Nissan Quest

Save up to $379 on Your Auto Insurance. Compare Quotes from Top Providers Now! Find the Best Deal and Apply! - Adv.

Nissan Cars • Altima • Infiniti • Maxima • Murano • Quest • Sentra --- Trucks • Armada • Frontier • Pathfinder • Titan • Xterra --- Other • Air Bags • Paint • NMAC • Nissan Lease --- News • Nissan Plans Clean Diesel for U.S. • Nissan Goes Country • NJ Sues Nissan

Bruce of San Angelo, TX February 18, 2009

Bruce of San Angelo TX (02/18/09)
My daughter purchased a new 2007 Nissan Quest in Austin, TX. The car had run-flat tires which cost 420 each according to the window sticker. In the 1st year she had her first flat tire and took the auto back to the selling dealership to fix the tire. They were not able to fix the tire and sent her to a tire store in downtown Austin. To fix the tire cost her over 80. Two weeks ago, the car with 31,000 miles, had its second flat.

My daughter was in Junction, TX, at the time, a small town 100 miles from San Angelo where she now lives. She and my four-year-old granddaughter were stuck as no one in Junction could repair run flat tires. So, my husband went to help her. He put air in the tire to get it to a tire repair store where they were able to plug the tire so she could drive the car 100 miles into San Angelo.

In San Angelo, she took it to the Discount Tire Store to get it fixed. They were unable to fix it. However, they did tell her the tires were legally bald and had to be replaced. They said she would be unable to get her car inspected with those tires. And the car had only 31,000 miles!!! And they cost 1,680!! These Micelin tires were a great disappointment!

Apparently a special machine is required to repair a fun flat tire. Nissan doesn't even have that piece of equipment. Nissan sent her to the Honda dealership, the only place in town that had that piece of equipment. I feel that Nissan is at fault for selling cars with this type of tires, especially in Texas where cities are far apart. There is no spare on a car with run flat tires. Supposedly, the consumer can reach a place within 50 or so miles to get it fixed. That is certainly not the case in this or in many situations especially when there are so few places that even service the tire. Yet the original dealership really touted those tires as being a real asset to my daughter when she purchased the auto.

She has decided she no longer wants run flat tires. That is requiring her to purchase five new wheels and five new tires (regular tires cannot be mounted on the run flat wheels.) I called Nissan and explained the situation asking for their assistance in this matter. I requested that due to the safety issue involved, they at least offer to give her five new wheels so she would then be able to replace the tires with regular tires. They would not agree to help in any way. I talked to the local dealership, the selling dealership, and the Nissan Corporate Customer Service.

No help was offered; my daughter is just stuck with having to pay the total cost to replace wheels and tires. I feel this is very unsafe and very unfair. Nissan has taken advantage of its customers by touting run flat tires as being wonderful when they are really an expensive nuisance. They have apparently found this out as they no longer put this type of tire on their vehicles.

Why then was there not a recall? When my daughter first took the car to our local dealership to see what they could do (as she has all the extended warranties she was able to purchase from the beginning), the customer service rep told her Nissan never put run flat tires on their autos. Heather assured him that she bought the car this way. He then sent her to the Honda dealership. We are very dissatisfied with this answer. We are also very dissatisfied with Michelin for the quality of these high dollar tires. In addition, when I first learned of the situation in Junction, I called the 800 number to get roadside assistance as my daughter has that service through both her cell phone service and her extended automobile warranty. I was told that due to their being run flat tires, there was no help available.

Barnet of Elizabeth, NJ February 10, 2009

Barnet of Elizabeth NJ (02/10/09)
this is in reference to the class action lawsuit filed for honda and acura in regards to the michelin running flats XSE. The class action lawsuit should also be for the nissan quest model. i want to complain to see what can be done in regards to this because we are victims to this monolpoly that michelin created with the rim company and tires. Any information in reference to the next step in this process will be greatly appreciated.

i am digusted with the fact that we have to pay for an error that michelin made. the rims and the tires costed me over 1800 dollars and i feel the owners of the nissan quest that purchased the running flat option because it was advertised as a superior tire we were had by michelin. Thank you

we had to purchase new rims and tires for a total cost of 1800 plus labor. Any information will be greatly appreciated.

David of El Paso, TX February 2, 2009

David of El Paso TX (02/02/09)
In May 2004, I purchased a 2004 Nissan Quest in Niles, IL. At the same time, I purchased an extended warranty for 5yrs/60,000 miles for 1095.00. When I purchased the vehicle, there was a 3yr/36,000 mile factory warranty. In December 2008, I took the car in for repairs to a dealership in Texas (moved to Texas in 2007) and learned that Nissan had extended the factory warranty to 5yr/60,000 miles in 2004 because of numerous problems with vehicle. I never received any notice of this extension.

In January 2009, I contacted Nissan concerning this issue and finally ended up speaking with one of their regional specialists, S. McGuire, who told me there was nothing Nissan could do for me since my extended warranty or service agreement had expired because my car has 61,000 miles driven. My complaint does not concern the expiration of the warranty. My complaint is that I paid for an extended warranty that I did not need since the factory warranty was extended by Nissan without notice to me. Nissan's position is that it is unwilling to reimburse me or even extend the warranty beyond the 5yr/60,000 miles.

I feel that I have paid 1095.00 plus interest in financing the vehicle for coverage that duplicated the factory warranty. In essence, I paid for something that I did not need. If Nissan had notified me of extending the factory warranty, I would have cancelled the service agreement pursuant to its cancellation provision and paid the cancellation fee. I firmly believe that I am not the only consumer in this situation regarding the 2004 Nissan Quest. There are probably consumers who are not even aware that they paid for an extended warranty for which they received no benefit.

Tammy of West Warwick, RI January 21, 2009

Tammy of West Warwick RI (01/21/09)
We bought a brand new 2007 Quest SE at the end of 2006. I really like the van itself, but who ever heard of a brand new van, which (was/is babied) needing rotors sanded smooth, at 9 thousand miles? and now it is Jan 2009, only 23,000 miles on it and they are telling me I need new brakes both front and back, and the rotors smoothed down again. I asked how much for this, and they said 8 hundred and something. They also said the belts had to be changed to, again at 23,000 miles.

My husband got on the phone with them and argued about this, he said how can this be at 23,000 miles, they said that the van is a heavy van, but just before that she said that the brakes are not heavy duty that are on it. Why would they put cheap brakes on a van that they know is heavy? They also said it was the way I drive that caused the brakes to go so fast, we said funny because I have been driving a Santa Fe for 4 years and only had to change the brakes one time during these 4 years. We just put the second set on and the suv is 6 years old. Maybe I will get another Santa Fe, at least their warrenty is 10 years or 100,000 miles.

Needless to say Nissan are not doing my brakes, the van goes in for every service on time. But brakes this early, no way. I have had a few other minor things wrong with the van which they did fix. I was going to buy another Nissan Quest but not now. We know allot of people and we are spreading the word, Nissan will be loosing lots of people who might have been looking at buying one of their vehicles. There warrenty [is bad] also.

Dawn of Hamden, CT December 30, 2008

Dawn of Hamden CT (12/30/08)
I lease a nissan 2006 quest se which has Michelin run flat pax tires and was not told how much it would be to replace them. My first flat about 4 weeks ago I noticed I have no spare tire, you can't even carry a spear for this type of tire.

These tires are 815.00 at a nissan dealer this is just not acceptable, I have gone to only one other place that can actually replace these tires costing 400.00 a piece now I have been without a car for two weeks because they are waitng for this tire to come in and no other tire places can get these tires or put them on this is so ridiculous. On top of leasing this car there is nothing I can do and the car has to be returned with the same tires that came on it. I don't really no who is more at fault Nissan in the first place for putting these tires on this car and giving you no choice to replace them or michelin for selling these tires in the first place.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Share		Follow us on Twitter.

Back to the top |