If withing 18,000 or 18 months, if you have had your vehicle repaired 4 times for the same issue that you have the right under California Civil Code to have Nissan buy it back. I don't know about other states. It has to be requested through NNA and they gather sales and repair info from the dealership and send it to their arbitration unit for review.

If accepted they send the file to someone else who deals with figures and other stuff.

I have begun my process. We will see, if they will do it without an attorney. If so I will get an attorney to get it done for me.

I had the TSB done and the grease marks returned.
The dealership actually removed both the repair felt/foam and the original felt/foam in my door in order to correct the grease marks. Now I have no part their at all. They said it is for cosmetic purposes only. It was there for a reason and just don't want to find out what it is months or years from now when something else happens.

When I contacted NNA and told her how dissappointed I was with my 350Z her comment back to me was "no one ever expected this vehicle to have so many bugs in it."

I will keep everyone informed about the outcome. She said it should take about 2 weeks before anyone gets back to me.

 

Do you have other problems with your Z or are you asking for a buy-back only for the window grease problem

Silverstone Performance
Phoenix AZ

 

Yes I have other problems.

I now have cupping and feathering of my two front tires. I just don't feel I have the best product that Nissan is offering.

My main concern is that they completely removed the felt/foam that causes the grease marks. We have no idea what the ramifications will be without that part.

I just want a car that doesn't need to go into the service department 2 times a month.

I have it since December and I have had it in the shop 8 times for a total of 11 days.

I don't know if I will buy a 2004. I might wait to see if the bugs are worked out and consider buying it a year from now.

 

I have had the car in 3 times. Time before last they say that they replaces the pads and turned the rotors. The noise went away for 4 days. Yesterday they said that they wouldn't do anything else that it was the way I brake !?? This at 6,200 miles. Dealer contacted Nissan. They made the do nothing decision. Funny, my other cars didn't have this problem. Any suggestions ?

 

Im sure you are disappointed in the quality issues involved with the car. My Z has been out of service for over 50+ days and the car has now about 1300 miles on it. Yes thats right about 1300 miles. If you read my post, drivetrain noise with no resolve you will find my issue and problem involving Nissan. I wish I didnt have the problems because I like the way the car looks and drives. Each Lemon Law is different between states. If you are going to deal directly with Nissan Consumer affairs let me suggest to you that you proceed the legal route first and follow the required course of action pertaining to the Lemon Law. I tried to be reasonable and work with Nissan to resolve my problem. They started with yes yes yes, replacement vehicle no problem to NOTHING. If it requires formal paper, do it. Dont rely on what Consumer Affairs says on the phone. Good-Luck, Jim L

 

I kind of figured I was getting the normal BS. But I do have access to legal remedies.

First of all, I did a written demand citing the California Civil Code for lemon law.

Second of all, I work for attorneys that have dealt with lemon law issues. If I don't get satisfaction the Consumer Affairs, I have no problem with having my attorney get involved. They are not going to sweep me under the rug.

I had my last vehicle bought back from Ford because of lemon law issues. So I have done this before. I was just trying not to get my attorney involved. By the way when Ford bought back my car, they had to pay attorney's fees as well.

The status of my request is that on Monday, July 28 I made my request. I talk to my Consumer Affairs representative yesterday and she said she will be submitting a package to arbitration today. I will give it one or two more weeks then I will get my attorney involved. I don't think they want to pay out attorney's fees.

I certainly not assuming that it is going to happen without a fight. I willing to fight for what is legally right.

 

dthoman-

Has your car been to the dealership "a reasonable number of times" for the repair of issues that "substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the vehicle"? The real trick is the "substantially..." part. I will be interested to see how things progress for you.

IMHO, your situation is not as strong a case as many others on this forum. California's lemon law does seem to be a little more consumer friendly. People like Raceboy (Steve Kaufman) who are on there 3rd or 4th trannies have better cases.

JD

 

Yes, I agree with you there are bigger problems on this forum than mine.

But the law doesn't say "a reasonable number of times" it specifically says 4. The law doesn't say "for repair issues that 'substantially impairs the use, value or safety of the vehicle' it says for any repair.

I have a little bit of experience with this law.

I had an 2002 Ford Explorer with a A/C problems. It had a foul odor that would go away after 5 minutes of blowing the fan. They even went so far as to put on an aftermarket fan that would blow for a couple of minutes to get rid of any stagnet water. But I had it in for service 4 times and requested that Ford refund my money. By law they had no choice. I had an attorney write the letter. This time i am trying to do it on my own. If I get no response or the wrong response I will get that same attorney involve.

The California lemon law is not to be consumer friendly it is to protect people like Raceboy's rights. It just so happens to protect little problems, like mine as well.

I very interested to see how my request progresses as well. I will definately keep everyone informed. I am surely not holding my breath though. It seems that Nissan is a little harder to deal with than Ford.

 

I was quoting from the California Department of Consumer Affairs.

This PDF has the actual quotes I used, but does not refer to the specific section of code from which they were used.

Lemon Aid PDF

I also found more info from the DMV website.

Tanner Consumer Protection Act
"1793.22(b) It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been made to conform a new motor vehicle..."

The above excerpt is from the Civil Code on which the lemon law arbitration is based.

(b)(1) specifies that as few as 2 attempts is reasonable if the nonconformity "is likely to cause death or serious injury"
(b)(2) has the 4 or greater section for other nonconformities.

I had not read the above section of code, just the excerpt from the Lemon Aid document.

The nonconformity is defined later on in Section (e)(1) "Nonconformity" means a nonconformity which substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the new motor vehicle to the buyer or lessee.

California's laws appear to be very similar to Texas, except the mileage bit. We have the same verbage regarding reasonable and 'substantially impairs.'

It sounds like you have had good dealings with the arbitration before. Hopefully, it will go as smoothly without the lawyer.

JD