Good story. Buyer blows motor. He installs tape over CEL Has his mechanic discover tape. He goes to news dept. car dealer might be actually innocent. We could contact prior owner and ask him about issues. Sounds like a good tv show for cars:CSI.
AFAIK . . . a dealer is not allowed to sell a car with the MIL on
@db4690 Nahh, there’s no such law or regulation. Legally the dealer has no obligation to make sure the check engine light is on or off or even working.
Washington state no longer tests for a working MIL with emissions inspections. Just checks for fault codes and monitor readiness and/or tailpipe emissions within specs. Transferring title on a car requires a car to pass emissions, unless the car is purchased through a dealer. Dealer transactions are exempt from emissions testing for some reason.
While the dealer does sound shady, ultimately there is no way to know who put the tape over the check engine light. The previous owner may have done so and the dealer wouldn’t have any reason to check that.
Ultimately, the buyer purchased a 16 year old car without having done any “due diligence” or having the car inspected by a mechanic. Is the dealer at fault for selling a lemon or is the buyer at fault for buying one?
“All theories and as usual with journalism; lacking details.”
…or, in the worst case scenario with younger journalists, getting vital details completely wrong.
For example, yesterday there was a vintage warbirds flyover in the NYC/NJ area, and–tragically–the pilot of a P-47 Thunderbolt lost his life when he ditched in the Hudson River.
The first reports on radio news correctly identified the model name and number of the plane, and then in order to be “helpful” to those who were not familiar with that venerated WW II fighter, they referred to it as a “WW II-era small plane”. Huh?
A Beechcraft Bonanza or a Piper Cub is a small plane. An armored fighter, bristilng with machine guns and powered by an 18 cylinder engine putting out 2,000 horsepower is NOT “a small plane”!
But, even worse was an online article–complete with several photos of the plane being lifted out of the river. Despite several views that clearly showed the plane’s propeller, the clueless journalist referred to it as a “WW II jet”. Stupidity personified…
Sorry, but I disagree with you
I don’t think all states have the same rules, laws and regulations as Washington state
In California, a dealer is only allowed to sell a car with a current smog certificate, aka done in the last 90 days
In California, the MIL is still tested when performing smog inspections. I do them every week, all kinds . . . dyno-run, two-speed idle and the newer plug-in type w/o dyno run
A few months ago, I tested a vehicle. The engine was idling and the MIL was not on when I started the test. And there were no codes. I had enough monitors to run the test. However, during the MIL test, the car failed, because the MIL came on and remained on at idle, and the smog machine knew it. No getting around that. Automatic failure.
Let’s say some yahoo had taped over the MIL. It doesn’t matter that I don’t see it, because the smog machine knew it was being commanded on
Besides, the part where it asks if the MIL is on KOEO . . . I’m going to have to say no, because I can’t see it. Even if at that point I don’t know about the tape yet, it still fails
I’m not sure what you mean with “dealer transactions” . . . private individual buys car from dealer, or one dealer trades car to another dealer?
I could see where a trade might be exempt, but a dealer selling to a private individual has to provide them with a very recent smog certificate, within the last 90 days, I believe. I just looked on the ca dmv website, BTW
The only gray area I see is if somebody SOMEHOW gets the car through smog legitimately or otherwise, then the MIL comes on, he tapes over it, trades it in, and that dealer resells the car, all before the smog certificate has 90 days
But even so, I’m still fairly certain in California a dealer is not allowed to sell a car with a malfunctioning MIL
But to sum it up, in CA, if the dealer performs a smog, that car with the taped-over MIL must fail
No way around it
I agree about the CA regulations but since the car in question was sold in Seattle I still say the dealer technically didn’t do anything wrong.
Dealer sales in WA don’t require a smog certificate. Meaning that if you go down to the corner used car lot and buy a car, you are not required to provide a smog certificate. Buy the car, license it, it’s yours. You don’t need to worry about smog until the next time the calendar says you’re due (even model years get tested in even years, etc.). But if I sell you my car you can’t license it without a smog certificate. Figure that one out.
Furthermore, WA smog testing no longer requires a functioning MIL. We used to have to test for MIL KOEO but no more. If the light is not commanded on, there should be no codes and as long as monitors are complete the car will pass testing. If the light is commanded on there should be codes and the car will fail. No need for a functioning MIL, the info from the codes and monitors will tell us what we need to know.
I suppose you could go down the road of a MIL being an emissions control device and tampering with such is a violation of EPA regulations, but I don’t know how far it would get.
It’s possible the previous owner taped over the light and the dealer had nothing to do with it.
So knowing that the state has no regulation that a car has a functioning engine light and knowing that the car is not required to pass any kind of smog testing to be sold, would you still say the dealer is at fault for selling a car with a taped-over light?
Clearly, I was focused on the regulations in my own state, versus what state the car was sold in
Sorry for disagreeing with you 
The WA regulations, to some degree, sound ass-backwards from the regulations in some other states, as regards dealer versus private-party sales . . . ?!
Sounds like the dealer was in compliance with his state’s laws. That’s how I’ll word it 
I suppose we’ll never know exactly what codes were present . . . perhaps some cam-crank correlation code, implying a stretched chain, or incorrect engine timing . . . ?!
Or perhaps some code that implies compromised variable valve timing, possibly due to sludge and/or infrequent engine oil changes . . . ?!
I’ll agree that there remains some ethical question as to the mechanical reliability of the car in question but I see no place where the dealer was in violation of any state law by selling the car with the engine light disabled.
WA emissions testing program is a joke in my opinion. In addition to the lax OBD-II testing (no MIL testing, no more gas cap testing), they have also done away with component inspection. Meaning that it doesn’t matter if you’ve thrown away your AIR pump and catalysts. If you pass the tailpipe test you’re good to go.
And get this, instead of the emissions standards tightening up as model year gets newer, all tailpipe-only testing is now done to the ridiculous standard of 3.0% CO and 400ppm HC.
But as far as the BMW, we’ll never know. Perhaps the previous owner had been fighting an intermittent EVAP code and taped over the light. But since an apparently reputable garage recommended complete engine replacement I’m guessing engine sludge issues.
I’ma bit surprised to hear about the 3.0% CO and 400 HC. Even back in the old days of VW and SAAB CIS the standard was something like 1.0% and less than a 100 on HC.
No visual inspection . . . !!! 
400ppm HC so a car that by all rights should be a gross polluter will in all likelihood pass the WA tailpipe test . . . ?!
Yes, this is exactly why pre-purchase inspections are almost always recommended when buying a used car.
You guys should have heard the collective groan of disbelief from all the authorized emissions shops when Ecology announced the new standards and inspections a few years ago.
Tailpipe emissions standards were tiered and tightened up as the model year became newer, so a 1985 car could run 1.2% and 220ppm, the newest limits were .4% and 100ppm if I remember. I’m not sure what the reasoning was behind changing the tailpipe limits to a “one-size-fits-all” gross polluter of 3.0 and 400.
And yes, no visual inspection. They don’t even open the hood anymore unless they need a direct hookup for a tach reading. Bring in that 94 Caprice with a 454 and straight-piped exhaust. As long as it blows less than 3.0% and 400ppm you’ll pass!
Good god . . . ! 
This could be true @Cavell. If we all recall, about a year ago when someone came on here complaining about a rental car. Someone let the company know about the posting and the rental company came on here to clear a few things up. I’m sure you will all remember, it was the car rented for the “Burning Man” thing.
There are always two sides to the story.
Yosemite
Back in the CIS days all new VWs and SAABs went on the infra-red as part of the PDI.
Most came from the factory at around .75% on the CO.
Most had a very slightly rough idle.
Most got the CO cranked up (illegally…) to 1.25% and which smoothed them right out.
Unethical and illegal that is true, but it’s going to be very hard to sell a new car that stumbles at idle and especially noticeable on automatic transmission models.
We just figured that if there was ever any questions asked we’d just play dumb and say that when it left the shop it was on .75% and dare anyone to prove otherwise.
That illegal 1.25 looks pretty good compared to your now revised standards.