Tirerack
Use the following links to go directly to useful tirerack winter items: Tirerack Winter Tires. Gary's Winter Tire FAQ.
Using the links directly supports E90Post with tirerack sales commision!

  E90Post
 


TireRack

   PLEASE HELP SUPPORT E90POST BY DOING YOUR TIRERACK SHOPPING FROM THIS BANNER, THANKS!
 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > E90 / E92 / E93 3-series Technical Forums > Wheels and Tires Forum Sponsored by The Tire Rack > Switched from Run Flats to normal tires... now getting multiple error codes



Wheels and Tires forum Sponsored by The Tire Rack
Please help to directly support e90post by doing your tirerack shopping from the above link. For every sale made through the link, e90post gets sponsor support to keep the site alive. Disclaimer

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-15-2009, 11:54 PM   #23
pruettfan
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,515
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 330i
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oro Valley, AZ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by poiney View Post
Assuming it is the steering angle sensor, does it make sense that changing tires might cause this problem?
Steering sensor is a common cause of these errors but not the only reason for this fault code. There are a series of systems that must be perfect for them to work. ABS sensors, steering sensor, DSC pump and the computer all have to work in concert. Since this popped up once he got new tires it seems most likely to be a abs sensor issue but it could be any of those systems.
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 12:04 AM   #24
pruettfan
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,515
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 330i
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oro Valley, AZ

iTrader: (0)

For those who think non-RFT's void a warranty.

Can an automotive dealership void your warranty?

Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975.

Nearly everyone has heard about someone who has taken a vehicle that has been modified with aftermarket parts to a dealer for warranty service, only to have the dealer refuse to cover the defective items. The dealer usually states that because of the aftermarket parts the warranty is void, without even attempting to determine whether the aftermarket part caused the problem.

This is illegal.

Vehicle manufacturers are not allowed to void the vehicle warranty just because aftermarket parts are on the vehicle. To better understand this problem it is best to know the differences between the two types of new car warranties and the two types of emission warranties.

When a vehicle is purchased new and the owner is protected against the faults that may occur by an expressed warranty - an offer by the manufacturer to assume the responsibility for problems with predetermined parts during a stated period of time. Beyond the expressed warranty, the vehicle manufacturer is often held responsible for further implied warranties. These state that a manufactured product should meet certain standards. However, in both cases, the mere presence of aftermarket parts doesn't void the warranty.

There are also two emission warranties (defect and performance) required under the clean air act. The defect warranty requires the manufacturer to produce a vehicle which, at the time of sale, is free of defects that would cause it to not meet the required emission levels for it's useful life as defined in the law. The performance warranty implies a vehicle must maintain certain levels of emission performance over it's useful life. If the vehicle fails to meet the performance warranty requirements, the manufacturer must make repairs at no cost to the owner, even if an aftermarket part is directly responsible for a warranty claim, the vehicle manufacturer cannot void the performance warranty. This protection is the result of a parts self - certification program developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA).

In cases where such a failed aftermarket part is responsible for a warranty claim, the vehicle manufacturer must arrange a settlement with the consumer, but by law the new - vehicle warranty is not voided.

Overall, the laws governing warranties are very clear. The only time a new vehicle warranty can be voided is if an aftermarket part has been installed and it can be proven that it is responsible for an emission warranty claim. However, a vehicle manufacturer or dealership cannot void a warranty simply because an an aftermarket equipment has been installed on a vehicle.

If a dealership denies a warranty claim and you think the claim falls under the rules explained above concerning the clean air act (such as an emission part failure), obtain a written explanation of the dealers refusal. Then follow the steps outlined in the owners manual. However, if this fails, then phone your complaint in to the EPA at (202) 233-9040 or (202) 326-9100.

If a dealer denies a warranty claim involving an implied or expressed new car warranty and you would like help, you can contact the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint, you can call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the online complaint form. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies worldwide.

WHAT IS THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT?

On January 4, 1975, President Ford signed into law the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Title 1, ..101-112, 15 U.S.C. ..2301 et seq. This act, effective July 4, 1975, is designed to "improve the adequacy of information available to consumers, prevent deception, and improve competition in the marketing of consumer products. . . ." The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act applies only to consumer products, which are defined as "any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed)." Under Section 103 of the Act, if a warrantor sells a consumer product costing more than $15 under written warranty, the writing must state the warranty in readily understandable language as determined by standards set forth by the Federal Trade Commission. There is, however, no requirement that a warranty be given nor that any product be warranted for any length of time. Thus the Act only requires that when there is a written warranty, the warrantor clearly disclose the nature of his warranty obligation prior to the sale of the product. The consumer may then compare warranty protection, thus shopping for the "best buy." To further protect the consumer from deception, the Act requires that any written warranty must be labeled as either a "full" or a "limited" warranty. Only warranties that meet the standards of the Act may be labeled as "full." One of the most important provisions of the Act prohibits a warrantor from disclaiming or modifying any implied warranty whenever any written warranty is given or service contract entered into. Implied warranties may, however, be limited in duration if the limitation is reasonable, conscionable, and set forth in clear and unmistakable language prominently displayed on the face of the warranty. A consumer damaged by breach of warranty, or noncompliance with the act, may sue in either state or federal district court. Access to federal court, however, is severely limited by the Act's provision that no claim may be brought in federal court if: (a) The amount in controversy of any individual claim is less than $25,000; (b) the amount in controversy is less than the sum or value of $50,000 computed on the basis of all claims in the suit; or (c) a class action is brought, and the number of named plaintiffs is less than 100. In light of these requirements it is likely that most suits will be brought in state court. If the consumer prevails, he is awarded costs and attorneys' fees. Nothing in the Act invalidates any right or remedy available under state law, and most suits should proceed on claims based on both the Code and the Act.

Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties. Passed by Congress in 1975, the Act requires manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage. In addition, it affects both the rights of consumers and the obligations of warrantors under written warranties.

To understand the Act, it is useful to be aware of Congress' intentions in passing it. First, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could get complete information about warranty terms and conditions. By providing consumers with a way of learning what warranty coverage is offered on a product before they buy, the Act gives consumers a way to know what to expect if something goes wrong, and thus helps to increase customer satisfaction.

Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.

Third, Congress intended to promote competition on the basis of warranty coverage. By assuring that consumers can get warranty information, the Act encourages sales promotion on the basis of warranty coverage and competition among companies to meet consumer preferences through various levels of warranty coverage.

Finally, Congress wanted to strengthen existing incentives for companies to perform their warranty obligations in a timely and thorough manner and to resolve any disputes with a minimum of delay and expense to consumers. Thus, the Act makes it easier for consumers to pursue a remedy for breach of warranty in the courts, but it also creates a framework for companies to set up procedures for resolving disputes inexpensively and informally, without litigation.

What the Magnuson-Moss Act Does Not Require

In order to understand how the Act affects you as a businessperson, it is important first to understand what the Act does not require.

First, the Act does not require any business to provide a written warranty. The Act allows businesses to determine whether to warrant their products in writing. However, once a business decides to offer a written warranty on a consumer product, it must comply with the Act.

Second, the Act does not apply to oral warranties. Only written warranties are covered.

Third, the Act does not apply to warranties on services. Only warranties on goods are covered. However, if your warranty covers both the parts provided for a repair and the workmanship in making that repair, the Act does apply to you.

Finally, the Act does not apply to warranties on products sold for resale or for commercial purposes. The Act covers only warranties on consumer products. This means that only warranties on tangible property normally used for personal, family, or household purposes are covered. (This includes property attached to or installed on real property.) Note that applicability of the Act to a particular product does not, however, depend upon how an individual buyer will use it.

The following section of this manual summarizes what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act requires warrantors to do, what it prohibits them from doing, and how it affects warranty disputes.

What the Magnuson-Moss Act Requires

In passing the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Congress specified a number of requirements that warrantors must meet. Congress also directed the FTC to adopt rules to cover other requirements. The FTC adopted three Rules under the Act, the Rule on Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions (the Disclosure Rule), the Rule on Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms (the Pre-Sale Availability Rule), and the Rule on Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (the Dispute Resolution Rule). In addition, the FTC has issued an interpretive rule that clarifies certain terms and explains some of the provisions of the Act. This section summarizes all the requirements under the Act and the Rules.

The Act and the Rules establish three basic requirements that may apply to you, either as a warrantor or a seller.

As a warrantor, you must designate, or title, your written warranty as either "full" or "limited."
As a warrantor, you must state certain specified information about the coverage of your warranty in a single, clear, and easy-to-read document.
As a warrantor or a seller, you must ensure that warranties are available where your warranted consumer products are sold so that consumers can read them before buying.
The titling requirement, established by the Act, applies to all written warranties on consumer products costing more than $10. However, the disclosure and pre-sale availability requirements, established by FTC Rules, apply to all written warranties on consumer products costing more than $15. Each of these three general requirements is explained in greater detail in the following chapters.

What the Magnuson-Moss Act Does Not Allow

There are three prohibitions under the Magnuson-Moss Act. They involve implied warranties, so-called "tie-in sales" provisions, and deceptive or misleading warranty terms.

Disclaimer or Modification of Implied Warranties

The Act prohibits anyone who offers a written warranty from disclaiming or modifying implied warranties. This means that no matter how broad or narrow your written warranty is, your customers always will receive the basic protection of the implied warranty of merchantability.

There is one permissible modification of implied warranties, however. If you offer a "limited" written warranty, the law allows you to include a provision that restricts the duration of implied warranties to the duration of your limited warranty. For example, if you offer a two-year limited warranty, you can limit implied warranties to two years. However, if you offer a "full" written warranty, you cannot limit the duration of implied warranties.

If you sell a consumer product with a written warranty from the product manufacturer, but you do not warrant the product in writing, you can disclaim your implied warranties. (These are the implied warranties under which the seller, not the manufacturer, would otherwise be responsible.) But, regardless of whether you warrant the products you sell, as a seller, you must give your customers copies of any written warranties from product manufacturers.

"Tie-In Sales" Provisions

Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.

In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.

While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision, your warranty need not cover use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate for your product. The following is an example of a permissible provision that excludes coverage of such things.

While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.

Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service. If you believe that this is the case, you should contact the warranty staff of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection for information on how to apply for a waiver of the tie-in sales prohibition.

Deceptive Warranty Terms

Obviously, warranties must not contain deceptive or misleading terms. You cannot offer a warranty that appears to provide coverage but, in fact, provides none. For example, a warranty covering only "moving parts" on an electronic product that has no moving parts would be deceptive and unlawful. Similarly, a warranty that promised service that the warrantor had no intention of providing or could not provide would be deceptive and unlawful.

How the Magnuson Moss Act May Affect Warranty Disputes

Two other features of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are also important to warrantors. First, the Act makes it easier for consumers to take an unresolved warranty problem to court. Second, it encourages companies to use a less formal, and therefore less costly, alternative to legal proceedings. Such alternatives, known as dispute resolution mechanisms, often can be used to settle warranty complaints before they reach litigation.

Consumer Lawsuits

The Act makes it easier for purchasers to sue for breach of warranty by making breach of warranty a violation of federal law, and by allowing consumers to recover court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. This means that if you lose a lawsuit for breach of either a written or an implied warranty, you may have to pay the customer's costs for bringing the suit, including lawyer's fees.

Because of the stringent federal jurisdictional requirements under the Act, most Magnuson-Moss lawsuits are brought in state court. However, major cases involving many consumers can be brought in federal court as class action suits under the Act.

Although the consumer lawsuit provisions may have little effect on your warranty or your business, they are important to remember if you are involved in warranty disputes.

Alternatives to Consumer Lawsuits

Although the Act makes consumer lawsuits for breach of warranty easier to bring, its goal is not to promote more warranty litigation. On the contrary, the Act encourages companies to use informal dispute resolution mechanisms to settle warranty disputes with their customers. Basically, an informal dispute resolution mechanism is a system that works to resolve warranty problems that are at a stalemate. Such a mechanism may be run by an impartial third party, such as the Better Business Bureau, or by company employees whose only job is to administer the informal dispute resolution system. The impartial third party uses conciliation, mediation, or arbitration to settle warranty disputes.

The Act allows warranties to include a provision that requires customers to try to resolve warranty disputes by means of the informal dispute resolution mechanism before going to court. (This provision applies only to cases based upon the Magnuson-Moss Act.) If you include such a requirement in your warranty, your dispute resolution mechanism must meet the requirements stated in the FTC's Rule on Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (the Dispute Resolution Rule). Briefly, the Rule requires that a mechanism must:

Be adequately funded and staffed to resolve all disputes quickly;
Be available free of charge to consumers;
Be able to settle disputes independently, without influence from the parties involved;
Follow written procedures;
Inform both parties when it receives notice of a dispute;
Gather, investigate, and organize all information necessary to decide each dispute fairly and quickly;
Provide each party an opportunity to present its side, to submit supporting materials, and to rebut points made by the other party; (the mechanism may allow oral presentations, but only if both parties agree);
Inform both parties of the decision and the reasons supporting it within 40 days of receiving notice of a dispute; Issue decisions that are not binding; either party must be free to take the dispute to court if dissatisfied with the decision (however, companies may, and often do, agree to be bound by the decision);
Keep complete records on all disputes; and
Be audited annually for compliance with the Rule.

It is clear from these standards that informal dispute resolution mechanisms under the Dispute Resolution Rule are not "informal" in the sense of being unstructured. Rather, they are informal because they do not involve the technical rules of evidence, procedure, and precedents that a court of law must use.

Currently, the FTC's staff is evaluating the Dispute Resolution Rule to determine if informal dispute resolution mechanisms can be made simpler and easier to use. To obtain more information about this review, contact the FTC's warranty staff.

As stated previously, you do not have to comply with the Dispute Resolution Rule if you do not require consumers to use a mechanism before bringing suit under the Magnuson-Moss Act. You may want to consider establishing a mechanism that will make settling warranty disputes easier, even though it may not meet the standards of the Dispute Resolution Rule.

You can view a slightly more detailed legal explanation of the Magnuson - Moss Warranty act of 1975 by clicking on the following link: http://www.pipelin e.com/~rmantis/webdoc14.htm

Sources of the above information include:

Superchips Inc. Newsletter / Car Craft September 1994 issue.
Federal Trade Commission Website.
State Bar of Texas Website (texasbarcle.com)
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 12:33 AM   #25
Spitfirocks
Lieutenant
15
Rep
565
Posts

 
Drives: 335i 07
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NJ

iTrader: (5)

I think you totally overkilled this one ^^^^^^ WTF!
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 12:55 AM   #26
Roleez
E60 to E90 to E92
Roleez's Avatar
Philippines
1
Rep
103
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 E92 335i M-Sport 6MT
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NorCal

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by poiney View Post
Assuming it is the steering angle sensor, does it make sense that changing tires might cause this problem?
No, because changing tires whether RFT or non-RFT will not trip the SZL sensor to fail. The SZL sensor is located in the steering wheel behind the airbag. Two totally different, mutually exclusive things. I switched out the stock RFTs on my old 550 and replaced them with non-RFT Pirelli PZero Nero M+S tires about a month before the SZL sensor gave out. Tires have nothing to do with the sensor failing.
__________________
2011 E92 335i 6MT (Space Gray/Coral): M-Sport / Premium / Convenience / Navi / L7 / InvisiGuard / Dinan Exhaust & Pedals
2011 CR-Z EX 6MT, 2008 GSX-R600
RETIRED: 2008 Dinan M5 SMG, 2006 330i 6MT, 2006 Dinan 550i 6MT, 1992 Accord EX 5MT
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 07:10 AM   #27
ianthegreat
Colonel
ianthegreat's Avatar
30
Rep
2,314
Posts

 
Drives: n54
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Pittsburgh/Houston

iTrader: (1)

I've had those EXACT same errors for about 2 months. I'm on stock run flats and right at 30k. I'm almost 100% certain it's just some sensors that have gone bad. Infact, my yellow brake light has now gone red. Which means low brake fluid (not the case). Just recently ASB has also come up in error. It has effected the driving absolutely none (except you no longer have traction control). Just take it easy in the rain and be extra vigilant in traffic). I drove around with the error for a couple months because my 30k service is due and I'll just let them fix while in the shop.

It's just sensors. Don't worry about it. Take it in and let them fix it - you are under warranty and different tires will not void this.
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 08:39 AM   #28
cb1111
I ask the questions you're afraid to ask.
cb1111's Avatar
27
Rep
2,489
Posts

 
Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: DC

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pruettfan View Post
For those who think non-RFT's void a warranty.

Can an automotive dealership void your warranty?

Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975.

.......
Oh God - not this again.

The majority of people, including this poster, misinterprep the MM act to be something it isn't.

It doesn't allow you to add aftermarket parts and flaunt them in the face of your dealership. Nor does it give you any automatic protections.

Before I get on my MM soapbox, let me make an unequivocable statement.

No dealer or manufacturer can or will "void a warranty" except in extremely isolated cases. What they can, will and should do is deny warranty service for a failure that they believe was caused by an aftermarket part.

Now, let's look at the MM provisions.

The MM act came about, IIRC, because a vacuum cleaner manufacturer denied warranty service because a non OE bag was used. The MM act now provides protection for consumers who use a non OE part that is "substantially equivalent" to specifications set forth by the manufacturer. If the part meets those criteria then the dealer/manufacturer cannot deny warranty service for that failure unless they can show that the aftermarket part caused the failure.

By definition, this excludes any "performance" parts because they are not substantially equivalent" to the OE part - again by definition.

The purpose of this act was to allow the consumer to have a wider choice of replacement parts. They can replace their Osram H7 bulb with a Bosch H7 bulb without fearing that the manufacturer can automatically deny service. This is because a Bosch H7 bulb is "substantially equivalent" to the Osram bulb. If you ever buy off brand vacuum cleaner bags you'll note that most say "Equivalent to Eureka XYZ bag"

Now let's look at tires. BMW has spec'd out runflat tires for our cars. Perhaps our suspensions are optimized (by spring rate) for the stiffer sidewalls (or not) but the MM act allows you to replace your Conti runflats with Michelin, Bridgestone, Dunlop or a host of other runflats as you can find a runflat in the appropriate size from many manufacturers that are "substantially equivalent."

By definition, non runflats are not "substantially equivalent" and the MM act doesn't apply.

The good part is that most dealers are pretty logical and won't deny warranty service for a situation like this. I suspect the OP will find that something was damaged during the install of his new tires.

Before I get off my soapbox, let me clarify reality.

Let us assume for a moment that a dealer denies you warranty service and you feel that you are protected under the MM act. What are your remedies?

The dealer won't roll over and say "OMG, stop waving the MM act at us - you're right, we'll pay for the repair." There is no fed waiting in the wings to protect you.

Here is what you can do:

You can pay for the repairs
You can let your car sit at the dealership unrepaired while you

1. try to fight it out with BMWNA (at this point they'll probably side with the dealer)
2. sue the dealership.

If it gets to the point where the dealership has dug in their heels and has let it escalate to BMWNA, then there really is a good chance that BMW will side with the dealership. Equally, if the dealer feels strongly enough to let it go to court then you can bet that they'll have a swarm of lawyers and subject matter experts that will dazzle the court with scientific reasons why your use of non-OE tire valve stem caps caused your engine to implode.

So what can you do?

Build a good relationship with your dealer.
Research any mods and determine what other systems they could impact.
Be prepared to pay for what your mod has broken.

I'm amazed at how many come to forums like these and complain "my dealer denied me service because I had a boost gauge. That's stupid." Did they never stop to think that their install might have caused the problem? After all, in order to "gauge" the boost they had to tap into the system somewhere.

In the OPs case, the problem is either totally unrelated to his tire install or something was damaged during the install. If the tires are the correct size on the same wheels then the problerm is most likely that an ABS sensor was damaged or disconnected during the install - but - because the OP is using non-equivalent tires the dealership was within their rights (albeit because they were too lazy to find the problem) to deny warranty service. The MM act does not apply here.
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 10:06 AM   #29
deathsightx
Enlisted Member
United_States
0
Rep
49
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 330i
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ohio

iTrader: (0)

The tires on all E90's are a special design to compliment RFT operation, they're called EH2 rims. That being said you can mount non RFTs on the rims without any problems. Best bet is to take it to a dealer and not mention the tire change so they don't jump to conclusions.
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 03:39 PM   #30
pruettfan
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,515
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 330i
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oro Valley, AZ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Takashi View Post
I have a feeling that something was damaged during the tire install. You might have to take it back to your dealership and have it checked.

Don't worry about the Warranty and the two YoYo's who is copying/pasting warranty acts on here. It's irrevalent.
I am not a yoyo, just trying to relieve his concern that his warranty could be voided by simply putting a different type of tire on his car since that was stated several times to him. I agree all he has to do it take it to a dealership and it will be a simple repair. Had several folks and his dealer not tell him he voided his warranty and was screwed I would not have posted it. I won't call you a name because I have class.
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 03:42 PM   #31
pruettfan
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,515
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 330i
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oro Valley, AZ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianthegreat View Post
I've had those EXACT same errors for about 2 months. I'm on stock run flats and right at 30k. I'm almost 100% certain it's just some sensors that have gone bad. Infact, my yellow brake light has now gone red. Which means low brake fluid (not the case). Just recently ASB has also come up in error. It has effected the driving absolutely none (except you no longer have traction control). Just take it easy in the rain and be extra vigilant in traffic). I drove around with the error for a couple months because my 30k service is due and I'll just let them fix while in the shop.

It's just sensors. Don't worry about it. Take it in and let them fix it - you are under warranty and different tires will not void this.
I was told when the ABS warning turned red to not drive the car. Even when my warning was yellow my ABS was disabled. When I called the BMW roadside assitance number the first time I had the issue the first question she asked was yellow or red, I said yellow and she said then you can drive but be careful. She said if it is red to pull over and have the car towed.
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 03:45 PM   #32
bavarian19
General
bavarian19's Avatar
United_States
234
Rep
18,815
Posts

 
Drives: Car
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: VA

iTrader: (23)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallard View Post
changing to non approved tyres (without star mark) can void a warranty. For example.

You fit a non runflat on a runflat only wheel. You blow out. Your fault.
You fit a non runflat on a runflat only wheel and experience tyre pressure loss problems. Car is within warrenty , TPsensors are defect say BMW , and the tyres fitted are to blame. You must pay for new TPsensors and new tyres.. no warrenty. Its quite simple

Changing the wheels to non spec items can also void you suspension, as wider track tyres "can" increase the forces applied to the front wishbones, voiding the warranty there ..

As would lowering the car on non OE springs. A damper would not be covered in that case either.

With regards to tyre dimension or rolling diameter, the speed sensor takes that into adjustment. As long as the dimensions are equal on both sides, the speed is equal, even if its inaccurate.

Get it on the GT1 tester at an independant, and get an honest diagnosis


There is no such thing as a runflat only wheel on a BMW
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 03:46 PM   #33
John 070
Lieutenant General
157
Rep
11,513
Posts

 
Drives: 335i cpe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ZSP/ZPP/ZCW

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfirocks View Post
I think you totally overkilled this one ^^^^^^ WTF!
Definitely. Reminds me of that guy who got refused service at a BMW dealership. He called BMWNA thinking that he was going to cite the riot act and the dealership would be made to pay. In the end, BMWNA told him the dealership which they own has every right to refuse to service his car, which he bought from that dealership.
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 04:49 PM   #34
Suncountry
New Member
Suncountry's Avatar
0
Rep
19
Posts

 
Drives: 06 330i, 76 Vette, 66 MGB
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Moses Lake

iTrader: (1)

I have a 2006 330i with a couple of thousand miles on non RFT. I have had no issues with my sensors from this change.
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 05:14 PM   #35
The HACK
Garland Operator 7G
The HACK's Avatar
42
Rep
3,483
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 MZ4C, 2013 Veloster Turbo
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Welcome to Jamaica have a nice day

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Takashi View Post
I have a feeling that something was damaged during the tire install. You might have to take it back to your dealership and have it checked.
How does one damage ANY sensors on a tire install?

I still can't see which wire/sensor that can possibly be messed up by taking the rims off of the car, mounting and balancing a set of tires, and remount onto the car.

OP, don't assume when the installers said the same size as OEM tires are installed, that it is indeed the case. Check, recheck, and double check AGAIN and make sure that all three numbers, XXX/YY/ZZ, all match the oem size. Then check and see if they installed the tires on the right axel. If everything is indeed correct, then take it to the dealers since it is likely one of your sensors failed randomly.
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 08:42 PM   #36
bmw-hoya
Captain
bmw-hoya's Avatar
United_States
8
Rep
634
Posts

 
Drives: Montego Blue 335i
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Francisco

iTrader: (0)

Is pruettfan or cb1111 a lawyer? I'm trying to figure out which one to believe!?!
__________________
"Of course I do. I'm Leonard Shelby. I'm from San Francisco." (Memento)

"Look, we are all reasonable men here. We don't have to give assurances as if we were lawyers." (Godfather: Part II)
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 08:50 PM   #37
cb1111
I ask the questions you're afraid to ask.
cb1111's Avatar
27
Rep
2,489
Posts

 
Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: DC

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw-hoya View Post
Is pruettfan or cb1111 a lawyer? I'm trying to figure out which one to believe!?!
Let's just say that I actually have experience dealing with automotive legal issues. The poster I responded to just posted the same information that aftermarket companies disseminate to try to confuse customers.

Ask yourself if my explanation makes sense.
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 11:44 PM   #38
ianthegreat
Colonel
ianthegreat's Avatar
30
Rep
2,314
Posts

 
Drives: n54
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Pittsburgh/Houston

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pruettfan View Post
I was told when the ABS warning turned red to not drive the car. Even when my warning was yellow my ABS was disabled. When I called the BMW roadside assitance number the first time I had the issue the first question she asked was yellow or red, I said yellow and she said then you can drive but be careful. She said if it is red to pull over and have the car towed.
I understand. Although, I consulted my manual which says if its red it is low brake fluid and/or TPM failure. I checked the brake fluid and it was fine and I've noticed no difference in driving dynamic, which leads me to believe it is sensor related.

I agree with you I probably shouldn't be driving, but the red came on just this last week and my 30k service appt is wednesday so I'll hold out till then. I do watch my speed and stopping distance much more right now just incase (and always have my hand by the emergency brake )
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2009, 11:54 PM   #39
yogi98
New Member
0
Rep
5
Posts

 
Drives: C350
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Southern Cali

iTrader: (0)

I think the OP is seriously over thinking this.

Just take it to the dealership and check it out. I can't imagine tires voiding warranty. Does that mean I should always get OEM Michelin or Continentals? Of course not...
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2009, 10:23 AM   #40
cb1111
I ask the questions you're afraid to ask.
cb1111's Avatar
27
Rep
2,489
Posts

 
Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: DC

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by yogi98 View Post
I think the OP is seriously over thinking this.

Just take it to the dealership and check it out. I can't imagine tires voiding warranty. Does that mean I should always get OEM Michelin or Continentals? Of course not...
Technically, you'll need to use runflat tire that meets the OE specs (most every tire manufacturer makes several tires that fit) in order to not have to worry about tire related warranty issues.

Realistically though, very few dealers would give you a problem for non-runflats.

In the OP's case, the issue is that his problem may be related to damage done during install, so the dealer took the easy way out and said "you tires are at fault."
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2009, 01:00 PM   #41
indivisi0n
New Member
United_States
2
Rep
5
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 BMW 335i Coupe
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CA

iTrader: (0)

UPDATE # 2.

Double checked all the ABS sensors, everything was intact and plugged in correctly, nothing was damaged, everything looked perfect.

Took it to the dealership this morning. They said it was the SZL sensors, they recalibrated them and sent me on my way, and the steering wheel was crooked "due to the alignment" and I was supposed to take it back to where I had the alignment done and have them re do it.

About 15 miles later, all the same warning lights come on, same errors. So now I'm out $114, have a crooked offset steering wheel and all of the same problems as before.

Called the dealership back, the guy thinks that the SZL sensor might have been damaged (though I don't see how this is possible) and I have an appointment on wednesday to get it fixed. Again.

So far I've lost about 3.5 hours of work over this, I'm out $99 for a failed alignment + another $114 for an hour of BMW labor, and I now have a crooked steering wheel to add to the mix of issues.

Hopefully this shit gets resolved on Wednesday, it would be sweet to have a non-lit up dashboard again, haha.

BTW, they didn't even mention the non runflats when I brought it in today, and neither did I.
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2009, 01:29 PM   #42
Mallard
4 pot warrior
Mallard's Avatar
No_Country
14
Rep
1,307
Posts

 
Drives: E90 318I
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DENMARK

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2006 e90  [5.00]
... ffs
__________________

Been there, done that, wanna do it again
Appreciate 0
      10-21-2009, 11:11 PM   #43
mimik
Private First Class
mimik's Avatar
Canada
3
Rep
151
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 BMW 325xi Blue Monaco
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cb1111 View Post
Technically, you'll need to use runflat tire that meets the OE specs (most every tire manufacturer makes several tires that fit) in order to not have to worry about tire related warranty issues.

Realistically though, very few dealers would give you a problem for non-runflats.

In the OP's case, the issue is that his problem may be related to damage done during install, so the dealer took the easy way out and said "you tires are at fault."
WRONG!! I called BMW roadside assist(twice to 2 different people) and they clearly informed me that whether you have runflats or not, a tow truck at the expense of BMW will come and assist you if you have a flat. Period. Let's lay this myth to rest. Even my local BMW dealer said roadside would come but I'd have to pay for it. NOT TRUE according to BMW roadside assistance.

I recently bought 4 dunlop winter sport 3d but on stock sizes for my 325xi.(205/55/r16) I plan though to have them installed at the dealership.
Appreciate 0
      10-24-2009, 02:35 PM   #44
indivisi0n
New Member
United_States
2
Rep
5
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 BMW 335i Coupe
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CA

iTrader: (0)

FINAL UPDATE:

It was the alignment that caused everything. It simply wasn't done correctly, and it was the SZL sensors that were out of wack, causing all the issues. BMW re-aligned the car for me, free of charge, and everything's been fine since. Unfortunately, during the alignment they discovered that my right front LCA tension arm is off slightly because they cannot get the caster aligned on that side, meaning I must have hit a gnarly pothole at some point. The good news is that it's baaarely out of spec, and I've been assured repeatedly that it will not cause excessive tire wear on that side. Something I will need to keep my eye on though.

Thanks for everyone's advice though, learned a lot about the car through all this haha.

And on a side note, I'm loving the Sumitomo HTR Z III's I got on there now in place of the Bridgestone Potenza RE050A's. Better handling, smoother ride, quieter, longer treadlife... can't go wrong
Appreciate 0
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
runflats, tires

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 AM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST