Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Nissan Maxima

1383384386388389435

Comments

  • kennyg5kennyg5 Posts: 360
    I also have a 4th gen Max and did receive, a long time ago, from Nissan a "campaign" (not a recall) notice stating problems with the SES light. Since I never had a problem with the light, I ignored it, reasoning that why fix if it was not broken.

    The same thing with my 5th gen Max. I did nothing although I recently received a notice from Nissan about the SES light.

    I wonder why Nissan can't seem to fix this long-term (though non-existent for me -- knock on wood) problem.

    Mike, is your Max a certified pre-owned? If yes (which I doubt because it is over 6 years old), Nissan or the dealer should fix it for free. Anyway, check your limited warranty or your rights under state law if the warranty is silent.
  • mikef208mikef208 Posts: 69
    It is not certified, but I did get a 4 year 48,000 miles warranty when i bought it. What exactly are you saying you think is wrong? It sounds like your saying they just seem to ahve a problem with the light coming on for no reason, is that it? How do they fix it? The warranty i got covers pretty much everything, but not sure what exactly that is.
  • kennyg5kennyg5 Posts: 360
    I think they replace the defective sensor with a new one and that should take care of the problem. I am not 100% sure because I never have the problem. You definitely should take your car back to the dealer if this problem resurfaces. They should fix it free because it should be one of the most basic items covered by the warranty, even if it is only a limited warranty.
  • mikef208mikef208 Posts: 69
    Yeah i think i will find a good mechanic to take it too, since I also need to get it alligned and the oil changed.

    Speaking of which, I'm sure this has been asked many times before, but should I keep using standard oil or should I go with synthetic?
  • dklaneckydklanecky Posts: 559
    Here's a link to a site that has more TSB's listed for Maxima's than any other I've ever seen.

    http://maxima.theowensfamily.com/tsb/index.asp?year=1997&tsb=- none
  • rampedramped Posts: 358
    the dino vs. synthetic oil war has raged forever on boards here.

    For my 2 cents, I say stick with what is already in the car. As long as you change the oil every 5,000 miles or so, the VQ engine runs fine on dino and lasts longer than you will probably want to keep the car.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Some of you have been interested in - and affected by - the Maxima headlights' attraction to thieves. You might be interested in reading this article:

    New Jersey authorities sued Nissan North America Inc. on Monday, alleging the automaker failed to warn customers that the super-bright headlights on its Maximas were hot targets for thieves.

    http://wcbs880.com/topstories/wcbskyw_story_068140906.html
  • lichtronimolichtronimo Posts: 212
    now have to sell Camry and Accords with disclaimers that these are the most stolen vehicles? How absurd.
  • bowke28bowke28 Posts: 2,185
    idiotic.

    i guess the U.S. mint should put a disclaimer on cash....
  • mikef208mikef208 Posts: 69
    Anybody ever removed the drivers side door panel on thier maxima. There is something metallic rattling in mine and I want it to stop before i go insane with rage. Well maybe not that bad, but its somewhat annoying.
  • kennyg5kennyg5 Posts: 360
    Perhaps it is easy for those who don't own 02-03 Maximas to dismiss the gravity of the lawsuit against Nissan. Put yourself in the position of those anguish owners not knowing when their HIDs could get stolen (again) and the time and money it would cost to get their cars fixed.

    It would have costed Nissan no more than $100 to put stronger brackets around the HIDs to make them more secure, and I am quite certain that all Max owners would have been willing to spend the extra $100 and enjoy those bright xenons. Nissan was pennywise and pound foolish in cheapening on the HID design, and now it has to bear the wrath of the angry owners and the state that is trying to enforce consumer protection laws.

    Giving Nissan the benefit of doubt that it did not know about the ease of theft of the HIDs when it designed these headlights, but once it knew about the problem, it should have taken immediate remedial action. The fact that it took Nissan more than a year, while profiting from the sale of replacement HIDs, could be the straw that broke the camel's back.

    It is better to fess up about a mistake early when caught than to deny the mistake and try to evade responsibility. We all witness this in the recent ImClone stock sale saga and the not too distant past Monica Lewinsky saga. History has a way of repeating itself.
  • lichtronimolichtronimo Posts: 212
    for someone illegally removing parts from someone's private property? These headlights are no different than removing MB or Cadillac ornaments or steeling wheels/tires.

    I agree from a customer relations standpoint that whatever Nissan could do to secure the part would be in their favor. But, legal liability? No.
  • bowke28bowke28 Posts: 2,185
    ive got to agree with lichtronimo on this one. should you sue cadillac or mercedes because their emblems cost $250? what about suing microsoft because a virus can get into windows? i know! lets sue edmunds because i couldnt negotiate all the way down to TMV! edmunds should pay the difference! (kidding, hosts) ;-)

    my point is this...

    frivolous lawsuits like this only hurt the people that work for the company and their consumers. temporary relief for those who lost $500 or so is nice, but if nissan has to pay alot of money, who do you think ends up with the burden?

    "...I am quite certain that all Max owners would have been willing to spend the extra $100..."

    well, at least you got part of that right. do i want to pay more money because someone parked in a bad neighborhood? didnt lock their doors? (remember, to get the lighs out, you have to open the hood first.) no. sorry, but not my problem.
  • andmoonandmoon Posts: 320
    Nissan installed a 'protection' kit consisting of etching and a reinforcement bar I can't see anywhere and stickers (I can see) warning of the enhanced protection.
  • kennyg5kennyg5 Posts: 360
    I am quite confident that the NJ attorney general must have performed its legal research before commencing the suit against Nissan. So, it is highly unlikely that the suit is without any merit or, in Bowke's words, "frivolous."

    To compare the theft of HIDs to car emblems is a comparison of apples and oranges. One must compare the ease of theft of HIDs designed and made by the various car manufacturers in order to make a reasoned judgment as to whether the ones made by Nissan (in the Maximas) are on par with industry standards. If not, and if Nissan knew or should have known about the (alleged) defective design, Nissan is liable even though there are intervening events (i.e. HID thefts by scumbags). Then, it becomes a matter of foreseeability as to how likely thefts will occur due to the design.

    I don't believe (and refuse to accept)that Nissan purposely designed defective HIDs in order to profit from sale of replacement HIDs. Thus, any judgment against Nissan should not contain punitive damages. However, if Nissan is negligent in the design, the laws of product liability will come into play.

    I despise lawsuits that are frivolous (such as blaming McDonalds for ones obesity when one chows down tons of burgers and fries daily), but I am an advocate of consumer protection laws. Manufacturers should make safe and reliable products, and consumers should not be put at risk because the company wants to cut corners.

    The market will weed out weak performers and incompetent companies. I hope and pray that Nissan is not one of them because I have been a Nissan fan (the Max in particular) for more than 12 years!!
  • lichtronimolichtronimo Posts: 212
    Did the headlight regularly fall out of the car in regular use? No? Then how was Nissan negligent?
  • kennyg5kennyg5 Posts: 360
    HIDs don't have to fall out of the car to qualify for negligent design. Among other things, failure to meet reasonable industry norms or standards in the design of HIDs to deter thefts may qualify. For example, if other manufacturers use sturdy steel brackets and you use flimsy plastic ones in order to cut corners, and as a result, your HIDs are more prone to theft, you are negligent, and you may be liable for damages sustained by customers who bought your defective HIDs.
  • kenm8kenm8 Posts: 71
    The NJ lawsuit is ridiculous. It is just as ridiculous as if Nissan sued the state of NJ on behalf of its customers for not having adequate law enforcement, a good school system that teaches good values (Thou shall not steal?) and a court system that prosecutes thieves to the fullest extent of the law.

    Has NJ previously sued the manufacturer of an auto brand whose owner had his/her wheels/tires stolen off their cars? Would these suits have contended that the manufacturer should have provided one or more wheel locks on lugs for all four wheels on a car? Or that the lug nuts should have been designed so that only a licensed auto dealer, repair shop or tire dealer can remove a tire with special licensed tools (presumably not available to thieves?)?

    Nissan does have a moral, not legal, obligation to update their designs when situations such as HID are divulged to them. The marketplace will reward those manufacturers who are sensitive to their customers' needs and quickly respond to these needs. Those manufacturers who do not, will be punished in the marketplace accordingly.
  • andmoonandmoon Posts: 320
    Never mind HIDs. Nissan wouldn't replace the centercap of one of my wheels that fell off under waranty...not too bad until you find out the tiny plactic thing costs $33.
  • lichtronimolichtronimo Posts: 212
    You should sue!
Sign In or Register to comment.