Audi Q7 Squeeking Brakes

 

Angry woman working on compute
This is a new car and the brakes sounds like a 10 year old clunker 

 

Audi Q7 owners have complained about squeaking brakes and related problems.  A new class action lawsuit alleges Audi model year 2015-2018 Q7 SUVs are equipped with defective braking systems that cause loud high-pitched noise that creates a safety hazard.

The lawsuit alleges squealing and squeaking noises occur during routine driving when a driver uses the brake pedal. According to the plaintiff, Audi allegedly knows the Q7 brakes are so loud that everyone on the road is startled just from a driver applying the brakes.  See Audi brake noise article

Plaintiff  leased her 2017 Audi Q7 in January 2017 for more than $76,000 but by May 2017 the brakes started making loud squeaking and squealing noise when she applied the brake pedal.  Mercado says the noise occurs whether she is driving forward or in reverse and is allegedly so loud she can hear it with the windows closed while music plays in the Q7.

Mercado says she immediately informed the Audi dealer about the loud brake noise and has allegedly taken the SUV to the dealer multiple times since May 2017. The plaintiff claims one time technicians told her the SUVs are too heavy for the brakes, but other times technicians said they didn’t know what was causing the squeaking noise.  The plaintiff says she also contacted Audi USA in an attempt to resolve the loud brake noise, but she was allegedly referred back to her dealership for answers.

According to the  class-action lawsuit, Audi Q7 drivers have complained to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about the headaches of listening to loud brake noise coming from the luxury SUVs.   “2018 Q7 has high pitched brake squeal while backing & gradual braking. Audi USA and the dealership claim this is “normal”. When I said; “To who?” they replied Audi is working on a fix but no time table is available. OK, so it’s not normal then. Audi insults my intelligence by saying this is normal.”

Owners may be entitled to new vehicles, refunds, or compensation.

Man in home office on telephone using computer smiling

Traction Control Problems and Lemon Law

Problem with Your Traction Control, Call (973 598-1980) for a Free Consultation 

cropped-woman-with-auto.jpg
Most cars since 2012 come with traction control.  Traction control is connected with the the antilock brake system (ABS)  and uses  many of  the same wheel-speed sensors to detect tire slip, and attempt to correct that.  Traction control maintains traction while accelerating and ABS does the same for braking.  Electronic stability systems compare the vehicle’s trajectory to where the driver seems to want it to go and brakes individual wheels to keep it on course.  See Traction control articleA

1. Cause of Problems

Some mechanics will attribute problems to usage.   As with antilock systems, the wheel-speed sensors, wires, connectors, control module and other components can have problems.  The sensors, wires and connectors are located at each wheel and live in a hostile environment of potholes, water, snow, dirt, tar, stones, other debris and more, so they take a beating and can fail.

2. Warning Lights 

A problem in the system will usually illuminate a dashboard warning light that traction control is disabled and, in some cases, ABS is disabled as well.   (When ABS is disabled, you should still have normal braking, just without the antilock action.) This is different from momentary illumination of the warning light; the light should always come on for a couple of seconds whenever you start the vehicle as well as when the system detects that a wheel is spinning freely and does its job to improve traction.  Traction control article

Wheel-speed sensors are supposed to detect when one drive wheel is spinning faster than the others — meaning the vehicle is slipping or losing traction. The system will then reduce power and/or apply the brakes to that wheel.  Braking the spinning wheel allows the power to go to the other drive wheel or wheels that have more traction.

3. Specific Makes and Models with Traction Control Problems 

Several vehicles have had frequent traction control issues.  See Nissan Rogue Youtube Traction Control Video
There have been many complaints about the GM Stabilitrak system.   See GM Stabilitrak Problems

Claims may be filed for breach of express warranty (inability to fix the vehicle), implied warranty (vehicle is not reasonably fit) or lemon law (failure to fix vehicle within specified number of repairs visits or mileage.

Man in home office on telephone using computer smiling

Call for a Free Consultation (973) 598-1980 to discuss your rights 

False Advertising

Angry woman working on compute
This is not what I ordered

False advertising is the use of false, misleading, or unproven information to advertise products to consumers.   One form of false advertising is to claim that a product has a health benefit or contains vitamins or minerals that it in fact does not.  There are a number of laws and  regulations to address false advertising.

1. New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

gavel_0519_128_2

The most important law is the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act which prohibits the use of  any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or
omission of any material fact.  Products may be deceptive based upon advertised,    t

  • Price
  • Quality
  • Purpose

The Types of False and Misleading Advertising Tactics

There are several types of false and misleading advertising,

  • Bait & Switch Advertising
  • Failure to provide required disclosures such as information required in automobile advertisements,
  • Misleading prices,

Consumers who are victims of false or misleading advertising should contact an experienced lawyer to find out about his or her rights and actions that can be taken.

False advertising is any published claim that is deceptive or untruthful.

The financial losses or damages may be small but  if the claim is solid, it may be filed and the seller required to pay any legal fees, or those taken out of a settlement.

Problem with An Advertisement, Call (973) 598-1980 for a Free Consultation

Man in home office on telephone using computer smiling

General Motors Steering Problem and Recall

Owners have complained of problems with General Motors power steering fff

 

Resources

1 https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/09/13/general-motors-recall-power-steering-problems-recall/cbslocal.com
2  www.cnbc.com/2018/09/13/gm-recalls-over-1m-pickups-suvs-for-power-steering-problem.htmlcnbc.com.
3 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/gm-recalling-1m-pickups-suvs-because-power-steering-can-suddenly-n909196
nbcnews.com
5 https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2018/09/13/gm-recall-pickups-suvs-power-steering/1287911002/freep.com
7
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-recalls-defects/gm-recalls-trucks-suvs-for-steering-problem/consumerreports.org
8 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/gm-recalls-1m-pickups-suvs-power-steering-problem-57794425abcnews.go.com
9 https://phys.org/news/2018-09-gm-recalls-1m-pickups-suvs.htmlphys.org
10 http://fortune.com/2018/09/13/gm-power-steering-recall-trucks/

If your experienced problems with your General Motors steering, you may be entitled to compensation.
Call (973) 598-1980 for a Free Consultation

Ford F150 Truck Brake Problems

1.  Class Action Overview

A new class action enumerates problems in Ford F-150 master cylinders.  The lawsuit includes owners and lessees of 2013-2018 Ford F-150 trucks that allegedly have front brake circuits that can suddenly fail.   The new Hitachi master cylinder have piston cup seals that allow brake fluid to leak.  Front brakes are responsible for 75 percent of the truck’s braking force and without them  the trucks can fail to stop, or in some cases even slow down.

2. Problems Reported

Drivers of the 2013-2018 Ford F-150 trucks report rolling through stop signs and red lights and watching as their trucks roll into objects because the master cylinders lose their brake fluid.   The 2013-2018 Ford F-150s use master cylinders supplied by Hitachi, with the pistons fitted with just a single cup seal responsible for containing pressurized brake fluid.  The lawsuit alleges this is unusual because pistons within master cylinders are usually fitted with two cup seals to ensure that fluid does not leak out of the master cylinders.

The alleged defect involves failure of the piston cup seals that roll and become unseated in their grooves, losing the seal with the pistons and allowing pressurized brake fluid to escape from the master cylinder and back toward the brake booster.F-150 owners claim Ford allegedly knew about the dangers but concealed that knowledge from truck owners. According to lawsuit documents, Ford’s internal communications show the automaker was completely aware of the defective Hitachi master cylinders.

Man in home office on telephone using computer smiling

F150 owners may be entitled to compensation.

Land Rover Differential Problem

Woman with broken car

Land Rover has had multiple problems with the differential which may fail during or shortly after warranty.  Owners may be entitled to compensation.  Here are some typical complaints reported to the NHTSA,

Date Complaint Filed: 04/27/2015
Component(s): SUSPENSION
Manufacturer: LAND ROVER
Vehicle Identification No. (VIN): SALFP24N88H…

SUMMARY:
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 LAND ROVER LR2. WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL HUMMING
NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS
DIAGNOSED THAT THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL FAILED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED, BUT THE FAILURE
RECURRED NUMEROUS TIMES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS
40,000.
Manufacturer: LAND ROVER
Component(s): SUSPENSION, DIFFERENTIAL

SUMMARY: QUOTED BY DEALERSHIP THAT REAR DIFFERENTIAL NEED TO BE REPLACED FOR ~$2200. RESEARCH HAS SHOWN MY THERE ARE
HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE SAME ISSUES ON MANY LAND ROVER LR2/3 MODELS. I WOULD LIKE TO ADVOCATE FOR A
RECALL, AS EVERY TIME LAND ROVER FIXES THIS KNOWN DEFECTIVE PART, THEY MAKE A BIG PROFIT. OTHERWISE, A CLASS ACTION
LAWSUIT WILL BE INITIATED AGAINST LAND ROVER.

SUMMARY:
MY 2009 LAND ROVER LR2, HAS SOUNDED VERY LOUD WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY. I THOUGHT IT MAY HAVE JUST BEEN A TIRE
ISSUE THAT THEY WERE OLD AND NEEDED ROTATED OR REPLACED. WHILE MY CAR WAS IN THE SHOP FOR AN ALARM SYSTEM REPAIR
THE DEALERSHIP DID A MULTIPOINT INSPECTION. THEY SAID NOTHING WAS LEAKING OR IMMEDIATELY WRONG BUT I SHOULD GET IT
BACK IN FOR A MORE THOROUGH INSPECTION. I DID AND FOUND MY REAR DIFFERENTIAL NEEDS REPLACED. FROM RESEARCHING I HAVE
FOUND THIS HIS BEEN A WIDESPREAD AND KNOWN ISSUE DATING BACK TO THE 2008 MODEL.

Call for a Free Consultation on your Land Rover Differential Problem

Man in home office on telephone using computer smiling

Arguments Manufacturers Use in Lemon Law Cases

  1. Different Problems 

    Although Plaintiff raised three different complaints that generally related to her “radio system” during the Lemon Law rights period, none of those concerns constitute a “serious safety defect.” Id Additionally, because each radio-related complaint was different (referring variously to the tape player, the speakers and a software fault), they do not constitute “the same nonconformity subject to repair three or more times.  Turrell v Mercedes, Manufacturer’s Trial Brief

  2. Problem Not Identified in Prior Correspondence 

    Here, Plaintiff sent correspondence to MBUSA describing her alleged hesitation defect, but the correspondence did not describe any transmission, radio or brake system defects. (Ex. H, attaching Letters)

  3. Problem Did Not Substantially Impair Use, Value, or Safety

    “It is generally understood by courts and commentators across the nation that a trivial complaint or merely aggravating defect does not constitute a “substantial impairment.” See, e.g.. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hollanshead, 663 N.E.2d 663 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (finding no substantial impairment where “none of the problems defendant had with her vehicle affected its engine, drivetrain, or mechanical functioning in any way.”); Johns v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., 622 So. 2d 1208 (La. Ct. App. 1993) (a “rattle” that could not be duplicated by technicians working on the car did not constitute a substantial impairment); State v. Martinez, 604 N.W.2d 304 (Wis. App. Ct. 1999) (holding that jury instructions defining “substantially” as “seriously” and stating that “the condition or defect must be more than an annoyance or minor inconvenience” were proper); Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Lotito, 746 A.2d 480 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000) (finding no substantial impairment where buyer complained of rotten egg smell that was merely a minor inconvenience, and a normal condition of that particular make of car); Jolovitz v. Alfa Romeo Distributors of North America, 760 A.2d 625,628 (Me. 2000) (holding that “substantial” means “being of considerable amount or intensity;” no substantial impairment where an annoying squeak and an occasional odor of gasoline were the only uncorrectable defects).”  Turrell.

  4. Mileage rebuts claim of substantial limitation of use

    One of the well-established standards considered by courts in determining whether the alleged defects objectively impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle is the extent of the consumer’s use of the vehicle

    Here, Plaintiff has driven the allegedly defective vehicle for significantly longer, and logged significantly more miles, than either of the plaintiffs in Mayhew and Freedman.   Plaintiff has driven the subject vehicle for six years and seven months, and has logged at least 100,000 miles (if not more). Plaintiff admits that she drives the vehicle every day for both business and personal errands, and even drives it on numerous annual vacations throughout the southeast. Plaintiff cannot establish the objective element of the “substantial impairment” test an therefore cannot succeed on her Lemon Law claims.

    businessman signing a contract

    We can help rebut these defenses in your lemon law case.  Call (973) 598-1980 for a Free Consultation

Dodge Durango Problems

 

A complaint alleges repeated problems with EGR Valve and emissions on the Dodge Durango.  McMillian v. FCA  2018 WL 3392920 (Cal.Super.).

 

O#/Dates/Mileage
Authorized Repair Facility
Complaints/Defects (Tech Comments)
RO 526920 November 14-17, 2017 29,785 miles
Westbrook Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of Van Nuys
1. Powertrain and/or emissions defect: Recall T23: EGR valve function (“perform PCM software update.”) 2. Powertrain and/or emissions defect: A red colored fluid is leaking under front engine/transmission area.
No RO written April 12, 2018
Hunters Dodge
1. Powertrain and/or emissions defect: Check engine light and “A” symbol with exclamation mark is flashing. Check engine light and “A” symbol light were reset by dealer. Plaintiff was verbally advised that if check engine light starts to flash repeatedly, to pull over and call roadside assistance. Plaintiff was advised to make a follow-up appointment for April 24, 2018. (Plaintiff was not given an RO for this visit).
No RO April 24, 2018 43,630 miles
Hunters Dodge
1. Powertrain and/or emissions defect: Check engine light and “A” symbol with exclamation mark is flashing ).
RO 535736 May 1-3, 2018 46,133 miles
Westbrook Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of Van Nuys
1. Powertrain and/or emissions defect: Check engine light and “A” symbol with exclamation mark is on. Found check engine light is on. Code P0300 multiple misfire.”)

Owners of Dodge Durango with emissions problems may be entitled to compensation.  Call for a Free Consultation.

 

 

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑