Mismatched tyres from BMW
Discussion
Hashtaggggg said:
RJWR said:
Hello all,
So today BMW have replaced both rear tyres with a new set of Bridgestone Potenza S001 RFT. They have apologised and started an internal investigation into how they can sell a car with mismatched tyres, as well as non runflat and runflat.
The issues were not just the speed rating, they were concerned about the tyres not being BMW approved and not informing me, not run flats and not informing me and the fact the speed rating was not appropriate for the car.
According to Sytner, the car should not have passed through their PDI without someone picking up on the tyres. The fact they ordered and supplied the new set is being looked into.
Anyway, those of you buying a car from BMW on the AUC programme, make sure you look at the rubber in detail before leaving.
Good result, and the correct one!So today BMW have replaced both rear tyres with a new set of Bridgestone Potenza S001 RFT. They have apologised and started an internal investigation into how they can sell a car with mismatched tyres, as well as non runflat and runflat.
The issues were not just the speed rating, they were concerned about the tyres not being BMW approved and not informing me, not run flats and not informing me and the fact the speed rating was not appropriate for the car.
According to Sytner, the car should not have passed through their PDI without someone picking up on the tyres. The fact they ordered and supplied the new set is being looked into.
Anyway, those of you buying a car from BMW on the AUC programme, make sure you look at the rubber in detail before leaving.
Chucking on budget non RFTs on the back when the front had RFTs is a bit naughty.
Driver101 said:
AUC gets away with murder as people like yourself are too trusting. This forum is a car forum where people are more knowledgeable than your average car buyer. Read this forum for how many people have still been caught out by AUC schemes.
Don't trust the AUC is selling you a better car. It'll have faults, it'll have accident repairs, it'll have cheap fixes and unfixed damage. Loads will have cheap tyres and a mechanic who has been economical with the truth when checking things brake wear. It might also previously been a complete write off and they failed to notice.
Which is a shame as it's marketed as a premium service (million point check list, warranty etc) to give the impression that the cars would be of a higher standard than bought from elsewhere. I don't blame buyers for having this belief re a BMW (or other manufacturer) AUC.Don't trust the AUC is selling you a better car. It'll have faults, it'll have accident repairs, it'll have cheap fixes and unfixed damage. Loads will have cheap tyres and a mechanic who has been economical with the truth when checking things brake wear. It might also previously been a complete write off and they failed to notice.
smashy said:
........Well I must start getting anal.Dont be too shocked some people just live their life. A few miles in the tyre pressure guage come on. .....I must get more like my sad manager I worked for everything written down and doublechecked with his stupid monotonous voice.
Anal for checking your tyres? Edited by smashy on Tuesday 6th April 17:56
I think what you call living their life is what I call laziness. It's a driver's duty to make sure their car is roadworthy, yet so many cars turn up for their MOT with lethal tyres fitted and need everything pointed out to them. They shouldn't be trusted with a driving licence.
Edited by Driver101 on Tuesday 6th April 18:43
Let's be clear here folks, the issue isn't checking tyres. I was aware of the brand, not an issue. It is however an issue for BMW. It's against their terms and conditions of the AUC programme. Despite what others have tried to highlight, it's a real issue and they aren't happy it has happened.
Thanks to the tyre fitter who pointed this out. Without it, I'd have done nothing and carried on untill the rubber needed replacing.
Thanks to the tyre fitter who pointed this out. Without it, I'd have done nothing and carried on untill the rubber needed replacing.
Driver101 said:
Anal for checking your tyres?
I think what you call living their life is what I call laziness. It's a driver's duty to make sure their car is roadworthy, yet so many cars turn up for their MOT with lethal tyres fitted and need everything pointed out to them. They shouldn't be trusted with a driving licence.
So glad I never knocked on your door when I was 16 cleaning cars,you would have spent half an hour with your clipboard.I think what you call living their life is what I call laziness. It's a driver's duty to make sure their car is roadworthy, yet so many cars turn up for their MOT with lethal tyres fitted and need everything pointed out to them. They shouldn't be trusted with a driving licence.
Edited by Driver101 on Tuesday 6th April 18:43
RJWR said:
Let's be clear here folks, the issue isn't checking tyres. I was aware of the brand, not an issue. It is however an issue for BMW. It's against their terms and conditions of the AUC programme. Despite what others have tried to highlight, it's a real issue and they aren't happy it has happened.
Thanks to the tyre fitter who pointed this out. Without it, I'd have done nothing and carried on untill the rubber needed replacing.
FWIW my dad bought an AUC Jag XF c. 5 years ago which was one year old with 15k miles. After one year / 2000 miles it needed four new tyres per the MOT so he duly replaced all of them for Jag recommended premium tyres at that same dealership. Thanks to the tyre fitter who pointed this out. Without it, I'd have done nothing and carried on untill the rubber needed replacing.
Two years and 4000 miles later, fail MOT on two tyres which had (apparently) fully worn out. All servicing and MOTs done at the Jag main dealer where he bought the car including the original tyres replacement two years ago.
He showed the garage all invoices of the work done by them including the original tyre replacement after one year of ownership, and they checked their records and confirmed that whilst the tyres they fitted were safe, they had one incorrect dimension on the rating which was causing the excessive wear and so duly replaced all four tyres FOC. Something like fitting a sports one to a SE or similar. Not unsafe however clearly not ideal.
Jag replaced all tyres after verifying their mistake and he was happy with new free tyres but I guess it goes to show that mistakes do happen. At least in the case of Jag and in this case BMW, they do make things right.
smashy said:
Driver101 said:
Anal for checking your tyres?
I think what you call living their life is what I call laziness. It's a driver's duty to make sure their car is roadworthy, yet so many cars turn up for their MOT with lethal tyres fitted and need everything pointed out to them. They shouldn't be trusted with a driving licence.
So glad I never knocked on your door when I was 16 cleaning cars,you would have spent half an hour with your clipboard.I think what you call living their life is what I call laziness. It's a driver's duty to make sure their car is roadworthy, yet so many cars turn up for their MOT with lethal tyres fitted and need everything pointed out to them. They shouldn't be trusted with a driving licence.
Edited by Driver101 on Tuesday 6th April 18:43
I'm astounded that you're on a car forum and admit that the most basic required car maintenance is beyond you. It's even most concerning the garbage you've posted to defend that.
Have a good night.
When we bought my wife's 1 year old Clio from a main dealer my usual walk around revealed 3 Goodyear tyres and one cheap Chinese tyre that was also the wrong size. The MD came out of his office to apologise, gave us a demo car to use until the new car was delivered to us the next daywith a matching Goodyear tyre and we also received a voucher for a few service.
Good recovery but rather dented our confidence in their '100 point check'.
Good recovery but rather dented our confidence in their '100 point check'.
320d is all you need said:
AUC or not I still inspect the car to my own satisfaction, AUC means nothing if you understand it, BMW/Audi/VW - Then again, I'm very unlikely to buy from a dealer 
Why not? When I buy AUC, I check the car as thoroughly as if it was privately sold. Being AUC doesn't mean much but doesn't necessarily mean the car is a lemon either. The dealer have admitted their lack of compliance with AUC. The RFT/non RFT mis-match at least was always going to result in that outcome, despite your initial defence of the dealer.
320d is all you need said:
What's your point? I wasn't defending the dealer. I was simply saying it seems dishonest to go through this process now 4-5 months down the line rather than within a few weeks of purchasing.
How many miles has OP driven in that period?
Irrelevant to the dealer it would seem as they have replaced the tyres. You suggested that the OP does that at his own cost. How many miles has OP driven in that period?
320d is all you need said:
What's your point? I wasn't defending the dealer. I was simply saying it seems dishonest to go through this process now 4-5 months down the line rather than within a few weeks of purchasing.
How many miles has OP driven in that period?
Interesting view point and typical of both a keyboard warrior and troll. But I like feeding you so here you go: How many miles has OP driven in that period?
7500 miles.
RJWR said:
Hello all,
So today BMW have replaced both rear tyres with a new set of Bridgestone Potenza S001 RFT. They have apologised and started an internal investigation into how they can sell a car with mismatched tyres, as well as non runflat and runflat.
The issues were not just the speed rating, they were concerned about the tyres not being BMW approved and not informing me, not run flats and not informing me and the fact the speed rating was not appropriate for the car.
According to Sytner, the car should not have passed through their PDI without someone picking up on the tyres. The fact they ordered and supplied the new set is being looked into.
Anyway, those of you buying a car from BMW on the AUC programme, make sure you look at the rubber in detail before leaving.
Absolutely the correct result and well done for ignoring the trolls. Whoever heard of run flats and non-RF mixed - ridiculous!So today BMW have replaced both rear tyres with a new set of Bridgestone Potenza S001 RFT. They have apologised and started an internal investigation into how they can sell a car with mismatched tyres, as well as non runflat and runflat.
The issues were not just the speed rating, they were concerned about the tyres not being BMW approved and not informing me, not run flats and not informing me and the fact the speed rating was not appropriate for the car.
According to Sytner, the car should not have passed through their PDI without someone picking up on the tyres. The fact they ordered and supplied the new set is being looked into.
Anyway, those of you buying a car from BMW on the AUC programme, make sure you look at the rubber in detail before leaving.
Anyway... one question... I assume the car is under three years old as the original warranty requires "approved" tyres (BMW * marked). After three years your dealer may tell you it's wise to fit approved tyres but their extended warranty allows any brand of correct spec tyres to be fitted. Maybe the car is over three years but Sytner were so embarrassed they fitted premium approved tyres anyhow?
My cars are with Sytner - I've found them very accomodating IF you push them a little. Waived excess on £10k+ warranty claim; paid for two new PZero tyres when they couldn't supply matching P7s (this OE tyre had been discontinued).
Apologies if this has been covered...
The car is under a finance agreement, yes? If you are considering a FOS complaint, have you spoken with the finance company first?
Do a Google "car credit agreement faults" - here's an example regarding rejecting a car: https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/rejecting-a-car/2/
Good luck with it.
The car is under a finance agreement, yes? If you are considering a FOS complaint, have you spoken with the finance company first?
Do a Google "car credit agreement faults" - here's an example regarding rejecting a car: https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/rejecting-a-car/2/
Good luck with it.
DJMC said:
Absolutely the correct result and well done for ignoring the trolls. Whoever heard of run flats and non-RF mixed - ridiculous!
Anyway... one question... I assume the car is under three years old as the original warranty requires "approved" tyres (BMW * marked). After three years your dealer may tell you it's wise to fit approved tyres but their extended warranty allows any brand of correct spec tyres to be fitted. Maybe the car is over three years but Sytner were so embarrassed they fitted premium approved tyres anyhow?
My cars are with Sytner - I've found them very accomodating IF you push them a little. Waived excess on £10k+ warranty claim; paid for two new PZero tyres when they couldn't supply matching P7s (this OE tyre had been discontinued).
Its a 2015 BMW. It's not about the approved tyres, its the fact they failed to tell me:Anyway... one question... I assume the car is under three years old as the original warranty requires "approved" tyres (BMW * marked). After three years your dealer may tell you it's wise to fit approved tyres but their extended warranty allows any brand of correct spec tyres to be fitted. Maybe the car is over three years but Sytner were so embarrassed they fitted premium approved tyres anyhow?
My cars are with Sytner - I've found them very accomodating IF you push them a little. Waived excess on £10k+ warranty claim; paid for two new PZero tyres when they couldn't supply matching P7s (this OE tyre had been discontinued).
- the car did not have run flats
- the car had run flats on front, non run flats on rear
- they changed the rear tyres for the farroad's
- they fitted an incorrect speed rating and subsequently sold a car with the incorrect speed rating.
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff