore completely unrelated to any low tire pressure that BMW asserts was discovered the prior year. For this tire pressure check to be a consideration at all, BMW should be required to show some causal link, which they have not done here. On three other trips to the dealer in July and August 2012 (the relevant time frame), tire pressure was not indicated by BMW as being low. 4. The wheels should not “bend” or “crack” through normal use. For any bending or cracking to be excluded from BMW’s express warranty, it needs to rise to the level of “negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident.” BMW does not dispute its warranty obligations or the limited warranty exclusions. 5. “Cost limitations” should not excuse a manufacturer from escaping responsibility for a defective product and breach of warranty. This statement is unusual, especially coming from BMW. What could these cost limits be given the vehicle’s $65,000 msrp and the fact that an additional $1,200 was specifically allocated to the larger 19 inch wheels as an upgrade to the stock 18 inch wheels. Given the price of aluminum, BMW could double the amount of aluminum used in a wheel for less than $25. 6. The 296 wheels bend from minor normal road impacts which, over time, lead to cracking of the aluminum alloy. BMW does not refute this point. The 296 wheels need to be stronger to eliminate this initial bending that occurs through normal use of the vehicle. BMW in the UK concurs with this position and no longer views minor bending as evidence of an accident impact which would be excluded from warranty coverage. Most importantly, BMW does not dispute that BMW has the burden of proof with respect to warranty claim exclusions. 7. BMW mischaracterizes the current BMW UK policy. As quoted by BMW UK in the UK article, the policy before the change was as follows: "If the wheel is found to be deflected from a perfect circle by 0.3 mm or more this is evidence that an impact has taken place and this has been the cause of the cracks. In this case the customer would be responsible for the repair. If the wheel is deflected by less than 0.3 mm and yet is cracked, then it will be replaced under warranty.” In sum, prior to the change, BMW UK stated if the wheel was deflected or “bent” by more than .3 mm, BMW would not replace the cracked wheel. After the change, BMW UK’s policy was as follows: “BMW (UK) is now replacing cracked 19-inch alloys with run-flats unless there are clear visual indications of impact damage.” BMW UK is no longer testing for bent wheels nor are they using bent wheels as evidence of impact damage. BMW UK acknowledges that 19 inch wheels combined with hard sidewall run-flats (as is the case here) are prone to failure. The wheel presented to the arbitrator for inspection showed no visual impact damage. 8. In sum: (i) Wheels need to absorb normal road impacts as part of their day to day function. (ii) A wheel that easily bends is just as defective as a wheel that easily cracks. In both cases, the wheel is simply not strong enough. BMW’s selection of run-flat tires and a high negative camber exacerbate these wheel failures. (iii) BMW has redesigned replacement 296 rear wheels in an attempt to make them stronger. (iv) BMW has offered no evidence of any negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident other than the failure of the wheel itself. Historically, when claims were made regarding bent or cracked wheels, dealerships looked for signs of impact on the tire and on the wheel itself near the point of any bend or crack. None of these impact signs exist on the wheels. The vehicle, which is quite low to the road, also shows no sign of any accident impact. (v) BMW does not dispute that it has the burden of proof with respect to warranty claims. Wheel failure should be covered under warranty absent a showing by BMW that the cause of the failure was a result of one of the applicable warranty exclusions - namely negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident. BMW has not made this showing. (vi) BMW in the UK has expressly rejected BMW’s position in the US and now covers bent or cracked wheels under warranty “absent any clear visual sign of impact damage.” __________________ I think I have had my say now.
	Appreciate 0 Quote