CamB

It hasn't sold yet. Selling price = market price <> necessarily asking price.

Yeah the Audi sand extrude hone one's pretty funny, although surely BS. I remember this one (such a long time ago too): http://my.is/forums/f87/crashed-my-baby-147582/

I agree, but I think its worth a shot.

Ask nicely if he'll reconsider. It says plainly that reverse lights are optional equipment.

It'll settle a bit lower over time (my M3 did, same setup).

Because he likes strange topics? On a marginally related note:

Hmmmm, I gotta give this a try. Black mouldings (and keeping them that way) are honestly the part of my car I like the least...

I'm not sure that a reverse lamp is REQUIRED. Its "permitted" equipment. Having said that, arguing with the wof guy isn't usually worth the effort.

In that case, I definitely saw you. I LOL'd pretty hard.

A Bimmersport morning then - I didn't see you but I saw hybrid at the top of queen st (sounded hot).

This shouldn't matter - when the surge tank is full from the lift pump filling it (ie, all the time except when you're pulling massive Gs) the excess gets pumped out under slight pressure back into the tank.

I don't understand this - you are buying it today for the market price (you are the market - not the dude's asking price). Unless you expect the value of all MLs to be static for 6 months, you should expect the price to go down.

LOL - I wish. I merely provide opinions to my wife where child safety is the case. Oh the arguments we've had: Her: "I don't like the way the car seat is so mobile - Isofix* would be better" Me: "Its just because the seatbelt isn't locked as we're not crashing [then I turn and face her]. Look, I am mobile too." Her: * Her car has Isofix, I know mine doesn't.

Yeah that's a good point thanks! - its not rocket science -----> its a bolt and spacer (and I have them somewhere from an E30) and a suitable tether point. However, it will make my wife much happier to know I have the real deal so if anyone can help...

I think the question still remains as to whether they really need to design in the complexity? (I think you do understand the point) I'm not sure the consumer actually demands all the technology (even the new buyer) and there is a genuine risk (for BMW, for instance) that if its used cars become considered unreliable that this will affect its new car image. Slightly unrelated, but the single greatest attraction (to me) of my M3 is that its light on driver aids (and only moderate on technology generally).

Indeed, and it feeds on the owner's wallet.

I, err, understand you really like E53s and owned one for quite some time (in a manner of speaking). Have you considered one of them?

Fair enough on the weight - most drivers could stand to lose that kind of weight ... for free

Anyone have any of these - items 17-21 - for the rear shelf in an E36. It looks like E34, E46, E39, E32, etc all could possibly have them. Looking at the parts diagrams it looks like I need 7/16x35mm bolt not later 8mm one: Price indication - extremely cheap please, lol. I might as well take a pair - have matching ugly hooks in the parcel tray.

I dunno - if you don't need it, why bother with the weight, complexity and cost. Maybe I'm just cheap and agricultural (or is that aggrocultural, lol).

To be fair its possible that in 5 years the complex technology in new cars will be considered quite simple and a good independent will be able to deal with them (and even the coding issues today might be overtaken by better technology etc). I mean, anyone can buy some pretty cool electronic tools on Trademe these days. BMW appear to lock it all down quite tight, but on VWs (for instance) you can apparently get right in there (for better or worse). No - its not for the most up to date versions but I wouldn't bet against that changing.

You could focus on: Meanwhile: I agree - its a no-win situation for TMBMW and the customer. This is a special circumstance but the reason the problem arises is still BMW's doing. Arguably needless complexity seems to be anybody but BMWs responsibility... Totally agree with treating the relevant people with respect - no reason not to do this in all circumstances. Actually I do feel like adding a rant - why does my gearbox have "lifetime fluid" written on it (in 1996)? I guess that's true - if you never replaced the fluid it will last the lifetime of the box. Probably a short lifetime. Should I not have a lifetime warranty to go with my lifetime fluid?

See I don't mind that sort of thing. I mean, its not ideal that one part failing can cause several to fail through a bit of collateral damage, but it would be a big ask for cars to be designed to avoid that sort of problem in all circumstances.

OMG, screaming deal at $650 in my opinion. Shame I have a set, and a spare set of wheels.

Geez, this thread makes me sad for the future. I can understand the "whys" for having the systems as they are, but they look to all be driven by profit for the car company with the inevitable result of screwing over the end user. It doesn't help that the end user who is typically going to be screwed as time goes on is not the first owner and hence arguably not a priority for the car company. Back to the original topic - I'd say unless they can demonstrate otherwise from the contract you should be covered for anything required to get the car going again (the coding looks like a consequential requirement of repairing the alternator). If there could be a problem with coding, I reckon there are only three possible people at fault: - you - the service agent - BMW, its parts or its technology. I can't see how it can possibly be you. Let Team McMillan and BMW argue if they stuff it up. "It just happens sometimes" shouldn't be your problem - it should be one of their's.