RE: BMW recalls 1.3 million 5 Series and 6 Series
Discussion
ncbbmw said:
I thin kyou missed my point.. I know the E60 has the battery in the boot, but the E61 has a different boot configuration..Cheers
T1berious said:
We all remember the Ford \ Firestone Fiasco, not sure if it's an industry "urban legend" but did they really decide it was cheaper to deal with the lawsuits rather than perform a recall?
T1b
Thr Ford Explorer/Firestone issue was in the 90's. You are thinking perhaps of the Pinto? Not an urban legend.....T1b
http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Pap...
Seems like one BMW didnt get their car checked up, lol
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/9613700.WALT...
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/9613700.WALT...
TVR1 said:
T1berious said:
We all remember the Ford \ Firestone Fiasco, not sure if it's an industry "urban legend" but did they really decide it was cheaper to deal with the lawsuits rather than perform a recall?
T1b
Thr Ford Explorer/Firestone issue was in the 90's. You are thinking perhaps of the Pinto? Not an urban legend.....T1b
http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Pap...
Schwartz paperIn a 1991 paper, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, for the Rutgers Law Review, Gary T. Schwartz[6] said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut.[22][23]
According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.
Schwartz's study said:
The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study).
The Pinto's fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was "commonplace at the time in American cars" (p. 1027).
The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037).
190251cars said:
Totally agree with Johnboy Mac,BMW get you into the dealership, car is checked over and you come out with a frighteningly long list of faults with your car.
Not to worry the car is likely to get nicked soon so there's not much point spending the money on it.http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...
mike325112 said:
BMW have to do this - its safety they would be taken to the cleaners otherwise.
Exactly - lot of people praising them for being pro-active.They did it because they sh*t themselves.
affects 1% of 1.3m cars = up to 13000 cars
imagine the PR disaster if so many cars were affected, and thats not even considering any worse situation happening in any of those cases/
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff