Hi,

Anyone know how much does a 2003.5 G35S 6MT with 2500 miles worth?

I owned one for 3 weeks and has rattles and squeaks and consider selling it. My wife is getting on my case as I wanted the G35 and she wanted BMW.

Anyone insterested in a "used" Black G35s 6MT in Souther CA? I had already take the depreciation hit for you. I even got extended warranty which is trasferable. As you see a post I posted about squeaky G35 It only has one minor squeak and one subwoffer rattle which with patient the dealer should fix all of it.

Thanks

 

Oops, Thought I clicked on Sedan forum. Sorry!

 

You are considering selling your brand new G....because of a few sqeaks and rattles.....that can easily be fixed at the dealership? What's really going on? People don't usually sell a 3 week old car and take a depreciation hit just because of a fixable squeak and rattle. Do you just want the beamer now or what?

Just wondering.

G35C 6MT BS/G/Nav/Prem/Aero

 

Hey Gster, there are TSB's out for the rattles, you can get them repaired for FREE at your local dealership, you will also get a FREE loaner car if the repair is expected to take longer than an hour.
Maybe your wife doesnt like the 6spd and wants an automatic transmission???

<font color=green>-Rambo</font color=green>
G35c 6MT DG/Willow

 

I have a 5speed Auto Black coupe and am going through the same exact problem. And i also have another problem with the windows. This is the second time going to the dealer for both problems. I am thinking about filing a complaint that the car was a LEMON, by law if a car has the same problem 3 times it is considered a lemon (defective), and you are eligable for a full refund.

I am in SoCal as well, if you want to go ahead and join forces to battle the problem, we can get together and talk about it. If I pull through, I would like to get the G35 6MT.


-Blk/Blk G35c

 

I'm not sure the detail of lemon law (any recommend link for reading will help). Doesn't lemon law require the same problem that can't be fix 3x under warranty? As for squeaks, If it happen at a different location does that consider the same problems?

 

Locations don't matter, only that it was dealer serviced. In fact, taking it to different dealers shows a willingness to get it remedied by other dealers which might utilize different theories on fixing the problem.

Basically, as long as it is warrantee serviced at an infiniti dealer and you KEEP YOUR RECEIPTS, then you should be ok under Lemon law. HOWEVER, check the lemon laws to see if non mechanical problems are covered. A squeek might not be justification to activate lemon law rights.

2003.5 - G35 6spd - Diamond Graphite/Graphite leather, prem, aero package/kit

 

is this a common thing now....Problems with the g's????What do you think causes so many of the problems....? Bad parts or what ????

 

another timely post, as i just picked my coupe back up today, after TWO days at the dealer... why did i take my car w/only 2K mi back to the dealer.... well, it was squeaking, rattling, creaking, and PISSING me off! they did do the TSB work on the rear deck lid & speaker grills, but that's only cuz during a test drive with a mechanic, he did hear noise from that area. since the test drive did not reveal any squeaks from the front console (which is the one that annoyed me the most) they would not do any work on it.

so after picking my car up tonight, what's the first GOD (*)(*^ thing i hear???? SQUEEEK SQUEEEK RATTLE from the center console......

 

man that's bs.. I'm tellin ya, If I go pick up my car tommorow and hear squeaks again or that damn window doesn't roll up properly, I'm going to hire a lemon law lawyer. I already think I might have a case since this is my second time coming in for both problems.


-Blk/Blk G35c

 

Well I couldn't handle it anymore, I just wrote a letter to Infiniti. I will wait to see what there response is. Basically, I told them that the car was obviously defective at the lot and that in an act of fairness, they should offer a brand new g35 for me. I think that it is the only solution since BOTH problems came back and not been solved yet, cars at the dealer.


-Blk/Blk G35c

 

Where did you send the letter to? I might write up one too just to put some pressure on them. I am scheduled to take the car in next Tuesday to fix the rattles, luck I was able to replicate it by playing some music. There's still that's squeak I can't find out how to consistently replicate it though. I am in the LongBeach area of S. CA by the way.

 

Sweet I am only an hour away in the Valley. I wrote a letter to Infiniti.com Consumer Affairs team (log on to infiniti.com, then go to contact us). I think I need to write one up to the District Manager as well.




-Blk/Blk G35c

 

for an update.. they still were not able to fix the problem and the window motor is on back order. They are thinking of taking one of a brand new coupe so I can get my car back.

However, I plan on going in there tommorow and going to try to compose a deal for the dealer. I want them to keep the car and give me a good value for it, and in turn, I will use that towards the purchase of a new 03' Silver 6MT. I think the hit will not be so bad (5-6k?) What do you guys think? I REALLLLLY want a manual.




-Blk/Blk G35c

 

California Lemon Law

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CA Civil Code Section 1793.22 (Tanner Consumer Protection Act)
1793.22.
This section shall be known and may be cited as the Tanner Consumer Protection Act.


It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been made to conform a new motor vehicle to the applicable express warranties if, within one year from delivery to the buyer or 12,000 miles on the odometer of the vehicle, whichever occurs first, either


the same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or its agents and the buyer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity or


the vehicle is out of service by reason of repair of nonconformities by the manufacturer or its agents for a cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days since delivery of the vehicle to the buyer. The 30-day limit shall be extended only if repairs cannot be performed due to conditions beyond the control of the manufacturer or its agents. The buyer shall be required to directly notify the manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (1) only if the manufacturer has clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the buyer, with the warranty or the owner's manual, the provisions of this section and that of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2, including the requirement that the buyer must notify the manufacturer directly pursuant to paragraph (1). This presumption shall be a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof, and it may be asserted by the buyer in any civil action, including an action in small claims court, or other formal or informal proceeding.


If a qualified third-party dispute resolution process exists, and the buyer receives timely notification in writing of the availability of that qualified third-party dispute resolution process with a description of its operation and effect, the presumption in subdivision (b) may not be asserted by the buyer until after the buyer has initially resorted to the qualified third-party dispute resolution process as required in subdivision (d). Notification of the availability of the qualified third-party dispute resolution process is not timely if the buyer suffers any prejudice resulting from any delay in giving the notification. If a qualified third-party dispute resolution process does not exist, or if the buyer is dissatisfied with that third-party decision, or if the manufacturer or its agent neglects to promptly fulfill the terms of the qualified third-party dispute resolution process decision after the decision is accepted by the buyer, the buyer may assert the presumption provided in subdivision (b) in an action to enforce the buyer's rights under subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2. The findings and decision of a qualified third-party dispute resolution process shall be admissible in evidence in the action without further foundation. Any period of limitation of actions under any federal or California laws with respect to any person shall be extended for a period equal to the number of days between the date a complaint is filed with a third-party dispute resolution process and the date of its decision or the date before which the manufacturer or its agent is required by the decision to fulfill its terms if the decision is accepted by the buyer, whichever occurs later.


"Nonconformity" means a nonconformity which substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the new motor vehicle to the buyer or lessee.


"New motor vehicle" means a new motor vehicle which is used or bought for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. "New motor vehicle" includes the chassis, chassis cab, and that portion of a motor home devoted to its propulsion, but does not include any portion designed, used, or maintained primarily for human habitation, a dealer-owned vehicle and a "demonstrator" or other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty but does not include a motorcycle or a motor vehicle which is not registered under the Vehicle Code because it is to be operated or used exclusively off the highways. A "demonstrator" is a vehicle assigned by a dealer for the purpose of demonstrating qualities and characteristics common to vehicles of the same or similar model and type.




Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall sell, either at wholesale or retail, lease, or transfer a motor vehicle transferred by a buyer or lessee to a manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2 or a similar statute of any other state, unless the nature of the nonconformity experienced by the original buyer or lessee is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the prospective buyer, lessee, or transferee, the nonconformity is corrected, and the manufacturer warrants to the new buyer, lessee, or transferee in writing for a period of one year that the motor vehicle is free of that nonconformity.


Except for the requirement that the nature of the nonconformity be disclosed to the transferee, paragraph (1) does not apply to the transfer of a motor vehicle to an educational institution if the purpose of the transfer is to make the motor vehicle available for use in automotive repair courses.


Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is a Federal Law that protects the buyer of any product which costs more than $25 and comes with an express written warranty. This law applies to any product that you buy that does not perform as it should.

The Magnuson-Moss statute gives consumers considerable rights in dealing with manufacturers of lemon cars. A car buyer is guaranteed that certain minimum requirements of warranties must be met, and provides for disclosure of warranties before purchase.

Regarding "lemon cars", this law greatly affects the rights of car buyers. ******For any product which has a written warranty if any part of the product, or the product itself is considered defective, the warrantor must permit the buyer the choice of either a refund or replacement of the product.******

We have argued successfully to juries that the lemon manufacturers should be ***given three attempts to fix the defect. Continued attempts to repair beyond the initial three should not be allowed. We call this the "three strikes and you're out" principle.

A consumer may pursue legal action in any court of general jurisdiction in the United States to enforce his rights under the Magnuson-Moss Law. Attorney's fees based on actual time spent will be covered if the consumer prevails.

Due to this particular condition, there is quite a bit of financial pressure on the manufacturer to settle consumer disputes before going to court, as this would keep their expenses down.

Uniform Commercial Code

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Uniform Commercial Code or UCC has been enacted in all 50 states and some of the territories of the United States. It is the primary source of law in all contracts dealing with the sale of products. The TARR refers to Tender, Acceptance, Rejection, Revocation and applies to different aspects of the consumer's "relationship" with the purchased goods.

TENDER-The tender provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code contained in Section 2-601 provide that the buyer is entitled to reject any goods that fail in any respect to conform to the contract. Unfortunately, new cars are often technically complex and their innermost workings are beyond the understanding of the average new car buyer. The buyer, therefore, does not know whether the goods are non-conforming.

ACCEPTANCE-The new car buyer accepts the goods believing and expecting that the manufacturer will repair any problem he has with the goods under the warranty.

REJECTION-The new car buyer may discover a problem with the vehicle within the first few miles of his purchase. This would allow the new car buyer to reject the goods. If the new car buyer discovers a defect in the car within a reasonable time of inspecting the vehicle, he may reject the vehicle. This period is not defined. On the one hand, the buyer must be given a reasonable time to inspect and that reasonable time to inspect will be held as an acceptance of the vehicle. The Courts will decide this reasonable time to inspect based on the knowledge and experience of the buyer, the difficulty in discovering the defect, and the opportunity to discover the defect.


The following is an example of a case of rejection: Mr. Zabriskie purchase a new 1966 Chevrolet Biscayne. After picking up the car on Friday evening, while en route to his home 2.5 miles away, and within 7/10ths of a mile from the dealership, the car stalled and stalled again within 15 feet. Thereafter, the car would only drive in low gear. The buyer rejected the vehicle and stopped payment on his check. The dealer contended that the buyer could not reject the car because he had driven it around the block and that was his reasonable opportunity to inspect. The New Jersey Court said;

To the layman, the complicated mechanisms of today's automobile are a
complete mystery. To have the automobile inspected by someone with
sufficient expertise to disassemble the vehicle in order the discover
latent defects before the contract is signed, is assuredly impossible
and highly impractical. Consequently, the first few miles of driving
become even more significant to the excited new car buyer. This is
the buyer's first reasonable opportunity to enjoy his new vehicle
to see if it conforms to what it was represented to be and whether he
is getting what he bargained for. How long the buyer may drive the
new car under the guise of inspection of new goods is not an issue in
the present case because 7/10th of a mile is clearly within the ambit
of a reasonable opportunity to inspect. Zabriskie Chevrolet, Inc.
v. Smith, 240 A. 2d 195(1968)


It is suggested that Courts will tend to excuse use by consumers if possible.

*******REVOCATION- What happens when the consumer has used the new car for a lengthy period of time? This is the typical lemon car case. The UCC provides that a buyer may revoke his acceptance of goods whose non-conformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to him when he has accepted the goods without discovery of a non-conformity because it was difficult to discover or if he was assured that non-conformities would be repaired. Of course, the average new car buyer does not learn of the non-conformity until hundreds of thousands of miles later. And because quality is job one, and manufacturers are competing on the basis of their warranties, the consumer is always assured that any non-comformities he does discover will be remedied.

*****What is a non-conformity substantially impairing the value of the vehicle?

****1.) A non-conformity may include a number of relatively minor defects whose cumulative total adds up to a substantial impairment. This is the "Shaken Faith" Doctrine first stated in the Zabrisikie case. "For a majority of people the purchase of a new car is a major investment, rationalized by the peace of mind that flows from its dependability and safety. Once their faith is shaken, the vehicle loses not only its real value in their eyes, but becomes an instrument whose integrity is substantially impaired and whose operation is fraught with apprehension".

******(Depending on your dealer's response) 2.) A substantial non-comformity may include a failure or refusal to repair the goods under the warranty. In Durfee v. Rod Baxter Imports, the Minnesota Court held that a Saab owner who was plagued by a series of annoying minor defects and stalling, which were never repaired after a number of attempts, could revoke, "if repairs are not successfully undertaken within a reasonable time", the consumer may elect to revoke.

Substantial Non-Conformity and Lemon Laws-As shown below, lemon laws often define what may be considered a substantial impairment. These definitions have been successfully used to flesh out the substantial impairment in the UCC.



2003.5 - G35 6spd - Diamond Graphite/Graphite leather, prem, aero package/kit <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by Balzac72 on 06/13/03 09:40 AM.</EM></FONT></P>