Quote:
Originally Posted by FogCityM3
Sorry, while I recognize that large companies make mistakes all the time, for something as simple/easy as this, I don't buy the excuse unless they are REALLY incompetent. Product litigation and recalls are the fatal flaw of consumer automotive companies and cadres of lawyers and litigation consultants are employed by this industry.
Also, let's assume that BMW changed oil recommendations due to bearing issues, in part brought about by this thread (the timing of the change was highly coincidental maybe too coincidental), which they are probably monitoring. Given what has been pointed out in terms of poor risk management by a major corporation with potential litigation liabilities, one would expect that BMW would give more clear oil recommendations in the near future. Let's see if they do. If they don't and the bearing failure rate is greater than average or God forbid, an engine seizes and causes injury to others, there will likely be litigation and this thread and all its contents will be subpoenaed.
|
Others have pointed out that the ambiguous oil change wording is intentional to AVOID litigation. They say if BMW were to make the announcement unambiguous and say it's to mitigate a design "flaw" or "limitation" then it would INCREASE the risk of litigation and class action lawsuit. Hench the ambiguous wording.
I would subscribe to that same belief.