cloudy

iTrader: (3)

I think its bull to start a lawsuit as long as noone was hurt because of the problem... and as long as Nissan is takeing care to fix whatever cars have the problem (which they have been...) So this is just stupid lawyers like usual getting rich.

phile

Wow. THe problem is, NOT EVERYONE IS BEING TAKEN CARE OF! Have you not read the entire thread?

dh21187

You need to go to the dealer and get the TSB applied to your car for the fuel filler door. It's one of the few things they actually fixed on my car. What's even funnier is that it took them 10 days to do it.

bstfugtfomrfn

iTrader: (1)

+1
Out of the 2 sets of tires I've bought since being out of warranty.... both fronts were thrashed (despite having the most recent TSB #'s) after relitively low milage. Granted, it wasn't as bad as the first settings were, but then again, I lost all that handling (from being on rails, to driving a land yacht) after switching to the 2nd set of "fixed" alignment numbers.

Wait until some of you fellas are up around 60k like me, and then try telling your Nissan dealer that you would like them to take a look at your alignment because the 200 dollar Toyo's (not that I buy 200 dollar toyos) you bought are feathering and cupping.

They laugh in your face. When your car is 3 years old, and has 60k on it, the word "warranty" is a long lost word whose meaning is forgotten.

Dont get me wrong, I love my car, but this is one of those thorns im my side that I wish would get addressed by Nissan, permanitly. A class action lawsuit wont significantly help the class financially, but it is a tool with which the lawyers can also force nissan to remedy the problem.

As a lawyer, I understand the grief and bad press lawyers get (and I accept it), I just am saddened by the cynisism with the system itself. Sure the civil system is not perfect, but its not bad either. (notice i didnt address the criminal system)

~AJ

phile

I shudder to see what the world would be like without lawyers. I think people do no understand that. Instead they just repeat the same jargain they heard from all the other people who don't lik lawyers. Without lawyers, big corproations would take advantage of people even moreso than they already do. And with a cap on lawsuits, that just gives major corporations free liscense to do whatever they want to consumer products, effects of waste removal, etc. Would you like to live in that world?

btw, I noticed no one responded to my second to last post where I discussed that the costs are already passed onto the consumers. This board is funny sometimes. People are selective with what posts they look at, as to keep their own arguments in tact.

King Tut

iTrader: (1)

One question. In those 60,000 miles how many times did you have an alignment performed? You know most people always pay for their own alignments as that is not something covered under a standard 36,000 mile warranty. If you are truly worried about tire wear you should be having your wheels rebalanced and your alignment checked at least twice a year or around every 6,000 miles if you want to be real careful.

bstfugtfomrfn

iTrader: (1)

You're right. I have them checked more then that. I got a deal (same with some others around this board) for free life time (of tires) balance and alignment checks... I have actually been crunching numbers with the fellas on the SOLVE TIRE FEATHERING thread https://my350z.com/forum/maintenance-and-repair/92147-solve-tire-feathering.html in order to try to come to some type of resolution. So far, nothing.

~AJ

King Tut

iTrader: (1)

Yep. If there was a solution meaning the issue isn't totally inherent in the 350Z and tire selection, don't you think Nissan would gladly release a fix instead of paying $500 everytime someone wants their Shitenzas replaced for free. I'm just not sure there is a solution other than get different tires (which I don't think Nissan can do) and try and reduce the camber to near 0 while keeping the toe within spec.

phile

The sad thing about this is the settings that reduce tire feathering are also settings that make the Z handle worse.

Maybe changing all the major suspension components will eliminate feathering.

ncparamedic

iTrader: (49)

Ive got an 04 performance with a whole wopping 375 miles on it sitting in my garage at home..I didnt learn about all of these problems until after I bought it, however I love this car so much Im willing to fork out a few grand to upgrade the suspension and camber arms.. I hope this works..lol...

Qbrozen

Oh, hell, I'll give it a shot.

Yes, costs are already passed on. But there is a big difference between paying for costs to improve a product and paying costs to pay millions of bucks in lawyer fees.

Also, I like how you were selective with what you chose to give as examples for what lawyers do for the world. Yeah, its great when they can actually do some good. Unfortunately, that's a SMALL percentage of cases. Most are frivolous crap that does nothing but raise the cost of doing business just so the lawyers can get rich. yup, millions of dollars spent when some idiot doesn't realize that coffee is hot .... that's so helpful to the public.

phile

Although frivolous, that lawsuit was reduced to $160,000. The 81-year-old lady asked McDonalds to pay for her medical bills initally. McDonalds dismissed her settlement, which was only for $800. She had never filed suit previous to that incident. If McDonalds had not denied her claim, she would not have filed a lawsuit.

And I was not selective with my examples of "what lawyers do for the world". I merely stated what our system of government would be like without lawyers.

You misconstrued my arguement. Therefore you have no argument. Never once did I say that costs to improve a product were akin to costs in the form of lawyers fees. Let me explain:

In my original post where I discussed costs, I never made a claim that a lawsuit was the answer, nor did I make the claim that the costs of manufacturers factored in lawyers fees. I merely said that the costs of correcting cars' issues were already passed onto the consumer. The pricing structure of cars also takes into account future problems. It would probably be a part of their variable costs. I also said that "According to tort law it is a manufacturer defect. ALL of these problems are manufacturer defects, and manufacturers are ALWAYS responsible/liable for defects due to improper engineering." Nissan clearly made an engineering problem. They clearly will not rememdy the situation properly. One theory is that in order to fix the issue, the suspension setup needs to be changed. This r&d is a variable cost that Nissan should have factored into their pricing structure. Is that the consumers fault? No. How would you propose this situation be fixed?

PerfZ

iTrader: (3)

Point is I can live with the little things and I am not going back and forth to fix a minor problem like that unless I have other issues. I will get it taken care of eventually, but meanwhile I am *****ing to everyone I can think of at Nissan USA regarding the tires, because I think they are trying to get away with something that they HAVE to address.

Qbrozen

Well that makes it all OK then.

Regardless of what the settlement was, that is merely a part of what lawsuits like this example cost. Fact is, it should never have been a lawsuit in the first place.

You did? I must have missed that part. I thought we were talking about civil lawsuits against corporations, which has nothing to do with the government.

your original quote was constructed in such a way as to lead the reader to consider those cases that deal with "the environment" or "the big bad evil corporation taking advantage of the little guy." And, like I said, this is a SMALL percentage of cases. Most are completely useless, yet very costly, cases that do nothing but monopolize the court systems and cost every consumer a great deal of money.

I don't believe I misconstrued anything. I fully understand that costs are already passed on to the consumer. And, no, you never said lawyer fees are passed on. I'm the one saying this. Frivolous lawsuits (and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the tire feathering is frivolous. this discussion on lawyers has gone way beyond the scope of this particular thread) jack up the costs incurred by the manufacturers and, therefore, jack up the costs that must be passed on to the consumers.

What do I propose? I propose nothing. I can't and won't speak for anyone else. BUT, if you ask what I will do about it as it pertains to me and my car, I'll tell you. Yes, in an ideal world, Nissan would step up and fix this for us; however, barring that happening, I'm going to go right ahead and, if need be, pay $200 a year for new front tires. To me, its worth it to keep some lawyer from making a fortune in fees off of the problems I may have with my car.

phile

You brought up the McDonals lawsuit, I merely gave you the facts. Because you seemed misinformed like most everyone else on that issue.

And since you're accusing me of leading the reader to consider cases where the little guy gets squashed, why would you "lead the reader" to consider cases of frivolity, when the Nissan issue is clearly NOT a case of frivolity. You only keep from contradicting yourself my making the statement "I'm not saying the tire feathering is frivolous." How conveneint. So you can either recognize that my idea of a "world without lawyers" would be legitimate, in which case NO car company would ever make things right, or you can disagree and simply recognize that you have a hypocritical viewpoint.

By the way here was my quote: "I shudder to see what the world would be like without lawyers. I think people do no understand that. Instead they just repeat the same jargain they heard from all the other people who don't lik lawyers. Without lawyers, big corproations would take advantage of people even moreso than they already do. And with a cap on lawsuits, that just gives major corporations free liscense to do whatever they want to consumer products, effects of waste removal, etc. Would you like to live in that world?"

I was speaking in a general sense. If you read carefully you could understand that I was simply making commentary about the general bad attitude that people have towards lawers.

HAHA. Go take Intro business law. If a company imposes an environmental risk that causes cancer for example, the lawsuit would be a civil suit if brought about by a group or an individual, to recover damages. The suit would fall under tort law unless the company broke federal law. in which case, they would be sued by the particular state of perviously stated plaintiff/s, rather than the individual themselves.


What you say now, and the way you targeted the argument before, are different. Now you are not misconstruing anything. Before you were leading the reader to believe that I said lawyer fees were factored into a corporation's pricing structure. Stop flip flopping . Please don't make me interpret every line of your last two posts in order to show the inconsistency.

Good for you. You're going to pay for Nissan's engineering mistake. They already got roughly 25G's out of you, what's a little more, right? And you are going to pay all this money simply because you don't want a lawyer to get rich. How juvenile, how naive. They already are rich. There are alot of rich people, many of which are directly responsible for poor working conditions, environmental hazards, and the increasing gap between the Upper and lower class. Why is it ok to make those guys rich (which you most definitely already have; have you ever worn Nike shoes?), but it's not ok to make a lawyer rich. I would hate to live in your world, it would be impossible to NOT contradict myself. Our system is driven by capitalism. If you don't like it, move elsewhere!

ihatethatbobbarker

my tires dont feather, drifting and tracking and my front tires are still great, upgraded my wheels at around 16,000 miles and ive got the old ones in my garage with plenty of even tread ...
no fuel door problems, no window problems
granted im only about to hit 20,000, buy i still love my problem free Z.

Qbrozen

Actually, no, I didn't. I mentioned millions for hot coffee. It was merely symbolic in nature of a frivolous lawsuit, and nothing absolute or specific was intended (otherwise I would have mentioned MacDonalds).

Ummmm... I need an explanation of why agreeing with you that we need lawyers in this world goes hand-in-hand with stating that the tire-feathering issue is not frivolous. No, tire-feathering is not frivolous, but, No a world without lawyers would not be a bad place. How is that at all hypocritical?

Yes. Exactly. Thank you. Which is why our discussion of lawyers has nothing to do with the tire-feathering issue.

Umm... ok, i guess i wasn't connecting all the breadcrumbs... so you mentioned the environment and lawyers, then you mentioned how the government would be without lawyers, right? So, your point to why lawyers exist is so the government doesn't pollute? No, wait, we were talking about corporations ... ok, so lawyers exist to make the government force corporations not to pollute? Is that what you're going for?

I did? Well, I must apologize if you or anyone else thought I was putting words in your mouth. My original statement was "Yes, costs are already passed on. But there is a big difference between paying for costs to improve a product and paying costs to pay millions of bucks in lawyer fees."
I never said you said this. It was a statement being made by me. No trickery intended.

Ah, see, I think this is the problem ... you are trying to "interpret" what I'm saying rather than just read it.

No, I've never worn Nikes.

Again, how does 2+2=5?? So since I don't like what most lawyers do, I don't like capitalism? Geez, this must be that "interpreting" problem again, huh?

So what you are telling me is that since lawyers are already rich, I should have no problem helping them get more? Well, I wish I could throw my morals away so easily, unfortunately, I can't. There are many companies I personally boycott, and the reasons range from me not liking what they stand for to not liking the jingle they use in their commercials. Heck, I'm quite a fan of capitalism in this regard. I get to go somewhere else to spend my hard earned money when I don't like a particular place or corporation. Choice is a beautiful thing. And this is why I can choose to dislike lawyers while you can choose otherwise.

Yes, I have already paid quite a bit of money for the car, so why is it such a big deal that I pay for a bit of maintenance on it? In my estimation, I normally replace tires every 2 years anyway. If the feathering becomes an issue for me, it seems I'm be looking at once a year. All in all, over, let's say, 6 years, that will amount to maybe $600 extra in maintenance than normal. Yeah, ya know, I think I can suck that up.

I do have to say that I'm sorry you seem so personally offended by my views. Are you sure you aren't a lawyer? Cause this is really nothing personal against you. This is the way the system is currently set up. I find it unfortunate, but I'm not going to go out and hang all the lawyers. Those that are nothing but ambulance chasers are just taking advantage of a faulty system. If it gets them rich and if they can sleep at night, that's their perogative. And as far as those very select few that actually do some good in the world, I applaud them. Unfortunately, the other 99.9% give their whole group a bad name.

King Tut

iTrader: (1)

There are many others just like you, but they have no reason to come on this site and talk about the problems with thier car like most of the people joining the site. People seem to forget that the very vast majority of 350Z owners have never seen this site. Any polling of feathering or other issues is not going to be a true representation of the percentages of 350Zs with the problem.

phile

Do you think by being sarcastic and patronizing, that you have cleverly defaced my argument? If you followed the order of my posts, I made sense, I was logical, and things all tied together. Go reread everything if you must. I already did. And my aside about lawyers was partially off-topic, although this thread is relevant to the issue of frivolous/non frovolous civil suits. Many people go partially off-topic during a thread. I'm assuming you have never, for even one moment posted SLIGHTLY off-topic within a thread. Otherwise, why would you criticize me for it?

To tell you the truth, I wrote this post at the VERY last minute as I was on my way out the door. I hate neglecting a good argument, so I was actually late getting to my restaurant. I have no idea where I was going with that one particular statement.

Well I hope you see your contradiction here. Let me quote you: "your original quote was constructed in such a way as to lead the reader to consider those cases that deal with "the environment" or "the big bad evil corporation taking advantage of the little guy."

I believe you are also guilty of "interpreting" rather than just taking what I said for face value. You were the first to "interpret" my arguments, so I retaliated and found interpretations of my own. Here is another quote where you "interpret" : "Also, I like how you were selective with what you chose to give as examples for what lawyers do for the world. "

You assumed I was being "selective", when I was merely making a blanket statement about people's negative attitudes toward lawyers. I believe my previous examples soundly show that you chose to interpret my words, rather than take them at face value. This is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". Which means your argument on interpretation problems and misconceptions holds no water.


No, I did not say that since lawyers are already rich, that you should have no problem helping them get wealthier. It seems like you have an "interpretation" problem of your own. I was saying that I'm very sure that you have unknowingly supported many companies who have committed wrong upon society. I also understand the notion of freedom of choice, so please do not belittle me as you did in your last post.

I think that my previous assumption could be a dangerous one, considering you very well could carefully follow every single company you've ever bought something from. Nonetheless, I choose to assume that you have made a mistake here and there. Your contradiction lies in the fact that since you do not have the time to research every company of every purchase you've ever made, you have most definitely helped make immoral, unethical people and companies, rich. I believe it is contradictory in nature to be selective with whom it is okay to help get rich, and whom it is not ok to help get rich, given equal unethical circumstances. Notice I said "contradictory", which does not mean I do not understand the notion of choice. It is my opinion, that your previously stated positions are contradictory. Nothing more, nothing less. Do not read into it. Anyhow, my question for you is, if you have unknowingly helped make other companies rich, why worry about making a lawyer rich, especially when it benefits your fellow Z owners? In any other case, I could see you being leery of making lawyers rich, but we’re speaking on the 350z issue. You may not have experienced problems with your car, but many of us have. So, because you're so against aiding a lawyer in "getting rich", you condemn a lawsuit that could potentially help these neglected Z owners out?

By the way, I am not a lawyer, and I am not taking this personally. Nor am I part of this lawsuit. I'm playing devils advocate, because I partially disagree with your views. However, I do think there are alot of unethical lawyers out there that the world could do without. But I also think there are alot of terrible, unethical, and immoral people in general that the world could do without. Although i'm sure this lawsuit could have been more fair with regard to Nissan, I do think that the lawyers winning would be the lesser of two evils. There are a SIGNIFICANT amount of people who have alot of problems with their Z's. People who have been neglected. Just because I have not been totally neglected in particular, does not automatically mean I wouldn't support the idea of the suit. I am selling my Z to get an '05. I do not want to incur extra costs for tires that I do not have to. And it's only going to cost $800 to upgrade to the '05 Z I want, which also has an updated tranny and suspension.

Qbrozen

I never once said we should not be off topic or criticized you for being off topic. I merely stated that our discussion of lawyers is beyond the scope of the tire-feathering issue.

I was not making an argument about interpretation problems. Just pointing them out. And you want to point out what you think i misinterpreted ... that's fine, too.

Actually, you did. And I quote, "And you are going to pay all this money simply because you don't want a lawyer to get rich. How juvenile, how naive. They already are rich." I'm not sure how else to read that series of statements. Lawyers are already rich, so don't be so juvenile/naive by not giving them your business. Am I reading it wrong?

Belittle you? Now I know you are definitely taking this too personal, so I don't believe we should continue this discussion. But... ok ... one last point.

You answered your own question. I certainly can't do anything about something I know nothing about. I would not knowlingly want to do anything that was at odds with my morals/beliefs.

This is precisely where we differ in opinion. You are of the opinion that Z owners would get complete satisfaction from a lawsuit. I believe it is more likely that the lawyers would get all the benefit and the owners would get a coupon for an oil change.