Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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?
http://maxima.theowensfamily.com/tsb/index.asp?year=1997&tsb=- none
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.
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
i guess the U.S. mint should put a disclaimer on cash....
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
kennyg5: I appreciate your distinction between Nissan HID headlights and McDonald's burgers. But, unfortunately, it's becoming a distinction without a difference in today's overzealous trial attorney "sue everyone" atmoshphere. Example: I live in DC, as a law abiding citizen I'm not allowed to own a gun, DC has more gun related murders than all but a few other cities, 80% of the convicted murderers had previous handgun violations but were somehow let off by the liberal judicial system, and the latest answer: sue Smith & Wesson for a gun made and sold legally in Wisconsin that made it's way illegally into DC. Where does this BS end?
I'm sure if I owned a Maxima that had its headlights stolen, I'd be pissed. Especially so if, after the fact of knowing about it, Nissan offered no free fix. But I think the recourse of being able to buy an Acura the next time around is preferable to lining the pockets of lawyers who would like to use this as a case study for 10 other "defective" lawsuits, while the bastards that stole the headlights probably get a slap on the wrist.
Seriously, though, this lawsuit against Nissan is totally ridiculous.
That sounds fine to me except that is the one part not covered by my warranty. But when i was researching this part I found on the MSN autos page that the EVAP thing is pretty common, but they say parts and labor on it is more like 112.00. AM I getting ripped off?
First, I own an 03 Max, but my HIDs have never been stolen (knock on wood) because I have garages in my house to keep my cars safe, and when I go out at night, I usually take my wife's older 97 Max or park my 03 Max in attended lots. Moreover, I live in New York, so the NJ suit against Nissan has no impact on me nor would it benefit me an iota. Further, I am not a trial lawyer representing the personal injury plaintiff bar, so I do not have an agenda nor any vested interest in this matter.
Second, Habitat seems to take the position that because the overzealous trial lawyers may benefit from this suit (as opposed to the consumers), Nissan should not be liable. Like you Habitat, I am no friend of money-grabbing trial lawyers whose primary interest may be to line their own pockets. But this suit is initiated by the NJ AG, the govt, not some greedy individual representing disgruntled clients. In this case, the state, on behalf of its citizen, is suing Nissan.
Third, the HIDs that are stolen cost an average owner about $1500 (insurance deductible and rental car etc.) and the remaining half is picked up by the insurance companies. Has anyone ever thought about who may be the real plaintiff in this case? Could it be the powerful insurance companies that hold a strong political clout. Just a thought, but there is nothing wrong with that ... I guess (shamelessly copied from Seinfeld).
Fourth, Habitat believes this is not a legal issue and that Nissan has no legal liability. Habitat, could it be you that once raised the issue about Pinto's exploding gas tank? Well, could Ford argue that but for that stupid drunk driver that rear ended you, you would not have been injured or died, and thus Ford has no liabilty for the gas tank design. Do you buy that argument? Compare that with the argument that Nissan is not liable because the [non-permissible content removed] thief took your HIDs. Although this is a stark analogy, my point is that the law is not always black and white, and it has a lot of gray areas.
So, where do we draw the line on liabilty? I humbly submit that if a manufacturer complies with industry or govt standards, that should insulate it from liability, in most instances. In the event there are no such standards (which is unlikely), I will use a reasonable man's approach, which is, what a prudent manufacturer or person will do in designing a product, in light of the cost of the product. For HIDs that cost $2000 a pair vs. the plastic piece that cost Andmoon $33 or the hood ornament mentioned by Bowke, I would make damn sure that the HIDs are designed much better so as to deter theft.
Lastly, I fully agree that the penal system in this country is too laxed and many criminals usually get a slap on the wrist, if at all. Remember the American kid who trashed someone's car in Singapore and some congressman argued that Singapore's punishment (whacking the butt with a cane) is cruel and unusual? Give me a break. Spare a cane, spoil a kid. Need I say further ...
I can go on, but I better stop before Pat tells me that she will exercise her veto power, whether it be line-item or plenary :-)
I mean this is basically the first car I have really bought on my own what is the standard warranty from a dealer, would it normally cover something like the EVAP Canister vent control valve?
I ended up getting it done for about 250.00 or so after they got the right part numbers and whatnot. Probablly could have gotten it cheaper, but I wanted to be sure it was done right and get some other stuff checked, so I went to nissan. They told me that it was quite possible that the EVAP thing was causing the knock sensor and cylinder misfire codes. They changed it out and reset the light and rechecked the codes and nothing popped up. Then they drove it out of the service area and I drove it home. Not sure if that would be enough for any problems to surface, since I know it takes the problem on 2 consecutive trips for it to trip the light. I guess I will probablly know tomorrow.
the only hole in your analogy with the pinto would be that the pinto was dangerous to the lives of everyone nearby. thieves are mostly non-violent, and will run away if confronted, so i dont see the correlation. also, keeping automobile parts in the question, i had a ford tempo that ran out of gas on the highway going through detroit (yes, i was scared spitless). i returned with gasoline the next morning and found the window broken, the hood unlatched, and the distributor gone. should i sue ford because the window wasnt strong enough? did they not use thick enough glass?
the fact is, that at junkyards, the distributor for a ford 2.3L engine used to be quite valuable. a new one was over $300 retail. i COULD make the same argument about that car.
with the maxima, you still have to break things that were never meant to be broken to get to the headlights. i agree with habitat that nissan is not legally liable...but they CAN make people happy by securing them even more.
also, xenon lights are more prevalent and of lesser value now than they were a couple years ago.
Take the Ford Pinto vs. Nissan Maxima example. It is reasonable to expect car manufacturers to know that there cars will be involved in accidents and if, in the case of Ford, they "value engineer" a cost savings to them by designing and producing a vehicle with a MUCH higher probability of gas tank rupturing and igniting, then yes, they should be held liable. Ford was making a calculated decision to increase corporate profits at the expense of human lives and that is not morally acceptable or legally defensible.
In the case of the Maxima, headlight theft, while expensive, doesn't quite make it to that level of seriousness. The fact that the suit was brought by the NJ AG doesn't necessarily make me think it isn't still somewhat frivolous. Should Nissan come up with a fix - damn right if they want to maintain good customer goodwill. I'm just not convinced it's got the merits for a class action suit.
I admit that I may be swinging too far in favor of manufacturers / business on this one. But given that there are roughly 600% more lawyers per capita in the US than Western Europe or Japan, I think some re-balancing is needed. When Greenspan speaks of higher productivity resulting in a higher standard of living in the US, I think we would all benefit from a few fewer lawyers getting in the way.
Agree or not, I respect your opinion.
A group of auto thieves filed a class action lawsuit today against the Blank motor car company for changing the design of its headlight assembly. Their claim is that it takes a much longer time to work on removing the HID unit with the likelihood that they will be discovered by the car owner or a passerby. One of their members was caught by the car owner and was quickly “tuned-up”. Someone noticed the commotion and called the police and the thief was arrested. He was trying to remove an assembly on an auto that had been updated with an anti-theft device. The thief claims that he would have been gone with the headlight assembly long before the owner arrived if the assembly had not been updated by mechanics at the Blank dealership. He and the group are suing for personal injury and mental anguish.
Bowke -- I am confused by your comparing Pinto to the thieves. IMHO, you should compare the thieves to the drunk drivers, and the HIDs to Pinto's gas tank. As to your Ford Tempo, I am sorry to say that you did not have a claim against Ford because it is quite reasonable to assume that the window glass was up to industry standard (thus no liability). Also, you should have called a toll truck and stayed with the car, instead of abandoning it in a high crime area. Regarding the declining price of HIDs, I am sure this debate will become a non-issue or moot when HID prices equal to those of halogens because at such time, who wants to steal HIDs.
Habitat -- I respect your position too, but I think I may be able to tweak it a bit. While it is true that exploding gas tanks involved human lives and stolen HIDs involved property only, but those are not factors for determining liability. The distinction you pointed out is relevant only for the purpose of calculating damages (i.e the amount to be paid to compensate the victim for his loss, whether it is his life or property) once liability is found. In my next post (below), I will address your position about corporate america and attorneys, as well as other issues.
Kenm -- interesting scenario you depicted. But I don't think any self-respecting lawyer will represent the thieves in your story, because the law is black and white (no gray) that they don't have ANY claim.
Habitat, I also share your pro-corporate america sentiments. My clients (or more aptly my firm's clients) are Fortune 500 companies and we advise them on various transactions that frequently make headline news. Therefore, I do understand how big companies operate and in many cases align myself with their thinking.
For example, I think huge verdicts in the hundreds of millions will cripple corporate development and therefore we should have a cap on punitive damages. That said, however, I also believe in consumer protection laws, because without them, there will be little to check against corporations trying to raise their bottom line at the expense of public life and safety.
You and others have stated that if we don't like a company's product, we can always buy it from another company because the market will weed out the bad ones. That is true. However, if you suffered a loss (life or significant property) because of a badly designed product, would you not seek compensation regardless of what the market will eventually do to that company?
As to lawyers, I think you have been influenced by stereotypes and may have few prejudices. Not all lawyers are ambulance chasers ... the type I dislike. In fact, many lawyers help ordinary people like you and me in doing closings on our home purchases, or district attorneys and county prosecutors putting criminals behind bars when we are robbed or injured, etc. So, be a bit more open-minded without painting a broad brush over an entire category of professionals.
Lastly, don't let prejudices influence your decision about guilt or innocence. As jurors, we often hear the court tell us we should look at the facts and apply the law/logic and put aside our preconceptions. In that vein, please review what I've said in my posts above and see if I have further changed your position. Thanks.
Lastly, let me say that I still like my Maxima despite of the HID concerns. I think with this one sentence, I am safe from Pat's knife :-)
It would be a really good thing if the focus of the conversation was the issues specifically with the Maxima and Maxima lawsuits and not verdicts, lawyers and lawsuits in general.
And I don't really have a knife. I have a delete button. Which seems so much less violent than a knife. But we don't need to get into THAT conversation either! :-)
How are everyone's Maximas? Anybody had their lights stolen? To what do you attribute that? And what did it cost you to replace them? I'm not sure that any of the posters on this issues have actually experienced the problem - have they?
With or without that problem, does anyone have anything else to say or ask about Max's? Speak up, speak up! :-)
I love my 97 Max SE at 157K Mi. It has been relatively trouble-free and is running strong. I am interested in what 04 Max owners are experiencing. Tell us old timers (early 90's to 2003 Maxes) what you think about the 04.
I would like to aim them higher but that would blind others...If my lights get stolen I think I would replace the lights with pre 02 lights. I wonder if all HID lights are the same or if a clearer cutoff (I remember BMW had non HID lights with a very sharp cutoff) at the top of the beam would help.
I agree with you that the validity of a lawsuit has nothing to do with where one parks his car, but the location can be a mitigating factor. For example, in your situation, you parked in some seedy area of Detroit, and assuming Ford was negligent in the design of its window glass in that it was not at all temper resistant as compared with windows made by other manufacturers (wrong assumption), the fact that you failed to exercise reasonable care in making sure that your car would NOT be vandalized (such as staying with the car when waiting for a tow truck) could reduce any damages you might collect against Ford. This is called contributory negligence, and is up to the trier of fact to decide whether you were more negligent than Ford.
Bowke, please stay on the subject when you talk about industry or govt standards. Here we are talking about theft deterrent standards (i.e. how difficult it is to remove the HID) NOT whether the HID's brightness or angle of illumination etc meet industry or govt standards. Please read my prior posts carefully and you will get my point.
Like you, I am sure that the Maxima HIDs meet govt and industry standards re brightness etc., the inquiry is whether they meet theft deterrent standards, and if there are no such standards, whether they meet a prudent manufacturer's standard. The Pinto gas tank example illustrates that that Ford had failed either the industry standard or prudent manufacturer standard.
I am not saying that my point of view is correct or better. All I am trying to convey is that the NJ suit is NOT totally frivolous, as to which you seemed to have taken an ABSOLUTE and opposite position. Apply the law/logic to the facts and put aside your preconceived notions (i.e. gut feelings) and have an open mind :-).
PEACE, PAL!!
you also missed MY point about the fact that a thief still needs to get under the hood of a maxima to get the lamp assembly out. hence, the lamps have the SAME security systems as the engine, ABS box, distributor, battery, etc...
our system of freedom is based on the freedom of choice. if i dont want to lose thousands due to vandalism or theft, i should buy a kia. this is a personal choice, and nissan cannot be held liable for an individual choosing the maxima, since they never made a false claim that the lamps were "theft-proof" or "theft-resistant" to attract the buyers in the first place.
I think the posters on this thread are generally quite good in self-policing. Although we sometimes stray off track, we tend to correct ourselves fairly promptly, or at least try to insert something in a long post to bring the discussion somewhat back on track. I know this probably would not be okay if you should decide to use your line-item veto :-)
This is an interesting debate (and I think you would agree) and we may occasionally use off-topic materials to bolster our point of view, but only to the extent they are relevant.
I, on behalf of other posters, thank you for your indulgence (and forgiveness) in such regard.
The crux of the debate here is the relative ease of theft or degree of theft deterrence -- are Max HIDs much easier to remove than other HIDs? Was Nissan capable of designing more theft deterrent HIDs in the first place? Did Nissan acted swiftly to correct the problem once it was brought to its attention? All these factors will or should be analyzed in the NJ suit.
I have not read the NJ AG's complaint, but I believe it has something to do with failure to disclose. This reminds me of the various states' consolidated actions against big tobacco, alleging that the companies failed to warn smokers of the dangers of carcinogens in the tobacco. I am NOT a smoker and do not want to past judgment on whether suche claims were valid, but apparently the tobacco companies all settled.
Did I mention that the insurance companies wanted a share in the settlement proceeds? I think they did but I am not absolutely sure.
As you know, the 02-03 HIDs are unique, because the 04 Max don't use them, and I am not aware of any other Nissan/Infiniti cars that use them except the I35. Do you?
Nissan does not care about the blackmarket because it is a mainstream auto maker (one of the big 3 from Japan). Nissan certainly does not want to hurt their own sales, but the issue here is whether they could have designed the HIDs better while keeping additional design expense nominal (less than $100, for example) and whether they could have disclosed about the theft problem earlier or offered free fixes for the problem when they knew about it.
What I was perhaps overreacting to was the possible suggestion that they be held legally liable to conform to "best practices". Other manufacturers may, indeed, have a better design when it comes to HID theft deterence. And, at some point, if Nissan was shown to be benefiting by an inferior desing by making a profit on replacement headlights, that might indeed make it to the level of "willful misconduct". But I don't think it is appropraite to try to legislate to achieve "best practices". If so, every car manufacturer would be required to meet Volvo's rollover safety standards and BMW's accident avoidance handling capabilities. Hell, FWD vehicles might be outlawed because its a documented fact that they cannot maintain the same stability in emergency manuevers than can RWD vehicles.
For the record, I am not a lawyer basher and I am not (too) biased against the profession in general. Sorry if my previous posts sounded that way. I just think we should police ourselves as citizens to not rely upon lawsuits to settle everything. Save it for the important things in life - like lead in drinking water that was not disclosed by the DC water authority.
I probably haven't moved far enough to your position for you to declare victory, but maybe we are not as far apart as it first appeared.
"Gross negligence and willful misconduct" are contractual terms used by the parties when they bargain at arms-length (e.g. represented by competent counsel and no one is under economic duress). I am not so sure if these terms apply in the context of consumer protection when the consumers are not parties to the contract and they only get involved after the fact when the products are alleged to be defective.
Moreover, I never suggest that products must conform to "best practices" to avoid liability because that would be unreasonable. I only propose using industry norm as a yardstick.
In any event, I very much appreciate your input and your spirit in reaching a compromise. Not that a compromise is worth anything to either of us because whatever is the outcome of the NJ suit, neither of us would be affected. Having said that, however, the lawsuit may have the effect of sending a signal to automakers that they should at least follow industry standards.
Great intellectual debate for the Max fans!!
the stolen parts are not the lamp housing. it is the lamps themselves, which are embedded inside the housing and installed no differently than the traditional halogen lamps.
1. Base price increased $560 dollars.
2. A new dark grey color called "smoke", while "champange" is dropped. "Sand" will now be available on the SL.
3. Dropping the 4spd. and installing the 5spd. Auto on the SL.
4. The limited-slip differential is no longer available after 1 April 2004, but traction control appears as a stand-alone option for both the SE and SL.
5. Sirus or XM satellite radio available as a late option.
Any other info Bowke?