* M-sport * $101k Msrp * Led Headlights * Driver Assist Pkg * Luxury Seats * on 2040-cars

Auto blog

BMW-Toyota joint sports car project is on like Donkey Kong

It's official - there will be a jointly developed sports car from BMW and Toyota. While the two auto giants signed a Memorandum of Understanding that pledged to pursue "joint development of architecture and components for a future sports vehicle" back in June of 2012, in the interim, it has remained unclear how those plans had been progressing. BMW has finally officially confirmed that the German and Japanese manufacturers will be codeveloping a pair of sports cars in addition to pursuing other disciplines including fuel cell systems and lightweight technologies.
"We have agreed on a joint architecture for a sports car. What is important is that there will be two different vehicles that are authentic to the two brands," BMW Development Chief Herbert Diess told Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Reuters is reporting. This is a very, very big step for both brands, but now the speculation can officially begin as to what the products of this agreement will look like.
There's ample reason to believe that the BMW-Toyota tie up will result in a Supra successor based on comments made by the chief engineer of the GT86/FR-S program, Tatsuya Tada, back in August. Follow that with a rumor from earlier this month that Toyota could debut a Supra concept car at the upcoming Detroit Auto Show later this month, and we could be seeing the fruits of this partnership sooner rather than later.

Permanent erection lawsuit against BMW thrown out

The California man who claimed that he suffered from a 20-month erection after a four-hour ride on his BMW K1100RS motorcycle (similar model pictured above) has had his case dismissed. It seems the court found his claims too hard to believe.
Henry Wolf filed a product liability lawsuit against BMW and seatmaker Corbin-Pacific in the California Superior Court in April 2012 after he claimed a motorcycle ride in September 2010 caused a long-term case of priapism from the "ridge-like" saddle design. He asked for compensation for lost wages, medical expenses and emotional distress from both companies.
Nearly two years later, according to Visor Down, Judge James J. McBride decided that the case didn't have enough supporting evidence. A urologist testified that the plaintiff had priapism, but the court rejected the testimony of a neurologist who claimed the motorcycle's vibration caused the disorder. The defendants presented testimony from the bike's former and subsequent owners. Corbin-Pacific CEO Mike Corbin also spoke in the company's defense.

BMW slapped with discrimination suit by EEOC

According to a report from CNNMoney, BMW has been hit with a lawsuit from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after revised criminal background check policies resulted in the dismissal of 88 contractors, 70 of whom (that's about 80 percent) were black. A total of 645 contractors were required to submit to background checks at BMW's facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina after BMW switched contract companies at its plant.
Though the 88 persons who were not rehired by the new contractor all had criminal records, that may not necessarily be a legal way to screen applicants, as the EEOC counters: "BMW's policy has no time limit with regard to convictions. The policy is a blanket exclusion without any individualized assessment of the nature and gravity of the crimes, the ages of the convictions, or the nature of the claimants' respective positions."
BMW's actions were in violation of the Civic Rights Act of 1964, according to the EEOC, because they utilized "a criminal conviction policy that disproportionately screened out African-Americans." A recent bulletin offering guidance from the EEOC on the Civil Rights Act can be found here, but the EEOC's stance on the issue has been the same for years: "Since issuing its first written policy guidance in the 1980s regarding the use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions, the EEOC has advised employers that under certain circumstances, their use of that information to deny employment opportunities could be at odds with Title VII."