Car and Driver got a 4.2 second 0-60 run in their most recent (this January issue) test of a US spec M5 with crippled Launch Control. To my knowledge, this is equal to the fastest time any OUS magazine has recorded with the fully functioning Launch Control.
My question is how did C&D get such a good time without the best version of Launch Control? Can we assume they would have done better (4 flat?) if they had the OUS version of LC? That means that C&D should have gotten a better time than any test magazine in the world to date.
Or maybe they just figured out a way to get the optimum launch without full LC.
I'm not sure if we can conclude that this test car had crippled launch control.
Customer Service is not the right level to be escalating this if the intention is to get this resolved. Typical business etiquette leads me to conclude that a behind the scenes chat with a top BMWNA manager actually involved in the decision to restrict Launch Control should lead to a much more satisfactory responese. That may even require the guarantee that the results of the chat are not published to a public forum.
However I do get the distinct impression that some members seem more intent to stir up the situation and/or use this for financial legal gain instead of actually getting the Launch Control feature fully enabled.
Customer Service is not the right level to be escalating this if the intention is to get this resolved. Typical business etiquette leads me to conclude that a behind the scenes chat with a top BMWNA manager actually involved in the decision to restrict Launch Control should lead to a much more satisfactory responese. That may even require the guarantee that the results of the chat are not published to a public forum.
However I do get the distinct impression that some members seem more intent to stir up the situation and/or use this for financial legal gain instead of actually getting the Launch Control feature fully enabled.
Agree wholeheartedly, that's why I suggested in an earlier post on this thread that the person who is in the best position to call BMWNA do so because at the end of the day, that's all any of us want. When BMW offers poor excuses such as the one that started this thread, it can get people pretty riled up. So now, who can call and get a straight story and a fix?
How in the world can they justify offering software to their other markets but not their largest one? Why not at least give us the option of PAYING for the software if we feel it would make our BMW M ownership experience better? Isn't that what it is all about? The ultimate driving machine should be able to do everything it was capable of doing for EVERY market.
I had an E46 M3 with SMG and the crippled launch control we got in the US made the car useless off the line. The european launch software could be fitted at the dealer however but they voided the warranty on the powertrain at that point. SMG is a great tranny, there would be absolutely no complaints if they just gave the US customers the same thing they give everyone else. I don't like feeling cheated when I am just as good of a customer as anyone else. Why should we be punished and not given what other markets are? It is just a software fix, this can be remedied at any time.
As in other posts on this subject, I will maintain my claim of gross misrepresentation by BMWNA. Two formal replies of utter nonsense. Problem now is I'm really pissed off that they have acknowledged the misrepresentation. I have seen in other posts that someone has previously called a high level person within BMWNA and received more appropriate responses. I suggest we do that. Assuming we have no success, while not an attorney myself one of my best friends is a consumer product liability attorney who would probably take a class action suit pro bono just to say he successfully humbled BMWNA by GROSSLY MISREPRESENTING A PRODUCT.
It is one thing for some of you to be disappointed that US cars do not have the full launch control. But to pervert your disappointment into accusations of misrepresentation and fraud is absurd. Some already have mentioned that at the center of this tempest-in-a-teapot is an internal document. Even more importantly, the most likely explanation is that, at the time when the internal document was generated (which, if I recall, is dated in May 2005), BMW intended to equip US cars with the same launch control function as European cars. At some point thereafter, but before US production began in September 2005, BMW decided to equip US cars with different launch control. Whatever the reason for this change, this scenario is precisely one of the reasons BMW (and every single other manufacturer) states that specifications are subject to change. The fact that BMW decided what it decided does not render any of its previous statements misrepresentations or fraudulent. If anyone wants to try to prove that BMW made intentional misstatements of fact with the intent to induce reliance by customers on the alleged falsehood, don't waste your time. I like BMW's side of this hypothetical litigation that will never and should never occur much better.
At some point thereafter, but before US production began in September 2005, BMW decided to equip US cars with different launch control. Whatever the reason for this change, this scenario is precisely one of the reasons BMW (and every single other manufacturer) states that specifications are subject to change. The fact that BMW decided what it decided does not render any of its previous statements misrepresentations or fraudulent.
You apparently know more than I do. So when exactly did BMW make this decision and when did they make the announcement of their crippling of LC so buyers wouldn't rely on previous representations that were no longer true?
With that said, I have never mentioned litigation, and never have used the word misrepresentation in the narrow legal sense. I agree they have enough "language" around their statements to allow them to change or elimnate everything. Hell, they could likely ship it with a 4-cyl engine with their fine print and be OK, at least in court.
However, we are not in court and are not arguing before a judge. We are their best customers suggesting they deliver what they said they would and what they give every single person in every other part of the world with respect to LC. That's all.
Some already have mentioned that at the center of this tempest-in-a-teapot is an internal document. Even more importantly, the most likely explanation is that, at the time when the internal document was generated (which, if I recall, is dated in May 2005), BMW intended to equip US cars with the same launch control function as European cars. At some point thereafter, but before US production began in September 2005, BMW decided to equip US cars with different launch control.
If the internal document you refer to is the Product Information guide it is dated September 2005 not May. This document is a sales tool currently in use provided for US dealers primarily to familiarize their sales staff with the most outstanding aspects of the car. Imagine the impact on a prospective customer on what separates the M5 from the E55 and CTS V, wow Launch Conrol like the F1 cars had a couple of seasons ago. As I said before, BMW make a mistake here. I am one of the disappointed even though I would have probably not used it. I had mentioned it to some motor heads, Audi guys and car buffs. All were impressed and now I have to tell them BMW did not trust us with such a performance feature like our friends over seas.
It's oK for some of the folks on this board to object.
1Likes
. So now, who can call and get a straight story and a fix?
Linear Mode
