Holes on front trim is it a CPO fix?

3 hours ago

azmiller1976 wrote
Thank you TooLoud10, thats exactly how I looked at it. Fortunately it is a simple DIY. I think California BMW dealerships need to consider incorporating that cosmetic credit or a parts voucher, if the buyer asks about the holes, its a write off for them and only makes them look good and makes the transition happen. Thank you for your input.

Not sure what you think a write-off is but in this instance those things you mentioned would be a reduction in revenue/profit.

If the holes are an issue then make it part of the negotiation process, there doesn't need to be any special credit or voucher especially since the overwhelming majority of buyer would not care if there were holes there, whether they use a front plate or not. The members of this forum do not in any way represent the general consumer that is buying a BMW. Many, if not most, do no planning, research, etc., and are not overly concerned with details. They just decide to get one.

2 hours ago

GREENPUS wrote
I live in Illinois which requires a plate on the front. Don't assume the dealer is going to drill holes for the front plate. My BMW dealer does not drill holes unless the buyer wants the plates mounted when purchased new. I've said this before, I love my dealer If I bought a used car or CPO, I wouldn't even ask about the holes in the bumper. It's just part of buying used

When I asked my last dealer rep if they planned to put holes in my brand new bumper, she gave me an overdramatic horrified look and chuckled "OMG we would never do that unless the customer asked."

brandofo wrote
If you look through a CPO worksheet you will not see front license plate holes as a reason to fail CPO inspection.

The fact that the damage was due to installing a license plate does not make it any less "damage"; I'm unaware of any exception in the CPO process for non-factory holes in the bodywork.

In fact, they keep the phrasing intentionally vague so as to not have to list every possible damage scenario, so of course it's not referenced.

They will just sell the car to the next guy if this is a deal breaker for you. If you are buying a used car and the previous owner was legally required to have a front plate, you can expect to see these holes drilled.
That is different than the poster who equated this to a previous owner drilling holes in the interior dash for a phone mount. One was a legal requirement. The other was not. In any case, the dealer disclosed the condition of the front bumper and it is up to you to decide if that car is worth the price. I am sure if you asked for a $30 discount to close the deal to cover the cost of bumper plugs they would agree to that.

I live in a state that legally requires me to display a front plate; there is no legal requirement that I put holes in the car, so mine has none.

M a r t y wrote
I get what you are saying but in terms of license plate holes, do not agree. Mounting front plates is mandatory in many states and although there are a number of methods to do that, a dealer will take the path of least resistance and many owners will too or they just don't care.

I agree with most of that, just not the part where the CPO process shouldn't flag non-factory holes in the bodywork based on speculation of what they were used for.

The fact that a dealer or previous owner took the easy route to satisfy legal requirements in their region doesn't make it any less damage to an otherwise good car. I actually believe this kind of thing is exactly what CPO was designed to address.

What if the holes weren't for a plate but for an aftermarket laser jammer or additional driving lights? What makes the damage any different?

2 hours ago

tooloud10 wrote
I agree with most of that, just not the part where the CPO process shouldn't flag non-factory holes in the bodywork based on speculation of what they were used for.

The fact that a dealer or previous owner took the easy route to satisfy legal requirements in their region doesn't make it any less damage to an otherwise good car. I actually believe this kind of thing is exactly what CPO was designed to address.

What if the holes weren't for a plate but for an aftermarket laser jammer or additional driving lights? What makes the damage any different?

As far as BMW and the CPO process are concerned, those holes are not damage and the bumper meets expectations. Those are factory holes as far as the situation goes since the dealer followed the prescribed process for mounting the plate. In some states the dealers must mount the plate prior to the customer taking delivery so some dealers mount them right away.

My dealer always mounts the plate as part of PDI unless specifically told not to. That is why my CA met my M340i coming off the truck before anyone could touch it.

An image attached to this post, provided by the poster

2 hours ago

tooloud10 wrote

I agree with most of that, just not the part where the CPO process shouldn't flag non-factory holes in the bodywork based on speculation of what they were used for.

The fact that a dealer or previous owner took the easy route to satisfy legal requirements in their region doesn't make it any less damage to an otherwise good car. I actually believe this kind of thing is exactly what CPO was designed to address.

What if the holes weren't for a plate but for an aftermarket laser jammer or additional driving lights? What makes the damage any different?

It could be that a decent dealer might flag license plate holes but I believe its highly doubtful since they are mostly expected. If they did flag it on a report, it would simply be an open disclosure and nothing more, sort of a CYA type of goodwill building attempt but nothing would be done about it unless the buyer made it a contingency.

You're right, the fact that someone took the easy way out doesn't change the facts, the holes are still there, but it also doesn't change the responsibility of the seller. I also first thought highly of the CPO process but have learned over several buys not to expect much

Personally I think CPO is more of a marketing tool and money grabber. Still, I do look for CPO's when buying used but have lowered my expectations. I do not believe CPO was designed to flag license plate holes because what a CPO flags is supposed to be remedied and not something mandated by states. A buyer can make the holes a bone of contention to the purchase price but my guess is a dealer will just laugh them out of the dealership and sell the car to someone else when the market is a sellers market.

Just trying to keep this about license plate holes and not other owner induced acts. We can agree to disagree, good forum discussions don't need to end in agreement.

2 hours ago

tooloud10 wrote
When I asked my last dealer rep if they planned to put holes in my brand new bumper, she gave me an overdramatic horrified look and chuckled "OMG we would never do that unless the customer asked."

The fact that the damage was due to installing a license plate does not make it any less "damage"; I'm unaware of any exception in the CPO process for non-factory holes in the bodywork.

In fact, they keep the phrasing intentionally vague so as to not have to list every possible damage scenario, so of course it's not referenced.

I live in a state that legally requires me to display a front plate; there is no legal requirement that I put holes in the car, so mine has none.

I agree with most of that, just not the part where the CPO process shouldn't flag non-factory holes in the bodywork based on speculation of what they were used for.

The fact that a dealer or previous owner took the easy route to satisfy legal requirements in their region doesn't make it any less damage to an otherwise good car. I actually believe this kind of thing is exactly what CPO was designed to address.

What if the holes weren't for a plate but for an aftermarket laser jammer or additional driving lights? What makes the damage any different?

I wouldn't want holes in my front bumper either but the OP asked if this should be fixed as part of the CPO process or if it gives them leverage in a used car negotiation. I just answered the question asked by OP. The answer is: No. The dealer will just sell the car to the next guy. Why? Because the average buyer doesn't care. I don't side with the average buyer but I am able to accept that is the reality.

To answer your question about what makes the front license plate holes any different than holes drilled for an aftermarket laser jammer: Front license plates are legally required in many states, and most customers in those states don't care if the dealer drilled the holes. A laser jammer, on the other hand, is not legally required in any state and most customers would not expect there to be drilled holes or other damage to mount those devices on a typical used car. It comes down to what does the average customer see as a reasonable expectation. Again, I don't want the holes in my car but I accept that the dealer will not have any trouble selling the car whether the front bumper is drilled or not, especially in a state that requires front plates.

So why would the dealer pay to repair it as part of CPO when it is not an item that fails CPO? And why would the dealer offer a concession when they can just sell it to the next guy? That was the OP question and that is the thought process from the dealer and the average consumer.

Garage

1 Series

2 Series

3/4 Series

5 Series

6/M6 Series

7 Series

8/M8 Series

M2

M3/M4

M5

X1/X2

X3/X4

X5/X6

X7/XM

Z4

BMWi

Holes on front trim is it a CPO fix?