Hi, Just wondering if anyone saw last week's watchdog program about BMW owners (what seems like mostly 3 series) suffering from crack/split alloy wheels? BMW claims the problem to be a combination of potholes and low profile tyres and refuses warranty claims on that basis. I was just wondering if anyone had this on the Zed?
BBC Watchdog - Split/Crack Rims on BMWs
- Thread starter GerryM
- Start date
lacroupade
Veteran
It doesn't surprise me at all frankly - I mean if you run 19s you have barely and inch and a half of rubber between you and a sharp-edged pothole at a great rate of knots. I wonder what the picture is like with our friends over the British Sea with their endless freeways? (Sorry, you guys still call it the Atlantic don't you?... :evil: )
Mate's had two new wheels on his 3 series. First time he blamed driving it for 2 days on a punctured runflat. The second time he asked the dealer if this was usual and they suggested -blamed his driving style! At the time he didn't know that this was a more common problem 
lacroupade
Veteran
Mikey said:
Who says they are ignorant of it? Its hardly their fault if someone drives them into a pothole is it? You might as well complain that the bonnet bends when you drive into a brick wall
, or that Ferrari's only have 2" of ground clearance :!: ....I refuse to believe that 19" wheels with ultra-thin section tyres have any benefit on the road whatsoever, quite the reverse as I think we can see...its just bling, not criticising it, its just a fact.
IMHO people just have to accept the consequences of fitting stuff to a roadcar that really belongs on a racetrack
UK roads are in an unforgiveable state . Its no wonder that big rims, low profile tyre combinations are going to suffer. The other point to make is that a carefull driver in a sports car is going to be more aware of these gaping holes in the road than joe public as they know they are a potential nightmare to there P&J.
. Its no wonder that big rims, low profile tyre combinations are going to suffer. The other point to make is that a carefull driver in a sports car is going to be more aware of these gaping holes in the road than joe public as they know they are a potential nightmare to there P&J.Dreamer said:UK roads are in an unforgiveable state
Small estates are a pain too...
Other weekend my dad drove his M3 with 19 inch wheels in a small estate and kerbed it on a high pavement...
Car was 10 days old...ouchhh!!
The pavement was alright tho :|
lacroupade
Veteran
Woots said:
I was trying to be tactful about it.....they've already had the snicky gearbox rubbed in their salty wounds LMFAO!
But being serious, was just looking on Classic Cars at a 1980s M635 fitted with high spec 17" wheels! Clearly good enough upgrade in those days with poorer tyre technology as well.....
The point is though that other manufacturers put fancy 19" wheels on their higher range motors and they don't seem to be suffering the damage that BMW alloys do.
Conclusion; either BMW wheels are poo possibly due to the run flats
or BMW drivers are poo and always steering their cars into potholes for the fun of it!
or could it be a combination of both?
Conclusion; either BMW wheels are poo possibly due to the run flats
or BMW drivers are poo and always steering their cars into potholes for the fun of it!
or could it be a combination of both?
Fou UK purchases......
Sale of Goods Act, Faulty Goods.
Relevant or Related Legislation:
Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.
Key Facts:
• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).
• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.
• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.
• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.
• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)
• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).
• A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.
• If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit
• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).
• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)
• After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.
The critical element here is FIT FOR PURPOSE. Whilst I have no detailed knowledge of the application of this legislation I am of the opinion that if BMW sell goods in the UK then they should be fit for UK use. If they fail in the UK when being used as designed there is a case for a claim AGAINST THE SELLER. Maybe there's a consumer lawyer out there who may comment further. Without taking proper legal advice I would not suggest you use the above to challenge your local dealer but it may be a good starting point.
Sale of Goods Act, Faulty Goods.
Relevant or Related Legislation:
Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.
Key Facts:
• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).
• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.
• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.
• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.
• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)
• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).
• A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.
• If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit
• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).
• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)
• After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.
The critical element here is FIT FOR PURPOSE. Whilst I have no detailed knowledge of the application of this legislation I am of the opinion that if BMW sell goods in the UK then they should be fit for UK use. If they fail in the UK when being used as designed there is a case for a claim AGAINST THE SELLER. Maybe there's a consumer lawyer out there who may comment further. Without taking proper legal advice I would not suggest you use the above to challenge your local dealer but it may be a good starting point.