cavallino33

I thought the paint was pretty good. Then again my last car was a Subaru, and the paint they put on makes Nissans paint look indestructible.

LAKERSFAN

iTrader: (12)

i see a lot of recommendations on repainting the bumper and then having a clear bra installed. Only problem is that you have to wait at least a month to put a clear bra on after its been repainted.

Hell the first time i had it repainted, it was a few days and already had a few chips....... So are people just driving around without a bumper for a month to wait for the paint to cure and then applying a clear bra?

Or are people just going with an aftermarket bumper?

Black_Sunshine

Well, if you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd have seen this:

By "longer than average", I mean enough to get passed and get the stink-eye from people (even though I'm doing the same speed as the car ~200 ft. ahead of me )

You're right, this is hilarious. Many of you are far more worked up over this than I ever was, lol.

Black_Sunshine

That's my conundrum as well.

DaProdigy

iTrader: (33)

stop tailgating....

Black_Sunshine

*sigh*

https://my350z.com/forum/showpost.ph...0&postcount=63

DaProdigy

iTrader: (33)

yeah ok... well i guess im not one of those guys who reads 4 pages of people telling you how stupid this thread is or... debate on the quality of paint... and bottom line is... rock chips come from pebbles and sand particle and other **** in the street that come off the ground or that come off the beds of trucks.... they dont just "pop up" because of nissan's sh!tty paint... if it bothers you so much you shoulda got a clear bra... or been like one of these other old farts and strapped on a leather bra...

DaProdigy

iTrader: (33)

blah snickerdooldepoopercupofshutthafawkup........

Black_Sunshine

Please, don't breed. For the sake of humanity.

DaProdigy

iTrader: (33)

too late... me and your mother had an accident when the magnum broke... please tell her to stop calling...

Black_Sunshine

Wow, that was witty and original. Let me know when you can do better than elementary schoolyard insults.

SargentZ

I can attest. I had my car 15 miles and already had 2 pin-head size paint chips....they need to double up on the clear or something.

zdatsun

What a bummer. Guess I'm one of the old farts with the leather bra. Of course I won't fail to mention after going through the rock chip syndrome on my first bumper, this one after 35,000 additional miles doesn't have any knicks or scratches whatsoever or fade. I guess you could call it PEACE OF MIND. And to think I didn't pay at least 300 to 500 smacks for a clear bra and still complain about yellowing or peeling.........

sourcandy

you guys crack me up. You paid 30k for a sportscar that can walk just about any 50-60k car and you want to ***** about how the paint chips off the front of the car from rocks and road debris. Nissan isn't known for good paint, and hopefully that's not why you bought the car.

Your lawsuite idea... big flop. You would have to get nissan to admit they use subpar materials for paint. They will never do that. So you can't prove negligence.

abyss

ROFL nice 1st post. LOL@'the Z can walk just about any 50-60k car. were cars you raced driving in reverse?

Saccharine_High

First, this isn't intended as legal advice. If you really want to know, you ought to consult an attorney.

But, generally speaking:

(1) Under Contract: There's nothing here as Nissan has expressly disclaimed paint as being part of the warranty. I could go into the implied warranties, but just trust me -- it's unlikely that you'll get very far.

(2) Under Tort: to get recovery under most tort theories, it has to have caused injury. This is covered under the economic loss rule. The "economic loss" rule is a court-created doctrine which prohibits the extension of tort recovery for cases in which a product has damaged only itself and there is no personal injury or damage to other property and the losses or damages are economic in nature.

Since only the car's paint was damaged, no cause of action exists.

(3) From kind of a common sense/division of powers perspective -- if you allow this, you're basically creating a legal duty for manufacturers of all goods to adhere to a court-created standard.
That's just not the court's place to do -- if you want car manufacturers to be placed under a duty to use non-chipping paint, you'd have to write your legislator and pass a law.

(4) From a public policy perspective, can you imagine if you could sue everytime a product didn't work as well as you expected it to? A soft drink that didn't taste as good, clothes that lose color in the wash, cotton clothes that shrink when exposed to hot water, or even perfumes or colognes that degrade too quickly . . . the list will go on and on.

It is extremely unlikely that you could win on this complaint.

DavesZ#3

iTrader: (26)

Thanks Saccharine_High for putting a little reality check into this thread. Personally, I think he'd have a better chance with a class action for the Bose System.

HDPDZO6

LOL.

Black_Sunshine

Great post, thanks for that. I guess I just had certain expectations for the paint's durability, but I didn't think they were so unreasonable. I'll just be sure to keep this in mind next time I buy a car (not a Nissan).

Black_Sunshine