A&Q about 350Z
Q:
a friend of mine has a honda 2000. he drives very reasonably and has had to put tires on it every 15000 miles. the honda dealer assures him that it is totally normal with z rated tires and that everyone has to do it.
guess tire issues abound and the car industry keeps it very quiet.
may be a great story for the motoring press.
A:
I could live 15k miles without a problem.
My Z is on it's third set of front tires at 12,600 miles. The rears are starting to get a little wear. It must be that my VDC/TCS switch is being turned off some how?!
The car is so much more fun with that switch in the off postion!
-Zanioed '03 Le Mans Sunset Touring Coupe w/ Nav.
A:
Replacing the tires at 15k becuase thery are worn out and replacing them at 3.5k because they have shoulder cupping are not equivalent. I also have friend with an S2K. His fronts generally last longer than his rears. He is running Bridgestone S03's now and he has no sign of any irregular wear including heel and toe on the front or rear. He had no such symptoms on his last set either. He replaced them because the rears had worn down to the wear bars. Soft compund tires don't last very long. This is not a big revelation but that doesn't mean that they should wear irregularly. And, of course, he can't and doesn't rotate his tires. It's a shame that Nissan's campaign to set new lower standards for tire wear expectations are starting to pay off. At least in the public forums. Not in the legal system however. They lost in my case and they lost on the basis of the tire problem.
A:
mweber: can you explain more about your case? did you get your money back?
A:
The decision as it stand calls for a buyback by Nissan within 30 days of my acceptance and includes the cash price, fees, taxes, interest etc less the offset for use which is calculated by statutory formula. I did not accept it however as I have the option of getting NADA retail at the time of the deal for my trade in and this amounts to a $7500 difference in my case so I filed a request to correct the decision and I am waiting on it. The arbitrator may either make the requested adjustment or let the decision stand as written and then I can either accept it as is or go to the State arbitration process. I made a pretty good argument for the change though and my BBB rep was pretty encouraging. Nissan's certified program in FLorida states that if the arbitrator determines that the car is a lemon under FLorida Law, which she did in my case, then I am entitled to all remedies under Florida Law which includes receiving NADA for the trade. Either way, Nissan IS buying the car back and rightly so. I am sorry guys, and girls, but I think every single one is a lemon. Nissan still hasn't properly fixed the tire problem and they still have not produced an transmission that works. MY video clearly showed the car grinding in 2nd every time and almost every time in third and all the Nissan guy could say was that I had the latest transmission and it was fixed. So right now I am in a holding pattern pending the request to correct the decision. At least my miles for the last several weeks have been on Nissan. The clock stopped on that on the date of the hearing.
A:
Thanks for all of the information.
I had the same problem with my transmission until they replaced it. Now it is just really difficult to shift into some gears. When I first got it, it was perfectly smooth.
My main issue with the Z is the tire feathering. Had the tires replaced and then just 1 thousand miles later, the noise is back, twice as loud, but on the outer edges this time.
So, your case had nothing to do with the tires/suspension?
A:
No my case was based mostly on the tire problem. The transmision was also at issue but it didn't qualify for a lemon law case based on the number of repair attempts unless you count the number of times that Nissan told me there was nothing wrong with it which, as long as you get a work order, and they are required to give you one, does count. I have/had the same problem with the outer edges of the tires but I have it on both edges. I argued, among other things, that the toe adjustment merely evened out the cupping on both sides but didn't fix it. And based on the fact that I had cupping on the inside at 0mm/wheel and cupping on both sides at 1mm/wheel I argued that there was no possible toe adjustment that would result in no cupping and the toe adjustment was therefore not an acceptable fix. I also argued that 2mm total toe in with 0mm margin of error as Nissan now proposes represents an unacceptably small margin of error that neither Nissan or I could be expected to maintain. And, of course, I argued that if Nissan's dealers were not able to achieve the desired result then neither was Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan at the factory because they continued to ship the vehicles out of spec for over a year. The fact that NIssan redesigned the suspension in '04 and Bridgestone likewise redesigned the tire also helped. The Nissan rep actually introduced the info on the redesigned tire which only hurt his case. In terms of the lemon law it doesn't matter what the cause is as long as the problem exists. By introducing this evidence Nissan only proved that they have a problem and that they have redesigned the tire in an attempt to cover it up. Nissan argued, unsuccessfully, that this phenomenon was somehow different from that addressed in the TSB's because it wasn't covered under the existing Bulletins and that this condition was normal for any sports car, or any car for that matter. On the video that I presented you could also clearly hear the tires rumble upon breaking just like the TSB's describe.
A:
Thanks again for all of the info.
How did you prove that the suspension problem significantly imparied the value and/or safety of the vehicle?
A:
That's easy. The real value is adversly affected because cars with the redesigned tires and suspension will have a much higher value than the ones with the problems. Who would buy a used car with known defects? Obviously my preceived value is dimished as a result of the problems. Having a transmission that grinds and tires that howl obviously negatively affect the use and my perceived value. I also presented evidence, including an ad from a Nissan dealer, sugesting that cupped tires present a serious safety concern. In the end, I believe that the arbitrator concluded that I bought a high performance vehicle and, as such, there was some expectation of high performance from the parts that make it up including the suspension and the transmission. A grinding transmission and cupped tires are not indicative of a high performane car. Both of these problems result in low performance.
A:
Yeah, I said all of that, but they said I couldn't prove any of it.
A:
glad you got what you wanted!
2003 350Z LeMans Sunset Track with Nav
No mods