Jump to content
bmwmike

F10 door corrosion

Recommended Posts

I reckon as it's on the edge perhaps it is not painted sufficiently. They'll all do it eventually I expect. 

 

Wonder where else it needs doing that we can't see yet.

 

My mate is an MOT tester and he is seeing a few f10s fail on OSF metal brake lines corroded. 

 

Got to love PCP and fleet deals and the impact on longevity eh. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmwmike said:

My mate is an MOT tester and he is seeing a few f10s fail on OSF metal brake lines corroded. 

Reminds me of my Dad who always recommended wire brushing the brake pipes before an MOT, although this was 30 yrs ago on a Capri!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Martin H said:

Reminds me of my Dad who always recommended wire brushing the brake pipes before an MOT, although this was 30 yrs ago on a Capri!

 

As long as you coat in grease afterwards to prevent further corrosion ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, bee said:

 

As long as you coat in grease afterwards to prevent further corrosion ;)

 

Definitely.. good point!!  Not a bad tip for everyone to do esp if you're in doing brake pads etc anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor update.. Apparently my paint depth on all four doors is 240um and they'd expect under 100um so are asking if it's had paintwork, in which case they wouldn't cover it. The paint is immaculate so I'd be surprised if it has. And if it has, it's a decent job been done so there may be some record. 

 

I'm popping back down tomorrow so the bodywork manager can show me the depth readings on other parts of the car.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bmwmike said:

Minor update.. Apparently my paint depth on all four doors is 240um and they'd expect under 100um so are asking if it's had paintwork, in which case they wouldn't cover it. The paint is immaculate so I'd be surprised if it has. And if it has, it's a decent job been done so there may be some record. 

 

I'm popping back down tomorrow so the bodywork manager can show me the depth readings on other parts of the car.

 

 

Have they been done once before?! BMW should have record if it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bmwmike said:

Minor update.. Apparently my paint depth on all four doors is 240um and they'd expect under 100um so are asking if it's had paintwork, in which case they wouldn't cover it. The paint is immaculate so I'd be surprised if it has. And if it has, it's a decent job been done so there may be some record. 

 

I'm popping back down tomorrow so the bodywork manager can show me the depth readings on other parts of the car.

 

 

Not the news you wanted. I’m guessing BMW are washing their hands of it now. Good luck trying to trace the bodyshop responsible. Have to admit over the years I’ve had three nearly new ‘ex demo’ BMWs and every one has had bodywork that eventually failed. I’ve a feeling they don’t get any love when they’re new and any repairs are done as cheaply as possible before they hand the cars back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting as I have the front end of mine wrapped in a 3M Ventureshield anti-stonechip film. It has worked wonders as the car is totally unmarked. I wonder what BMW would make of that if I had the same problem and claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Martin H said:

Not the news you wanted. I’m guessing BMW are washing their hands of it now. Good luck trying to trace the bodyshop responsible. Have to admit over the years I’ve had three nearly new ‘ex demo’ BMWs and every one has had bodywork that eventually failed. I’ve a feeling they don’t get any love when they’re new and any repairs are done as cheaply as possible before they hand the cars back

 

Reckon you're right. Mate of mine runs a chipsaway type of business and he gets lots of jobs for cars that are about to go back at the end of a lease. Cheap touch up and send it back.  And why not.

 

I've been over mine with an LED torch this afternoon and I think I can see some evidence of prior work but it's really a very good job.

 

The corrosion itself is very minor at the moment so tbh I'm not overly concerned that BMW won't cover it. In fact i don't think they should if its had work done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bmwmike said:

 

Reckon you're right. Mate of mine runs a chipsaway type of business and he gets lots of jobs for cars that are about to go back at the end of a lease. Cheap touch up and send it back.  And why not.

 

I've been over mine with an LED torch this afternoon and I think I can see some evidence of prior work but it's really a very good job.

 

The corrosion itself is very minor at the moment so tbh I'm not overly concerned that BMW won't cover it. In fact i don't think they should if its had work done. 

So what? The fact that your car has some repairs means that BMW known fault from factory is not covered? They clearly have an issue and they  know it.  I would be furious. BMW PR team, if you are reading this, please note it is making me think twice to replace my E60 bought 10 years ago. In fact, I am less and less excited about your g30 and your ever declining quality. It seems every new version is worse than the previous one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So today the paint depth is mysteriously in spec. New claim being submitted. 

 

Edit to add, learnt the following. Hopefully helps others:

 

Paint depth check is prone to human  error. 150um and below is absolutely factory finish. 300um and above likely to be repainted. Anything between is ambiguous and arguable. I watched my paint depth vary between 115um and 240um in the same spot with the same tester, just by varying the way the tester was held.

 

Anti perf warranty specifically mentions corrosion from inside a box or cavity section of which this door edge falls into. Anti perf warranty makes no mention of requirement for periodic inspection by BMW but the body shop manager asked me for the silhouette diagrams "because BMW warranty are asking for them". I don't have any and as it's not a requirement of the 12yr warranty, I reject any request for it.

 

Body shop manager suggested that in the event of second claim being rejected, BMW UK customer services are more likely to support a goodwill repair than BMW UK warranty services. Go figure!

 

As to my prior point about previous work affecting the claim, I was wrong. Anti perf terms do not require prior bodywork to have been completed by BMW. Obviously if they can attribute corrosion to a prior repair it's an easy out but the onus is on them to prove it, as terms do not prohibit non BMW repairs.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by bmwmike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 10:32 AM, bmwmike said:

So today the paint depth is mysteriously in spec. New claim being submitted. 

 

Edit to add, learnt the following. Hopefully helps others:

 

Paint depth check is prone to human  error. 150um and below is absolutely factory finish. 300um and above likely to be repainted. Anything between is ambiguous and arguable. I watched my paint depth vary between 115um and 240um in the same spot with the same tester, just by varying the way the tester was held.

 

Anti perf warranty specifically mentions corrosion from inside a box or cavity section of which this door edge falls into. Anti perf warranty makes no mention of requirement for periodic inspection by BMW but the body shop manager asked me for the silhouette diagrams "because BMW warranty are asking for them". I don't have any and as it's not a requirement of the 12yr warranty, I reject any request for it.

 

Body shop manager suggested that in the event of second claim being rejected, BMW UK customer services are more likely to support a goodwill repair than BMW UK warranty services. Go figure!

 

As to my prior point about previous work affecting the claim, I was wrong. Anti perf terms do not require prior bodywork to have been completed by BMW. Obviously if they can attribute corrosion to a prior repair it's an easy out but the onus is on them to prove it, as terms do not prohibit non BMW repairs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is a "silhouette diagram" in relation to this Mike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's the outline of a car showing any areas of damage etc. Like when you get a courtesy car. That's what I assumed anyway. Don't pay too much attention to it, as I subsequently caught them out on several untruths I believe they'll do anything to get out of even submitting the claim.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 10:32 AM, bmwmike said:

So today the paint depth is mysteriously in spec. New claim being submitted. 

 

Edit to add, learnt the following. Hopefully helps others:

 

Paint depth check is prone to human  error. 150um and below is absolutely factory finish. 300um and above likely to be repainted. Anything between is ambiguous and arguable. I watched my paint depth vary between 115um and 240um in the same spot with the same tester, just by varying the way the tester was held.

 

Anti perf warranty specifically mentions corrosion from inside a box or cavity section of which this door edge falls into. Anti perf warranty makes no mention of requirement for periodic inspection by BMW but the body shop manager asked me for the silhouette diagrams "because BMW warranty are asking for them". I don't have any and as it's not a requirement of the 12yr warranty, I reject any request for it.

 

Body shop manager suggested that in the event of second claim being rejected, BMW UK customer services are more likely to support a goodwill repair than BMW UK warranty services. Go figure!

 

As to my prior point about previous work affecting the claim, I was wrong. Anti perf terms do not require prior bodywork to have been completed by BMW. Obviously if they can attribute corrosion to a prior repair it's an easy out but the onus is on them to prove it, as terms do not prohibit non BMW repairs.

 

 

 

 

 

 PTG's need zeroing and have check pieces usually with them if they are of any decent quality.

 

If they are not then it won't read correctly, and equally if not held flat against the panel in question it can read horribly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ninja59 said:

 PTG's need zeroing and have check pieces usually with them if they are of any decent quality.

 

If they are not then it won't read correctly, and equally if not held flat against the panel in question it can read horribly.

 

Both these points were the issue I think.  Which I why I elected to keep the corrosion than let the monkeys at it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, bmwmike said:

 

Both these points were the issue I think.  Which I why I elected to keep the corrosion than let the monkeys at it.

 

 

You should get it done, however I would pull the trim to find out the extent of the corrosion. If it's inside then the door needs replacing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

just had my 2011 530d touring in to Soper Lincoln for a warrenty investigation for the door corrosion which seemed to be a common fault on this model. All 4 doors have evidence of corrosion in the same place. 

When I first visited Soper a member of the body shop viewed the car, admitted it not an uncommon problem and he had seen a number with corrosion in this area so it was booked in for the investigation. 

Collected the car today and Soper are  now proposing to reject the claim on the basis the paint thickness readings are inconsistent around the complete car suggesting paint work has been done  this was along with a list of other excuses to avoid the warranty claim. 

I agree the car is dirty and feels rough to the touch due to needing a good clean and polish but the vehicle has never had any paintwork done and was supplied by Soper Lincoln as an Ex Demo 7 month old vehicle in 2012. 

Im my opinion it’s the dirt and unpolished paint which has caused the inconsisten readings. 

 

Other excuses given are listed below

- Car has full service history but not by main dealer so anti corrosion warranty is not valid

- stone chip in middle of door would result in and warranty claim being partial chargeable as they would need to virtually repaint the full car to match the paint and warrenty does not cover any damage repairs. 

- All black plastic window seal/trims would need to be replaced at my expenss as they cannot be removed without damage and would not be covered by warrenty. 

- There is dirt under the window seals which is the likely cause of the problem. 

 

As im sure you will agree they seem to be doing everything they can to avoid the claim and to me it’s more than a coincidence that all doors are suffering the same problem clearly indicating a manufacturing defect. 

 

Any advice or support to help me push this claim would be much appreciated as I’m. Very disappointed to find this fault on a 7 year old car with less than 60,000 miles 

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KN54ALE said:

HI

just had my 2011 530d touring in to Soper Lincoln for a warrenty investigation for the door corrosion which seemed to be a common fault on this model. All 4 doors have evidence of corrosion in the same place. 

When I first visited Soper a member of the body shop viewed the car, admitted it not an uncommon problem and he had seen a number with corrosion in this area so it was booked in for the investigation. 

Collected the car today and Soper are  now proposing to reject the claim on the basis the paint thickness readings are inconsistent around the complete car suggesting paint work has been done  this was along with a list of other excuses to avoid the warranty claim. 

I agree the car is dirty and feels rough to the touch due to needing a good clean and polish but the vehicle has never had any paintwork done and was supplied by Soper Lincoln as an Ex Demo 7 month old vehicle in 2012. 

Im my opinion it’s the dirt and unpolished paint which has caused the inconsisten readings. 

 

Other excuses given are listed below

- Car has full service history but not by main dealer so anti corrosion warranty is not valid

- stone chip in middle of door would result in and warranty claim being partial chargeable as they would need to virtually repaint the full car to match the paint and warrenty does not cover any damage repairs. 

- All black plastic window seal/trims would need to be replaced at my expenss as they cannot be removed without damage and would not be covered by warrenty. 

- There is dirt under the window seals which is the likely cause of the problem. 

 

As im sure you will agree they seem to be doing everything they can to avoid the claim and to me it’s more than a coincidence that all doors are suffering the same problem clearly indicating a manufacturing defect. 

 

Any advice or support to help me push this claim would be much appreciated as I’m. Very disappointed to find this fault on a 7 year old car with less than 60,000 miles 

 

cheers

 

Let it rot. It'll look great for BMW when 10year old cars are rattling around with holes in the doors.

 

They are of course lying to you. Presumably you've seen my posts on this subject in this very thread. Only option is to push and push. Your eventual victory will result in a repair which is satisfactory. Or for your sake I hope so. The warranty rates are punitive to the bodyshop but I'm sure their professionalism wouldn't allow them to rush the job.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main thing is to not loose your rag with them and keep at it. The anti perforation warranty has nothing to do with full service history as it was painted from new. How far out were your readings, as I said earlier anything under 120 microns is factory paint from what I was told.

 

Take some pictures of the bubbles and elevate it via email to BMW UK. Keep cool and stick to facts without ranting. Give it a few days if that doesn't get it sorted start posting replies on the social media pages stating your car is rusty at 5 years old and the 12 year corrosion warranty appears to be useless. Facebook and Twitter will get their attention as they don't need the bad press.

 

It's a shame the brand has come to these tactics to get things done but I have had to do the same other other faults that's shouldn't be a quibble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dandle said:

 

It's a shame the brand has come to these tactics to get things done but I have had to do the same other other faults that's shouldn't be a quibble.

 

It is indeed. Pcp eating into margins no doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×