Davendra Venataya V Cockram Nissan
In an intriguing Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal case, a buyer has been told he can’t expect a ute to be as smooth and comfortable to ride in as a passenger car.
The decision was the result of a case taken by buyer Davendra Venataya over a new Nissan Navara he bought from Cockram Nissan in 2016.
Venataya sought to reject the vehicle, complaining it had a vibration through the cabin that made it uncomfortable for his family to travel in.
Cockram Nissan did extensive testing to see if it could find the source of the shaking but found only a “slight vibration when sitting at 104kmh”.
It checked the vehicle’s tyre pressures and made sure its wheel nuts were torqued according to specification.
It also took a vibration recording of the vehicle using a mobile phone app “vib-sensor” which records vibrations on three axes, using the phone’s accelerometer. The results were sent with the recordings to Nissan Techline, part of Nissan New Zealand, for analysis.
Numerous parts were swapped in and out to identify the vibration. The aftermarket 20-inch wheels were also swapped out for the original 16-inch units and this did not reduce the issue.
Nissan Techline’s report showed the vibration was within the design standard, leading it to conclude the vibration was normal.
Nissan New Zealand’s technical specialist told the tribunal the frequency of the peak vibration suggested the main excitation force was “first order tyre/wheel vibration”.
Cockram Nissan’s service manager and general manager’s evidence was that there is no option available to adjust the vehicle’s springs to soften the ride and reduce vibration level.
They pointed out that, as a light commercial vehicle designed to carry and tow heavy loads, it was normal for the vehicle to have a rougher ride with more vibrations than would be noticeable in an ordinary domestic car.
Adjudicator J S McHerron and his expert rode in the vehicle at 100kmh.
“We both noted that the vehicle had firm suspension, through which it was possible to feel road bumps and undulations,” McHerron said.
“My observation was that riding in the vehicle felt similar to flying through light turbulence in an aeroplane, with a constant jiggling motion which could be felt through the seat.
“However, neither Mr Dixon nor I detected anything that felt abnormal about the way the vehicle rode. Rather, it felt like we were riding in a small truck, heavy and high off the road with suspension designed to carry large loads.
“In other words, neither of us noticed anything unusual having regard to the nature and characteristics of the vehicle.”
McHerron said he accepted the buyer might not find the car acceptable for his usage but that was not the point.
“On balance, although we accept Mr Venataya finds this vehicle unacceptable for his and his family’s own personal needs, we do not accept that [his] concerns about the vibration are sufficient to indicate that the vehicle fails to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality.
“In short, there is not enough evidence to conclude that there is anything wrong with this vehicle that a reasonable consumer would find unacceptable.
“The evidence we have before us indicates the vehicle is performing as it is intended to and that nothing is wrong with it. It is just a relatively rough-riding vehicle, a factor which is mainly attributable to its light-commercial build.
“Without intending to criticise Mr Venataya’s choice of vehicle, it may be that in future he needs to consider selecting a vehicle that has a smoother ride.
“Alternatively, he may need to purchase a separate vehicle for family use and one for use at his work. These are matters for him to decide in the future.
“In the meantime, I conclude that he is not entitled to reject the vehicle.”
