NHTSA Complaint #10090783 — 2004 ACURA TL

A CRACK IN THE ALLOY WHEEL RIM ON THE RIGHT FRONT OF MY 2004 ACURA WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A LOSS OF AIR PRESSURE AND LOSS OF POSITIVE TIRE SEAL RESUTILNG IN THE TIRE SEPARATING FROM THE RIM. MY WIFE WAS ABLE TO RETAIN CONTROL. AN INSPECTION BY LEITH ACURA FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF A PUNCTURE WOUND TO THE TIRE. THE SIDEWALL WAS DEFORMED TO THE POINT THAT THE TIRE WAS UNUSEABLE. LEITH ACURA AND ACURA CLIENT SERVICES REFUSED TO REPLACE THE RIM AND TIRE UNDER THE NEW CAR WARRANTY. ACURA INSISTS THAT THE RIM WAS DAMAGED AS THE RESULT OF A SEVERE IMPACT TO THE TIRE (POTHOLE ??) AND THEREFORE NOT COVERED BY THE VEHICLE WARRANTY. MY WIFE REPORTS EXPERIENCING NO SUCH IMPACT EITHER AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT OR DURING ANY PERIOD PRECEDING THE INCIDENT. I ASSERT THAT THE CRACK WAS THE LIKELY RESULT OF A UNDETECTED DEFECT IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND/OR THE PARTICULAR MATERIALS USED, AND THAT IT WAS THE ACCENTUATION OF THE PRE-EXISTING CRACK ASSOCIATED WITH THE 'IMPACTS' OF NORMAL DRIVING THAT CAUSED THE TIRE TO SUDDENLY FAIL.THE DEALER ASSERTS THAT THERE WAS OBSERVABLE DAMAGE TO THE RIM, BUT IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH DAMAGE RESULTED IN THE CRACK OR THAT THE DAMAGE WAS THE RESULT OF THE RIM HAVING BEEN WEAKENED BY THE CRACK PLUS THE IMPACT OF THE RIM WITH THE ROAD SURFACE WHEN THE TIRE DEFLATED. MY UNREIMBURSED COST FOR A NEW RIM, TIRE, AND ALIGNMENT WAS $625. MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS AN EQUIPMENT PROBLEM, PERHAPS INHERENT TO THE USE OF ALLOY RIMS; THAT ACURA IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM (REPORTS FREQUENT SIMILAR OCCURRENCES) AND THAT THEY SIMPLY REFUSE TO HONOR CLAIMS FOR THIS TYPE OF EQUIPMENT FAILURE UNDER THE WARRANTY. AS A HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCHER I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS IS A POTENTIALLY SERIOUS CRASH RISK PROBLEM OVER AND ABOVE THE PROBLEM OF MANUFACTURER AND DEALER INTEGRITY IN HONORING WARRANTY CLAIMS.*AK